A week after Jonathan Glazer’s now infamous Oscar speech, a letter appeared in the Hollywood trade publication Variety that refuted his statement. That letter was signed by approximately 450 Hollywood professionals at the time of its initial publication. The number of signers would climb to more than 1,330 in the following days. I was among the 1,330 who signed the letter.

It was bad enough that Glazer drew, in the words of the letter, “a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a race of people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination.” But he also blamed the war on Israel’s occupation — “an occupation which has led to conflict,” as he put it.

An occupation of what, I wondered.

Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2005, so that can’t be the cause of the current conflict. Many, even many Jews and Israelis, find Israel’s settlements on the West Bank problematic, but I’ve yet to see anyone make the case that this West Bank “occupation” was what led Hamas to attack on October 7.

That only leaves “occupation” in the sense that Israel’s enemies use the term — to describe the very existence of the state of Israel. That is precisely the meaning of “From the River to the Sea,” a geographic area that encompasses all of Israel.

So if Glazer is suggesting that Israel’s very existence is the cause of the conflict, what, I wondered, would he suggest as the solution?

Of course, an anti-Israel polemic like Glazer’s speech is hardly unusual or surprising — not before October 7, and even less so since. What upset me more than the speech itself was the applause it received from the audience that night, and the absence of any dissenting voices during the Oscar broadcast.

I can’t speak for everyone who signed the letter, but I thought it was important, essential even, that Glazer’s claims not go unchallenged in the general culture.

My father spent his working life as a professor of cultural anthropology. As such, he had a very specific lens through which he viewed various laws and policies in terms of how they impacted the culture beyond the more narrow realms to which they applied.

For example, he spoke about capital punishment not just in terms of its function in the criminal justice system, but also in terms of the message it sent throughout the larger culture regarding the value (or lack of value) our society places upon human life. And before the liberals who are reading this begin nodding too vigorously in agreement, he made the same point about abortion. Not that he opposed either abortion or capital punishment. But he saw the costs in terms of messages sent through culture and the impact those messages have upon the society at large.

And so, when Glazer stood upon one of the most prominent stages of our culture and sent his message, seeming to suggest that Israel caused the war by its very existence and is comparable to Nazi Germany, it had — and has — an impact.

I am not going to argue that Glazer’s speech directly led to the student encampments at Columbia and NYU and many other colleges. Nor will I argue that his speech resulted in the intensification of the rhetoric of those protestors, who have continued to praise Hamas, support the October 7 massacre, and oppose any Jewish state in the Middle East. I think it’s unlikely, given the demographics of the Oscars’ audience, that many of the student protestors saw the Oscars. But messages permeate culture like a cup of dye diffusing throughout a gallon of water.

The message Glazer sent has been doing just that.

Glazer’s not the only one, of course.  In Hollywood, he’s in the company of Susan Sarandon, Cynthia Nixon, and Mark Ruffalo, among many others. Hundreds of Jewish professionals signed a competing letter endorsing Glazer’s views.

When President Biden erroneously states that Israel has been “indiscriminately bombing civilians,” when our UN delegation refuses to veto a resolution calling for a ceasefire without conditioning it on the release of the hostages, when various US officials call on Israel to “be more careful” not to kill civilians (as though they are not already being more careful than any other military force in history, including ours), it all sends a clear message — that Israel is the villain in the current conflict.

I’ve heard from some pro-Israel Democrats who excuse this rhetoric: so what if Biden has to criticize Israel to appease his left flank politically, they say, as long as he keeps sending arms and aid? And yes, the arms and aid are important. But so is the rhetoric. According to a recent Pew Research poll, only 36% of Americans currently favor sending military aid to Israel. Is this shockingly low number due to all the anti-Israel rhetoric? How long before the negative rhetoric drives public opinion to the point where the continuation of aid is politically untenable? The rhetoric moves the culture, and our culture is definitely moving against Israel, and against all Jews.

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he did not immediately begin sending Jews to concentration camps. It would be seven years until Auschwitz would open in 1940. A lot would happen in those seven years to lay the groundwork for Auschwitz, to prepare the culture with policies that demonized and dehumanized. In 1933, Jews were barred from the Civil Service and university positions. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws denied Jews German citizenship. In 1936, Jewish doctors were barred from practicing medicine. 1938 brought Kristallnacht, the expulsion of all Jewish pupils from German schools, and the forced transfer of all Jewish retail businesses to Aryans. And through all of this, there were mass anti-Jewish protests at German universities that might feel eerily familiar in light of recent news. This is a well known story to those who have studied the history of the period.

I don’t mean to suggest that governmental laws of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany are the equivalent of antisemitic chants and harassment on American campuses, but our culture is moving in a very disturbing direction. The rabid vitriol of the “mostly peaceful” campus protests certainly seems like an escalation — as we hear of students calling for “a final solution,” the destruction of Tel Aviv, 10,000 more October 7ths, and so on. This escalation has not come about because the death and destruction in Gaza has recently escalated. Quite the contrary, the fighting has largely paused. I would guess that the warming weather and approaching end of the school year partly explains the students’ timing. But so do the cumulative effects of the messages permeating the culture.

So are we now seven years away from our own Auschwitz? I’m not nearly pessimistic enough to believe that’s where we are headed. But groundwork is being laid and the culture is being changed. The preconditions for the Holocaust included the German national humiliation of World War I and an economic collapse the likes of which none of us have ever known. What would happen in this country if we suffered a humiliating defeat to, say, China, coupled with a Weimar-level economic catastrophe? Would it be possible for a demagogue to rise in need of scapegoats?  Would the groundwork that is being laid now in our culture, demonizing the Jews, come into play?

So what do we do? We push back against the negative messages going out in the culture. We refute Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar speech. We let President Biden know, as the Muslims in Michigan have done, that no, he cannot just count on our votes regardless of what he and his underlings say. We let our alma maters know, as Robert Kraft has done, that they no longer have our support or our money if they can’t protect their Jewish students. And we make sure that Israel thrives and remains secure, so that, just in case the worst should happen some day, we have a place to go this time.

The post The Line from Jonathan Glazer to the Columbia and National Encampments first appeared on Algemeiner.com.