We find overt antisemitic attitudes are rare on the left but common on the right, particularly among young adults on the right. Even when primed with information that most U.S. Jews have favorable views toward Israel—a country disfavored by the ideological left—respondents on the left rarely support statements such as that Jews have too much power or should be boycotted.
We find evidence on the left of anti-Jewish double standards compared to Muslim Americans and Indian Americans. The right exhibits strong anti-Muslim double standards. However, in these measures too, the anti-Jewish attitudes on the left are small in magnitude compared to the anti-Jewish attitudes on the right. The right does not have an anti-Jewish double standard, but they nevertheless attribute to Jews substantially more responsibility and culpability for Israel than the left does. Indeed, young far right identifiers are seven times more likely to believe that Jewish Americans should be held to account for Israel compared to young far-left identifiers.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I am willing to forgive ordinary Jews for supporting the ‘State of Israel’s right to exist’ on the probability that they simply don’t know any better. In my experience, lower-class Jews tend to be less supportive of Zionism the more that they learn about its sordid history, in great part because the entity is built on somebody’s stolen homeland.
As for why I think that it is important for Jews to denounce the Zionist entity, but less so for Muslims to denounce predominantly Muslim governments when they commit wrongs, it is because Muslim politicians do not typically justify abhorrent actions saying that they are necessary for the good of the Muslim people. Herzlians, in contrast, always pretend that they represent Jews and claim that their atrocities are necessary for the safety of the Jewish people. Hence my ‘double standard’, as the researchers would call it.
just genuine nonsense
The paper only cites this CNN article for this claim, which doesn’t directly mention Los Angeles (but does link to other CNN articles that deal with this case), dealing primarily with the case in New York, the article qualifying that “F**k Jews” was “allegedly” yelled by the attackers. This is the source that THEY CITED.
From the article we learn that the assaulted man “told CNN's Don Lemon that the attack took him by surprise as he was headed to a rally.” A rally for what? This article doesn’t say, but this NBC New York article says it was “a pro-Israel rally.” We know “the gang assault happened near the protests that erupted Thursday night in Times Square, shortly after an announced ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect” (and this is something the authors of the paper cited as well if they count any links within the cited article as being within the citation for that article, which they would have to for the LA case), so even if the authors weren’t certain which rally he was heading to, why wasn’t this mentioned in the paper?
This is all from the first very first page, and I’m not going through the rest of the article, but already this shouldn’t have been published.
Honestly? I noticed those claims, too, but I feel like the researchers only inserted them to make the paper more publisher-friendly. At least in the news media, there is pressure to (blandly) cover ‘both sides’ of an issue when the oppressed or their advocates are finally receiving some coverage. I suspect that there exists a similar phenomenon in most scientific journals, partly to avoid offending the ruling class, and partly because somebody thinks that these insertions make their publications look ‘less biased’.
On the other hand, maybe the researchers were just being careless or lazy. I find that harder to believe, though.
If I needed to blatantly lie in the introduction of my paper to get it published then I would simply not try to get it published.
Ah, but you have a spine. Under capitalism most people lose theirs for a buck