A New Yorker review of a new book that links Hebrew punctuation to colonialism and the history of Jewish migration to Israel has drawn sharp criticism from commentators online. The book, titled «On the Mark: From Periods to Interrobangs, How Punctuation Remade the World» and written by Florence Hazrat, is under scrutiny after the magazine's critic Louis Menand highlighted its claim that punctuation marks in Hebrew are «relics» of a «brutal colonial system.»
Menand's review describes Hazrat's book as «irreverent and delightfully intellectual,» but says its premise — that the «history of punctuation is the history of humanity» — leads to «overreach.» The review has prompted a wave of criticism, not so much for Menand's assessment as for the magazine's decision to publish the material.
In the book, Hazrat argues that adding punctuation helped turn Hebrew from a written language into a spoken one. She contends that the introduction of punctuation into the language was «paving the way for an artificial sense of unity among Jewish people from all over the globe, encouraging them to move to the land that already had people—a people made to suffer and bear the brunt of European antisemitism in the most horrendous ways for generations.»
Hazrat also writes that «this brutal oppression (aided and abetted by the United States, Germany, and a host of other countries through arms deliveries, technological support, and trade deals) has evolved into the worst crime of all crimes: genocide.»
Menand takes issue with that stance in his review, writing that «It seems (the reason is not altogether clear) that, had Yiddish been the official language of Israel, atrocities might have been avoided.» But the decision to publish the review drew condemnation from several commentators.
Daniel Sugarman, deputy editor of Jewish News UK, blasted the argument in a post on X, writing, «The author of this book is, predictably, an academic in the UK and a ‘BBC New Generation Thinker.’» He added, «Seems like the new generation has the same thoughts as older generations when it comes to pseudoscientific crap roping in Jews.»
Isaac de Castro, audience editor of Tablet Magazine, also weighed in on social media, writing that «We’re at the ‘Hebrew punctuation is a colonialist tool to oppress Palestinians, the real victims of European antisemitism, and assemble a worldwide cabal of Jews, previously completely unaffiliated’ stage of mass psychosis.» Another user said they would cancel their New Yorker subscription, adding the publication «should never have published this.»
Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, an outspoken Jewish voice, also denounced the claims, telling Fox News Digital that «blaming commas and question marks for regional conflict shows just how deeply antisemitism rots basic critical thinking.» He added, «The attempt to demonize Hebrew down to its punctuation isn’t serious linguistics. It is an obsessive crusade to deny the Jewish people our history, language, and humanity.» Aronberg continued, «There is no issue too absurd, and apparently no punctuation mark too small, for modern anti-Israel activists to twist into an indictment against the Jewish state.»
Fox News Digital reached out to Hazrat and the New Yorker for comment. The episode adds to a broader debate over how academic and cultural institutions treat language, identity, and the politics of the Middle East, and it has renewed attention on the boundaries between scholarly argument and political polemic.