The New Yorker published an intelligent, well-written essay The Uses and Abuses of “Antisemitism” (2025-09-29).

I found the essay when I was searching online for analyses of the risks that Israel and its Americans supporters face when they ally with the (quasi-) fascist GOP.

The New Yorker essay says there were two major responses to antisemitism. One response consisted of internationalism, secularism, Marxism, and assimilation. The other response was Zionism: establishment of a separate Jewish state that would protect Jews. Still, early Zionists were socialists. Israel had kibbutz and was quasi-socialist.

Moderate, left-wing political Zionists never intended Israeli politics to be shaped by racist aggression. From Herzl onward, many of them hoped for a peaceful modus vivendi with the Arab population; a dwindling number of liberals still dream of a two-state solution. Harder-line thinkers dismissed the idea from the start. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the father of revisionist Zionism—a more militant, maximalist current within the movement—argued in 1923 that there could be “no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs,” because there was no “solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population.”Jabotinsky would probably have agreed with today’s campus protesters that Zionism is a colonial enterprise. What he might not have foreseen is that Israel would one day become a model for politicians of the far right in Europe and the United States. Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister, enjoys warm relations with Netanyahu, each lavishing praise on the other, even as Orbán traffics in antisemitic conspiracy theories drawn straight from “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Likewise, Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby in the U.S. ally closely with Trump.

“Ben-Gurion was a hard man, who never denied that Jewish settlement would involve violence. Even he might have been shocked, though, to see an Israeli government bent on ethnic cleansing through bombing and starvation.”

The essay says:

“What’s clear is that traditional roles have been oddly reversed. The Jewish state has embraced ethno-nationalism, while many of its international critics, including quite a few Jews, claim to fight for the oppressed everywhere. To call all these critics antisemites makes no sense.”To describe the occupied territories as representing “apartheid” or “settler colonialism” may be contentious, but it is not, in itself, antisemitic. Calling the mass killing of civilians in Gaza a genocide is contentious as well, but even patriotic Israelis disgusted by their own government have begun to use the term.

That Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian Columnbia University grad student,

should have been jailed by an “America First” Administration in defense of a government filled with racists who condone the killing and starving of civilians is damaging to the United States, disastrous for the Palestinians, not good for Israel, and certainly bad for the Jews.

In short:

The Trump Administration, which poses as a defender of Jews, has nurtured links to antisemitic extremists; Trump himself has dined with outspoken Holocaust deniers and once said that neo-Nazi marchers raging against Jewish “replacement” of non-Jewish whites included “some very fine people.” A hard-right government full of blood-and-soil nationalists which claims to be the protector of a Jewish minority would once have seemed very peculiar indeed.

I predict that Jewish supporters of Israel will come to dearly regret their alliance with fascist Republicans. They will regret, as well, allying so closely with criminal Netanyahu.

One reason is: Trump eventually betrays everyone who allies with him.

Another reason: Netanyahu is overreaching.  U.S. support for Israel has become a burden to Trump and the GOP, since it goes against the “America First” ideology and against Trump’s promises to end overseas wars, especially in the Middle East.    Netanyahu’s overreach and criminality are causes of anti-Zionism and, by extension, of antisemitism.   (Does Netanyahu have kompromat on Trump that guarantees Trump’s fealty?)

The bigger reason why Jews and supporters of Israel will regret their alliance with Trumpian GOP is that the GOP is fascist, and fascists are no friends of Jews, other minorities, human rights, and democracy.

And Jews will regret supporting Netanyahu and his ilk because they are deeply immoral and, in the long run, they will diminish Israel and cause anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

When I shared these thoughts with ChatGPT, it responded:

Your argument falls within an identifiable stream of Jewish progressive and liberal critique warning that alliances with authoritarian or ethno-nationalist movements are historically unstable and potentially dangerous for Jews.

The essay you provided is a clear example of that perspective:

the Trump Administration “poses as a defender of Jews” while maintaining links to antisemitic extremists

and

Israel has become “a model for politicians of the far right in Europe and the United States”

That line of argument is not fringe; it appears in political theory, Jewish intellectual discourse, and journalism.

Below are strong sources explicitly making the case that alliances between Jews (or Israel-aligned political actors) and right-wing authoritarian movements may be risky.

---

Core books and authors making this argument

Hannah Arendt — nationalism ultimately threatens minorities

Arendt’s work is frequently cited by Jewish scholars concerned about alliances with nationalist strongmen.

Key idea:

regimes built on ethnic nationalism tend to erode protections for minorities, even when minorities initially believe themselves aligned with the regime.

Major work:

• The Origins of Totalitarianism

Arendt warned that minority security ultimately depends on rule of law and pluralism, not ethnic power politics.

---

Timothy Snyder — minorities often misjudge authoritarian movements

• On Tyranny
• The Road to Unfreedom

Snyder frequently argues:

• authoritarian movements weaponize identity
• initial tactical alliances often backfire
• erosion of democratic institutions historically increases antisemitism

---

Jason Stanley — fascist politics instrumentalize minorities

• How Fascism Works
• Erasing History

Stanley explicitly discusses how authoritarian politics often:

• present themselves as defenders of a minority group
• while simultaneously undermining democratic norms that protect minorities

---

Deborah Lipstadt — alliances with nationalist governments create contradictions

• Antisemitism: Here and Now

Lipstadt has expressed concern about partnerships between Israeli leadership and European nationalist parties with histories of antisemitism.

---

Anne Applebaum — intellectuals rationalize authoritarian alliances

• Twilight of Democracy

Applebaum describes how elites sometimes support illiberal leaders for strategic reasons, later discovering institutional damage.

---

Jewish progressive commentators raising similar concerns

Peter Beinart

• The Crisis of Zionism
• Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza

Beinart argues Jewish safety historically depends on liberal democratic norms, not strongman politics.

---

Mark Mazower (discussed in your New Yorker essay)

Mazower’s work on nationalism and fascism is often used to analyze modern ethno-nationalism.

• Dark Continent

---

Historical arguments that alliances with nationalist regimes backfire

Historians often point to cases where right-wing movements initially courted Jewish support for tactical reasons:

examples commonly discussed in scholarship

• early Italian fascism initially included some Jewish supporters
• some European nationalist leaders expressed pro-Israel rhetoric while promoting antisemitic tropes domestically
• Cold War authoritarian regimes sometimes cultivated selective minority alliances

Scholars emphasize that authoritarian politics tends to prioritize loyalty and hierarchy over pluralistic protections.

---

Argument pattern shared by these authors

Across these works, the reasoning usually follows this structure:

1. strongman politics often presents itself as protective

authoritarian leaders frequently claim to defend a group against perceived threats

2. democratic institutions weaken

constraints on executive power, press freedom, and academic independence erode

3. minority protections become contingent

rights become dependent on loyalty rather than law

4. scapegoating can shift rapidly

political movements built on grievance may redirect hostility

---

Your New Yorker essay fits squarely into this intellectual tradition

Key theme highlighted in the excerpt:

traditional roles have been oddly reversed … the Jewish state has embraced ethno-nationalism while critics frame themselves as universalists

The concern expressed is not simply about Zionism, but about alignment with ethno-nationalist politics more broadly.

---