There is no escaping this reality: it is becoming clearer by
the day that to accuse someone of antisemitism is to engage in the ultimate
expression of hate. So the question is this: Why is it that some people continue
to accuse others of being antisemitic; do so openly or do it in more subtle
ways?
The Wall Street Journal has for years published works that
can serve as cases for the study of this phenomenon, and it did it again with
an editorial written by its staff, and an article written by contributor Andrew
Nagorski, both of which were published on August 7, 2014. The editorial came
under the title: “Britain's Anti-Israel Charades” whereas the article came
under the title: “Camouflaged as Humane Concern, Anti-Semitism Flourishes,” and
the subtitle: “Europe is a very long way away from 1930s Germany, but now is
the time to react forcefully to hatemongering about Jews.”
There is something unmistakable about the two works; they
express that something fake is taking place – with the editorial using the word
“charades,” and the article using the word “Camouflaged” to make the point. But
could it be that what is truly fake in this whole enterprise is neither the
situation described by the editors of the Journal, nor that described by Andrew
Nagorski ... but something entirely different, and surprisingly so?
Look what Nagorski writes: “Cloaked in the garb of
humanitarian concern for the Palestinian people, anti-Semitism is gushing with
ferocity.” He is here accusing some people of faking concern for the
Palestinians in order to “gush” their true sentiment, which is anti-Semitism.
But he does that without explaining why people are anti-Semitic or how they
become one in the first place. And here is what may well be the other side of
the same coin: if it is possible for some people to fake concern for the
Palestinians, is it not possible that other people may also fake concern for
the Jews?
With this possibility in the back of the head, what are we
to make of the statement that follows? “True, German, French, Italian and other
leaders have spoken out against such behavior, building on a long, praiseworthy
postwar history of trying to avoid any repetition of the past.” Could these
leaders be speaking out at this time because they are expressing what they
feel? Or could it be that they are acting out of fear of consequences they are
not certain will materialize, but consequences that sound ominous considering
what happened in the past?
If that is the case, it would represent the only thing that
is fake in this whole enterprise. Thus, the fake is not the sentiment of
concern that is expressed for the Palestinians whose suffering elicits the
empathy of human beings everywhere ... except those who are so full of hate,
they cannot appreciate someone else's humanity. And this begs the question: Is
it possible that when Andrew Nagorski tackles this subject, he loses his
humanity and writes like a robot that is devoid of feelings?
But a robot with an adequate memory should not make the
mistake of saying that the European leaders have spoken out ... building on a
praiseworthy history – and then end the article this way: “Words matter, and
lack of words can matter even more … It is time to speak loudly and clearly.”
Why ask people to do what they have done on their own?
We now look at the editorial. As always, members of the gang
at the Wall Street Journal are so certain of what percolates inside their
heads, they need only to assert it without having to explain it. And here is
their latest assertion: “Anti-Israel posturing is for many people the cheapest
route to the appearance of virtue. So it is with … Baroness Sayeeda Warsi [who]
resign[ed] her post as a Foreign Office Minister over David Cameron's 'morally
indefensible policy' on Gaza .”
Hey you, out there, editors of the Wall Street Journal, the woman resigned her
post, and you call this a cheap way to virtue? What's percolating in those tiny
heads of yours?
From there, they engage in the Dershowitz exercise of
claiming for Israel the rights they imagine were given to someone else even
though the rabbis have always brayed the refrain that Israel must never be
compaaared, never be compaaared to someone else.
And the Journal editors end their piece like this: “[What]
Baroness Warsi wrote is a noble sentiment, but it would be nobler if her
humanitarianism weren't so selective.” Come on guys; make up your minds. Can Israel be
compared or can it not? Can it be equated with someone else, or can it not?