There is a sentence I keep trying to write, and every version sounds worse than the last. It begins: “Bill Maher was brave to…” The rest does not really matter, because the opening has already given the game away. It is 2026, and a comedian on American television is being called brave for saying, in plain English, that the systematic dehumanization of Jews is wrong. We have arrived at a moment in which that observation requires courage, and I want to say where I stand on it — why I stand there, and what I have seen with my own eyes that brought me here.

I’ll start with the simple part. Matti Friedman is right about Nicholas Kristof’s column, and right in a way that goes far beyond Kristof himself. Friedman draws a distinction that I have come to believe is one of the most important habits of moral seriousness available to anyone who claims to care about this conflict: there are two conversations going on in the West right now, and from a distance they can look nearly identical, but their purposes are opposite. One is about how to make Israel better. The other is about how to make Israel disappear. Friedman has the discipline — and, crucially, the love of country — to hold both ideas at once: that Israeli prisons are not beyond criticism, that abuses and humiliations and moral failures exist, that figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Benjamin Netanyahu often seem disturbingly uninterested in repairing them, and also that a great deal of what is now circulated internationally as journalism is something else entirely — activist narrative, NGO-laundered rumor, and in some cases outright fabrication. The issue is not whether Israel should be criticized. Of course it should be. The issue is whether the criticism is being undertaken in the spirit of reform or in the spirit of erasure.

Haviv Rettig Gur, writing alongside Friedman, has described a paper trail of viral falsehoods, each absorbed by millions before correction ever arrives — claims about fourteen thousand babies dying within forty-eight hours, viral statistics about dead children that exceeded the actual demographic population being described. Each claim is emotionally detonated, partially corrected later, then immediately replaced by the next, and the pattern itself becomes the story. The correction never catches the accusation. That is why Bill Maher’s monologue mattered to me. He did something almost no one with a major American platform seems willing to do anymore: he named what he believed he was seeing. He argued that a great deal of what is now parading as “anti-Zionism” is in practice antisemitism wearing contemporary political language, and he pointed to the extraordinary inconsistency of the obsession — Sudan, Iran, the Congo, catastrophes of staggering scale that rarely generate anything remotely comparable to the sustained emotional mobilization directed at Israel. One does not need to agree with every rhetorical flourish Maher used to recognize the larger point he was making.

He argued that the horseshoe has closed — that parts of the radical left and parts of the conspiratorial right, though they differ on almost everything else, increasingly tell remarkably similar stories about Jews and about Israel. He mocked the fashionable transformation of the keffiyeh into a kind of moral accessory (”the new Che Guevara T-shirt,” as he put it) and read aloud statements by academics describing Israelis in language that would be instantly recognized as hateful if directed at almost any other ethnic or religious group. And then he asked what may have been his sharpest question: why this people again? Why is a North Carolina teenager allegedly plotting to attack a synagogue in Houston? Why does an influencer with thirty million followers fantasize publicly about killing Israelis? Why do people who agree on almost nothing else suddenly find common........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)