Matthew M. Hausman is a trial attorney and writer who lives and works in Connecticut. A former journalist, Mr. Hausman continues to write on a variety of topics, including science, health and medicine, Jewish issues and foreign affairs, and has been a legal affairs columnist for a number of publications.
The reasons for the dramatic rise in antisemitism today are lost on many progressives who embrace partisan ideologies that actually promote it and acculturated conservatives who blame it exclusively on their political opponents. In truth, antisemitism is perhaps the last acceptable prejudice, embraced alike by both right and left, religious and secular, Christian and Muslim. It is a hatred that has spanned cultures, creeds, and ideologies for generations and never seems to wane. And it is the one form of prejudice that can be expressed publicly without fear of censure or cancellation.
Though law enforcement statistics show that antisemitic violence comes more frequently from the left these days - often funded by dark (and not-so-dark) progressive and Islamist financial sources - the hatred spewed so prevalently on social media and college campuses, by cultural elites, and even in the halls of Congress (usually by Democrats), is not owned by right or left. Rather, the stereotypes and conspiracy theories polluting today’s social landscape are ancient, pathological, and deeply entrenched in western society; and their enthusiastic embrace by academics, media personalities, and activists is a function of familiarity and ideological imperative grounded in religion, culture, or politics.
Interpersonally, it is often expressed as reflexive bias against Jews, Judaism, and Israel by people who either revel in it or deny their prejudice while disseminating blood libels that falsely accuse Israel of genocide or convoluted conspiracy theories claiming disproportionate Jewish wealth, power and influence. And they often use relationships with Jews - real or imagined - to sanitize their bigotry.
I recently experienced two incidents that proved the point. The first involved a woman who, upon hearing a secular friend ask whether I kept “kosher for Passover," smugly asked: “Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to keep kosher for only one week during the year?" My friend responded by explaining that the phrase “kosher for Passover" refers to the halakhic stringencies regarding the consumption, use, and ownership of chametz (leavened products) during the festival, not whether it is the only time during the year that one keeps kosher. She remained steadfast in her condescension, however, reflecting ignorance as well as contempt.
The second incident occurred at the gym, where one of the morning regulars tried to manufacture a “gotcha" moment by asking whether a quorum of ten Jewish men (i.e., a minyan) is really needed to recite certain communal prayers and publicly read from the Torah. When I said yes, he asked why Jews condone institutionalized sexism. Though he clearly had a preconceived bias, I took the time to explain that some mitzvot (commandments) apply only to men or women based on unique gender characteristics and responsibilities, and that sexism has nothing to do with their application. For example, only males can be circumcised while only women observe certain commandments pertaining to family purity, whereas laws concerning Shabbat observance and kashrut apply to all Jews.
When he persisted in arguing that Jewish observance seemed designed to disempower women, and by extension minorities (which was an absurd intellectual leap), I challenged his logic, asking whether the fact that certain commandments apply only to specific categories of people - e.g., Kohanim (descendants of priests who served in the Temple), residents of Israel (where certain agrarian laws apply), repentant sinners, the builders of new homes, or orchard farmers harvesting first fruits - reflects inequitable treatment or merely situational or demographic relevance.
After I explained that not all six-hundred thirteen mitzvot apply to all Jews, he finally had the good sense to concede his ignorance. I then inquired why, in light of his admitted lack of knowledge, he chose to phrase his question antagonistically based on erroneous presumptions. My question seemed to hit a nerve; and after attributing his bias to "misinformation" received from a pastor, he apologized and has been overly friendly to me ever since. We still chat quite a bit, though his questions now focus on what Tanakh says in the original Hebrew and how it differs from Christian scripture (it seems he may be heading down the Noahide path).
The one thing these interlocutors had in common was an apparent disdain or disrespect for Jews and Jewish law, custom and tradition. Would they have had the same scornful tone if they were asking Muslims, African Americans, or Latinos about their cultural or religious traditions and practices, or gay people about their relationship preferences?
Probably not.
Regarding Jews, however, they are guided by deep-seated prejudices and stereotypes baked into a common culture where antisemitism is acceptable across the political and religious spectrums. Indeed, the roots of the world’s oldest hatred are often disparate but never mutually exclusive, whether based on religious doctrine (both Christian and Islamic), ethnic friction, or ancient xenophobia obsessed with Jewish otherness. Regardless of enabling ideology, antisemitism is aroused by the Jews’ enduring continuity as a people and refusal to assimilate out of existence; and it does not even require their presence to exist as a cultural force. Spain, for example, is said to have one of the highest rates of antisemitism in Europe, though Jews comprise less than 0.1 percent of its total population.
The hatred of all things Jewish is defended today by academics, politicians, and activists as well as ministers, bishops, and imams, who justify it by invoking revisionist history, doctrines and scriptures that are inconsistent with Tanakh, and false syllogisms. In contrast, objective criticism of certain other religious, ethnic, or national groups, as well as the gay and trans populations, is shut down as hate speech or condemned as irrational or pathological. Even history is labeled racist or phobic when it deals with groups enshrined in the progressive pantheon of victimhood; for example, when relating the brutal events of the Jihad that swept out of the Arabian Peninsula in the eighth century engulfing most of the Mideast and much of Europe, Asia, and North Africa and resulting in the subjugation or extermination of indigenous peoples, cultures and religions.
When confronted with this historical record, western apologists for radical Islam are quick to cry “Islamophobia" or “racism" (though Islam constitutes neither race nor ethnicity). Ironically, there is no better example of moral hypocrisy than progressive advocates for a religious ideology under which they would be subjugated, tortured, or worse for their beliefs and lifestyles. These are the same useful idiots who claim to be guardians of democracy as they attempt to (a) restrict speech with which they disagree, (b) promote the forced use of politically charged terms that violate the beliefs of others, (c) stifle debate and dissent, and (d) usurp or eliminate the authority of parents over their children.
Perhaps even more dangerous is the tendency to imbue certain ideologies or religions with human rights that are constitutionally reserved for individuals, which fundamentally threatens free speech, assembly, and worship. Progressives are less concerned about the actual rights of people who identify as trans, for example, than about demanding majority acceptance of the idea that gender and biology are disparate. Likewise, they would deny individuals’ rights to exercise certain religions while demanding that Islam be legally protected from criticism. Under the Constitution, however, human rights do not adhere to abstract concepts, ideologies, or faiths, but to the people who believe in them. Criminalizing speech regarding any faith or belief system would effectively force people to submit to dogmas that contravene their own spiritual or ethical principles. Such overreach would eliminate public discourse, impair the right to speak and worship freely, and foster ideological supremacism and viewpoint discrimination.
Though progressives disagree with conservatives over such policies, the radical left nevertheless marches in lockstep with the extremist right when it comes to hatred of Jews and the State of Israel. Whether affiliated with far left or far right, they peddle the same antisemitic stereotypes, blood libels, and conspiracy theories, while often suppressing criticism of radical Islam and justifying or extolling Hamas and Hezbollah.
Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish the vitriol spouted by members of the woke right (e.g., Tucker Carlson) from that trumpeted by members of the progressive left (take your pick of inflammatory podcasters, politicians, and influencers). At the same time, many refuse to see the ideological symmetry between extremist Christian nationalists who despise Jews and Israel based on replacement theology, and those who use philosemitism as a means to evangelize Jews in an attempt to lure them away from their spiritual heritage and birthright.
Though many traditional prejudices are discarded as nations evolve and become sensitized to the humanity of minorities living among them, society never seems to outgrow its taste for antisemitism, whether grounded in religion, politics, or secular ideologies. In fact, Jew-hatred seems to be the only belief upon which polar opposites can agree.