search
Steven Windmueller
Where Jews and Judaism Meet the Political Road!

The Cover Up: How We Manage or Fail to Manage Hate

As Jews we face this new acceleration of anti-Semitism; how are we and those around us responding? This current experience with anti-Israel and anti-Jewish forms of hatred represents for many Jews the first time in their lifetime that they are directly encountering such expressions of hatred.

Social media has become the new platform for delivering anti-Jewish rhetoric. The growth of hate messaging has radically accelerated the volume of personal harassment and threats and has resulted in the largest and fastest spread of hate messaging in history.

We often fail to examine our own reactions or the behaviors of others when confronting these various forms of anti-Jewish expressions or actions. How we respond is becoming increasingly important. Those who are employing social media, public discourse, the political arena, and other modalities to deliver their messages and actions of hate look to how we handle their attacks, hoping that such threats will either intimidate us or evoke our anger.  At times, some of our responses represent defensive reactions, where we and others marginalize, compare, dismiss, or excuse such hate-based articulations. We can not cower when threatened!

Who is More Problematic?

As a result of what we are experiencing, there exists today a debate over “who is more problematic” the extreme right or the far left. This argument itself is not beneficial. By even suggesting that one is “less of a problem” than the other, we are providing credence to one side over the other. Hate in all its expressions must be seen as problematic.

Further, when Jewish supporters embrace policies of extremist political parties, they often create a rationale to “explain away” these group’s anti-Semitic positions. In our desperation to find acceptance and out of our sincere belief in advancing these consensus political goals or values advanced by extremist groups, we can do so at our own peril.

More times than not, whether we examine Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and an array of Latin American dictatorial regimes, or for that matter, any other manifestation of extremist or authoritarian politics, we can find apologists, who take on the defense of such causes in the name of endorsing these broader social or economic objectives.

Today, we can identify this behavior in connection with Germany’s new right-wing party, the AfD, as this group offers its case against immigrants, a position that may appeal to a wide set of voters. In this instance, prospective voters are likely to forget the problematic messages shared by this group’s leaders critical of Germany’s longstanding focus on its anti-Semitic past and calling on Germans to disconnect with that nation’s history. We need to remind audiences to pay attention to such extremist and dangerous views of such political organizations that frame their objectives employing code words and agendas to cover over their base line of hate.

The Excuse Phenomenon:

Another such behavior pattern involves offering explanations for why a candidate, politician, or social elite expresses or conveys a message or action that would otherwise be seen as outright anti-Semitic, yet in this instance, their behaviors are given a pass! Here, there is an immediate effort to either explain away these problematic actions or offensive words. We would see this with the Elon Musk affair, just last week. Did Mr. Musk offer the Nazi salute?  There is little value in getting caught up in such a debate when our consideration must be directed to the broader impact of his words and prior behaviors. Bad actors, regardless of their standing, need to be called out!

 Who is Worse?

There has been a growing discussion over “whose hatred” is more dangerous. There is an increasing justification, introduced by an array of writers and journalists to “qualify” hate crimes, anti-Semitic actions, and statements of one actor over another. With reference to anti-Semitism and racism, there are no “ten best”!  There can be no effort to minimize one form of hate over another or to somehow weight such actions on some type of scale of atrocities or create a chart of the “ten best/worst”.  Anti-social behavior ought not be sensationalized or excused.

Being anti-Israel is seen by some as “not really” anti-Semitic. They will say, “You can be critical of Israel, and that is legimate.”  Yes, it is, unless however you call for that state to be “removed” or “destroyed” precisely because it is “Jewish”.  Singling out one state to be judged or measured differently than other societies is itself problematic.

When you employ a boycott or threaten the customers of a particular store or restaurant, because it happens to be owned or operated by an Israeli or a Jew, does that not represent more than merely political criticism but an overt, targeted act against someone because of their national or religious identity?

Reflections:

 Society needs to identify, label, and hold accountable all such forms of hate speech and action. The examples and forms introduced above provide a framework, designed to remind us that we need to adopt standards, allowing governments and citizens to readily identify the actors, be they individuals, institutions, or nations, who are the purveyors of anti-Semitism.

About the Author
Steven Windmueller, Ph.D. is an Emeritus Professor of Jewish Communal Service at the Jack H. Skirball Campus of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles. Prior to coming to HUC, Dr.Windmueller served for ten years as the JCRC Director of the LA Jewish Federation. Between 1973-1985, he was the director of the Greater Albany Jewish Federation (now the Federation of Northeastern New York). He began his career on the staff of the American Jewish Committtee. The author of four books and numerous articles, Steven Windmueller focuses his research and writings on Jewish political behavior, communal trends, and contemporary anti-Semitism.