Like most people on Twitter/X, I follow some accounts of public persons , especially journalists, politicians, activists, academics and writers, if I tend to agree with them or if I can learn from them. I make a point of reading their tweets because it’s comforting to see sense and reason persist, even on a platform like X. It never happens that I agree with the entire output of any one of them. It strikes me that some are to my left and some are to my right, but the habit of viewing opinions as positioned latitudinally, left and right, is probably a simplification or a distortion.

Those to the left are outspoken in their opposition to the settlements on the West Bank and to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Those to the right have an enhanced sense of danger and are willing to restrict the movements of anyone posing a likely threat. For myself, I can see both cases.

I also see the pushback on social media against these celebrities or scholars who are committed unambiguously to the survival of Jews in the diaspora and, in most cases, to the survival of Israel. Remarkably, it comes in a one-size-fits-all formulation. All are called genocidal; all are called baby killers; all are called colonialists. Some of the individuals who receive such replies are uninterested – even notoriously so – in the State of Israel. It makes no difference. Stephen Fry was called a ‘genocidal thug’ by many after broadcasting about the rise of antisemitism, although he has in the past signed public letters critical of Israel and, as far as I’m aware, never those in solidarity.

There are variations in the accessories to the standard abuse. Fry’s homosexuality was invoked as a signifier of decadence. In the case of David Baddiel, it is always the Jason Lee impersonations. To Simon Schama, who is perhaps less familiar to authors of abusive tweets than Fry or Baddiel, they tend to post very generalized accusations of mendacity and ignorance. This was a reply I just received respecting my retweet of Simon Schama’s post:

In my own case, not in any way a distinguished or public person but nevertheless voluminously abused on Twitter, the accessory to ‘genocidal maniac’ is that I am old and, as my surname is Lazarus, a really angry adversary will tell me that I am already deceased. Perhaps each one imagines they are the first to have thought of it.

Moderate expressions of sympathy with Israel often produce the most intense ire. If the speaker is reactionary and unreasonable, their words can be used as an indictment against them and against all of us. That is how it is with Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Any level-headed Zionist on social media is likely to be the recipient of memes invoking these government ministers’ most bigoted utterances. Is this to tell us that our moderation is a mask, cunningly concealing our genocidal intentions? 

In London, the Saturday marches chant for intifada and revolution. Not for them the two state solution, yet they were quick to condemn Netanyahu when he said that the two state solution is not right now a viable aim. The cardboard placards displaying childlike writing and running paint often liken Israelis to Nazis, thereby laying the ground for the refusal of any kind of accommodation with a State of nine million citizens, while selecting offensive words and phrases calculated to arouse horror in their targets. My experiences on social media lead me to think that there is significant enjoyment for ‘anti Zionists’ in calling for the elimination of Israel from the river to the sea. They may be unsure of the geography but the radicalism fulfils the desire to dehumanize the other while basking in an uncomplicated sense of virtue. They are radicalized by the sound of their own voices, in union with others.

Sometimes in a Twitter dispute, the other person may make some small step towards consensus, if for example they condemn the Hamas atrocities of 7 October or if I, on my side, agree that the settlements in the West bank were an impediment to the late, lamented peace process. Such conversations can end with a degree of civility as everyone is grateful not to be on the receiving end of hate.

Nevertheless, incivility prevails in the majority of cases and, whether they stand to my left or my right, all overt Zionists on Twitter get to be called murderers and white supremacists, even when they are not remotely white, just as black MPs in the UK parliament are considered not black by some opponents coming from their left.

A video is posted of Howard Jacobson, wisely never a participant on Twitter. ‘I’m flabbergasted to see what’s out there now,’ says the author, referring to a resurgence in antisemitism beyond anything seen in the UK in our lifetimes and the victim blaming which followed in some quarters, after 7 October. He speaks mildly and reflectively yet with surprise, almost as if disappointed in our humane and enlightened century. And the reply comes back, in response to the video:

And this:

And these:

These were among the replies to Times Radio’s clip from a video of an interview with Howard Jacobson.

It shocks me that the hakhamim and hakhamot (wise men and women) of our age are spoken to thus. Did Jacobson even mention Israel? You might say he did, by referring to 7 October but, in point of fact, it makes no difference. The trolls are levellers who think they can bring down the wise with the less wise.

There is a reason why many of us dread Holocaust Memorial Day. If you post a picture of your lighted memorial candle on social media, someone will tell you that you are a baby killer and send you photos purporting to be from Gaza of the dead and injured, or they will tweet to you the meme of Shulamit Aloni saying ‘It [antisemitism] is a trick; we always use it.’ I imagine an endless line of Shulamit Alonis, like the descendants of Banquo, stretching out to the crack of doom.