I’ve just started listening to this talk and as he recites Jewish woes, I’m wondering if he asks — compared to whom?
Spoiler alert — no he doesn’t.
Over the past 800 years, Jews have consistently enjoyed more prosperous lives than the non-Jews around them.
Compared to the state of the working class, the state of Jewry is blessed.
I suspect there’s not much of a demand in ethnic life for speakers to come in to tell them how they have it good.
Jews currently enjoy more prosperous, higher quality lives than the non-Jews around them.
Would Jews pay for a speaker to tell them, “Let’s develop the attitude of thank you America!”?
Would Jews pay for a speaker to tell them, “Please consider the effect of your words and actions on the non-Jews around you”?
Dan calls Douglas Murray a friend and quotes him saying that Jews “are prominent but weak.”
Compared to whom? In many areas of life, Jews are strong. Nobody is strong everywhere.
Dan’s approach reminds me of a story in the Torah. “The Israelites claimed that the Canaanites were giants, specifically the Anakim, primarily during the period when they were scouting the Promised Land and preparing for conquest. This claim is rooted in the Book of Numbers, where the spies sent to scout the land reported the existence of “men of great size” and “giants,” including the Anakim.” (Google)
There’s zero sense of proportion in this Dan Senor speech.
I listen to almost every episode of Dan’s podcast, Call Me Back.
Dan extolls all the great things that German Jews did but shows no awareness that different groups have different interests. He displays zero understanding of those for whom Jewish power diminished their power. He decries anti-Jewish sentiments but doesn’t mention anti-Gentile sentiments. As Israel gets stronger, its neighbors get comparatively weaker.
Dan quotes Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Dan loves quoting the glib.
Grok says:
Dan Senor’s 2025 State of World Jewry Address at the 92NY focuses on the challenges and resilience of Jewish communities, particularly in the U.S. and Israel, but he doesn’t explicitly compare Jews to other groups in terms of socioeconomic status, well-being, or other metrics. To address your question about how Jews are doing compared to other groups, I’ll draw on Senor’s key points from the address and supplement with available data, focusing on the U.S. context where comparisons are more feasible. Since the address emphasizes identity, antisemitism, and community strength, I’ll frame the comparison around these themes, as well as socioeconomic and demographic factors where relevant.
Senor’s Perspective
Senor highlights a contrast between Israeli and American Jews:
Israeli Jews: He’s optimistic about Israel’s future, citing its resilience, strong sense of identity, and national agency despite ongoing conflicts like the Gaza war and internal divisions. He believes Israel will “be fine” due to its cultural and societal “shock absorbers” (e.g., community ties, military service).
American Jews: He expresses concern about their future, describing them as “prominent but weak” due to assimilation, low engagement with Jewish institutions, and rising antisemitism. He urges American Jews to rebuild identity through Jewish day schools, summer camps, and gap years in Israel, noting that only 11% of charitable giving by wealthy Jewish Forbes 400 members goes to Jewish causes.
Senor doesn’t directly compare Jews to other ethnic or religious groups, but his focus on antisemitism and identity suggests a unique vulnerability for Jews, particularly in the Diaspora, amid a “fraught time” globally (e.g., Gaza war, 58 hostages still held, 9,000+ antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2024).
Comparing Jews to Other Groups
To provide a meaningful comparison, I’ll look at U.S. Jews (6–7.5 million, ~2.4% of the population) versus other religious or ethnic groups in terms of socioeconomic status, discrimination experiences, and community cohesion, using data from Pew Research, the Anti-Defamation League, and other sources.
1. Socioeconomic Status
American Jews: Jews are generally well-educated and affluent compared to the broader U.S. population. According to Pew’s 2020 Jewish Americans study:
58% of Jewish adults have a college degree or higher (vs. 33% of all U.S. adults).28% have household incomes of $150,000+ (vs. 10% nationally).
Jews are overrepresented in high-status fields like finance, medicine, academia, and media.
Senor notes their prominence but argues it hasn’t translated into communal strength, citing underinvestment in Jewish causes.
Comparison Groups:
Asian Americans: Similar to Jews, Asian Americans (6% of the population) have high educational attainment (54% with a bachelor’s degree or higher) and median household incomes ($94,903 vs. $81,060 for Jews, adjusted for 2020). They also face stereotypes of success but experience discrimination, with 45% reporting bias incidents in 2020–21 (Stop AAPI Hate).
Black Americans: Black Americans (13% of the population) face systemic disparities, with only 26% holding a college degree and a median household income of $48,297. They report higher rates of discrimination (64% say they’ve experienced it regularly) than Jews (14% report offensive name-calling or snubbing).
Hispanics: Hispanics (18% of the population) have lower educational attainment (18% with a bachelor’s degree) and a median household income of $56,113. About 50% report discrimination based on ethnicity, higher than Jews but lower than Black Americans.
Takeaway: Jews outperform most groups socioeconomically, rivaling Asian Americans, but Senor argues this prominence masks vulnerabilities in community cohesion and identity, unlike groups with stronger cultural or religious ties (e.g., Orthodox Jews or certain immigrant communities).
2. Experiences of Discrimination
American Jews: Antisemitism is a growing concern, with the ADL reporting over 9,000 incidents in 2024, the highest on record, including assault, harassment, and vandalism. The AJC’s 2023 State of Antisemitism report found:
63% of Jews feel less secure than a year ago (up from 41% in 2022).46% altered behavior (e.g., hiding Jewish symbols) due to fear, compared to 38% in 2022.
24% of Jewish college students felt unsafe at campus events.
Senor references campus protests (e.g., Columbia University, where signs targeted Jewish students as “Hamas’s next target”) as evidence of a hostile environment.
Comparison Groups:
Muslims: Muslims (1% of the population) face significant Islamophobia, with 48% reporting discrimination in a 2017 Pew survey. Post-9/11 surveillance and recent Gaza-related tensions have heightened insecurity, though incident counts are lower (~2,000 annually, CAIR).
Black Americans: 64% report regular discrimination, and hate crimes against Black individuals (~3,500 annually, FBI 2023) are high, though not as sharply rising as antisemitic incidents.
LGBTQ+ Americans: About 59% of LGBTQ+ individuals report harassment or discrimination (Gallup 2023), with hate crimes (~2,500 annually) comparable to antisemitic ones but less tied to global events like the Gaza war.
Takeaway: Jews face a unique spike in discrimination tied to global events (e.g., October 7, Gaza war), with antisemitic incidents outpacing those against other groups in raw numbers. However, Black Americans and Muslims report higher baseline discrimination rates in daily life. Senor’s concern about Jews as “sitting ducks” in the U.S. reflects this acute, event-driven insecurity.
3. Community Cohesion and Identity
American Jews: Senor argues that American Jews lack the “clarity, purpose, and deep sense of identity” he sees in Israelis, citing low engagement with Jewish institutions (e.g., only 27% of Jews under 18 live in Orthodox households, which are more cohesive). Assimilation and intermarriage (58% of Jews marry non-Jews) dilute communal ties, though millennials show some “new middle” engagement with Jewish identity.
Comparison Groups:
Evangelical Christians: Evangelicals (20% of the population) have strong communal ties, with 70% attending church regularly and 80% identifying religion as “very important” (Pew 2020). Their cohesion contrasts with non-Orthodox Jews’ lower synagogue attendance (24%).
Haredi Jews: Within Jewry, Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews (~9% of U.S. Jews) have high birth rates, low intermarriage, and strong community structures, resembling Evangelicals more than Reform or secular Jews.
Asian Americans: Cultural identity varies by subgroup (e.g., Indian vs. Chinese), but community organizations (e.g., temples, cultural centers) foster cohesion for some. Intermarriage rates (~30%) are lower than for Jews, but assimilation pressures exist.
Takeaway: American Jews, outside Orthodox circles, have weaker communal cohesion than groups like Evangelicals or Haredi Jews, aligning more with secular or assimilated minorities like Asian Americans. Senor’s call for emulating Israeli identity reflects this gap.
4. Global Context
Globally, Jews (~15.8 million, 0.2% of the world population) are a small minority concentrated in Israel (7.2 million) and the U.S. (6–7.5 million). Senor’s address doesn’t compare Jews to other global minorities, but:
Jews face antisemitism in 94 countries (Pew 2020), more than most religious groups except Christians (155 countries) and Muslims (145).Unlike larger minorities (e.g., Muslims, ~1.9 billion), Jews’ small numbers and historical persecution (e.g., Holocaust, expulsions from Arab countries) amplify their vulnerability, a theme Senor echoes in referencing The Pity of It All about German Jews’ pre-Holocaust prominence.
Groups like Roma or Yazidis face similar targeted persecution but lack the institutional support (e.g., Israel, Jewish organizations) that Jews have, which Senor sees as underutilized in the Diaspora.
Critical Notes
Senor’s Bias: His optimism about Israel and pessimism about American Jews reflect his Zionist perspective and may overstate Israeli resilience (e.g., ignoring economic strains from prolonged war) or understate American Jewish adaptability (e.g., millennial “new middle”).
Data Gaps: Direct comparisons are limited by differing metrics (e.g., antisemitism vs. racism) and the unique geopolitical role of Jews tied to Israel, which amplifies their visibility and vulnerability unlike most groups.
Contextual Nuance: Antisemitism’s recent spike is tied to specific events (October 7, Gaza war), unlike the more systemic discrimination faced by Black or Muslim Americans, making trend comparisons tricky.
Conclusion
Compared to other groups in the U.S., Jews excel socioeconomically, rivaling Asian Americans, but face a sharper rise in event-driven discrimination (antisemitism) than Muslims, Black Americans, or LGBTQ+ individuals, though baseline discrimination may be lower. Their communal cohesion lags behind Evangelicals or Haredi Jews, aligning more with assimilated minorities.
Grok says:
To analyze Dan Senor’s essay The Future of American Jewry After October 7 using the tools provided by John J. Mearsheimer’s War and International Politics, I will apply Mearsheimer’s realist framework, focusing on the competitive and potentially violent nature of politics, the anarchic structure of the international system, and the implications for state and group survival. Mearsheimer’s essay emphasizes that politics, both domestic and international, is inherently competitive, often leading to conflict, and that survival in an anarchic world drives state behavior. I will use these concepts to interpret Senor’s arguments about the challenges facing American Jewry, their historical and current vulnerabilities, and his proposed solutions for strengthening Jewish identity and resilience.
1. The Competitive Nature of Politics and Jewish Vulnerability
Mearsheimer argues that politics is a “deeply competitive and potentially violent enterprise” where disagreements over fundamental values can escalate into conflict (p. 11). In domestic politics, the state mitigates violence through its monopoly on force, but in the international system, anarchy means no higher authority exists to protect states—or groups—from threats (p. 13). Senor’s essay reflects this competitive dynamic in the context of American Jewry, portraying Jews as a group facing existential challenges within a competitive and increasingly hostile political environment.
Senor highlights the post-October 7, 2023, surge in anti-Semitism, noting that American Jews were shocked by the betrayal of institutions they had supported, such as universities and cultural organizations (Senor, para. 5). He cites Amos Elon’s The Pity of It All to illustrate how German Jews’ contributions to society were weaponized against them, a pattern he sees repeating today (para. 6-8). This aligns with Mearsheimer’s view that political competition can turn deadly when groups’ visibility or success provokes resentment (p. 11). For Mearsheimer, domestic politics requires a state to prevent violence, but for diaspora Jews, no such centralized authority exists to shield them from anti-Semitic hostility, mirroring the anarchic vulnerability of states in the international system.
Senor’s observation that Jewish prominence in society makes them “prominent but weak” (para. 5) echoes Mearsheimer’s security dilemma, where efforts to enhance security (e.g., Jewish contributions to societal institutions) can be perceived as threatening by others, prompting backlash (p. 14). The “Can You Believe!?” WhatsApp groups Senor describes reflect a heightened awareness of this competitive dynamic, as Jews react to media and institutional betrayals (para. 3). Mearsheimer’s framework suggests that this resentment is not merely ideological but rooted in the competitive nature of politics, where groups vie for influence and survival.
2. Anarchy and the Absence of a Protector
Mearsheimer emphasizes that the anarchic international system, lacking a “night watchman,” forces states to prioritize survival and compete for power (p. 13-14). Senor’s essay implicitly applies this logic to American Jewry, portraying them as a vulnerable group in a domestic and global environment without a reliable protector. He argues that Jewish philanthropy to non-Jewish institutions, such as universities, has not secured safety, as these institutions have turned against Jews (para. 5, 13). This mirrors Mearsheimer’s point that in anarchy, states cannot rely on others for protection and must prepare for conflict (p. 14).
Senor’s historical examples—German Jews, Spanish Jews, and others—illustrate a recurring pattern where Jewish communities, despite integration and contributions, faced existential threats without a sovereign protector (para. 8). In Mearsheimer’s terms, this reflects the absence of a higher authority to enforce order, leaving Jews exposed to the whims of competitive politics (p. 13). Senor’s skepticism about winning the “information war” against anti-Semitism (para. 12) further aligns with Mearsheimer’s realist pessimism: in a competitive world, moral or legal appeals (e.g., better storytelling) are unlikely to trump power dynamics (p. 10). Just as Mearsheimer notes that great powers prioritize survival over moral considerations (p. 10), Senor suggests that anti-Semitic narratives persist because they resonate in a competitive political landscape, not because of a lack of Jewish advocacy.
3. Survival Strategies: Building Jewish Resilience
Mearsheimer argues that states in an anarchic system ensure survival by maximizing power, often through military capabilities or alliances (p. 14). Senor, addressing a non-state group, proposes a different but analogous strategy: strengthening Jewish identity through immersive communal institutions to ensure cultural and social survival. He advocates for Jewish day schools, summer camps, adult education, gap years in Israel, and reoriented philanthropy as tools to build “Jewish muscle memory” and resilience (para. 17-27). These initiatives can be seen as a form of “soft power” to counter assimilation and external hostility, akin to how states build capabilities to deter threats.
Mearsheimer’s concept of the security dilemma is relevant here: Jewish efforts to strengthen identity (e.g., through day schools or pro-Israel advocacy) may be perceived as threatening by others, potentially fueling anti-Semitism (p. 14). Senor acknowledges this risk implicitly, noting that Jewish prominence has historically backfired (para. 5). However, he argues that retreating from Jewish identity is not the answer; instead, Jews must “lead Jewish lives” to sustain their community (para. 15). This aligns with Mearsheimer’s view that survival requires proactive measures, even if they provoke competition (p. 14).
Senor’s emphasis on Jewish day schools as “living, breathing Jewish communities” (para. 17) parallels Mearsheimer’s point that states need internal cohesion to compete effectively (p. 12). Schools and camps foster a shared identity, much like a state’s institutions unify its citizens. Senor’s data—day school alumni being twice as likely to feel connected to Jewish identity and four times as likely to feel connected to Israel (para. 17)—suggests these institutions build the social capital needed for group survival, akin to a state’s military or economic power. His call for increased philanthropy to fund these programs (para. 27-29) reflects Mearsheimer’s argument that resources are critical for prevailing in competitive politics (p. 12).
4. Escalation and the Risks of Identity-Based Mobilization
Mearsheimer warns that political passions, especially nationalism, can drive escalation in wars, pushing conflicts toward total war (p. 29-30). Senor’s essay, while not about war, touches on a parallel dynamic: the post-October 7 “surge of interest” in Jewish life, driven by outrage and adrenaline, risks fading without sustained effort (para. 2-4). Mearsheimer’s insight that political intensity can undermine control (p. 29) applies to Senor’s concern that the “Jewish adrenaline” may wane, leaving Jews vulnerable again (para. 4). Senor’s solution— institutionalizing Jewish identity through schools and camps—aims to channel this passion into lasting resilience, preventing a return to complacency.
However, Mearsheimer’s framework suggests a risk: heightened Jewish mobilization could escalate tensions with other groups, especially in a polarized domestic environment. Just as nationalism fuels hatred in wartime (p. 30), a stronger Jewish identity might be perceived as exclusionary or threatening, exacerbating anti-Semitism. Senor’s focus on internal community-building rather than external confrontation mitigates this risk, but Mearsheimer’s realism implies that any group’s self-strengthening efforts can provoke a competitive response (p. 14).
5. Implications for American Jewry’s Future
Mearsheimer’s essay concludes that war’s ever-present threat shapes international politics, requiring states to prioritize survival over moral or economic considerations (p. 36). Senor similarly argues that American Jewry must prioritize survival by investing in Jewish identity, given the persistent threat of anti-Semitism (para. 29). His call to “recalibrate” philanthropy toward Jewish causes (para. 28) reflects Mearsheimer’s logic that resources must align with survival needs, not diffuse goodwill (p. 12). Senor’s invocation of Israeli resilience—exemplified by figures like Hersh Goldberg-Polin and Agam Berger—parallels Mearsheimer’s view that a clear sense of purpose (a “why”) enhances a group’s ability to endure threats (p. 36).
However, Mearsheimer’s realism highlights a challenge Senor does not fully address: the limits of non-state actors in an anarchic world. While states can build armies, Jewish communities rely on cultural and social tools, which may not fully counter physical or political threats. Senor’s optimism about a “Jewish renaissance” (para. 24) contrasts with Mearsheimer’s sober view that conflict is endemic to politics (p. 36). A realist lens suggests that while Senor’s strategies may strengthen Jewish identity, they cannot eliminate the competitive dynamics driving anti-Semitism.
Conclusion
Using Mearsheimer’s realist framework, Senor’s essay can be understood as a call to address the competitive and anarchic realities facing American Jewry. The post-October 7 surge in anti-Semitism reflects the competitive nature of politics, where Jewish success provokes resentment, and the absence of a protector mirrors the anarchy of the international system. Senor’s proposed solutions—day schools, camps, gap years, and reoriented philanthropy—aim to build Jewish resilience, akin to a state’s efforts to maximize power for survival. However, Mearsheimer’s insights highlight the risks of escalation and the limits of non-state strategies in a competitive world. Senor’s vision of a Jewish renaissance is compelling, but realism suggests that sustained effort and vigilance are necessary to navigate the perennial threats to Jewish survival.