Why the Left should denounce its extremists

When the far right makes outrageous statements, supports initiatives to undermine democracy and utters anti-Semitic rhetoric, they are justifiably criticized and denounced. They will definitely be denounced by members of the Left. But, when it comes to far-left extremists, all too often the general Left tends to either ignore them or even legitimize them. When far-left extremists use blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric, all of a sudden context matters. The remarks need to be understood and not dismissed. The time has come for the Left to denounce its own extremists in no uncertain terms.

The anti-Israel arguments

You can definitely criticize the state of Israel. Why not? Israelis do it on a daily basis. But the far left has started using arguments that can easily be debunked. First of all, it is popular to call Israel a colonial enterprise. If Israel is a colony, then there should be a metropolis. According to the left-wing extremists, the United States is Israel’s metropolis. If that is so, then why does the US not control Israeli politics? It is well known that the Biden administration is rather frustrated with the current Israeli government and the personal relationship between Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be cordial, at best. Furthermore, historical evidence shows that the strong relationship between the United States and Israel had only started to develop in the 1960s. And, let us be fair, if Israel would have lost the War of Independence, do we honestly believe that the United States or any Western country would have stepped in to restore Israel? No, it simply would have ceased to exist. Therefore, calling Israel a colonial enterprise is rather weak.

Another popular argument is that Jews have no connection to the land, whatsoever. Therefore, left-wing extremists argue that Israel has no right to exist. At best, Jews can remain in a sharia state run by Hamas. At worst, they will all have to leave. Where the Jews should go is something the left-wing extremists refuse to answer. On college campuses and at mass protests it is common to shout that all the Jews need to go back to Poland. This is rooted in the argument that all Jews are white and should go back to Europe. The slogan is even more insulting, considering that many Jews perished in Nazi death camps on Polish soil during the Shoah. Nonetheless, it is ludicrous because historical and archeological evidence shows that Jews have had a presence in the region that can traced back thousands of years. Indeed, in the Torah Jerusalem is mentioned numerous times. Moreover, left-wing extremists know very well that half of Israel’s Jewish population is part of the non-European diaspora. If they do not, then they are incredibly ignorant. As I have mentioned before, I have Mizrahi ancestors, Iraqi Jews. Why should they have to go to Poland? Finally, despite the Roman decimation of Judea and the consequent diaspora that followed, Jews have always maintained a presence in the land. This alone shows the ignorance and blatant Israel hatred displayed by the far left.

In addition, the far left always claims to carry the banner of universal human rights. It is probably why they receive the benefit of the doubt. But the support for organizations like Hamas exposes the hypocrisy of the left-wing extremists. Hamas is not a feminist organization, it is not an organization that champions democracy, nor does it support gay or transgender rights. Hamas wishes to establish a sharia state and its views run counter to the causes supposedly championed by the far left. However, this has not stopped far-left politicians and activists from supporting Hamas and its terrorism. Because popular academicians like Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, and Joseph Massad have labeled Hamas a resistance organization that is part of the global Left, it has been legitimized. But why should you accept the views of these professors uncritically? Judith Butler is revered, but what made her an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In her comments she argued that October 7^th should be seen as an act of “armed resistance” and that Palestinians had suffered from Israeli violence for decades. While she personally disliked the attack, she argued that it should be seen as an act of resistance. Why then, did Hamas and Islamic Jihad not limit their attack to Israeli military bases? Because that was not the main target. On October 7^th, the military bases needed to be neutralized, so the terrorists could focus on attacking their primary goal: civilian communities in the Otef. And this has always been Hamas’ modus operandi. It has always targeted Israeli civilians – men, women, and children – through suicide bombings and other attacks. Because Hamas believes that all Israelis are targets. When Butler continues by stating that it was an attack on Israelis and therefore not terrorist or anti-Semitic, she makes two mistakes. One, the main target was Jews, there is no question about that. Second, Butler ignores that, in addition, everything on Israeli soil was a legitimate target for the terrorists on that day. When she says that Israelis were targets, this is correct – Arab Israelis were slaughtered and kidnapped, too – but foreign labor migrants and students were murdered and abducted as well. This alone shows that Butler, with all due respect, is misinformed. Which is why her comments need to be evaluated critically as well, regardless of her position.

Ideology and anti-Western sentiments

Butler is just one example, but the far left has used prominent academicians to justify their stance. Prominent names like Noam Chomsky, Joseph Massad, and Norman Finkelstein are regularly quoted. But while anti-Semitism is a central component of the far-left anti-Israel agenda, another vital aspect is its anti-Western bias. Many academicians who weigh in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict act more like ideologues, than scientists or intellectuals. They have taken a position which blames the West for all the ills in the world. Listening to Joseph Massad talk shows his ideological leanings. He constantly talks in terms of imperialism and colonialism, it is the only lens he can use. By doing this, he is no longer capable of using nuance, something that is essential in our complex world. Israel is not vilified for being the Jewish state alone. It is reviled because it is an important ally of the United States, the leader of the “evil, corrupt, capitalist Western world.” For example, Joseph Massad believes that countries like the Philippines and Taiwan are destabilizing Asia, China is completely innocent. Moreover, Ukraine is used as a tool by the US to “destroy” all of the members of the “anti-imperialist coalition.” In a nutshell, Massad believes that Iran, Syria, Russia, and China are all members of the anti-imperialist coalition. Therefore, they are the “good guys.” But, nuance is completely lost. Iran is considered an imperial actor by many Arab countries in the region. Ukraine has a long and troubled history with Russia and its predecessor the Soviet Union. Even today, Vladimir Putin believes that Ukraine should not be an independent country. And the Assad regime was hated by many Syrians. However, many academicians like Massad teaching at Western universities believe that these facts are irrelevant. The United States and its allies are the aggressors and the root cause of all global issues. Another example of someone who has adopted this worldview is the much-revered Noam Chomsky. His obsession with the US is credibly discussed by Yassin al-Haj Saleh, a lifelong Syrian leftist. As Saleh states, Chomsky has been waging his own jihad against what he sees as US imperialism in the Middle East. It has led Chomsky to view everything through the lens of Americentrism, limiting his ability to analyze the causes of the tragedy that has befallen Syria through civil war. As Saleh argues, in all the years that Syria was wrecked by civil war, Chomsky has not written about it even once. The reason is that he cannot blame the United States for it.

Supporting Arabs as a tool, not an end

The issue with the far left is that its anti-Israel bias stems both from anti-Semitism and anti-Western sentiments. When parts of college campuses are declared “liberated zones” and Jewish students are barred from them or forced to denounce Israel or even their faith if they wish to pass, that is anti-Semitic. Simply by pointing towards a handful of far-left Jews who share their views does not make it less anti-Semitic. It is the equivalent of an anti-Semite arguing that he is not one, by referring to the one Jewish friend he has. The far left’s solution to the conflict is the complete boycott – political, cultural, academic, even medical – of Israel and eventual destruction and replacement of the state of Israel. The two-state solution is not an option for them. But the support for the Palestinian cause is, in a way, not about Palestinians at all. The far left supports the Palestinian cause, because it sees it as a symbol of the struggle against Western imperialism and civilization. But it does not care about Palestinian interests in general. When Palestinians protest against Hamas, the far left will not offer support. The Palestinians have a part to play, and it has to be a struggle against the West. It is also why the far left had nothing to say about the brutal Assad regime. For instance, well-known French far-left politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon has refused to call October 7^th a terror attack. And he offered support to the Assad regime, because he considered it to be a bulwark against the Western imperial order. Another good example would be George Galloway. A few weeks ago, he decided to weigh in on the toppling of the Assad regime by Syrian rebels. On his program called “The Mother of All Talk Shows” – no reason to be modest, George – he launched into a diatribe about Arabs. Yes, Galloway is furious that Assad was toppled, as he was an opponent of the so-called Western imperial order, that was enslaving the Arabs – his words. Therefore, Galloway was washing his hands of the Arabs in general, whom he called “slaves” and “useful idiots.” Then, he brought a kindred spirit on his show: Maram Susli, better known as “Syrian Girl.” Susli was disenchanted as well and introduced as a “geopolitical analyst” and “journalist” – funny how a well-known conspiracy theorist can get promoted. Of course, Susli had an explanation for all of this: the Syrian rebels are “Muslim Zionists.” That is correct, all is well in the far-left world again. When confronted with information that does not fit the narrative, you have to keep molding it, until it fits your beliefs. Syrians did not fight Assad because of his brutal oppression, they did it to serve Israel.

This example shows that far left support for Arabs is conditional. As long as they are engaged in conflicts with Western countries, left-wing extremists will offer ardent support. But when Western countries cannot be blamed, the far left is nowhere to be found. In a way, far left support has less to do with Palestinians and more to do with them. It says more about left-wing extremists, who have come to hate the countries they were born and reside in, believing that the West is the cause of all problems. An example would be the statement by CUAD, an alliance of student organizations at Columbia University, that argued that they were Westerners who wished to eradicate Western civilization. The far left is obsessed with its anti-imperial struggle and comments made by someone like George Galloway are, in fact, very offensive. It is rather paternalistic, something the far left claims to abhor. The far left has an idea of what Arab interests are or should be and when these do not fit their beliefs, they denounce these Arabs as vassals of the West or slaves. It is this type of tortured logic that allows you to call Ahmed al-Sharaa a “Muslim Zionist,” as ridiculous as it may be.

The importance of nuance

With every conflict, every country, every region nuance is essential. I believe Israel is a beautiful country, but it is flawed, of course. Perfection is an illusion. You can criticize Israel, why not? You can criticize Yariv Levin’s obsession with the judicial overhaul and the danger it poses to Israeli democracy; you can criticize Israeli intelligence failures prior to October 7^th; you can criticize the government for its position regarding the hostages; you can discuss the dangerous development of settler violence in the West Bank; you can discuss topics like discrimination, economic inequality, and crime in Israeli society. It is something that Israelis themselves argue about constantly. You can offer support to Palestinians and discuss the hardships many Gazans have experienced, since the war started. But when you attend a pro-Palestinian protest, why can you not denounce Hamas’ role in the war? Why can you not denounce the murders, tortures, rapes, and kidnappings committed on October 7^th? Why must you justify the slaughter committed by Hamas at the Nova festival and argue that it was a legitimate target? Why do you turn a blind eye to Arab Israelis murdered and kidnapped on that day? And, again, were foreign students and labor migrants, even pets, all legitimate targets? If you think this way, you are a left-wing extremist. And if you are left-wing but abhor Hamas’ acts, the time has come to unequivocally denounce the extremists on the Left.