The Failure of Intersectional Politics
Viewing the Israel/Gaza war through the Western lens fails to capture the complex historical, cultural, and geopolitical dimensions of that region. And the many Progressives in the US, who have made this this devastating war their new platform and have decided to fuse every single local and national issue of injustice with this war (see: Hannah Einbinder and her new take on abortion activism), have a superficial and misguided understanding of the region. This is not a criticism of Progressives; this is a simple fact. Unless you have a personal and real connection to that region, it is impossible to understand the culture and history of that region — especially for those who have just jumped on the bandwagon a year ago. Even for me, a Jewish immigrant who can view most situations with both the Eastern and Western lenses, it is difficult to understand some of the realities of living in that region. I can admit that, and I can admit some of my blind spots. This is why I seek to learn from those who truly understand the region, those who live there and those who come from there.
True understanding requires humility and recognition that no single framework can fully capture the complexity of these conflicts, and demands engaging with diverse local voices, studying the region’s history beyond surface-level think-pieces from influencers, and recognizing that solutions must primarily come from within the region rather than being imposed from outside. Yet all too often these activists lack any interest in this work. They believe they know it all because — and I’m not kidding — they’ve “done their own research.”
The thing is, Western perspectives frequently reduce multi-layered conflicts to simplistic binaries. Americans have this need to identify a bad guy and a good guy. They need to see things as good versus evil, democracy versus authoritarianism. But such reductive frameworks overlook the deep historical contexts, diverse local perspectives, and nuanced power dynamics at play. The Western lens overlooks way too much to be truly unbiased and fully educated on the region.
This decades-long conflict, which often ends in war and destruction, is rooted in complex history. We’d have to understand all the nuances of the conflict, including the region’s religious diversity, resource competition, and evolving social structures, to be able to evaluate our own biases. The communities there carry their own historical narratives, trauma, and collective memories that shape their response and understanding. Here in the US, most of us can’t possibly understand this on a deep level. So, this selective focus on bad vs good creates distorted understandings that have real consequences for people all over the world.
And one of those very real consequences is skyrocketing antisemitism. (Something many folks on the left conveniently ignore and/or dismiss when it comes from the Left but are more than eager to call out when it comes from the Right. Example: my FB thread was full of people calling out Musk’s salute, yet completely silent about the “Fuck the Jews” sign that surfaced in a bar in Philly last weekend.)
I’ve written at length about the origins of anti-Zionist movements, so I won’t repeat myself (reminder: the Soviets used anti-Zionism to hide their antisemitism). The anti-Zionist movement isn’t new, but every new generation seems to think it is while embracing it without recognizing its deceptive roots. In the most recent history, many Progressives and leftists became “anti-Zionists” as criticism of Israel’s response to a terror attack. Very quickly (as it always does) the anti-Zionist movement evolved into rhetoric that blurs the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. This is always by design. In many left-leaning spaces, “Zionist” has become a pejorative term laden with negative connotations and — quite frankly — antisemitism. The term is now used as some sort of litmus test for Jews (which — by the way — is wrong) and is often a coded substitute for “Jew,” allowing antisemitic sentiments to be expressed under the guise of political critique.
The bastardization of “Zionism” oversimplifies complex geopolitical issues, alienates Jewish voices from Progressive movements, and creates environments where antisemitic tropes flourish unchallenged. Criticizing Israel’s far-right government is not antisemitic (most Jews will agree with this) but this criticism often crosses into delegitimizing Jewish national aspirations entirely and/or into antisemitic stereotypes. This goes beyond principled political disagreement.
As Progressive Jews (and perhaps many of us are no longer Progressive), we are now finding ourselves in an unsustainable position. While we remain committed to social justice causes, we find ourselves marginalized within movements that should be with our natural allies. Our concerns about antisemitism are often dismissed or minimized. Our trauma ignored. Whenever I write publicly about antisemitism, I am told to stop playing victim by people who call themselves Progressives. Why is it that they can “confront their biases” when it comes to many other marginalized groups but not when it comes to Jews? A question for the ages, I suppose.
Critique of Israeli government policies is possible without resorting to language that demonizes Jewish identity, denies Jewish historical connections to the region, and dehumanizes Jews. We shouldn’t have to proclaim to be anti-Zionists or denounce our connection to Israel in order to be part of the Progressive movements, movements that Zionist Jews have participated in since the beginning of time. This moral litmus test is not applied to members of other groups regarding conflicts around the world relevant to their identities. Jewish Progressives are discovering our identity is treated as inherently problematic within communities that otherwise emphasize inclusion and lived experience.
This forced choice between aspects of our identity is a failure of intersectional politics.
Progressive movements that truly aspire to justice must confront antisemitism within their ranks with the same vigor they apply to other forms of prejudice, recognizing that fighting one form of oppression should never involve enabling another.
Finally, principled advocacy for Palestinians can happen while rejecting antisemitism in all its forms. Effective pro-Palestinian activism maintains focus on specific policies and actions rather than employing language that demonizes Jews collectively. It avoids trafficking in antisemitic tropes about Jewish power, loyalty, and/or influence. It acknowledges Jewish connection to the land. It doesn’t code language. It’s not anti-Zionist. It rejects conspiracy theories and Holocaust minimization that sometimes infiltrate discourse. Most importantly, ethical advocacy recognizes its limited lenses, biases, and the complexity of the situation while avoiding simplistic narratives that cast either side as monolithic or uniformly villainous.
