A number of years ago, there was (possibly tasteless) comedy sketch on British TV where two SS officers wonder if they are, in fact, the bad guys. "We have skulls on our uniforms..." I can understand, on some level, why people largely ignorant of the conflict and Middle Eastern history, might not see Israel as "the good guys," but to see Hamas as "the good guys" requires more than just naivety. Whether it's antisemitism or just the moral nihilism that seems to have gripped the West's intellectual class is unclear (and I suspect the two are related anyway). Certainly, there has always been a strain in the Western left that is fascinated by violence and hate, particularly if glamourised, as Hamas glamourises itself. This is something George Orwell critiqued a lot, but it constantly recurs from generation to generation, never learning from the mistakes of its predecessors.
About "Whether it's antisemitism or just the moral nihilism that seems to have gripped the West's intellectual class is unclear:" The intellectual class is not nihilistic about itself. In other words, they do want to protect their own right to do what they are doing and to maintain their lifestyle. But de facto some people in these class are submissive to Hamas. The question that is not clear in my mind is whether they are actually attracted to Hamas or whether they are simply attracted to the pleasures of Jew hate and to the feeling of moral superiority and are simply counting on the fact that Hamas will not have any footprint in their lives. I am starting to think that the empirical starting point should be to describe people as "submissive to Hamas" instead of describing them as antisemitic (which immediately leads to self-righteous denials). The fact that that some people are de facto submissive to Hamas is in my opinion an observable empirical fact. The question then becomes to explain the dynamics behind this submissiveness, and antisemitism is definitely a part (and perhaps the most important part) of this dynamics.
That's true that they aren't nihilistic about themselves, but they are nihilistic about the West as a civilisation -- the idea that the history of the Western world is just one of unrelenting exploitation of others and that this society can't be reformed, but needs to be totally demolished and rebuilt. As "Jewishness" (I don't want to say "Judaism" in a narrow, religious sense) is such a key part of Western civilisation, attacking the Jewish state is a part of this programme. But beyond that, there has long been on parts of the left a glamourisation of violence that has often been connected with the Palestinian cause and figures like Leila Khaled and Yasser Arafat (at least when he was younger), although it includes other figures too, most notably Che Guevara. There are photos of these figures from the 60s and 70s that present them as icons, like film stars, not terrorists.
Your point about "submissiveness to Hamas" is a valid one.
They are certainly not protecting free society--but the ability of some people to defend their own personal boundaries and socioeconomic status while neglecting the defense of liberty never ceases to amaze me. It likely comes down to taking the ongoing existence of free society for granted, despite the glamourization of violence.
A number of years ago, there was (possibly tasteless) comedy sketch on British TV where two SS officers wonder if they are, in fact, the bad guys. "We have skulls on our uniforms..." I can understand, on some level, why people largely ignorant of the conflict and Middle Eastern history, might not see Israel as "the good guys," but to see Hamas as "the good guys" requires more than just naivety. Whether it's antisemitism or just the moral nihilism that seems to have gripped the West's intellectual class is unclear (and I suspect the two are related anyway). Certainly, there has always been a strain in the Western left that is fascinated by violence and hate, particularly if glamourised, as Hamas glamourises itself. This is something George Orwell critiqued a lot, but it constantly recurs from generation to generation, never learning from the mistakes of its predecessors.
About "Whether it's antisemitism or just the moral nihilism that seems to have gripped the West's intellectual class is unclear:" The intellectual class is not nihilistic about itself. In other words, they do want to protect their own right to do what they are doing and to maintain their lifestyle. But de facto some people in these class are submissive to Hamas. The question that is not clear in my mind is whether they are actually attracted to Hamas or whether they are simply attracted to the pleasures of Jew hate and to the feeling of moral superiority and are simply counting on the fact that Hamas will not have any footprint in their lives. I am starting to think that the empirical starting point should be to describe people as "submissive to Hamas" instead of describing them as antisemitic (which immediately leads to self-righteous denials). The fact that that some people are de facto submissive to Hamas is in my opinion an observable empirical fact. The question then becomes to explain the dynamics behind this submissiveness, and antisemitism is definitely a part (and perhaps the most important part) of this dynamics.
That's true that they aren't nihilistic about themselves, but they are nihilistic about the West as a civilisation -- the idea that the history of the Western world is just one of unrelenting exploitation of others and that this society can't be reformed, but needs to be totally demolished and rebuilt. As "Jewishness" (I don't want to say "Judaism" in a narrow, religious sense) is such a key part of Western civilisation, attacking the Jewish state is a part of this programme. But beyond that, there has long been on parts of the left a glamourisation of violence that has often been connected with the Palestinian cause and figures like Leila Khaled and Yasser Arafat (at least when he was younger), although it includes other figures too, most notably Che Guevara. There are photos of these figures from the 60s and 70s that present them as icons, like film stars, not terrorists.
Your point about "submissiveness to Hamas" is a valid one.
They are certainly not protecting free society--but the ability of some people to defend their own personal boundaries and socioeconomic status while neglecting the defense of liberty never ceases to amaze me. It likely comes down to taking the ongoing existence of free society for granted, despite the glamourization of violence.