I am neither a Jew nor a Muslim, and this makes me the
perfect kind of person to opine on the subjects of antisemitism and
Islamophobia. Take that for what it is worth but hear me out; I have something
serious to say about the two subjects. It is that journalism, especially in North America , has ceased to be a vehicle to carry and
deliver facts and opinions, having been transformed into a weapon to spin the
audiences and indoctrinate them.
A writer does what he or she does, and their work is there
for all to see. What the editor of a publication does is there too, but the
work that he or she does may not be obvious enough for everyone to understand.
Take, for example, the January 9, 2015 edition of National Review Online.
You'll find in it an article by Brendan O'Neill published under the title:
“Islamophobia Is a Myth,” which is an opinion that the writer is entitled to
hold. You'll also find in it an article by Ian Tuttle published under the
title: “Anti-Semitism, Old and New,” which is also an opinion that the writer
is entitled to hold.
But what is the role of the editor in all of this? Normally,
his role would not be that obvious to ordinary readers but this time, the
editor of National Review Online went out of his way to make a point. He wrote
the following note under the title of the Ian Tuttle article: “A version of
this piece appeared in the August 25, 2014 issue of National Review.” It is
obvious, therefore, that the editor chose to reprint an old article so as to
contrast it with a newer one. By that, he means to say that antisemitism does
exist, and has been for a long time, whereas the charge of Islamophobia is a
myth that must be disregarded.
Thus, while writers can be opposed but not faulted for the
opinions they hold, the editors of a publication can be reproached for what
they commission and what they omit. This is because the balance they achieve
when making choices is what decides whether the editorial position they take is
a legitimate one, or whether they have turned the publication into a megaphone
by which to indoctrinate audiences under a false pretense.
As a writer and the editor of my website, I have opinions as
well as an editorial position that matches them. However, I avoid turning the
blog into a megaphone by which to indoctrinate the readers by reporting as
accurately as I can on the opinions of others. I then push back against those
opinions in the following way: I do not simply say, he holds these opinions and
he is an idiot; I say these are the reasons why he holds these opinions, and
these are the reasons why I oppose them. Now, contrast this with the subtitle
of the O'Neill article which reads: “Why do liberals fear the working class and
ignore anti-Semitic murder? Because they are bigots,” and you'll see a real
difference.
What is missing in the Ian Tuttle article is that
antisemitism is a misnomer which refers to the rejection by the human species
of a reprehensible ideology. It has been rejected since the beginning of time
by every race everywhere on the planet. Holding on to it has not been limited
to the Jews, and rejecting it has not been limited to rejecting them only. It
is just that they have been the ones to hold on to it tenaciously come the
proverbial gas chamber or the incinerator. The core tenet of this ideology is
the belief that those who adhere to it are superior to the rest of humanity.
The response to it has been the desire to eradicate the ideology definitively
regardless as to what the optics of the process of eradication may be like.
What is missing in the Brendan O'Neill article is a
recognition that we are wired to be rivals in competition with each other; it
happens even among siblings. The rivalry allows us to test and to hone our
survival skills on each other without killing one another. This is what is
currently happening between Christianity and Islam ... in fact, has been
happening on and off for several centuries. You may call it the expression of
Islamophobia by one side and Christianophobia by the other, but the reality is
that both sides know the day will come when the rivalry will be resolved, and
things will get back to normal.
That is different from what we sense when we interact with a
Jew. What must be understood is that human interaction involves a kind of “body
language” that is expressed in accents picked up and embedded in us as infants.
These accents stay with us till we die no matter what we do to get rid of them.
Those like the Jews, the Nazis and the Fascists can mask
their native accent most of the time, but there comes a time when they
inadvertently speak in it. This is when ordinary people realize that the Jewish
friend they thought they had is but a booby-trap that is ready to burst and
fill the air with a toxic gas that will kill instantly.