David Harsanyi recently raised alarms about the increasing casual anti-Semitism among Gen Z, highlighting a troubling trend. While he makes valid points, there’s a crucial context he seems to overlook.
He’s correct in noting that there’s a concerning rise in anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic sentiments within certain right-wing populist circles. Various commentators, especially online, have alluded to this, and I have too—there’s been talk linking the assassination of Charlie Kirk to Israel. This conspiracy theory suggests Jewish billionaires are controlling conservative media and backing figures like Netanyahu, often through dubious means.
Gen Z is dismantling old taboos, which can be a positive shift. But if they intend to be taken seriously, it’s vital to distinguish legitimate criticism of U.S. policies from immature conspiracy theories.
This shift didn’t just materialize out of nowhere. If the new conservative figures lose their grip, a larger discourse on the right will come to the forefront, which has been suppressed for too long.
For years, certain outlets and organizations enforced strict boundaries on what conservatives could express. In our current Internet age, that kind of censorship has loosened, for better or worse.
It’s good to see a broader dialog emerging on the right, although it’s come with some drawbacks. Younger voices, sometimes reckless, are making headlines. Yet, let’s not forget, conservatives have expressed reckless opinions for decades. My own collection of commentary over the past 40 years highlights many elitist views that perhaps never got the mainstream attention they deserved.
Why? Because I was deemed “untrustworthy” when it came to Israel. The truth is, I’ve never opposed the Jewish state; I simply questioned whether American conservatives should be obliged to echo every talking point. Harsanyi might not agree, but the reality is that conservatives should be able to critique Israel’s stance without fears of backlash.
The current establishment demands strict loyalty to Israel, often preferring to align with the Democratic AIPAC rather than those who seem insufficiently devoted to Jerusalem. Interestingly, these same institutions tend to shy away from clear positions on basic societal issues, like marriage. The discrepancy is telling.
Moreover, reports indicate that Charlie Kirk himself expressed doubts about Netanyahu’s Gaza strategies before his death. Harsanyi’s concerns about Gen Z’s peculiar fixation on Jews and Israel may warrant some reflection on the fixation within these very institutions—that alone is worth noting.
The movements Harsanyi supports feel outdated. I remember their inception in the 1980s, and how eager they were to expel those who disagreed. Forgive me if I feel a twinge of schadenfreude when witnessing Gen Z navigate similar dynamics.
What frustrates me, however, is the lack of introspection among prominent Gen Z voices. Take Nick Fuentes; he’s a sharp speaker but undermines his own credibility with rants about international Jewish conspiracies. This kind of rhetoric is dangerous and easily manipulated by opponents.
When you dig deeper, the Gen Z narrative begins to falter. They point to the Adelsons as a prime example, but they’re just one family. They bring up hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman, yet overlook his actual political stance. Ackman does support Israel; contrastingly, non-Jewish tycoons like Murdoch have much more influence over conservative ideologies regarding Israel.
And here’s a twist: I was once labeled an opponent of Jews on the right, but many adversaries weren’t Jewish at all; often, they were wealthy non-Jews, pulling the strings from behind the scenes.
Gen Z is indeed challenging old norms and asking questions that have long been silenced. That’s great. But if they want to be taken seriously, they must separate thoughtful critiques of U.S. policy towards Israel from naïve conspiracy theories. Otherwise, genuine lessons risk being drowned out by the noise.
