Since October 7th, 2023, many on the Zionist Right have fallen deeper into a self-defeating habit: treating every instance of left-wing naïveté or cowardice regarding Israel as antisemitic malice. For years, some Israel supporters have painted the entire global Left with a single, accusatory brush, lumping moderates together with neo-Marxists, Islamists, and other extremists whose hostility to Israel stems from entrenched, often annihilationist ideology.
Yes, many mainstream Leftists are misinformed and passive in the face of antisemitism, but that doesn't make them bigots. Ascribing antisemitic malice where none exists trivializes the term 'antisemitism,' reducing it to just another partisan cudgel in the culture war. When accusations overreach, people tune out, making it harder to confront the real antisemitism that is skyrocketing.
None of this excuses the global Left's failures. On the contrary, a sharp, grounded critique of the Left is more persuasive, and such a critique begins by understanding why so many mainstream Leftists lean instinctively against Israel. Achieving this understanding means examining three major forces: ideological, psychological, and political.
From an ideological standpoint, Israel makes Leftists around the world uncomfortable because its circumstances – and its survival amidst those circumstances – test the limits of core Left assumptions.
For example, the laws of war cannot completely prevent human suffering, but left-wing elites fear that people will lose faith in international law if they understand this to be the case, so they obstruct honest assessment of the laws of war. They cave to groups like Hamas, who thrive on maximizing their own civilians' suffering – all but declaring that if such suffering is unavoidable, fighting these groups adequately is forbidden.
Leftists also adhere closely to the belief that humans' innate capacity for good always triumphs. They insist that most people in any society, when given the opportunity, will strive to live in peaceful productivity. But Palestinians overwhelmingly bemoan their inability to dominate the Jews more than they bemoan their own lack of safety or well-being. Many Leftists, unwilling to take Palestinians at their word, end up denying them agency and blaming Israel for the dysfunctions of Palestinian society.
Beyond ideology, a deep psychological unease shapes the mainstream global Left's relationship with Zionism.
European Jews began receiving equal rights in the late 18th century, but only because regimes felt compelled to apply the rights of man consistently, not because antisemitism had faded. As Max Nordau told the First Zionist Congress, emancipation happened "only for the sake of principle." Anti-Jewish sentiment ran as deep as ever.
By the 20th century, many Western liberals were eager to build a modern world order but were confronted with their failure to address the "Jewish question." For them, Zionism was more than a solution to Jewish suffering; it was a salve for their own insecurity, offering moral absolution for liberalism's failure up to that point.
But when Israel's founding brought new conflict, that absolution faltered, and so a kind of psychological retreat took hold. Israel came to be seen less as historic justice and more as a moral liability – especially on the Left.
While liberalism has shaped both Left and Right, its idealistic instincts – especially belief in the inherent reasonableness of people – run deepest on the Left. This has fostered a worldview in which peaceful coexistence is seen as the natural state of human affairs, and violence as an aberration rather than a persistent feature.
Israel's reality upends that vision. It's a reminder that some aggression cannot be reasoned away. For those on the Left anchored in moral optimism, that's deeply unsettling, so it fuels reflexive hostility toward Israel.
Finally, politics matters. Consider America's Democratic Party. Throughout the 2010s, as Democrats worked to expand their base of support, explicitly anti-Zionist elements gained status quickly – not despite their anti-Zionism, but often because of it, as hostility to Israel had become a marker of credibility in certain progressive activist circles.
In this environment, many moderate Democrats choose silence. Not because they share the radicals' beliefs, but because speaking up comes with political risk. Support for Israel became controversial because Israel's enemies had become political bedfellows. Increasingly, many on the Left refuse to confront antisemitic rhetoric in their ranks – not out of agreement, but because political incentives reward silence.
In assessing leftist hostility to Israel, conflating naïveté with antisemitism helps no one – least of all the Jews. Precision, by contrast, is a tool of both moral and strategic power.
As opposed to sweeping condemnation, a thoughtful critique of the Left can persuade moderates, isolate radicals, and build strong coalitions. Not everyone who gets Israel wrong is a lost cause. Some are reachable, but reaching them begins by recognizing the difference between being confused and wanting Jews gone.
Josh Warhit runs Warhit Media Services. He made aliyah from the United States in 2012 and served in the Nahal Brigade (infantry) in the Israel Defense Forces.
