Non-Jews don't get to decide who is a good Jew and who is a bad Jew. Non-Jews who make lists of bad Jews and suggest that Jews who don't share their particular ideology aren't real Jews are not friends of the Jews. They're the people who make it easy to attack and persecute Jews.
Jews should resist any attempt to outsource Jewish identity and worthiness to gentile arbiters. It's always tempting for minority members to let powerful majority friends fight their internal battles for them, but once you cede that power, it will ultimately come for you.
Aside from the anti-Semitism, one reason Jews get so angry about Trump saying a bunch of Jews are bad Jews is that he's culturally appropriating our traditions. We've been doing that to each other for thousands of years and he doesn't just get to show up without doing the work.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reportedly, one major difference between Hamas's hostage/ceasefire proposal today and previous proposals is that Hamas is refusing to commit to releasing only *living* hostages in the first phase of the deal. It is insisting that the 33 hostages released can be alive *or* dead.
Some hostages are unfortunately feared dead, but latest estimates have the number of living hostages at around 70, so Hamas here is not necessarily indicating that it doesn't have 33 living hostages, just that it's using them as bargaining chips.
This also explains why Hamas (per @AliVelshi and others) was willing to accept just 33 prisoners in exchange for each Israeli hostage—a relatively low number given their past demands. If they're exchanging hostage *bodies*, lower price makes sense.
I wrote about the viral TikTok conspiracy that Jews are trying to ban the platform—pushed by influencers with millions of followers with an assist from Candace Owens—and why such conspiracies misunderstand how political power works and undermine democracy. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
For decades, America has worked assiduously to prevent China from controlling technological infrastructure. Washington led an international campaign to ban Chinese telecom giant Huawei from Western markets. It forced Grindr's Chinese owners to sell it. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Polls show robust public support for a TikTok ban or sale to non-Chinese owners. For years, Gallup has found Americans see China as the country's "greatest enemy." In other words, politicians have strong political & electoral incentives to take on TikTok. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I wrote about the one thing most likely to force new elections in Israel and threaten Netanyahu's reign. It's not anything Biden or Schumer might say or do, but something far more fundamental to Israeli politics at this moment: theatlantic.com/international/…
Since its founding, Israel has had mandatory Jewish conscription into its army, with one notable exception: ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students do not serve. This started as 400 men. It's now 66,000. After October 7, Israeli society is no longer OK with this: theatlantic.com/international/…
Mass Israeli public demand to draft the ultra-Orthodox is a huge problem for Netanyahu. The ultra-Orthodox parties provide 18 of his 64 coalition seats. They oppose enlistment. But others in Bibi's government demand it. This could break the coalition. theatlantic.com/international/…
The idea that another Israeli government would have the same policies as Netanyahu is one of those fashionable takes that falls apart upon analysis. Polls show that if elections were held today, there'd be a new coalition without Netanyahu *or* the far-right parties. That's huge.
A government without the anti-Arab settler right, without Bibi constantly publicly fighting with the American administration, and without the toxic far-right adjacent members of Likud would govern very differently, including in post-war Gaza.
Netanyahu's supporters know all this. That's why they really really don't want new elections. If they'd be getting the same results no matter who was in power, they would not be so concerned about facing the voters. Not rocket science here.
A lot of people are unfamiliar with recent Gaza developments and so do not know that Israel accepted the Paris framework for a truce/hostage deal but Hamas has not. As a result, they completely misunderstand what Harris is saying, which is that Hamas should say yes to the deal.
What Harris actually said: "There must be an immediate ceasefire for at least the next six weeks, which is what is currently on the table… Hamas claims it wants a ceasefire. Well, there is a deal on the table. And as we have said, Hamas needs to agree to that deal." Quite clear!
IMO, the reason this scrambled people's radars is that the average person does not know that Israel has agreed in principle to the current truce framework but Hamas has not. Many on both sides think Israel is dug in, but it's not.
This is a big deal. Biden just created financial risk for any institution doing business with violent West Bank extremists, and that's going to create a significant deterrent effect beyond just individual extremists who get sanctioned.
If you read it closely, this executive order from Biden is by far the most expansive anti-settler extremism act taken by an American president, and I don't think it's close: whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
Again, Biden's Israel moves today are completely consistent with his longstanding strategy to undermine Netanyahu's coalition by going after its far-right flank and pitting it against the Israeli public. Wrote about it in December: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…