Writers that have bigger fish to fry than feed their
narcissistic impulses, consciously avoid injecting into their work elements
that might appear to be autobiographical.
You get the sense that Jonathan S. Tobin tried to
follow this rule when you start reading the article he wrote under the title:
“What's behind de Blasio's anti-Semitic outburst? The authoritarian impulse,”
and the subtitle: “The mayor's targeting of Jews as pandemic scofflaws was
outrageous, yet it shows the way the virus brings out the dictator in some
politicians.” It was published on April 30, 2020 in the Jewish News Syndicate.
Here is how Jonathan Tobin put his foot down, asserted
his authority and implicitly promised in his opening statement that he'll
prove, “there is no way to characterize de Blasio singling out the Jews as
anything but classic anti-Semitism.” You know what “classic” means, don't you,
my friend? In case you forgot, it refers to something that is so scholarly, it
is taught only in the classroom.
The trouble is that every time the Jews speak of
classic anti-Semitism, they do not say in which class of which school
anti-Semitism is taught in America or anywhere in the world. Still a good
number of Jewish writers, including Jonathan Tobin, love to use the term
(classic anti-Semitism) because it gives their work the air of officialdom if
not serious scholarship.
What follows is how Tobin proceeded to write his
article, aiming to win the confidence of the readers that he is worthy to being
thought of as the impartial academic who will not favor one school of thought
over the other. Here is what he said: “It is true that some in the Chassidic
communities have been scofflaws at times, but it's also true that other New
Yorkers have been violators of the new norms of social distancing.” You cannot
be more impartial than that.
Tobin went on to write paragraph after paragraph in
which he described life in New York as it was then, as it is today, and as it
might be again ... all the while hoping to stumble on a grand idea that will
help him make a convincing argument and presentation to the effect that de
Blasio is the classic anti-Semite he accused him of being, thus close the
article on a powerful note and exit. Unfortunately for him, however, he did not
stumble on such an idea.
What happened instead was that Jonathan Tobin was
mentally exhausted by that time, and this caused him to make two huge mistakes.
One mistake is that he committed the most anti-Semitic trope anyone can make
according to what the Jews are saying is the new definition of anti-Semitism.
The second mistake is that of proving that the motivation behind accusing
people of anti-Semitism, has roots in the authoritarian impulses of the Jewish
leaders. Here is the passage that contains the two mistakes:
“The question remains why de Balsio would deliberately
offend the more than 1 million Jews who live in the city? He never was an
anti-Semite. Quite the contrary, he's been outspoken about supporting Israel.
What then could have motivated him to speak in such a reckless manner? The
answer is an affliction that is common to the political class: the
authoritarian impulse”.
Here is the first mistake: “He [de Balsio] never was
an anti-Semite … he's been outspoken about supporting Israel.” With this
assertion, Jonathan Tobin established a direct link between the anti-Semitism
that affects Jewish life in America, and the concept of supporting Israel. It
is a link that the Jewish leaders have repeatedly claimed was an anti-Semitic
trope because the idea itself leads to the accusation of dual loyalty on the
part of the Jews, a notion that has plagued them for centuries everywhere they
went … and is beginning to rear its ugly head in America.
The second mistake is that Jonathan Tobin circumvented
the rule that compels him to refrain from injecting autobiographical elements into
his writing. He did so by inadvertently drawing a parallel between himself and
de Blasio. He made the comparison by accusing de Blasio of acquiring the
“untrammeled” power that has turned him into an authoritarian dude.
Well then, Jonathan Tobin may or may not remember the
saying that goes like this: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.” But that, my friend, is exactly what used to be said about Jewish
leaders like Jonathan Tobin, who used to accumulate enormous powers by accusing
their non-Jewish rivals of anti-Semitism. So, what we have here, according to
Jonathan Tobin, are two similar dudes hungry for power.
The Jewish leaders had this kind of power at one time,
but they abused it and as a result, lost much of it. The general public as well
as some of the Jewish rank-and-file began to feel liberated of the
authoritarian rule imposed on all by the self-appointed Jewish leaders. And the
rank-and-file liked what has been unfolding ever since. Other foot-soldiers are
waiting to see what else will unfold before deciding what to do.
The net effect of all this is that the Jewish leaders
are losing power, and they are furious. It is why you see dozens of them write
articles that do not differ much from what Jonathan Tobin has written.