The ongoing war of cultural organizations against “Zionists” (the fig-leaf euphemism for Jews) bears interpretation through the prism of the First Law of John O’Sullivan.
O’Sullivan, a speechwriter for Margaret Thacher, unveiled his timeless maxim in 1989 in The National Review:
All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don’t like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world.
The post-10/7 version might say, “All organizations that are not politically neutral or actually pro-Jewish will over time become explicitly anti-Zionist, taking that as a euphemism for anti-Jewish.” In his mention of an advocacy group, a deep-pocketed foundation, and a mainstream Protestant church, Sullivan deftly captured the great sweep of groups aligned behind the social justice agenda that lacks a line for Jewish concerns.
Since 1989, what’s been the direction of O’Sullivan’s examples? His comments hold up well. In 2021, the Washington Free Beacon published an article by Alana Goodman titled, “ACLU Becomes Top Legal Defender of Anti-Semitic BDS Campaign.” She wrote,
The organization has led legal challenges against anti-BDS laws in numerous states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas, and Texas. The group has also registered to lobby against federal anti-BDS legislation from 2017 to 2020, according to lobbying disclosure records.
Last April, the ACLU sent a letter to Representatives urging them “to oppose H.R. 6090, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities. H.R. 6090 is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.
The bill passed in the House of Representatives by a 320-91 vote, with 21 Republicans and 71 Democrats opposing it.
The Ford Foundation, whatever its social justice inclinations when O’Sullivan wrote the First Law, deserved some credit for a major statement, “Rejecting the Rising Tide of Antisemitism,” written by its president, Darren Walker, on September 15, 2023 (keep that date in mind). Walker summarized recent attacks in Pittsburgh, Poway, and Monsey. Comparing the situation to that of Jews in Nazi Germany, he wrote,
We must look to the lessons of history, which affirm—as do the Jewish high holy days this week—that there can be no reconciliation without atonement, no justice without accountability.
I feel this obligation acutely as the leader of an institution that protects and promotes democratic values, which also was founded by Henry Ford—an icon of innovation, and industry, and philanthropy, and one of the twentieth century’s most virulent American antisemites.
Further, all of us engaged in building a fairer, more just America ought to embrace our responsibility to speak out about this ancient strain of inequality—this category of caste—exactly as we call out racism, sexism, ableism, and homophobia.
While the statement covered a lot of ground, it was all strictly domestic ground; the statement said nothing about Israel or the rising anti-Semitism worldwide. Still, Forward columnist Aviya Kushner liked it while also asking pointed questions on how Walker could follow up, noting,
I would like to see Walker look toward the future, not just the past. In conversation, many Jewish writers and artists have told me they feel excluded from more and more literary and cultural spaces. Walker might want to take a hard look at current grant funding — is overtly Jewish literature, art and culture something the Ford Foundation ever funds with its billions? Can the Ford Foundation itself fund research on antisemitism in America’s cultural spaces—or support conferences for those who are studying it, right now?
Less than a month later, Walker posted a short statement on October 10, then another on October 19, “Ford Foundation Responds to the Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza,” that showed the foundation’s laser-like focus on “events” in Gaza, omitting any reference to events in Israel:
This week, we are devastated and disheartened as we continue to learn more about the tragic events occurring in Gaza and their impact on the Palestinian and Israeli people.
It is our hope that world leaders will continue to commit the resources needed to support immediate humanitarian relief efforts. And philanthropy must also respond.
At the Ford Foundation, we are committed to the principles of human rights and international law. We are steadfast in our pursuit of a world where all are able to live safely, with dignity and the full expression of their humanity. It is because of these beliefs that we cannot ignore the suffering, anguish, and pain that countless families are experiencing in Gaza at this moment.
In response to this crisis, the Ford Foundation will support immediate humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza and the Middle East. Administered by our colleagues in the Middle East and North Africa regional office, the resources will go to partners in the region to provide life-saving support and other essential needs to the affected Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Tablet magazine picked up on the emphasis and in an article titled “The Ford Foundation Carries on the Legacy of Its Namesake.”
The Ford Foundation is a major funder of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both of which regularly criticize Israeli “apartheid,” and it has more recently donated millions to the Tides Center, part of the dark-money Tides Network that, as the Scroll reported yesterday, funnels money from progressive billionaires such as Peter Buffett and George Soros to anti-Israel NGOs, including IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace, which organized the Oct. 18 rally at the U.S. Capitol against the Israeli campaign in Gaza.
Statements from the Episcopal Church express some empathy for Jews, through its ecumenical programs. Still, a statement issued on 10/7 firmly painted Israel as the source of problems, no mention of terrorism:
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) is deeply grieved by the news coming out of Israel and Gaza today. CMEP condemns all acts of violence against civilians that have occurred in the past twenty-four hours, as fighting has escalated between Hamas and Israel. As of late Saturday (EDT), reports indicated that hundreds have been killed and thousands wounded, both Israelis and Palestinians. CMEP mourns with the victims of the violence and their families.
The actions of Hamas and the Israeli response in Gaza in no way advance peace, but rather cause loss of life and harm, grief, and devastation, not only to the individuals affected, but also to the legitimate cause of the Palestinian people in seeking an end to the decades long occupation and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Throughout this year, CMEP and allies have urgently been calling attention to the evolving context, characterized by escalating levels of violence between settlers, soldiers, and Palestinians. The increased nationalism and radicalization within Israeli society have led to more frequent and numerous incidents of hatred, racialized tensions, settler attacks, and incursions onto Muslim and Christian holy sites such as Stella Maris Monastery in Haifa and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. These realities are not justifications but have long been ignored by the international community, including the longstanding frustration and desperation of the Palestinian people who seek an end to the oppression of the occupation and Israeli desires for lack of fear and for security. It is time for the US and the international community to strengthen efforts to de-escalate the systemic violence that has gone on for decades.
A quarter-century after O’Sullivan’s insights, any revision would also need to include university faculties, cultural forums, and professional organizations. Once dedicated to scholarship, the arts, and serving the needs of groups like physicians and authors, many have embraced the anti-Israel hysteria. Examples could fill a book. Some lowlights:
- Protests have hit places like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, and the Brooklyn Museum. In one example, after a walk-out by 26 staff members at the Wing Luke Museum in Seattle, an exhibit by the Washington State Jewish Historical Society called “Confronting Hate Together” was pulled, and the museum closed. Protests centered on materials such as a line in the exhibition stating “Today, antisemitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism,” according to an August 22, 2024 article in the Jerusalem Post. The exhibit can be seen at the historical society’s website.
- Literary organizations are hotbeds of anti-Israel sentiment. This Jewish Telegraphic Agency summary from last February notes, “Prestigious literary prizes, leadership at the Jewish New York cultural center 92NY, major awards ceremonies and the staff of Artforum magazine have all been upended by the four-month war, with more incidents accruing by the day.” PEN America gets extensive notice for an open letter sent to it from writers demanding the group release a statement about Palestinian writers killed during the Gaza war and “and name their murderer: Israel, a Zionist colonial state funded by the U.S. government.” Also last February, the Jewish Book Council started a program where people could report antisemitism related to literature. (Criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield published an astute analysis of PEN on his blog Simple Justice last April with the title, “Can PEN America Remain ‘Neutral?’”
- Most recently, on January 8, Dr. Sue Kresley, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent a letter to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken asking about the status of a pediatrician and head of a Gaza hospital taken into custody by the IDF in December. She wanted Blinken to look into the pediatrician’s status and “steps the U.S. government is taking to improve access to pediatric care in Gaza.” Last March, AAP’s then president, Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, issued a statement in which “he encouraged officials to consider the unique physical, physiological and mental health needs of children in Gaza.” Israeli children? Not worth a mention here.
- Finally, on the culture front, an employee group called NYC Alamo United circulated a petition when the Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn showed the new film “September 5,” about the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics. The petition states, in part, “Condemn the [Alamo Drafthouse’s] complicity in the distribution of regressive media & demand that they immediately stop platforming film & media industry companies that spread genocidal rhetoric” As of January 12, the Brooklyn theater was showing September 5 daily at 10 p.m. through January 15 at least. (I wonder if the people so opposed to September 5 know about the historical significance of the Alamo in San Antonio; perhaps for their next bold protests they’ll demand the chain change its name to the Nasrallah Drafthouse.)
What to make of these and thousands of other datapoints? Some reflect executive mandates, where leadership wants to take the anti-Israel line; think of universities and their faculty-lounge mujahadeen. In other instances, leadership does the right thing but lacks the backbone to tell Hamasjugend workers to take a hike if they don’t like the museum or corporation’s programming; kudos to Alamo Drafthouse for still showing September 5.
Elsewhere, effective pushback comes from several directions. Alumni who withhold hefty donations can get the attention of university presidents quaking under their desks waiting for the next violent building takeover. A decline in applications from top students wary of harassment and tainted education at Hezbollah-on-the-Hudson and other institutions gets alarm bells ringing in the admissions offices.
Another approach: bypass the professional associations that bend to the anti-Israel winds. Don’t like the American Association of University Professors? Try the National Association of Scholars, which boldly declares it “upholds the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship.” Disappointed in the direction of the ACLU? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is fearless in defending free speech. If you need a lodestar for evaluating organizations, please refer to John O’Sullivan’s First Law.
And if the candidates of your longstanding political allegiance are steering hard in a direction that goes against your values, well . . . you know what to do at the ballot box. That’s been known to happen recently.
