When Hamas, a violent, oppressive, antisemitic, theocratic organization with the stated mission of destroying Israel, intentionally murdered more than 1,400 people—mostly innocent civilians, in addition to many foreign nationals—and took a few hundred hostage, including babies and the elderly, there was only one rational response to this particular incident. Hamas is a reprehensible terrorist group, targeting innocent civilians is always wrong, and Hamas is not synonymous with innocent Palestinian civilians.
Regardless of where you fall on the Israel-Palestine conflict (and I have complicated thoughts on it myself), this should have been an easy position to take. Indeed, many on the left did express solidarity with the Palestinian people by calling for an end to the more than half-century long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip—while also expressing horror at Hamas’ wanton cruelty, sympathy for the survivors and victims’ families, and rejecting the notion that this was some kind of great military victory on the road to a “free Palestine.”
However, in a true “mask off” moment, much of the far-left inexplicably chose to explicitly (and without reservation) side with the terrorists. Morality aside, this is a profoundly incompetent, self-serving, narcissistic strategy that will probably set back many left-wing policy goals for the foreseeable future—including the cause for Palestinian self-determination.
ADVERTISEMENT
As a proud progressive, I cannot remember ever being as angry as I am now with people who claim to care about human rights, except when it comes to Jewish people.
At Stanford University, an instructor (who is not a full-time faculty member) singled out Jewish students in a course, diminished the severity of the Holocaust, and defended the actions of Hamas due to Israel being a “colonizer.” (That instructor has been removed from teaching duties pending an investigation.)
At Harvard, more than 30 student groups released an open letter blaming the terrorist attack on Israel and siding with Hamas; since then, at least five student groups have withdrawn themselves from the letter following backlash.
A professor at Yale University dismissed the murder of Israeli civilians: “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”
Last night, at George Washington University, a group of students projected the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” on the outside wall of the Gelman Library, which is well-known to be a call for the destruction of Israel, and “Glory to the Martyrs,” ostensibly praise for Hamas.
This strident, so-called activism—which, in my opinion, does not help the Palestinian cause—goes far beyond college campuses. A day after the horrific terrorist attack against innocent Israeli civilians, the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America organized a rally in Times Square that was so completely devoid of empathy that it drew a sharp rebuke from Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman, two of the organization’s most notable electoral accomplishments.
People rally in Times Square in New York on October 8, 2023 after Hamas launched an attack on Israel.
Bryan R. Smith/GettyThe Chicago chapter of Black Lives Matter posted a picture of a paraglider, praising Hamas for its attack. (They later deleted it after backlash.) Rallies throughout the country featured inflammatory chants that called for Israel to be destroyed and praised Hamas as “freedom fighters,” which is entirely absurd.
I truly wish I could say I’m genuinely surprised by any of this, but after the initial shock of witnessing such callousness, I have to admit it’s not all that surprising. For many years, many in the far-left movement—most often describing themselves as “leftists” or “democratic socialists”—have engaged in unnecessarily divisive behavior toward anyone who disagrees with their methods.
Take the 2020 Democratic primary, for example.
I initially supported Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign, believing her progressive vision was backed up with a reasonable political strategy and, far more importantly, that she had the skills and discipline to cobble together a winning coalition in the general election.
Wedged between two ideological behemoths—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from the far-left and Joe Biden from the center-left—Warren, perceived simultaneously as insufficiently left and also too left, couldn’t gather enough support and dropped out after Super Tuesday. I was heartbroken, but there was no hesitation about whom I’d be supporting next. It was clear to me that Joe Biden was the only rational choice.
I didn’t switch my support to Biden because I agreed with him on everything, but because his campaign was the only one I trusted to build a coalition necessary to defeat Donald Trump that November. Biden’s campaign had done respectful and thoughtful outreach to progressives, never pressuring or shaming us, always being open to thoughtful disagreement and encouraging solidarity despite differences.
On the other hand, many supporters of Sanders’ campaign were quite the opposite: ruthlessly shaming anyone who even slightly disagreed with them. I was much closer to Sen. Sanders in terms of political views than Biden, but I knew there was no way in hell his campaign would be able to do the hard and necessary work of bringing together folks with widely divergent views, whereas the Biden campaign seemed to excel at it.
Even as a staunch progressive, I have never joined DSA or any other far-left group because too many from their ranks consistently mistake purity for integrity, myopia for focus, and shame for solidarity. Don’t take my word for it. Read this resignation letter from one of the group’s founders, who no longer recognizes the organization he helped start four decades ago.
This is not true of all folks on the far-left, to be sure. For example, many of them—including Sen. Sanders—immediately called out Hamas for its atrocities.
But the difference between a good faith leftist and a performative leftist is that the former will always look for ways to bring people of differing views into the movement and the latter will never miss an opportunity to make it clear that they believe the movement should be nothing more than an exclusionary, insufferable book club for people who care far more about engaging in Peak Activist Narcissism than doing the really hard work of building communities and coalitions.
Many on the far-left clearly don’t yet realize just how much damage their unapologetic antisemitism (like supporting Hamas’ barbaric crimes) has already done to the movement, and how clownishly they’ve hindered progress to achieve their political goals.
That’s because many of them so often navigate spaces that are unabashedly echo chambers and push out anyone who deviates from that order.
They have failed to grasp the moral urgency of this moment. That so many of them would shamelessly pretend that there’s not enough space to offer for innocent civilians in both Gaza and Israel, or act as though innocent civilians should pay the price for the war crimes of their leaders, is truly infuriating and heartbreaking.
Overnight, much of the far-left has lost the good faith consideration of tens of millions of Americans who cannot fathom what is wrong with these people who defend terrorists. Sadly enough, it’s easy to imagine the far-left will be shocked to find their candidates rejected at the ballot box, because they’ve replaced the empathy that’s necessary for being an engaged citizen with an incessant need to be outrageously provocative for little more reason than their own egos.
There’s nothing progressive about that.
