Sorrenson's Law (noun) - the theory that any debate or accusation regarding antisemitism or antisemitic behaviours will eventually be refuted, ignored or refer to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, Zionism or Holocaust denial
It was this very tweet that started my curiosity into how online antisemitism has manifested itself in recent years. I'm no stranger to it, and it has come in many different forms, some more overtly than others. Heck, this week alone, I've seen a Holocaust Denial video shared by people with anime profile pictures using a dancing peanut that received nearly 300 retweets, mostly without any opposition, spreading misinformation. That is when it is overt. Sometimes, it is far more subtle and is usually cloaked in 'social justice' rather than biting at your face. Jacob's tweet (see above) is an example of this: something trying to sound justifiable and righteous, when it's actually marred by a very overt form of open discrimination.
So, what is Sorrenson's Law and how can it be applied? The simple definition is that any instance where a Jew is attacked, whether that be verbally or physically, there is no doubt that eventually, somebody or a group of people, will link this experience to the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and Hamas, liken the incident to the plight of Palestinians (usually using pictures of children to guilt trip) or even justify it because of the very existence of Israel. It's not usually something that we see in real terms, that is to say, you'd be hard done by to find examples by which people in the media have openly said this. Online, however, is a different story. Let's take an example that could be plausible: a Jewish man in Stamford Hill has his mezuzah removed from his front door, by force, and has been left a gaping hole where his family heirloom once was. The rational response of any decent human being would be to either: condemn or assist the man in finding his prized possession. When we apply Sorrenson's Law, it is likely that someone will link the experience of a British Jew to that of Israel because of the Jewish connection between the two. Jacob's did that immediately. He immediately conflated the experience of a British Jew having his mezuzah stolen and tried to justify it because people of the victim's ethnic line may have harmed others thousands of miles away. That is the application in hand.
Let's take another example, one that hasn't included any source of violence. An excellent rapper by the name of Joe Jacobs released a satirical song called 'Joe and the Jews' which, in 2021, mocked several people of different political affiliations in their attitudes towards Jews and Judaism. This included left wingers (who know what a Jew is better than a Jew), right wingers (who says Jews should stop 'whining' about the Holocaust), conspiracy cranks (watching YouTube videos all day between having a ...) and finally, the very people who we can apply Sorrenson's Law to. This wasn't of course an actual example of a real person, but rather a caricature by the brilliant Marlon Solomon, who asks Joe as part of the flow: 'but what about Palestine? [...] What is your position on Palestine?' This is the crux of the theory of Sorrenson's Law and its application. Ironically, the very people the video was mocking, incurred responses like this:
This person even replied to me as well:
The video also brought up the very talking points that the video brought up, that why should British Jews be held responsible or have to take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many of them gaining a traction of 'likes' without opposition:
There were many more that just denounced the song all together, and I think we know why. They're more likely to be the aforementioned left wingers, right wingers or conspiracy cranks mentioned before, but we can't necessarily apply Sorrenson's Law to that. Now, to clarify, I do not believe that you would be antisemitic by saying 'Free Palestine'. However, if you shout this at Jews not living in Israel, demand that Jews not living in Israel say it, or intimidate Jews not living in Israel by saying this, then you are. Local idiots like an account that we will refer to as Flour Lad, for the sake of context (who blocked me because he's an intellectually weak coward), used the trope that he believed that stating this could make anybody an antisemite by any reasonable definition. In actual fact, it doesn't necessarily. The phrase doesn't mean much unless you then demand that Jews living in countries where they don't have the institutional power to change much (despite what the far-right may tell you) say it along with you. That was the point I was trying to make when I linked him to my article about Ash Sarkar's fetishisation of anti-Jewish racism (which she nicely believed was 'boring' to still discuss this week). In this blogpost, you can see the many instances where Sorrenson's Law can be accurately applied: from the graffitiing and desecration of synagogues daubed with the message 'Free Palestine' to two 'artists' spraying the same message on a wall within the Warsaw Ghetto.
https://kristoffsorrenson.blogspot.com/2022/11/defending-indefensible-look-into-ash.html
Naturally, Flour Kid and his band of merry men did not want to engage in my article as I was coming from an area of 'bad faith', rather than trying to engage with the idea that the very principle of the argument is that whilst the message is not inherently antisemitic, it is used consistently by antisemites under a guise of supposed social justice. But it's not just British Jews who are subjected to this: there are plenty of other examples too.
For the last year or so, we have been seeing Palestinian flag wavers continuing to hijack the Ukrainian war for their own benefit. Fab here has made the distinction that Ukrainian Jews fleeing a war are only getting a 'taste of their own medicine'. Look at that response too! I'm sure that had those Ukrainians been of another ethnic heritage, they would have no reason to comment such a thing.
Just like with the two 'artists' who decided to use the Holocaust as a way to punish Jewish victims of the Warsaw Ghetto to further their political opinion and draw parallels between the Holocaust and Israel, here's John on Holocaust Memorial Day commenting under a video with the wonderful Rachel Riley, interviewing Holocaust survivor Hannah Lewis. No words of consolidation or remorse for Mrs Lewis, but rather a flat out demand of a British Jew about her opinion on the Israeli government. And, of course, he's a fan of grifter John (I mean, Rachael) Swindon:
And it's not just the far-left, who would use social justice as a means to push the guilt of Israel's existence onto Jews living in the West. Kanye fans are back on it again too, this time against David Baddiel:
'You've managed to get a country where you never had one and get weapons sent from the US' sent to David Baddiel, because he's a Jew...therefore Israeli, in the mind of this deranged person.
Probably one of the most despicable examples of this was after an incident on Finchley Road that went viral online after a convoy of cars daubed in Palestinian flags went around the well-known Jewish neighbourhood shouting 'fuck the Jews, rape their daughters, rape their women' through megaphones. This was recorded and well documented by the media and by ordinary folk online, trying to find and expose the people who were responsible for making death and rape threats against an entire community. Once again, despite being an issue of Israel and Hamas (though it is still not justifiable to even swap out the word 'Jew' for 'Israeli'), the conflation of British Jews to the ongoing conflict is an act of antisemitism, as described in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Sir Keir Starmer, the current Leader of the Labour Party, who is almost universally hate by the far-left in his own party, issued a statement of good intent to show solidarity with the British Jewish community over this case. The responses by the far-left of the party are highlighted below, showing once again how we can apply Sorrenson's Law to a deeper, more meaningful conversation about how 'social justice' is being used as a cover for anti-Jewish racism, and how subversive it could look at first glance:
It's become almost a meme within the anti-Israel (and I mean anti-Israel rather than pro-Palestine) camp, to say 'what about Palestine?' when it comes to the mistreatment of Jews in the West. It's either a case of they don't care about antisemitism in the West, or they believe that it is justifiable because of the actions, or even pure existence, of Israel. Almost a case of 'well, it's terrible, but what about...?' and before you know it, you already have a good understanding as to how social justice truly works. Social justice is the antithesis to what used to be the common accepted idea of individual liberty, which thought of the individual as more important than the group. That is to say, the actions of one do not reflect the attitudes of the whole. In the case of social justice, the whole group must think and act in the same way, and thus all members of said group should be equally revered. The people who screamed out 'fuck the Jews, rape their daughters', etc. never once mentioned Israel. They had Palestinian flags, and yet never mentioned Israel in their rants. Now, that is not to say that all in the anti-Israel group are necessarily in agreement with what the four men shouted out, but it is telling that they have made it into a conversation about Israel, rather than that of British Jewry.
One only has to trawl through the internet to find where Sorrenson's Law is best applied. In most cases, it can be applied when an individual mentions Israel without any provocation, only because they've been drawn to words like 'antisemitism', 'antisemites' or 'Jews', and do so to provoke and offend. That said, all it does really is make them look like idiots who cannot uphold an argument. It is highly hypocritical to assert that anything that is deemed 'anti-Zionist' is therefore 'antisemitic', as these particular band of people would imply, but to then believe the opposite way round in every sense of antisemitism is purely just criticism of Israel. Classically, the original posts of these conversations never mention Israel or Zionism at all, and yet people can turn it into a conversation about Israel and Palestine without any trigger:
 |
| That's how you show solidarity, Steven! |
 |
| Summer clearly knows more about Jewish schools than we do. |
 |
| In the article, Beckett was never accused of antisemitism. Mr Jelly here decided that because a Jewish person criticised him, it must be because Beckett is perceived this way, and made it an anti-Israel thing. |
 |
| The one where Jeremy says it's okay to be antisemitic, because Israel... |
 |
| Pro-Putinist denies rise of antisemitism, despite evidence and simply calls it 'anti-Israel' instead |
The last post is very pertinent to another discussion, as ElevatorRide1's comment followed a terrorist attack on a synagogue in Vienna, something that almost seems unbelievable and could be out of a far-right playbook. As I discussed in 'Horseshoe Theory', the far-left and far-right have used a modus operandi of using antisemitism disguised as social justice. For the political left, this is because of their anti-Israel stance, mostly because they believe that Jews from the West do not have a place in a region dominated by authoritarian Islam and Arab identity, whereas the far-right believe that because Jews operate to destroy Western civilisation with so-called 'open boarders' and 'cultural Marxism', the principles of Zionism should also be destroyed and Jews in the region should suffer being outbred by a higher rate of Arab births. The two are indistinguishable from each other in their approaches to Israel, Palestine and Zionism as a whole, so it is no surprise in both of their reactions to examples of antisemitism where Israel is neither mentioned, nor is it necessary to bring into such a discussion. This week, I had the unfortunate experience of encountering a far-right account that also seemed to have general sympathies towards one Jeremy Bernard Corbyn, because of his stances on Israel and Jews. This same account bashes general aspects of Labour under the former MP for Islington North, but did agree largely with his anti-Israel stances. In this encounter, this person used the logic that because Israel exists, Jews are worthy of being attacked, much more openly and overt than the submissive versions of social justice that we have experienced above:
Not once was Israel mentioned in a discussion about how our good friend Ash Sarkar found talking about antisemitism 'boring', so because it is the last vestige of the unapologetic racist, it is only correct, in this person's opinion, that they must bring up Israel. This is also coming from a far-right account, not a left wing one. This isn't the only far-right example either to also do this, of course. One could find some of these comments in a Jeremy Corbyn fan page and it wouldn't look distinguishable from their original far-right commentors:
These all come from far-right, neo-Nazi and white supremacist accounts, by the way. I look forward to seeing anybody on the far-left trying to justify this, despite the fact that it is also in line with their own political stance regarding Israel. And it's not just the far-right either; it becomes endemic when you really look into the heart of anti-Israel politics that purposely conflates Israel with international Jewry, when only scratching the surface. Every post below identifies as being 'anti-Zionist', 'pro-Palestinian' or 'anti-Israel', for context:
All these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. If you do want to see more, I suggest following Aussie Dave or IsreallyCool for further examples. All of these can have Sorrenson's Law applied to them, as they all divulge into something much more ugly and exposes the very underlying nature and prejudices that are held by individuals. The major refection of Sorrenson's Law is those who perpetuate in the nature of antisemitic behaviour is that they will always say that they are simply 'anti-Zionist' and not 'antisemitic'; any use of such accusation will automatically be a 'smear' in their opinion. However, when applying the law, even when sometimes the accusation of being antisemitic does not arise, they will become defensive and vicious as a result. Documenting these examples as evidence is important to a wider discussion about how antisemitism can be used as an excuse for so called virtual signalling politics, as the above perpetuate at times.
Long and short, there is no excuse for antisemitism being disguised as something more sinister. Like any form of racism, we should take into account the individuals affected, rather than the group as a whole. If one goes out of their way to attack someone based on skin colour, the accusation or excuse of using the victim's ethnic heritage or shared background should never be used as an excuse as to why someone is attacked. When Stephen Lawrence was murdered in 1993, for example, by a gang of racist attackers, nobody accused it of simply being motivated because the murderers had discrepancies with Afro-Caribbean politics; they murdered him because he was black and they were white racists. When a group of Asian women were gunned down by Robert Aaron Long in 2021, there was no justification for killing the victims because of Chinese foreign policy from the political left. So, why is it that discussions about Jewish people being the victims of racially motivated crimes always comes back to a discussion about Israel? It's for the same reason I said in many of my articles: it's because they want it to be justified. If you do ever seen an instance where discussions about antisemitism divulges into an anti-Israel tirade, instead of using the message: 'Nobody brought up Israel until you did', use #SorrensonsLaw instead. It will confuse them, and then they can always come to me to be absolutely schooled on the subject.
Or better yet, you can always use my favourite Bob's Burgers meme:
