The Case Against The Jews

On Tuesday, March 27th, members of the Park Slope food coop, an organization formed to provide low cost products, will decide on a political issue -- whether or not to vote on a boycott of Israel. The claim will be made that Israel, which has citizens of all faiths, is racist. On March 30th people from countries that deny religious freedom, citizenship, or land ownership to those who don't practice the state religion (and many who do) will march on the only democratic country in the area -- the Global March on Jerusalem. It will be hailed widely as a demonstration of "virtue" and "justice." Its hypocrisy will be ignored as so many tyrannies deny freedom to their inhabitants, and as people are starved and murdered around the world. Perhaps there is a hidden message.

That's the body of a letter I sent to the New York Times this morning. They won't print it, but I feel better. In fact it will be a surprise if they have stories about either of the two events I mentioned. In the event there are articles about them, I suspect they'll be at the bottom of an inside page. It's even less likely that the Times will take editorial notice, but if they do, they'll probably express sympathy for both. They'll clothe whatever they say in “evenhanded” terms, but it will be clear that they approve of both the boycott and the march.

With all the disasters going on in the world – both those that are natural and those produced by tyrants, terrorists, and other murderers – the nations have always seemed to favor the scapegoating of Jews irrespective of any other factors. Thus they claim that there would be peace in the world if Israel didn't exist or if if the Jews allowed the “Palestinians” to turn it into another Muslim state. No one takes such claims seriously, but modern anti-Semitism is usually euphemized as “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” opinion. The aim is no different, but the words are more acceptable to some, especially those who view language as a tool to be used in the war against the Jews. And the immediate goal is the destruction of a Jewish state by whatever methods work. That is the crux of their campaign around the world and, especially, in the United Nations. And their public relations effort – one far more effective than their military one – is well received by a public eager to fault those they envy.

Anti-Semitism has been with us for millennia, with the most vicious manifestations expressed by members of religions derived from Judaism. Their goal was to eliminate and replace the Jews, and the failure to do so has resulted in their continued hatred. But the need to have someone to blame for their own failures means that they cannot eliminate the Jews entirely. That would be counterproductive. They would have no one left to take responsibility. It's better to maim than to kill, and to try to destroy the spirit of the remaining Jews.

Because a show of concern for the weak and downtrodden is popular, especially among those considering themselves liberals, and hatred for those accused of causing the suffering of the less fortunate is more persuasive than thought, the United States and Israel have been targeted by those who fashion themselves as caring. It's far easier to have a single simple answer to many questions than to consider them individually. And there are many problems that the nations don't want to face, so they prefer to focus their attention on a single “villain” while ignoring those problems. And because anti-Semitism is so pervasive, Israel is disproportionately blamed for perceived faults – far more than any other nation. In fact the United Nations rarely condemns anyone else for anything.

Perhaps after another couple of millenia this kind of scapegoating will subside. Perhaps not. Maybe the world will face up to its real problems, but I doubt it. As Tom Lehrer put it in National Brotherhood Week, “Everybody hates the Jews.”