Bret Stephens on the state of world Jewry

February 7, 2026 • 11:30 am

Here’s a video of NYT columnist Bret Stephens speaking at the famous 92nd Street YMCA in New York. (It’s 34 minutes long, and well worth watching.) I like Stephens’s columns quite a bit despite his identification as a “conservative”. He’s the paper’s best columnist on Israel and the Gaza War, and he’s also Jewish, and he’s a centrist conservative, not at all a MAGA conservative.

In the video Stephens gives a heterodox take on the “state of World Jewry.” His message is fourfold (I’m expanding on his own words here):

1.) The fight against antisemitism is a well-meaning but mostly wasted effort. We should spend and focus our energy elsewhere.

2.) Antisemitism is the world’s most unwitting compliment, for it is based largely on envy and resentment based on Jewish success.

3.) Proper defense against Jew-hatred is not to prove haters wrong by acting well, but to lean into our Jewishness irrespective of what anybody else thinks of it. As he says, “It goes without saying that there’s nothing  Jews can do to cure the Jew-haters of their hate. . . .And there is nothing we should want to do, either. . . If it’s impossible to cure an antisemite, it’s almost impossible to cure Jews of the delusion that we can cure antisemites.”

4.)  Jews don’t need a seat at the table of victimized groups. We should build our own table.

To me, the best part is his analysis of the psychology of antisemitism, which he think is not properly understood.  Here is one misconception: “We think that antisemitism stems from missing or inaccurate information.” (e.g., the lies of the Gaza war). The result is that people hope to erase antisemitism by correcting widespread misconceptions (“Israel is an apartheid state”, “Israel is committing genocide,” and so on.)

But he argues that Jew hatred is “not the result of a defect of education,” It is, instead, “the product of a psychological reflex. . . .  It’s not just a prejudice and belief, but a neurosis.” Antisemitism preceded the founding of the state of Israel, and therefore can’t just rest on the presence of a Jewish state. He further argues that Jew hatred doesn’t come largely because “we killed Christ,” which is just one excuse people use to justify their bigotry. Instead, says Stephens, people hate Jews because of the virtues of our religion (e.g., the love of life rather than death), and, most of all, because Jews have been successful. A quote: “They do not hate us because of our faults and failures; they hate us because of our virtues and successes. The more virtuous and successful we are, the more we’ll be hated by those whose animating emotions are resentment and envy.”

To Stephens, the obvious conclusion is that it’s a fool’s errand for Jews to try to earn the world’s love.

As for building our own table, it seems to involve “Jewish thriving”: “a community in which Jewish learning, Jewish culture, Jewish ritual, Jewish concerns, Jewish aspiration and Jewish identification. . . . are central to every member’s sense of him or herself.”  He thinks that this can be done both culturally and religiously. (I don’t know how pious Stephens is, or what he believes about God and the Old Testament, but he seems to be more religious than I thought.) Building our own table further involves expanding Jewish education, building more Jewish cultural institutions and creating more venues for Jewish philanthropy, de-wokeifying liberal Jewish congregations, and “reinventing publishing” so it is not as antisemitic as it is now.

As an atheist but also a cultural Jew, I’m a bit put off by the overly religious nature of Stephen’s suggested cure. After all, Jewish schools are founded on the truth of Judaism, which is, like that of all religions, pure superstition. But yes, Jews need to de-wokeify (the ones who voted for Mamdani, for example, seem to me deluded) and not act like victims.

And I agree with Stephens that it’s time to stop trying to prove to the rest of the world that we’re okay. That is truly a fool’s errand, and what has happened since October 7 proves it. The more Israel tried to help Gazans dispossessed by the war, the more Israel (and Jews) was hated. It seems to me that antisemitism is now worse than ever; there are daily pro-Palestinian and anti-Jewish demnonstrations (e.g. “From the river to the sea. . “) all over Europe, Jews are killed en masse in Australia, and universities cater to pro-Palestinians and “encampers,” failing to enforce their rules when they are violated by antisemites.

In the end, Stephens avers that the precipice of Judaism is but a step away from its zenith, and we’ve failed to recognize the imminence of our downfall.  But he’s still hopeful, finishing this way:

“All this was understood once, and will be understood again. Until then, we will, again, endure the honor of being hated as we continue to work for a thriving Jewish future.”

Besides the overemphasis on religious Judaism, my only criticism is that Stephens, like all academics in the humanities, reads a pre-written paper out loud, rarely looking at the audience. But I’ll excuse that, for his talk provides a lot of food for thought—and for argument.  And I think his main argument, encapsulated in the four points above, is correct.

I’ve run on too long: listen to the talk (if you’re a religious or a cultural Jew, you must listen to the talk):

Masih Alinejad’s speech to the UN Security Council

January 16, 2026 • 11:30 am

“When a regime turns off the Internet during mass killings, and at the same time the leaders of the same regime [use] the privilege of freedom of speech on social media to mislead the rest of the world, it is not about restoring order. It is about destroying the evidence.”  —from Masih’s speech below

In a comment this morning, Norman Gilinsky linked to the speech below given to the UN Security Council by anti-Iranian-regime activist Masih Alinejad. Norman called it amazing, forceful, unrelenting, and powerful. As a huge fan of Masih, I of course had to listen to it, and yes, it’s forceful, passionate, and ineffably sad given the UN’s inaction. I’ve put it below for your edification: it’s 15½ minutes long.

So far the UN hasn’t issued any statements criticizing the behavior of the Iranian regime in massacring thousands of protestors.

Masih calls out the UN for failing to respond to the massacres, sending a message to Iran that what it’s doing is pretty much okay. She argues that “it will get much worse if the world does not take serious action”, and that all Iranians are united in calling for the freeing of Iran from the present regime. (This is in sharp contrast with the UN’s repeated criticisms of Israel during the war with Gaza, apparently sending the message that massacres are okay with the UN so long as they don’t involve Jews)

Masih probably knows more about what’s going on in the streets of Iran than anybody else, as she has lines of communication with the protestors that others don’t have. (Iranians are using Starlink satellite phones.)

A representative of Iran was among the listeners, but I wonder if any of them really took to heart what Masih says. Particularly moving is her description of some of the young protestors who were killed, which she does to personalize and drive home the regime’s brutality, and she breaks down in tears at 11:35, unable to give more names of the slaughtered.

What is she asking the UN to do? She’s not explicit, but something to stop the killing—perhaps to stop treating Iran as a “legitimate government”.  The UN of course cannot do that, though it can help.  I hope that after hearing the list of murders and murderers, the listeners absorb the same lesson George Patton imparted to his soldiers from his real speech of June 5, 1944 (not the movie speech):

“When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt from your face and you realize that it’s not dirt, it’s the blood and guts of what was once your best friend, you’ll know what to do.”

Jerry Seinfeld’s commencement address at Duke

May 15, 2024 • 8:30 am

Here’s Jerry Seinfeld’s 17-minute commencement address at Duke, which I don’t find nearly as funny as I’ve been told. It may be because he once responded this way when asked about his reported statement that he won’t do comedy at colleges any more:

“I hear that all the time,” Seinfeld said. “I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me don’t go near colleges — they’re so PC (politically correct).”

So he stays pretty much away from politics in this address, something he more or less had to do given the Zeitgeist, but that also took the edge off his humor.  To me, the “funny” bits aren’t funny, and the serious “advice” seems anodyne.

Fall in love with BIC pens and pizza crust? What’s that about?  “Keep your sense of humor”? Yes, but he evinces little of that in his talk.  “Work hard in life”?  Yes, but that’s trite—the stuff of many such addresses. It’s clear that he decided to steer clear of anything that could cause controversy, and the result is a phoned-in and unfunny shtick. It’s a pity. And he didn’t even have to be controversial; all he had to be was funny, but he seemed incapable of that.

Nevertheless, as the NYT reported, there was still some protest.

As Mr. Seinfeld, who has recently been vocal about his support for Israel, received an honorary degree, dozens of students walked out and chanted, “Free, free Palestine,” while the comedian looked on and smiled tensely.

Many in the crowd jeered the protesters. Minutes later, as the last of the protesters were filing out, he approached the mic. His first words were: “Thank you. Oh my God, what a beautiful day.”

In his commencement speech, Mr. Seinfeld was mostly cautious, opting for a tight comedic script interspersed with life advice instead of a full-on response to the protests against his presence.

Well, at least he wasn’t deplatformed because of his support for Israel!

Chuck Schumer delivers Senate speech on antisemitism

December 3, 2023 • 10:30 am

You can read Chuck Schumer’s recent op-ed in the NYT, “What American Jews fear most,“, or you can watch his 40-minute speech on the topic given in the Senate (video below). I recommend listening to the speech, of which the op-ed is a short distillation. Alternatively, read the transcript, which you can find here.

Schumer is trying to explain to the Senate why American Jews are especially worried about the rise of antisemitism accompanying the advent of the war between Israel and Hamas. (Schumer notes that after October 7, antisemitic incidents in America have increased threefold.) And, of course, on a per capita basis Jews have long been the religious group more subject to “hate violence”.

Following a brief history lesson, Schumer emphasizes the need for a two-state solution, rejecting the West Bank expansion of the Netanyahu government. Then invoking the “oppressor/oppressed” mantra of progressives, Schumer recounts the history of Jewish oppression from, noting that:

“For Jewish people all across the world, the history of our trauma going back many generations is central to any discussion about our future. . . too many Americans, especially in our younger generations, don’t have a full understanding of this history. Because some Jewish people have done well in America, because Israel has increased its power and territory, there are people who feel that Jewish Americans are not vulnerable, that we have the strength and security to overcome prejudice and bigotry, that we have, to quote the language of some, become the ‘oppressors’.

But for many Jewish Americans, any strength and security that we enjoy always feels tenuous. No matter how well we’re doing, it can all be taken away in an instant.

That’s just how it is. We only have to look back a century, a few generations, to see how this can happen.”

His only family history with the Germans is an example how Jewish freedom—and lives—can vanish in short while.

The YouTube notes:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, decrying the rise in antisemitism since Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7. “We’re deeply sensitive to the deprivation and horrors that can follow the targeting of Jewish people if it is not repudiated,” Schumer said.

Finally, halfway through the speech, Schumer gives what I see as its point: an attempt to make Americans realize how both the events of October 7 and the subsequent defense of Hamas and antisemitic tropes (.e.g, “from the river to the sea”) affects Jewish-Americans especially strongly:

While many protesters no doubt view their actions as a compassionate expression of solidarity with the Palestinian people, for many Jewish Americans, we feel in too many instances, some of the most extreme rhetoric gives license to darker ideas that have always lurked below the surface of every question involving the Jewish people.

Schumer is not normally an eloquent speaker, but this is an eloquent speech, even though it’s read from a script. In the end, I hope he succeeds in warning America that Jewish-Americans are worried that anti-Israel and antisemitic feeling will “metastasize into something worse.”  Saying “it can’t happen here” is no consolation.

The peroration, when Schumer describes his grandfather breaking into tears when first setting foot in Israel, is extremely moving.

Again, I recommend that you listen.

h/t: Bat