Given the thinkers you listed all have the same ethnos (Hanania different but closely related), it's not surprising that in a crisis they aligned their politics with the interests of their tribe.
Your insight "Underlying reasons can become clearer when new scenarios emerge, and positions must change to fit" makes me wonder if they had the same reasons for their very different positions before the crisis.
It seems hard, though, to really demonstrate through this kind of reasoning that "politics is downstream from ethnos" as a rule. For instance, I could also provide examples of Jews who have courageously dissented from Israel's genocidal policies (both inside and outside the country). Similarly, there are many non-Jews who are staunch apologists for Israeli actions. In both cases, the examples are too abundant to simply be written off as "exceptions."
I would agree that it's not entirely arbitrary that some of the most egregious efforts at cancellation have come from (especially American) Jews. But I think this can largely be explained by the fact that the Israel lobby wields so much influence in the US and American Jews are incessantly subjected to Israeli propaganda. This seems like a much more plausible explanation than some vague recourse to "ethnos" as the ultimate determinate of politics.
Definitely not a hard and fast rule, but I don't think tribal loyalty can be chalked up to just propaganda either. It's not surprising that the majority of a group would close ranks and cast off previously held politics as needed when a threat arises. The people mentioned in your article are examples of that tendency.
The more interesting question is if group self interest manifests in politics during good times too. It's common to accept class self interests as driving politics, but might we be seeing evidence that something even deeper may be at play?
Politics is downstream from ethnos. Understanding that clears up a lot of what looks on the surface to be hypocrisy.
I wouldn't be that deterministic myself since there are too many counter-examples.
Given the thinkers you listed all have the same ethnos (Hanania different but closely related), it's not surprising that in a crisis they aligned their politics with the interests of their tribe.
Your insight "Underlying reasons can become clearer when new scenarios emerge, and positions must change to fit" makes me wonder if they had the same reasons for their very different positions before the crisis.
It seems hard, though, to really demonstrate through this kind of reasoning that "politics is downstream from ethnos" as a rule. For instance, I could also provide examples of Jews who have courageously dissented from Israel's genocidal policies (both inside and outside the country). Similarly, there are many non-Jews who are staunch apologists for Israeli actions. In both cases, the examples are too abundant to simply be written off as "exceptions."
I would agree that it's not entirely arbitrary that some of the most egregious efforts at cancellation have come from (especially American) Jews. But I think this can largely be explained by the fact that the Israel lobby wields so much influence in the US and American Jews are incessantly subjected to Israeli propaganda. This seems like a much more plausible explanation than some vague recourse to "ethnos" as the ultimate determinate of politics.
Definitely not a hard and fast rule, but I don't think tribal loyalty can be chalked up to just propaganda either. It's not surprising that the majority of a group would close ranks and cast off previously held politics as needed when a threat arises. The people mentioned in your article are examples of that tendency.
The more interesting question is if group self interest manifests in politics during good times too. It's common to accept class self interests as driving politics, but might we be seeing evidence that something even deeper may be at play?
Certainly class and community both matter, and it's the job of the perceptive analyst to parse out just how much, and why.