Is it paranoid or nitpicking to perceive and object to a certain prism in media coverage of the Jewish people today? I know that sounds abstract. Please permit a few preliminary parallels to make the point:
“Fans at a Rockies game at Coors Field were said to be watching a Rockies game.”
Or:
“Frustrated drivers stuck in a traffic jam were said to be stuck in a traffic jam.”
Or:
“People eating dinner at the East Side Kosher Deli were said to be eating dinner.” Of course they were at a Rockies game, or in a jam, or having dinner. They weren’t “said to be” doing these things. Yet, in a news story by four journalists on Page 1 of The New York Times, June 6, we read about the June 1 firebombing of Jews in Boulder. We read of an attack “on a group said to be honoring hostages being held in Gaza.”
Said to be honoring hostages.
A small, nonviolent demonstration, objecting to violent hostage taking from the Jewish state, is not acknowledged for what it is. It is only “said to be” a honor for the hostages. Now, the marchers, who chant nothing and make no ruckus, and who are mostly Jews, have gathered in 230 locations to call attention to the hostages for more than a year-and-a-half! It is well known what they are doing. But, to four journalists at The New York Times, they are only “said to be” honoring the hostages.
What they are doing cannot be credited. When it comes to Israel or to Jews — and of course most of the time they are the same — there needs to be a qualification. They are “said to be” honoring the hostages — maybe yes, maybe no. All the journalists can know for sure is what the subjects of their reporting say. Maybe the Rockies fans at the Rockies game were watching a Rockies game — maybe yes, maybe no. We can only tell you what they say. They bought a ticket and came to the game? That’s not enough. That’s not evidence.
People eating dinner at a Jewish deli were said to be eating dinner — maybe yes, maybe no. When it comes to Jews, you never know.
Here is a parallel: Israel-based data on the war in Gaza is noted in news stories, but is often qualified. The data is presented by Israel “without citing evidence.”
If the source of the data is Israel, it is stigmatized by, “without citing evidence.” However, what the Gaza Health Ministry says about how many people Israel has killed in the current war — this data is very often cited without need for evidence. The phrase, “without citing evidence,” is not attached to data from the Gaza Health Ministry, i.e., from Hamas. Hamas’ figures are taken for granted. There is no “without citing evidence” qualifier.
If it is absurd to say that those who keep the hostages before the public “are said to be” honoring the hostages, the following is also is absurd: To object to calling the murderer of two Israeli embassy staffers at a Jewish event, at a Jewish museum, as “anti-Semitic.” How can one jump to such a wicked conclusion? How can one know the murderer is anti-Semitic? Is there any proof of motive on his social media posts? How unfair to stigmatize him as anti-Semitic.
Excuse me, the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers at a Jewish event at a Jewish museum is “anti-Semitic.” What could be more anti-Semitic than murder? But no. One can only know for sure that the murderer “was thought to be” anti-Semitic.
When it comes to Jews and Israel these days, there is a creeping dehumanization. It’s at least as dangerous as the actual attacks on Jews. That’s because as of now, at least, these attacks, horrendous as they are, are limited, if growing. What could boost their recurrence exponentially is the idea that Jews and Israelis are inherently legitimate targets.
When people say, “it can’t happen here,” they mean that the murder of Jews on the scale of the Nazis’ “final solution” cannot happen in the Diaspora. I look at “it can’t happen here” differently. What is the “it?” The mass murder of Jews is Stage 2 of the “it.” Stage 1 of the “it” is the dehumanization of Jews. Is is to cast doubts on the character of Jews walking non-violently for the sake of (mostly) Jews held in captivity.
Stage 1 is the idea. Stage 2 is the act. Stage 1 lays the ground for Stage 2.
“It can’t happen here” — but it is happening here. The idea is happening here. Nazism succeeded at mass murder because it legitimated the idea that Jews are vermin. That idea made it OK to persecute Jews and OK to kill them indiscriminately. Kristallnacht in 1938 happened because of the ideas crystallized in the Nuremberg laws in 1935. The idea in 1935 ended up encouraging and legitimating the acts of 1938.
We are not at that level in the Diaspora, thank G-d. But there is a discernible change. Jews don’t do good things, they are “said to be” doing them. Hamas need not “cite evidence” for its claims; Israel does.
This is not the old double standard surrounding Israeli behavior and the behavior of others. This is different, this is worse. This is a subtle undermining of the legitimacy of Israel and of its supporters not by obvious distortion or hypocrisy, but by seemingly innocent, steady, degrading insinuations. Said to be. Without citing evidence. Or, ignoring the obvious: Murder of Israelis is anti-Semitic.
Blatant anti-Semitic remarks that show up in comments sections take their strength and confidence from the more subtle aspersions that increasingly show up in accepted, respected media, such as the NYT on June 6, page 1.
