A decades-long strategy of the Left that has been used to much success is name-calling. If that sounds like a juvenile way to describe what the Left does, that’s because it’s a juvenile tactic. Any criticism of Leftist policies is met with shouts of “racist” or “homophobe” or “misogynist” in an attempt to shut down debate. Why did the Left engage in this behaviour? Because it’s highly effective. No one wants to be tagged a racist, for example—it can lead to a loss of status, a loss of a job, and public ostracization. It silences critics before they even speak out. 

The Right refrained from such methods in spite of their effectiveness because they are fundamentally dishonest. Calling someone racist because he opposes the effectiveness of a social program for the poor is a sinful abuse of the term and character assassination. It also empties the term of any real meaning. If a conservative who believes free market solutions will best lift minorities out of poverty and a Ku Klux Klansman are both racists, what does the word even mean anymore? 

Sadly, however, some on the Right have fallen into this juvenile Leftist tactic in recent years, and with the granddaddy of accusations: antisemite. I myself recently experienced this. 

This past Friday the venerable conservative publication National Review published an article entitled “An Antisemitic Meltdown by the Online Right’s Israel Foes.” The article included a list of supposed antisemites who were criticizing Israel for its preemptive strike against Iran last week. It’s unclear if the author of the piece—a recent graduate of Hillsdale College—believes it’s possible to oppose Israel’s actions without being an antisemite, but she definitely believes those she calls out in the article are antisemites (including comedian and podcaster Dave Smith, who is Jewish). 

I am included in this list as well, with the author stating, “Crisis magazine’s Eric Sammons doesn’t think Catholics can support Israel’s attack on Iran.” I’m assuming she is referring to a 𝕏 post I made shortly after Israel began their attack on Iran, in which I stated, “If you are Catholic, you can’t morally justify ‘preemptive’ strikes.” Note that I did not even mention Israel specifically, nor the Jewish religion. I was simply repeating a general principle of Catholic Just War Theory. Yes, I obviously meant it in the context of Israel’s preemptive strike on Iran, but I would also state it against any country that preemptively attacks any other country. I also make the radical claim in another post that “The default position of every Catholic should be for peace and negotiated resolutions…as every pope of the past 100+ years has insisted.” Somehow opposing unjustified bombings earns me the label of “antisemite” in some conservative quarters.

I could write many words trying to convince people I’m not an antisemite, but that would be a waste of time…because I don’t think even the author of the National Review piece thinks I’m antisemitic. Instead this was just the Leftist tactic to silence dissent. She might realize that I won’t shut up about the immorality of most modern wars and the need for America to not be involved in these overseas conflicts, but she also knows that if she labels people like me as antisemitic, then it will silence many other people who might have qualms about Israel’s actions but are afraid of the consequences if they speak up. It’s essentially online bullying, and the best way to take down a bully is to stand up to him (or her, as in this case).

Now there’s no doubt that among the opponents of Israel’s actions are some actual antisemites. Perhaps a few are even in the list given by the National Review. But the lack of distinctions only furthers my point that this name-calling is only done to silence the debate. No one who is not antisemitic wants to be associated with actual antisemites, and by lumping all critics of Israel together, the name-callers make it even more publicly unpalatable to criticize Israel. 

Along with silencing debate, name-calling actually can have the opposite effect of increasing antisemitism. If even mild criticism of Israel is going to be called antisemitic, some people may (and do) conclude that they might as well just begin to embrace actual antisemitism, since they’re going to be called the name no matter what. We can see this reaction especially among those who value being “based” above all. This of course is not the Catholic reaction, which neither blindly defends Israel and all Jewish people nor markets in ridiculous conspiracy and race theories. Along with silencing debate, name-calling actually can have the opposite effect of increasing antisemitism.Tweet This

When it comes to the modern State of Israel, Catholics are free to either support or oppose its politics, and I know many Crisis readers disagree with my opposition to America’s unilateral support of Israel. While there’s no Catholic theological basis to support Israel or Zionism, I understand that Catholics of good will can disagree on whether American support of Israel is politically prudent or not (of course, support of Israel can never extend to any immoral actions taken by the State). Yet those who oppose modern Israel are not antisemites, any more than those who might oppose welfare programs are racist. 

We need to allow vigorous debate in the public square on the actions of Israel, and stop the name-calling. It’s juvenile when the Left does it, and it’s just as juvenile (and more disappointing) with the Right does it.