WhatsappNew York’s mayor isn’t going to arrest Israel’s prime minister. But the widespread belief in the “genocide” blood libel illustrates how toxic ideologies, AI, and social media are defeating facts.
It didn’t take a statement from President Donald Trump to ensure that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani isn’t going to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he arrives in Manhattan for the annual U.N. General Assembly meetings in September.
Like all world leaders, Netanyahu is protected by the terms of the treaty by which the United States secured the placement of the world body in New York City in the years after the Second World War. Moreover, the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, whose corrupt former chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, indicted the Israeli leader on false charges of having “intentionally and knowingly deprived” Gaza’s population of food, water, fuel and medicine in 2024. Khan resigned under fire because of a different issue entirely: accusations of sexual misconduct.
An empty threat
The Trump administration has rightly sought to dismantle the court, whose activities are a travesty of justice and motivated solely by political prejudice against the West, and especially Israel. The ICC’s influence may have made it impossible for Netanyahu to travel to most places in the world. However, it has no jurisdiction in the United States, and federal authorities would prevent Mamdani from interfering with the prime minister’s ability to visit New York or anywhere else in the country.
Mamdani is smart enough to know this. Why then, did he tell The New York Times that he had asked city lawyers to see if he had the authority to honor his campaign pledge to arrest the prime minister, whom he has smeared as a “war criminal”?
The answer isn’t any mystery. To those who support the Democratic Socialist mayor, Israel is the epitome of international evil. They truly believe that the actions the Jewish state took to defend itself against the Palestinian Arab terrorists who launched a war on Oct. 7, 2023, with the largest mass slaughter since the Holocaust were not merely wrong or excessive. They believe that Israel committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And no amount of reporting, historical knowledge or the actual meaning of the word will convince them otherwise.
The ‘genocide’ myth
Wars are raging around the globe that have caused far greater civilian casualties than the one fought against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip, who were responsible for the orgy of murder, rape, burnings, torture, kidnapping and wanton destruction that happened on Oct. 7.
But that doesn’t matter. Nor do the reasoned arguments of military experts who have repeatedly stated that Israel’s war against Hamas was conducted in a manner that was more moral and produced fewer casualties than against any foe in an urban environment—let alone one that deliberately, as Hamas did, hid behind non-combatants and sought to endanger as many of their compatriots as possible. Moreover, even the United Nations and The New York Times have finally admitted that it was Hamas that was blocking the distribution of food and other supplies to civilians in Gaza even though both spent most of the war denying it.
If you believe the existence of one Jewish state on the planet is not only illegitimate but that the key to solving all of the world’s problems is bound up in its destruction, then you are ready to believe any charge against it, no matter how false or outrageous. The toxic ideologies that enable such bizarre notions are also responsible for the surge in worldwide antisemitism, not least in New York City, where Mamdani has been forced to acknowledge that Jews are being targeted for hate crimes on his watch out of all proportion to their percentage of the population. And that is a far greater problem than a mayor who thinks that pleasing his base obligates him to make empty threats about arresting Israel’s head of government.
The embrace of critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism by the American education system and so much of popular culture has materially altered public discourse not merely about race, but about antisemitism and Israel. The belief that Israel and Jews are “white” oppressors, and that Palestinians are oppressed “people of color” who are their perennial victims, is contrary to the facts about both peoples. Jews are the most oppressed people of the last two millennia, and the majority of Israelis are people of color by the definitions of the American left since they trace their origins to North Africa and the Middle East.
The perpetuation of the conflict is the function of the fact that any outcome other than Israel’s destruction and the genocide of the Jews living there is an injustice the Palestinians cannot abide.
Once you buy into those myths, it’s easy to believe the blood libels about Jews committing genocide, whose downfall could liberate all of humankind. And if you swallow that, it’s easy to understand why a Democratic Party under the sway of Mamdani’s fellow left-wingers has accepted the hostility to Israel that has, alongside opposition to enforcing immigration laws, become the organizing principle of American politics.
Social-media algorithms versus facts
The real problem behind Mamdani’s latest publicity stunt isn’t merely a function of unjustified anger at Israelis and Jews. As an essay by historian Niall Ferguson and AI researcher John-Clark Levin in The Free Press argues, the same factors are responsible for the growth of Holocaust denial and what they call “The Death of History.”
Ferguson and Levin believe what we are witnessing in our public discourse, both on the left and the far-right, is a “comeback” of the same sort of genocidal hatred for Jews that led to the Shoah in the mid-20th century. Ferguson has spent a lifetime writing histories and producing documentaries warning that accepting these vile ideas leads to tragedy. But he has come to believe that his work—and that of other historians—is increasingly looking like it was all in vain because it is being overridden by social-media algorithms designed to spread hate. While in the past, thought leaders like conservative writer William F. Buckley were able to banish believers in these ideas from the political mainstream, now such efforts are failing.
Instead of denying the Holocaust, political commentators and podcasters on the far-right like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes “mock and celebrate it.” That amuses right-wing youth, who get their knowledge of the world from social-media feeds. Those on the left then “cleverly blend it with anti-Zionism and anti-capitalism.”
Ferguson and Levin point out that “as it is young voters who are most susceptible to these trends, the implications for the future of American politics are chilling.” It explains a lot about Mamdani’s appeal. It also shows how he can flip the narrative about the conflict between Israel and its genocidal foes. That is what is behind the accusations against Netanyahu and the widespread belief that it is Israel that is committing “genocide.”
AI images that feed rage
The lies that Mamdani—and those who echo his smears in outlets like the Times—tell about Israel are easily refuted by those who array the facts about the conflict against them in the same manner serious historians can answer Holocaust deniers. Still, the problem is that this only works against arguments that at least pretend to be reasoned.
But the algorithms that spread the new big antisemitic lies aren’t pretending to be rational. They are a function of manipulated images and rage about alleged crimes that are difficult to refute online. As Ferguson and Levin note, “The algorithms reflect our own vices back to us—and magnify them. As long as we indulge our wrathful impulses, we’ll see more rage bait that stokes them. As long as we give in to our short attention spans, our news feeds will carpet-bomb our brains with dopamine. As long as we guzzle flattering lies, the truth will be muscled off our screens by propaganda.”
That’s a sobering thought that puts the failures of pro-Israel voices to effectively counter the “genocide” blood libels in perspective.
With respect to Holocaust denial, historians now feel as if they are helpless to combat the fallout of so many lies.
“In the face of an avalanche of AI-powered anti-history, the real historians are powerless. We thought we could prevail in a fair fight about what really happened in the past. We naively believed that, if we went to the right archives, and read the right documents, and summarized them with the right footnotes, and published our scholarly books and peer-reviewed articles, then the Holocaust deniers would be driven from the field. What fools we were,” Ferguson and Levin conclude.
Can virtue defeat hate?
The same problem applies to the debate about Israel. Similar rage-based distortions about the actions of the Jewish state and those of its genocidal foes—combined with a biased media whose journalists have been indoctrinated in leftist ideologies about “white” oppressors—have materially altered public opinion. If a plurality of Americans now tell pollsters that they believe Israel has committed “genocide,” it’s not because of anything Netanyahu has said or done. It’s because we live in a time when fast-paced technology has the power to persuade people to accept patently false assertions with much greater ease than the manner in which the Nazis employed print, film and radio nearly a century ago.
Answering this isn’t going to be enabled with attempts to ban hate speech. It will, among other things, require the clever use of social media and technology. But as Ferguson and Levin assert, there is more to it than that. “We must recover a shared sense of moral responsibility not to contribute to the conditions that let a Fuentes thrive,” they say. “It’s a lesson that dates back to Cleon in ancient Athens. Ultimately, as Plato and Aristotle discovered, the only bulwark against demagogues is a people virtuous enough to resist their lure.”
A leering young mayor peddling blood libels against Jews like Mamdani doesn’t seem to fear such a turnaround. Indeed, in an age where virtue seems conspicuously absent in our politics and culture, optimism about the future can be difficult to maintain.
Still, giving up isn’t an option. And the rise of current advocates for antisemitism, the hatred of Jews and Israel, like the mayor, isn’t unprecedented in history. They have been defeated before by decent people who are ready to heed fact-based journalism in the same way they have sometimes heeded the lessons of real, rather than AI-distorted, history.
What is required is not just better use of AI and social media by the forces of truth but an appeal to higher virtues by a new generation of journalists, artists and faith leaders that will undermine the appeal of social media-driven hate. It’s a tall task, but there is no alternative available but to begin that fight.
