the enemy you love decides your side for you
the fable of hermione
When President Chaim Weizmann died in 1952, there was a vacuum of international relations that Israel was eager to fill. The Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hurdled over reams of governmental red-tape to offered the position to “the greatest jew alive” — Albert Einstein.
Forgotten in the enthusiasm was the fact that Einstein, though sympathetic to Israel, had never been an ardent Zionist; he believed in a bi-nationalism that meant “friendly and fruitful coexistence with the Arabs.” He does not even know Hebrew, official language of the new state.1
The historical persecution of the Jewish people primed Einstein for an ideological receptivity to Cultural Zionism—a sect of Zionism that “emphasized the establishment of cultural and educational centers among Jews.2” Cultural Zionists advocated complete equality for Arabs and Jews and, in 1938, Dr. Einstein expressed concern for the existential implication of a Jewish state.
“Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State, with borders, an army and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain — especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish State.”3
Einstein’s fear crystallised in 1948 when a newly “recognised” Israel gave birth to the ultranationalist conservative party, Tnuat Haherut. Einstein and a handful of other Jewish intellectuals penned an open letter in The New York Times condemning Herut for the Deir Yassin Massacre, identifying the party as “closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”4
14 years after warning that a Jewish ethnostate would bring “inner damage” to the Jewish people—Einstein was faced with a prime opportunity to confront the narrow nationalism he’d predicted. He refused the offer—stating he had “neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings”. Presidency would’ve required him to “say to the Israeli people things they would not like to hear.”
Most of the Jewish dissidents advocating a binational state considered themselves Zionists or friends of Zionism. But theirs was a different Zionism. Just as Christianity comes in thirty-nine different flavors, each with its own strains and schisms, so, albeit on a smaller scale, there have been--and still are-many Zionisms: labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, political Zionism, socialist Zionism, cultural Zionism, territorial Zionism, and many more. — Fred Jerome, Einstein on Israel and Zionism
These fence-sitting varieties of Zionism are endeavours of cosmetic surgery, rearranging the facial features of a colonial project to make the theft appear more palatable. When the violent ultranationalism Dr. Einstein warned about wove itself into the very foundations of Israeli politics—he saw no moral urgency to fight it. He didn’t flounce his lack of experience in the manner right-wing men of action have been known to do to rise to the occasion to leverage his own social capital as “the greatest jew alive”. He did not adopt a position of considerable influence and say to the Jewish people the things they would not like to hear to course-correct from the far-right violence.5 He declined. And 73 years, a Nakba and countless massacres later—the colonial genocide against the Palestinians is only now being “recognised”.
“As far as I’m concerned, “liberal” is the most meaningless word in the dictionary. History has shown me that as long as some white middle class people can live high on the hog, take vacations in Europe, send their children to private schools, and reap the benefits of their white skin privileges, then they are “liberals.” But when times get hard and money gets tight, they pull of that liberal mask and you’re talking to Adolf Hitler. They feel sorry for the so called under privileged just as long as they can maintain their own privileges”
― Assata Shakur
The liberal. The moderate. The neoliberal. The centrist.
Many of the Black Enraged—from Martin Luther King Jr. to Assata Shakur—have expressed their disillusionment with the fence-sitting class.
After Ezra Klein praised Charlie Kirk for “practising politics the right way” in The New York Times, Ta-Nehisi Coates penned a response in Vanity Fair to push back on the post-humous revisionism of Kirk’s legacy. The two decided to talk it out on a podcast. One of Klein’s first questions was, “why are we losing right now?”.
Coates answers, “because there are always moments when we lose.”
My response is far more scathing. It relocates Klein and liberals like him away from any category of “we”. The New York Times piece he penned helped legitimise the right’s hagiographies of Kirk, diminishing the regressive impact of his debate-me-bro stochastic terrorism. I needn’t understand Klein’s justifications to know that his apologia is unbecoming of someone I’d consider on my team.
Through the interview, Klein wrestles with strategies for political victory. His suggestions carry the faint whiffs of dysregulated panic as he proposes running pro-life democrats to win Southern states.
Coates asks Klein to define his place in this current political moment. Klein responds, “I don’t know what my role is anymore”. He doesn’t know because the ideological core of the fence-sitting class is principally unmoored. He believes the democrats lost the presidential election due to strategy mismanagement and not because of the irreconcilable hypocrisy of demonising their opponent while full-throatily funding a genocide. Where Coates fights for the existential health of America, Klein’s concept of “winning” is exclusive to electoral success. For Klein, the Republican drift towards authoritarianism is a matter of envy; the moral regression at the heart of this moment is an aside, he’s more concerned with figuring out which tactics his own sports team needs to adopt to win the championship next season.
Klein is incapable of examining Kirk’s political success without infusing his analysis with admiration. The billionaire-backed sport of politics has convinced Ezra Klein that victory is attained by contorting ideals with socio-political acrobatics. It is unfathomable for him to think true “winning” is meaningless without moral resolution. The health of our civilisation depends on championing a robust opposition to wealth inequality, environmental exploitation, racism, misogyny, queerphobia, ableism and an unwavering advocacy for the dignity of the vulnerable. Any political strategy doesn’t look to synthesise these truths within the existing, social landscape are a profound waste of time. Running concession democrats has only veered our society right-ward. On a purely electoral level—it is crucial to run and support principled, progressive candidates who can speak to people’s core worries, put together compelling campaigns and actually deliver policies that’ll make people’s lives better. Those types of candidates are popping up all over the country. If Klein and the fence-sitting class want to know what their role is (and if they believe their utility is as strategists rather than truth-tellers): they should be running interference for progressive candidates that are faced with slander and smear campaigns and, as Coates rightfully pointed out, choosing the option of silence when grace might embolden the right.
The mainstream presentation of the fence-sitting class as a diametric opposition to conservatism is a fictional struggle fitting snugly inside the Overton window. The fence-sitting class embraces moral chameleonism up to the point where it impedes their personal comfort. They throw their weight behind safe political actions like boycotting streaming platforms to support a millionaire talk-show host so they can maintain the delusion that their freedom of speech and freedom of the press isn’t being eroded in real time. Such protests costs them nothing—in fact, less than nothing. They get to save money and feel the warmth of a pyrrhic victory.
For decades, conservatives have misrepresented the fence-sitting class as their primary opposition—lumping them in with “the left” and making no bones about their disdain for both. In response, the fence-sitting class has sung endless kumbayas, reached across the aisle, created “third-way” politics, and sought common ground with a political faction that doesn’t respect them.
The harsher truth is that the fence-sitting class benefits from the viscosity of their own moral position. Culturally zionist bi-nationalism would’ve been nice for Einstein and other Jewish dissidents but they also materially benefit from the realisation of a Jewish ethnostate. Whether they condemn the ethnostate or lament about the “inner damage” to the Jewish people, they and every modern fence-sitting supporter of zionism ultimately benefits from the end-goal of the occupation via the option of Aliyah.
The liberal pledges themselves to understand the conservative, recognise their humanity and treat them with respect. But the grace they give is fundamentally asymmetrical. The conservative makes no effort to conceal their disdain or their unwillingness to reason with their so-called opposition. They believe liberals are all closet conservatives pretending to be “woke” out of guilt and if they can’t get them to rip off their own masks and reveal their “true face”, they’ll settle for the fence-sitter’s submission. I’m hard pressed to disagree with them.
The Fable of Hermione
Emma Watson’s conversation with Jay Shetty is a fascinating marbling of disparities, she measures her words in a way that doesn’t feel like the triangulation of a deeply held truth but rather the excavation for a version of the truth that will appeal most broadly. It is a Princess Diana re-enactment for a world that believes, in its conspiratorial core, that Princess Diana was murdered. The soft outpourings of empathy feel chronologically displaced, especially atop the back-drop of political unrests and live-streamed genocides. We aren’t living with the same delusions of the nineties. We know too much now. Still, Watson’s solemnity heralds a comforting nostalgia.
Shetty asks about J.K Rowling’s declarations that she’d never forgive Watson for her views on trans people and how Watson and her co-stars ruin the Harry Potter movies for her. Watson’s response is a heartfelt olive branch—a stately extension of grace that holds her memories with Rowling and her disagreement with Rowling’s transantagonism as incompatible truths that may never reconcile.
Days later, J.K Rowling retwee a video mocking Watson, tweets some nonsense metaphor about crocodiles and finally addresses the olive branch directly by spitting on it, snapping it in two and jamming them into Watson’s eyes.
The basic moral of this fable is—when someone shows you who they are, believe them.
For the fence-sitting class—who over-intellectualise the pageantry of being civil at the expense of principled kindness—there might be more to learn.
In the face of political antagonism, you have a choice. It is a choice we will all have to make more and more, over and over again. It is not necessarily between right and wrong, that binary is far too simplistic. J.K Rowling believes she is right, which is why she’s devoted her every waking, mould-respiring breath to chastise a demographic that makes up 1% of the population.
The choice we all have is between protection and endangerment. Who you dedicate your words, time, money and efforts to—will protect or endanger them. Watson protected Rowling and herself by centring her personal compassion. Her protection would’ve been better spent advocating for the trans people who are experiencing unprecedented levels of violent prejudice.
Watson was reluctant to say anything that would “continue to weaponise a toxic debate” but the only way to avoid that toxicity would’ve been to ignore the question altogether. It is Rowling’s intolerance that chauffeurs much of the toxicity—the growing popularity of her position does not obscure the bitterness of its origins. She was always going to spin Watson’s words into ammunition to amplify anti-trans sentiments. Where Watson tried to bifurcate Rowling from her views, Rowling sees no distinction. Her parasitic connection to the transantagonistic symbiote is inexorably integrated with her sense of self. She embodies her exclusionary ideals completely and Watson is nothing more than an enemy to her now. Rowling took Watson’s diplomacy as a craven suck-up attempt and registered her empathy as an act of submission. How this all affects Watson isn’t as important as how Rowling has been able to weaponise this incident against trans people.
From Watson extending Rowling compassion to Klein’s admiration of Kirk—there is a point where grace becomes enabling. Recognising that the fence-sitting class aren’t on my team doesn’t necessarily make them as my opponents. They might be on my side but they’re too much of a liability to be trusted as teammates. The most damning thing to me about Klein is how his essay and podcast appearance with Coates demonstrate how uncritical of himself he is. For someone who thinks so mechanically about strategy, at no point does he ever meaningfully consider that his essay was a tactical misfire. Despite admitting he “doesn’t know what his role is”, there is no point of self-reflection, no reasonable entertainment of the possibility that he might’ve been wrong. What a dangerous, blissful kind of ignorance to live by. To be so unaware of how your actions are weaponised shows an embarrassing lack of survival instincts. The fence-sitting class perch in a position where the flak doesn’t reach them.
The toxicity of the “trans debate” originates from talking past, over, and about trans people in adversarial and infantilising ways. Every time I encounter the cruelty of transantagonism in the wild—I get a clearer understanding of how the Salem Witch Trials happened. A whole demographic of our society have been made into a spectacle. Rowling’s crusade against anyone who doesn’t fit the dainty, lily-white mould of western womanhood is making the world a more spiteful and incurious place. Kirk’s rhetoric was an unapologetic accelerant. Klein thought he could reasonable about it. Watson believed she could gracefully opt out. But the truth is: there is no reasoning. There is no opting out. The polarising issues of our time are approaching a boiling point (and by that I mean, the repercussions have begun to noticeably affect the fence-sitting class while they have already ravaged the vulnerable). The wish-wash of the fence will soon be too uncomfortable to balance on. It is very much side-picking time. Who will you protect and who will you endanger?
I have seen that it is not man who is impotent in the struggle against evil, but the power of evil that is impotent in the struggle against man. The powerlessness of kindness, of senseless kindness, is the secret of its immortality. It can never by conquered. The more stupid, the more senseless, the more helpless it may seem, the vaster it is. Evil is impotent before it. The prophets, religious teachers, reformers, social and political leaders are impotent before it. This dumb, blind love is man’s meaning. Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil, struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness. But if what is human in human beings has not been destroyed even now, then evil will never conquer.
― Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate
I was surprised by how much I agreed with Coates in that debate, even though I've read very little of his work. Klein sees politics almost exclusively through the lens of cutting deals to "win," all political positions are negotiable as if we were haggling over the price of a used car. I was in total agreement when you asked what winning even meant It frustrates me to no end that centrists like Klein use "winning" as some kind of carte blanche justification for all political decisions with no concern for how any of them hollow out that same victory, even if it renders it functionally meaningless.
Coates' politics are deeply informed by his racial background, something which fundamentally can't be negotiated away. It's not like he could ever stop being black, even if he hypothetically wanted such a thing. He spent a lot of energy trying to get Klein to see that there are concrete human costs to throwing people over the side of the ship to lighten the load on the path to some empty victory. It's worse, because centrists control the Democratic party virtually unopposed and have taken no accountability for their electoral failures which supposedly justified these actions. The victory that was their excuse for all this never even materialized.
Really good post.
There is a not insignificant number of supporters of the current regime who do so merely because at least it appears to stands for something, even if it is evil.