Dr. Jordan Peterson recently expressed concerns about the political right being infiltrated by individuals he describes as "psychopaths." He is particularly worried about those with antisemitic views gaining influence within conservative circles. While he raises a valid point about the need to protect the political right, some critics believe he is missing a crucial aspect of the current political landscape.
The term "antisemitism" has evolved, becoming more significant due to a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment on the right. However, it has also been used broadly, sometimes labeling anyone who critiques Israel’s actions as antisemitic. This usage can dilute the term’s meaning and hinder genuine discussions about antisemitism.
Critics argue that instead of focusing solely on antisemitism, Peterson should address another group that has made significant inroads into the political right: radical Zionists. These individuals, according to some, manipulate the term "antisemitic" to shield their actions and promote the agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is seen as a controversial figure, especially in his handling of the conflict in Gaza.
Netanyahu’s popularity is waning, and many question why he receives unwavering support from American conservatives. Critics highlight that his actions in Gaza, particularly during a time of humanitarian crisis, should be open to scrutiny. They argue that radical Zionists have gained so much influence that criticizing Netanyahu has become taboo among many conservatives.
This issue extends beyond Netanyahu and Israel. Critics suggest that the rhetoric used by some right-wing commentators, which dehumanizes Arabs and encourages violence, poses a threat to the values that conservatives claim to uphold. For instance, Douglas Murray’s remarks about Arabs and Erick Erickson’s call for military action in Gaza have sparked outrage and concern.
Despite this troubling trend, there are signs of change. Former President Donald Trump recently emphasized the need for compassion towards the people of Gaza, stating that they are suffering and require assistance. His comments reflect a shift in discourse that could influence conservative views on the issue.
While Peterson’s warnings about bad actors within the political right may be valid, some believe the real danger lies in the indifference or hostility many conservatives show towards the plight of Palestinians. Critics argue that Peterson’s focus on antisemitism may distract from a more pressing issue: the suffering of innocent people caught in the conflict.
In summary, the conversation around antisemitism and the influence of radical Zionists within the political right is complex. As the political landscape evolves, it remains crucial for conservatives to engage in meaningful discussions about these issues without losing sight of the humanitarian crises that affect countless lives.