Luke Ford

Much of the hatred of Jews and the Jewish state is hatred of excellence, as George Gilder noted.

Dan Burmawi writes:

Palestinianism is a dumping ground.

A catch-all container for every resentful ideology, every broken theory, every radical cause.

Marxists, postcolonialists, jihadists, queer activists, anarchists, environmentalists, anti-capitalists, and antisemites, they all pour their agendas into it.

It’s the perfect host, just vague enough to absorb anything, just angry enough to justify everything.

Muslims use it to legitimize jihad and martyrdom.

Marxists use it to revive class warfare under the guise of anti-Zionism.

Postcolonial theorists use it to attack the West without touching Islam.

Intersectional activists use it to link Palestine to trans rights and racial justice in a grotesque logic of shared victimhood.

Academics use it to inject critical theory into international politics.

Antisemites use it to camouflage their hatred as humanitarianism.

Palestinianism is where incompatible ideologies suddenly find unity.

What binds them isn’t a coherent vision of justice, but a shared enemy: Israel, the West, the Judeo-Christian world, the structure, the order.

Palestinianism has become the dumping ground where failed ideologies go to be reborn.

Grok says:

The critique presents a provocative argument, framing “Palestinianism” as a nebulous, catch-all ideology that absorbs disparate radical causes. It’s a rhetorically forceful piece, but its strengths and weaknesses deserve scrutiny.

Strengths:

Sharp Rhetorical Style: The piece is concise, punchy, and vivid, using metaphors like “dumping ground” and “catch-all container” to drive its point. This makes it engaging and memorable.

Identifies a Phenomenon: It accurately observes that the Palestinian cause has been co-opted by various ideological groups—Marxists, postcolonialists, intersectional activists, etc.—who often project their agendas onto it. This is a real trend in global activism and academia, where Palestine becomes a symbolic battleground for broader grievances.
Highlights Incongruities: The critique effectively points out the odd alliances within the pro-Palestinian movement, where groups with conflicting values (e.g., jihadists and queer activists) unite under a shared anti-Israel or anti-Western banner. This tension is a valid point of critique.

Weaknesses:Overgeneralization: The term “Palestinianism” is vague and not a widely recognized concept. By framing it as a monolithic ideology, the critique risks oversimplifying a complex issue. The Palestinian cause itself—rooted in real grievances like displacement and occupation—gets conflated with the radical ideologies that latch onto it, which muddies the argument.

Dismissive Tone: The piece dismisses the legitimacy of any underlying Palestinian concerns, reducing the entire movement to a vehicle for “failed ideologies.” This ignores the historical and political realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, alienating readers who might see merit in some aspects of the cause.

Lack of Evidence: The critique makes bold claims (e.g., “Muslims use it to legitimize jihad,” “antisemites camouflage their hatred”) but provides no examples, data, or citations. Without specifics—say, quotes from activists, texts, or events—it feels more like a polemic than a substantiated argument.

Binary Framing: It constructs a simplistic dichotomy: Palestinianism (and its allies) versus “Israel, the West, the Judeo-Christian world.” This ignores nuances, like pro-Palestinian voices who aren’t anti-Western or antisemitic, or Western critics of Israel who don’t fit these ideological molds.

Risk of Alienation: The inflammatory language (e.g., “grotesque logic,” “failed ideologies”) may resonate with those already skeptical of the Palestinian cause but is unlikely to persuade neutral or opposing readers. It preaches to the choir rather than engaging in dialogue.

Suggestions for Improvement:Define “Palestinianism”: Clarify whether this refers to the Palestinian national movement, global solidarity activism, or a specific ideological trend. A clearer scope would strengthen the argument.

Acknowledge Legitimate Grievances: Recognizing the historical context of Palestinian suffering (e.g., 1948 Nakba, occupation) before critiquing the movement’s co-optation would add credibility and balance.

Provide Examples: Cite specific instances—e.g., a Marxist scholar’s writing, a protest chant, or a social media campaign—to ground the claims. This would make the critique more concrete and less speculative.

Engage with Counterarguments: Address why some see Palestinian solidarity as a coherent cause, not a “dumping ground.” This would show intellectual rigor and fairness.
Tone Down Hyperbole: Soften phrases like “grotesque logic” to maintain a critical but less antagonistic tone, inviting broader readership.

Overall: The piece is a compelling rhetorical jab, effective at highlighting the ideological messiness of some pro-Palestinian activism. But its lack of nuance, evidence, and engagement with the conflict’s core issues limits its persuasiveness. It’s more a conversation starter than a definitive critique. Refining its scope and grounding it in specifics could make it more robust.

I ask Grok to critique George Gilder’s book on Israel and apply the book to today:

George Gilder’s The Israel Test: How Israel’s Genius Enriches and Challenges the World (updated edition, 2024) argues that Israel’s remarkable success as a technological and capitalist powerhouse reflects a broader moral and economic challenge for the world. Gilder posits that attitudes toward Israel’s achievements reveal a divide between those who celebrate innovation and those who resent it out of envy, rooted in a zero-sum worldview. He ties Israel’s prosperity to Jewish intellectual and cultural strengths, framing support for Israel as a litmus test for embracing freedom and creativity. Below, I critique the book’s core arguments, strengths, and weaknesses, and apply its ideas to the present context of 2025, drawing on recent reviews and broader trends.

Critique of the Book

Strengths

Bold Thesis on Innovation and Envy

Gilder’s central argument—that hostility toward Israel stems from envy of its disproportionate success—is provocative and compelling in its clarity. He grounds this in data, noting Israel’s outsized contributions to technology (second only to the U.S. in high-tech innovation) despite its small size and constant security threats. For example, he highlights how Israel surpassed Canada in 2007 for foreign companies listed on NASDAQ and how Soviet Jewish immigrants boosted venture capital inflows from $58 million to $3.3 billion between 1991 and 2000. This economic framing resonates in a world where innovation drives global prosperity, and Gilder effectively links Israel’s achievements to universal benefits, challenging narratives of exploitation.

Historical and Cultural Insights

Gilder’s exploration of Jewish intellectual contributions, from Nobel Prize wins (32% of 21st-century awards despite Jews being less than 1% of the global population) to technological breakthroughs, is well-documented and persuasive. His concept of a Jewish “culture of mind,” rooted in Judaism’s emphasis on intellectual curiosity and moral rigor, provides a nuanced explanation for Israel’s success. His historical analysis, such as the economic stagnation under Israel’s socialist policies in the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent boom under free-market reforms led by figures like Benjamin Netanyahu, adds depth to his case.

Engaging and Accessible Style

Reviewers praise Gilder’s passionate and readable prose, with Norman Podhoretz calling it “thrilling to read.” The book blends philosophy, economics, and history, introducing figures like John von Neumann and Robert Aumann to illustrate Jewish contributions to science and strategy. Gilder’s ability to weave personal anecdotes, like his family’s philosemitic background, with global analysis makes the book engaging for a broad audience.

Weaknesses

Lack of Nuance in Geopolitical Analysis

Gilder’s binary framing—Israel as a beacon of freedom versus its critics as envious anti-capitalists—oversimplifies complex geopolitical realities. Critics note that the book lacks nuance, particularly in its portrayal of Palestinians as uniformly driven by hatred or Marxist ideology. For instance, his assertion that “Arabs flourish in Israel as they do nowhere else” ignores socioeconomic disparities faced by Arab Israelis and the broader Palestinian population. This one-sidedness risks alienating readers who seek a balanced discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Overreliance on Jewish Exceptionalism

While Gilder’s emphasis on Jewish intellectual prowess is grounded in statistics, his claim that “the source of antisemitism is Jewish superiority and excellence” can feel reductive and inflammatory. It sidesteps other historical, political, and cultural drivers of antisemitism, such as religious tensions or colonial legacies. His focus on Jewish genius also risks implying that non-Jewish contributions to Israel’s success, or the achievements of other nations, are secondary, which could undermine his broader argument about universal prosperity.

Polemical Tone and Exaggerated Stakes

Gilder’s rhetoric, such as claiming that Israel’s destruction would lead to the collapse of capitalist Europe and endanger America, is alarmist and speculative. This hyperbolic tone, flagged by reviewers as a “red flag,” may undermine his credibility with skeptical readers. Additionally, his dismissal of movements like “Peace Now” as rewarding bad behavior oversimplifies the pursuit of peace, ignoring legitimate critiques of Israeli policies.

Limited Engagement with Counterargument

Gilder does not adequately address opposing views, such as those questioning Israel’s military actions or settlement policies. His portrayal of critics as driven by envy or antisemitism dismisses valid concerns about human rights or international law. This weakens the book’s persuasive power, as it preaches to the choir rather than engaging doubters.

In 2025, Israel continues to lead in fields like cybersecurity, AI, and materials science (e.g., graphene research). Companies like Intel, which relies heavily on Israeli engineers, underscore Gilder’s point about Israel’s global economic impact. His argument that innovation benefits all holds true, as Israeli tech solutions—from medical devices to agricultural advancements—are exported worldwide, including to Arab states normalizing ties through the Abraham Accords. However, Gilder’s failure to address how tech wealth is distributed within Israel (e.g., disparities between Jewish and Arab citizens) limits his analysis in a time when inclusivity is a global priority.

Polarization and the “Israel Test”

Gilder’s “Israel Test” as a moral litmus test resonates in 2025, with global debates over Israel intensifying post-October 7, 2023. Rising antisemitism, documented by organizations like the ADL, aligns with Gilder’s view that envy of success fuels hatred. Protests on U.S. campuses and European cities often frame Israel as a pariah, supporting Gilder’s claim that anti-Israel sentiment reflects broader anti-capitalist and anti-Western biases. Yet, his dismissal of all critics as envious ignores legitimate grievances, such as concerns over Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, which have grown more visible in 2025. A more nuanced approach would strengthen his case in addressing today’s polarized audiences.

Geopolitical Stakes

Gilder’s call for U.S. support of Israel as vital to Western civilization aligns with ongoing debates about America’s role in the Middle East. In 2025, with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and proxy conflicts (e.g., Hezbollah, Houthis) escalating, Israel remains a key U.S. ally. Gilder’s argument that Israel’s survival is tied to global freedom gains traction as authoritarian regimes challenge democratic values. However, his apocalyptic warnings about the fall of capitalism if Israel falters seem overstated, especially as other tech hubs (e.g., India, Singapore) rise. The U.S.-Israel bond is critical, but global economic resilience is more distributed than Gilder suggests.

Critiques of Socialism and Zero-Sum Thinking

Gilder’s critique of socialist policies stifling innovation is relevant as some Western nations grapple with economic stagnation and populist movements. Israel’s shift from socialism to a free-market economy in the 1980s, which Gilder credits for its boom, serves as a case study for 2025 debates on economic policy. However, his blanket condemnation of socialism ignores successful mixed economies (e.g., Scandinavia) and fails to address how capitalism can exacerbate inequality, a pressing issue in Israel and globally today.

Cultural and Moral Challenges

Gilder’s focus on a Jewish “culture of mind” remains a powerful lens for understanding Israel’s success, but in 2025, cultural narratives are more contested. Movements for diversity and inclusion challenge exceptionalist claims, and Gilder’s emphasis on Jewish superiority could alienate allies who value pluralism. His argument that Israel embodies Western values like tolerance and women’s rights is complicated by criticisms of its policies toward Palestinians, which fuel global backlash. To apply Gilder’s test today, one must grapple with these contradictions, which he largely sidesteps.