On the edge of the punditry, some observers noticed the hypocrisy of some of the largest advocates for open borders and the soft spot they have for a certain ethnostate with strict immigration controls. The cracks were present even then, but only after Trump’s arrival did they erupt. New York Times has steadily noticed it. The fracture in question is the coming American Jewish diaspora-Israel break up.

It has been on the New York Times’ staff’s minds heavily recently. One of the most demonic and ghoulish of anti-European and pro-immigration advocates, David Rothkopf turned against Israel years ago but now encourages all his fellow Jews to do so. Churchill noted the original duel, but the battle between Zionism and Bolshevism still rages within that community.

The balancing act is securing enough control within the elite nations of the world to never fear another Shoah/pogrom while securing a unique home base homeland denied to all other elite nations. A duel track of programs if you will to secure the legacy of the tribe. A more cynical view is that Israel takes the view that no Jew can receive a fair trial elsewhere so Israel acts as a convenient bug out spot if crimes are committed.

The hypocrisy is getting more difficult to maintain due to the activities of the diaspora elements that have stoked identity politics in the West. This is not just identity politics but the subversion of the European and Anglosphere nation-states. Declaring no European nation as indigenous and transplanting the nation of immigrants rhetoric to Europe, the old anti-American memes spread. Describing Anglosphere nations as settler nations and the natives as colonizers, these academics undermined the natives of the nations that did form and create the very nations hosting them.

This language was eventually going to be used for the most recent exercise in colonization, Israel. David Lamb’s book The Arabs quotes individuals freely stating this and that it is like transplanting a European city state into the Middle East. The other trick was that with South Africa gone and progressives reigning supreme and desperate for new challenges that the next target would be Israel. Like South Africa, the tool to attack Israel would be the BDS movement.

The BDS movement links Palestine’s struggle with any Third World liberation movement. South Africa could have held out, but internally turned on itself. Israel is in a more delicate economic situation as it does not sit on top of the natural resources that South Africa did. This is why Israel has worked incredibly hard to have states across America institute anti-BDS legislation and oaths. These oaths go completely against our basic freedom of speech protections. For some reason, Israel gets an exception.

That is where the problems arise about principled exceptions and why Israel needs a new out. Everyone needs a new out and that is where Yoram Hazony enters the picture. Yoram Hazony attempts to thread the needle. Hazony’s book is titled the Virtue of Nationalism, when nationalism is being tied to every political boogeyman of the existing order. Hazony is attempting to create the philosophical toolbox for people to discuss nationalism that allows for sovereignty and a constellation of nation states within the world order.

It is critical that it is coming from Hazony, a Jew, which prevents the immediate smears of white supremacist. In the West, the right wing has enough of a Catholic strain that nationalism with a Catholic edge will come with Catholic baggage, which is especially critical in the Protestant Anglosphere and Germanic nations. It should not be surprising that The nations in Europe with rising nationalist parties are also Catholic (Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland). Hazony seems savvy enough to be a television figurehead. He has created some interesting moments on Twitter as he pointed out Julia Ioffe’s lamentations about “Merry Christmas” with the subtext of “Move to Israel or just get along with the gentiles in their home, Yulia“.

His advocacy for nationalism in this moment of flux is not without self-interest. Anti-BDS laws and oaths would have difficulty surviving the courts. Either way, they rub Americans the wrong way with regard to fairness. Why should any right wing American support these measures as his nation is flooded with third worlders? Why should any left wing American support the apartheid, colonizer nation Israel? If the anti-BDS movement gains steam, as it should if academic trends remain unchanged, Israel needs a new rationale for protection.

This is where the crack up within the tribe is due to erupt. Increasingly progressive American Jews will rush to be the forefront of any left wing movement, and committing themselves against their homeland would be even greater holiness points than showing up at a BLM protest. Israelis will understand an American empire in decline will not be able to shield them as much, and their status as a nation will need legitimacy from other states with the same mindset. As Hazony’s message spreads, then the policies employed by Israel for the good of Israel must be allowed for their fellow nationalist allies.