The New Yorker is under fire after publishing a review of Florence Hazrat’s book On the Mark: From Periods to Interrobangs, How Punctuation Remade the World. Hazrat, a UK‑based academic, argues that Hebrew punctuation marks are “relics” of a “brutal colonial system” and that their introduction helped turn Hebrew from a written language into a spoken one, allegedly creating an artificial sense of unity among Jewish people worldwide.
Review and backlash
Louis Menand, the magazine’s staff writer, described Hazrat’s work as “irreverent and delightfully intellectual” but warned that its premise – that “the history of punctuation is the history of humanity” – leads to “overreach.” He also suggested, somewhat facetiously, that if Yiddish had been Israel’s official language, “atrocities might have been avoided.”
The review prompted a wave of criticism on social media. Daniel Sugarman, deputy editor of Jewish News UK, called Hazrat “predictably” an academic and a “BBC New Generation Thinker,” adding that the book represents “pseudoscientific crap roping in Jews.” Isaac de Castro, audience editor of Tablet Magazine, labeled the claim that Hebrew punctuation is a colonial tool as part of a “mass psychosis” aimed at blaming Palestinians.
Jewish community response
Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, a vocal Jewish voice, denounced the argument, saying that “blaming commas and question marks for regional conflict shows just how deeply antisemitism rots basic critical thinking.” He added that the attempt to demonize Hebrew punctuation is “not serious linguistics” but an “obsessive crusade to deny the Jewish people our history, language, and humanity.”
One X user announced they would cancel their New Yorker subscription, stating the magazine “should never have published this.”
Context and implications
Hazrat’s claim ties the introduction of punctuation to a broader narrative about European antisemitism and the migration of Jewish people to Israel. She writes that the punctuation “paving the way for an artificial sense of unity” encourages Jews to move to a land already inhabited, a premise many scholars and community leaders find historically inaccurate and inflammatory.
While the New Yorker’s decision to feature the review reflects its tradition of publishing provocative cultural commentary, the backlash underscores the sensitivity surrounding discussions of Jewish history, language, and the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict. Critics argue that framing a linguistic feature as a tool of oppression distracts from genuine historical analysis and fuels divisive rhetoric.
Fox News Digital reached out to Hazrat and the New Yorker for comment; no response was received at the time of publication.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
