If anti-Semitism within the Labour Party did one good thing, it was to illuminate, across mainstream politics and media, that the left could be a hostile place for Jews. Positioned as an active and natural opposition to fascism—the presupposed arbiter of anti-Semitism, the left has been incredulous to accusations of anti-Semitism within its ranks: ‘we oppose all racisms how can we be anti-Semitic?’ This mantra can lead to the casual dismissal and delegitimisation of Jewish claims, despite the dictates of left-wing identity politics, which enable all other minorities to define their own oppression. A movement championing the oppressed cannot simultaneously facilitate or perpetuate abuse based on race and religion. Logically, the reverse ought to follow: a movement that promotes racism, seemingly shouldn’t champion national liberation of a persecuted minority. Yet, the alt-right seems to do this. Trump’s movement, abreast a wave of American white nationalism, is being presented and endorsed as the flag-bearer of the Jewish state.

From coded Jew-bating jibes like underscoring Jon Stewart’s Jewish heritage, to having a campaign endorsed by a Holocaust-denying former KKK Wizard, Donald J. Trump clearly has a Jewish problem. Trump’s supporters spring to his defence on the David Duke point, claiming Trump can’t be held accountable for the objectionable views of his advocates. They miss the crucial problem here, which is Trump’s failure to adequately disavow this support, as many of his Republican predecessors have done in parallel situations. Even if this failure is in the name of political expediency, and not due to Trump sympathising with Duke, it still reveals Trump’s disturbing tolerance for anti-Semitism. If Trump’s comments about “small men wearing Yarmulkes counting his money” weren’t enough to prove his hostile and stereotype-ridden stance towards Jews —unless they’re his supporters or family of course — his appointment of Stephen Bannon to the position of Senior counsellor is. Executive Chairman of Breitbart News — a virtual playground for white nationalists and “unabashed anti-Semites”, (ADL), Bannon has been directly accused of anti-Semitism by no less than his ex-wife, who alleges that he refused to send their daughters to private school in order to avoid Jewish children. Over the next four years, people that at best tolerate anti-Semitism, and at worst, promulgate it, will run the White House.

Despite Trump’s string of anti-Semitic quips, associations, and appointments, Benjamin Netanyahu, is his number one fan: “President-elect Trump, my friend!” relished the political leader of the Jewish national homeland in his congratulatory video last week. This video surpassed standard diplomatic congratulations in its effusiveness, by all accounts. It exists in stark contrast to that of politically principled, but protocol-obeying, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Netanyahu’s legitimising hat-tip is not only irresponsible in how it panders to the Israeli right—Naftali Bennett’s subsequent guillotine to the “era of the Palestinian state” is a harrowing indication—but it is irresponsible for how it aids Trump’s obfuscation of anti-Semitism with blue and white. But many people—many Jews—don’t see this. Instead, they buy what Donald, Bannon, and Bibi are feeding them. This became clear in the aftermath of the election as Netanyahu’s congratulatory video, and clips of Trump rattling off pro-Israel soundbites, crowded my Facebook feed as Jewish contemporaries—many natural Democratic voters, posted captions like “despite everything at least he’s good for Israel!” There is no denying the efficacy of Trump’s ruse.

However, to anyone that observed Trump’s campaign-long shift from ambivalence on Israel to hard-line Zionism, it is clear Trump’s pro-Israel stance is political—it is not pro-Jewish: it consolidates Evangelical support within the Republican base (Christian Zionism relies on Jewish presence in Israel for the Second Coming to occur), it satisfies strategic geo-political objectives, allowing the US an even firmer foothold in the Middle East. It reinforces the idea that Republicans hate the Iran deal for magnanimous reasons (ie for the sake of Israel’s safety), not because it reveals the limitation of American power. Finally, it is consistent with Trump’s Islamophobic, anti-immigration narrative, juxtaposing America with Islamist violence, this time manifested and presented in the form of the Palestinians. Trump’s fervent support for Netanyahu’s Israel grew with the likelihood of his becoming the Republican nominee; now that he is President-Elect, it is resolute. Netanyahu could not be happier.

Donald Trump has co-opted the Jewish national liberation movement with a nod of approval from its political leader. He has done this in pursuit of aims that have little or nothing to do with Jews, and in doing so, he has distracted from the anti-Semites that voted him in, and from those that will run his government. Crucially, he has brushed his own murky track record under a Star of David-marked carpet. From Corbyn’s Labour to the American alt-right: anti-Semitism illuminates the intersection of ideological inconstancy and political self-preservation. The consequence on the left is a riling sense of injustice for those—more often that not—British students, that are told their claimed experiences of anti-Semitism are dramatized and politically motivated. The consequences on the right now go far beyond student politics; they take place on the geo-political stage, and implicate the world’s largest Jewish population outside Israel.

When Donald Trump’s former campaign strategist Corey Lewandowski appeared at The Union this week, anti-Trump protesters’ attempt to disrupt the event was an appalling display of the new left’s fatal disdain for freedom of speech.

By hosting Mr Lewandowski, the Union was complicit in the hatred of his campaign, so the argument goes. The groups organising the protest claimed that to give Mr Lewandowski “a platform” is to “legitimise” his views—as if Donald Trump were some unknown maverick extremist, rather than the president-elect of the United States. No, these views were sadly legitimised many months ago when they entered the mainstream of American politics.

For the Union to step down from its position of neutrality to take a stance on the worthiness of Donald Trump’s campaign would be perverse. Imagine if debating institutions had silenced, say, gay rights activists when they stood in the position of defying Oxford’s consensus. We must all respect freedom of speech even in instances when it benefits our opponents. People who believe in tolerance and compassion should trust that they will triumph against hatred eventually, if allowed to engage with it. A debate chamber should never be a safe space: shielding audiences from nasty views will not mean that such views are defeated. Today’s left sadly seems to have lost sight of how open debate, in which prejudice is aired and challenged, is how the argument has been won by the left in the past, and could be in the future.

The current resurgence of the far-right owes a lot to exactly this kind of shutting down of debate by the left. The campaign successes of Donald Trump in America and Vote Leave in Britain stemmed in part from a rebellion against political correctness. University student bodies, few more so than Oxford JCRs, have been at the forefront of a recent global tendency by which anyone questioning the progressive consensus has been mocked or dismissed in eerily Orwellian style as ‘problematic’, rather than engaged with and persuaded. If JCRs close themselves off to dissenting opinion it is a shame but when national politics does it is a disaster. Abandoned by the progressive consensus, the only place people not immediately convinced by the left have found their voice has been with the extreme right. Freedom of speech is a powerful weapon, of which the right has tragically been allowed to take ownership – the proponents of tolerance must reclaim their stake in it.

Any such suggestion that lessons should be learnt from the right would surely provoke upturned noses from many ‘progressives’, more concerned with cultivating their own moral superiority than winning the argument and winning power. If the left is to stand any chance of reproducing the right’s recent mass-mobilising electoral coups, it has to pay attention to what people like Lewandowski and Farage have been doing well and what their opponents have been doing so wrong. The best place on Wednesday night to face up to and learn from the tactics and psychology of such campaigns was inside the Union chamber, not on the street with a placard.