John Fetterman’s handbook of resistance against the left, which targets the Jewish people

Cloning it: is it possible? The global spread of a progressive international movement eager to garner support by demonising Israel and the Jewish people – at times shamelessly playing on anti-Zionism, at others fearlessly breaking down the barriers needed to curb the rise of anti-Semitism – is forcing the left across half the world to take a firm stand on which side to be on. On one side of the divide are those on the left who consider it necessary to embrace the model of Zohran Mamdani (a New York mayor with little interest in denouncing the horrors of Hamas) and the model of Abdul El Sayed (a Democratic candidate for a seat in Michigan who has made the demonisation of Israel his flagship issue). On the other side of the divide are those on the left who believe it is essential not to succumb to the demonisation of the Jewish people. On one side, there is the left that helps to cast Jews as guilty until proven innocent. On the other side, there is the left that is doing everything in its power to prevent the progressive movement of the future from sacrificing the defence of the Jewish people on the altar of easy consensus. Providing strong arguments for the latter political camp is a heroic senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, who, in a chat two days ago with the American presenter Jon Stewart, offered a formidable guide to countering the wave of anti-Zionist extremism that is taking hold of the consciences of the global left. Fetterman speaks fearlessly. He denounces the left for turning the word ‘Zionist’ into an insult, for downplaying Hamas’s terrorism, and for applying standards to Jews that it does not apply to any other people; he also offers useful pointers for easily recognising when a progressive interlocutor crosses lines that should not be crossed, turning their legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel into attempts to demonise an entire people. Try it for yourselves. Fetterman says that the line is crossed when ‘Zionist’ becomes a term of abuse, no longer used to criticise a policy but to turn the very idea that Jews might have a state and defend themselves into a fault. He says the line is crossed when a theocratic and terrorist movement is not regarded as an enemy of progressives simply because it fights Israel or the United States: this applies to Hamas, it applies to Hezbollah, and it applies to Iran. He says the line is crossed when we fail to defend the Palestinians from the crimes of Hamas. He says the line is crossed when a slogan such as ‘from the river to the sea’ – which implies the eradication of Israel – is made acceptable. He says the line is crossed when a terrible and dramatic urban war is unquestioningly described as genocide.

In his handbook on resisting the left, which fuels anti-Semitism through anti-Zionism, Fetterman rightly states that it is wrong to label anyone who criticises Israel as ‘pro-Hamas’. He says that not all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. But at the same time, he reminds us of the key point to focus on. Since 7 October, the senator says, we have been faced with an existential choice: between Hamas and Israel, it is not possible to choose Hamas. But take note: choosing Israel does not mean we cannot criticise it. It simply means remembering a truth that is often swept under the carpet, one that Fetterman wishes to highlight ‘even at the cost of losing support’: criticising Netanyahu does not mean being an enemy of the Jewish people, but using anti-Zionism as a Trojan horse to reintroduce anti-Semitism into public debate means contributing to the legitimisation of aglobal Intifada and turning a blind eye to those who build support without doing everything in their power to prevent the demonisation of the Middle East’s only democracy and to prevent a Jew from being considered, without too much fuss, guilty of a mortal sin: that of simply being Jewish. Fetterman: God bless.