In Defence of Populism, the new book by Frank Furedi, does not mention anti-Semitism, Israel or Jews. Nevertheless, the sociologist’s latest work helps provide insights into both why contemporary elites are so hostile to Israel and into Israeli anti-Zionism.
From that perspective the important insights in the book come not so much from the discussion of populism but of anti-populism. Furedi outlines the anti-populist narrative, central to the self-perception of the cultural elite, which sees itself as cosmopolitan and globalist. In contrast, it views those who uphold the ideals of national sovereignty and patriotism as far right and racist.
Once their premise is clear it is easy to see why anti-populists view Israel with such hostility. Zionism by its nature – with its support for the notion of a Jewish state - upholds a form of national sovereignty. That alone would be enough to provoke hostility from the supposedly enlightened cultural elites.
In that respect it should be remembered that what is often called left anti-Semitism – as opposed to that of Islamists or the extreme right – is dominated by the woke. Universities, particularly the humanities and social science departments of elite institutions, are their natural habitat. That is where ideas such as critical race theory and post-colonial theory are strongest. That is not just among the students but among the academic-activists who teach them. From the viewpoint of both faculty and students the fact that Zionism is an avowedly national project is enough to make it an abomination.
The graduates of such institutions go on to work in the media and in non-governmental organisations (NGOs). That helps explain why they too so often regard Israel as anathema.
That is not to claim that an aversion to national sovereignty is the whole story in relation to anti-Zionism but it is part of it. There are additional factors, as discussed on this website, driving the viewpoint that Israel is the epitome of evil in the world.
Nevertheless, it helps explain why Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s long-serving prime minister, is often discussed with such venom. He is seen by many in the woke camp as the ultimate populist leader. Often he is grouped with a supposed rogues’ gallery of his peers including Donald Trump, Narendra Modi (the Indian prime minister) and Viktor Orban (until recently the Hungarian prime minister).
This raises the question of the impact inside Israel. Once anti-populism is understood the emergence of what is sometimes called post-Zionism in Israel is easier to understand. Israel’s cultural elite too has to a significant extent embraced the values of cosmopolitanism and globalism. Its commitment to its own nation state is therefore often shaky and sometimes downright hostile.
As in the West the universities often provide a base for this outlook. Although in the Israeli case the academics who embrace this viewpoint are often lured to work in western institutions. That enables them to earn a higher salary and enjoy the adulation of anti-Israel activists.
Anyone who wants to get a sense of what post-Zionism looks like should check out the English edition of the Haaretz newspapers. Nowadays it rarely runs straightforward news stories. Many of its articles are anti-Israel polemics. In this context it should be remember that its publisher, Amos Schocken, once lauded Hamas as “freedom fighters” (paywall) although he had to backtrack after the furore. And its editor-in-chief, Aluf Benn, has argued (paywall, Haaretz Hebrew) that Israel should no longer be a Jewish state. These are far from anomalies in Haaretz’s writing.
Such views sit well with many senior figures in Israel’s high technology industry, its most successful economic sector. Often they feel more at home in California’s Silicon Valley rather than in Israel. For that reason they are open to arguments lauding globalism and decrying what they regard as a narrow national consciousness.
Indeed what figures in the cultural elite and the high-tech sector often have in common is a loathing of the Israeli public. They often deride it as traditional, bigoted and unable to think clearly. A derogatory view that is reminiscent of how American and European elites often look down at their own publics.
It seems a long time ago now but this divide featured heavily in Israel’s heated debate about judicial reform in 2023 up to the 7 October pogrom. On one side, the government wanted to weaken the extreme power of the supreme court to override legislation passed by the democratically elected Knesset. No doubt the right-wing government thought it would benefit from such reform but it nevertheless represented an increase in popular sovereignty.
On the other side, an elite-led protest movement, acting in the name of democracy, demanded the supreme court retain extensive powers to veto legislation. It was, as I characterised it at the time, a revolt of the elites (Tablet magazine has recently produced a useful series of articles and podcasts on the subject).
In this context it is worth remembering that senior military and intelligence figures associated with the protest movement threatened to no longer serve in the Israel Defense Forces. They were no longer prepared to defend their country against an overt physical threat. This stance probably played a role in encouraging Hamas to launch its 7 October pogrom.
The anti-populist narrative in both the West and internally is making life harder for Israel. It is incumbent on all those who believe in national sovereignty and democracy to push back against it.
PS: David Hirsh, a professor of sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, has argued contrary to my view that anti-Semitism and populism go hand-in hand. I will not take up his argument here but have included the link for those who want to follow it up.