Anti-Semitism Has Consequences

I have this piece today in The American Prospect. 

Anti-Semitism Has Consequences

STEVEN LUBET

NOVEMBER 5, 2018

The massacre in Pittsburgh has a lesson for progressives.

Hours before he murderously stormed into Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue, Robert Bowers posted a chilling message on the dark web, declaring that the “powerful Jews are my enemy.” He vowed to pull “the cover off of that Satanic Jew,” and threateningly added “I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”

Oh wait. That wasn’t Robert Bowers. It was Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, speaking at Saviour’s Day last February, while thousands cheered his every word. Although he has spouted anti-Semitism, homophobia, and misogyny for decades, Farrakhan is still accepted in some quarters of the American left, welcome in polite company, and rebuked, if at all, only in the mildest terms. After a leader of the Women’s March was seen on the dais at the Saviour’s Day rally, for example, the organization itself issued a bland statement explaining only that “Minister Farrakhan’s statements about Jewish ... people are not aligned with the Women’s March Unity Principles.”

As should be obvious, Farrakhan and Bowers are purveyors of the same poison. On the web platform Gab, Bowers actually wrote that “Jews are the children of Satan,” inveighed against “the filthy EVIL Jews,” and blamed HIAS, the Jewish agency helping refugees, for bringing “invaders to the United States.” Compare that to Farrakhan’s years of references to “Satanic Jews” and his statement that “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”

The main difference is that Bowers also hates Muslims, while Farrakhan hates gay people. Thus, Bowers believes that Jewish-inspired Muslims are slaughtering his people, whereas Farrakhan finds Jews “responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out and turning men into women and women into men.” They are otherwise as one in their evocation of classic anti-Semitism, in which Jews are blamed for all the ills of the world.

In the wake of the Pittsburgh attack, Twitter was filled with messages of love and support from individuals and organizations across the political spectrum, including some who had previously defended their association with Farrakhan (or excused those who did).

It is all too easy to express solidarity with the victims of mass murder. While many progressives condemned Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, some  lacked the courage or integrity to speak out in circumstances where it might actually have made a difference to living people. That would have required expending political capital that they were evidently loath to risk.

Many leftists have likewise marginalized Jews and ignored anti-Semitism in the social justice movement. The leaders of the Chicago Dyke March were unwilling to tolerate a Star of David on a rainbow flag, and Jewish student organizations on campuses have been excluded from diversity coalitions. Supporters of Steven Salaita quite reasonably defended him on academic freedom grounds when the University of Illinois revoked his faculty appointment following complaints about his many tweets. But Salaita’s supporters were never willing to admit that his most objectionable tweets—including a comparison of “Zios” to scabies; that is, Jews to vermin—were anti-Semitic. It isn’t hard to recognize the anti-Jewish conspiracy theories of the right wing, but how different are they from blaming wholly imaginary “Zionist pressure” for administrative decisions at Fresno State University?

The right, of course, must be held accountable for its much more frequent forays into anti-Semitism, some of which appear to have inspired Bowers. His deranged claim about HIAS, for example, plainly expanded upon the many fevered accusations against George Soros—originated by Hungary’s authoritarian Victor Orban, but repeated even post-Pittsburgh in Republican television advertisements—that include financing the “illegal alien invasion.”

Condemning Bowers while accommodating Farrakhan is no more meaningful than President Trump’s professed sympathy for the victims of the Pulse Nightclub slaughter—spoken while he planned to eliminate civil rights for gays and transgender people. The words mean nothing in the absence of deeds. Even South Carolina’s Republican legislature removed the Confederate flag following the murders at the Mother Emanuel Church. Fox News has banned a commentator who reviled the “Soros-occupied State Department,” although the program’s host still appears nightly.

Neither Bowers nor Farrakhan arrived at anti-Semitism on their own, and it is not a mere coincidence that they both associate Jews with Satan. They learned their anti-Semitism from the same age-old sources and shaped it to fit their particular ideologies. The progressive advocates of intersectionalism ought to recognize that Bowers and Farrakhan represent different branches of the same diseased tree.

Farrakhan's politics surely ought not to endear him to progressives. During the 2016 election, he praised Trump as the only candidate “who has stood in front of the Jewish community, and said I don’t want your money. Any time a man can say to those who control the politics of America, ‘I don’t want your money,’ that means you can’t control me. And they cannot afford to give up control of the presidents of the United States.” Farrakhan later walked that back a bit, explaining, “Not that I’m for Mr. Trump, but I like what I’m looking at.”

Farrakhan has admitted that his “incendiary rhetoric” helped “create the atmosphere” that led to the assassination of Malcolm X. No Farrakhan follower has killed any Jews, but neither had Bowers or any other Gab habitué before the Pittsburgh massacre, which should serve as a reminder that anti-Semitism and violence inevitably go together. The time to stand up to anti-Semitism is before the murders, not afterward. Silence about Farrakhan continues to enable and encourage his most extreme diatribes.

I don’t expect much from Fox News, and there is no way to influence the alt-right, but I care deeply about progressive social justice movements and I retain every hope that good sense and shared humanity can eventually prevail.

American leftists therefore face a clear challenge to repudiate anti-Semitism wherever it appears, starting with Farrakhan’s invective and including every other form of discrimination, exclusion, and vilification, even when undertaken in the name of anti-Zionism

They must do this not for the benefit of the dead. They must do it for the living.

Comments

[twbb]

"while accommodating Farrakhan"

Who exactly is accommodating Farrakhan, Steve? I see this assertion made with very little evidence to back it up, other than anecdotal fingerpointing at marginal figures.

"Farrakhan's politics surely ought not to endear him to progressives."

And they don't. Which is why this implicit argument that Farrakhan somehow belongs to the left and they are responsible for him does not make sense.

[anon]

The usual gambit by the left is to demand that Republicans denounce and repudiate any extremist who supports them.

Lubet rightly asks: "American leftists therefore face a clear challenge to repudiate anti-Semitism wherever it appears,"

So, let's review: how many Democrats have you heard denouncing Farrakhan?

Perhaps you are not aware of the long list of Democratic heavy weights, including two past presidents, who have been photographed with the Rev.: one, standing side by side, smiling ear to ear, the other recently on the same dais.

If Trump put his arm around David Duke and, with a great big smile allowed himself to be photographed - literally -- how would you react?

[anon]

Let's also review MSNBC star Al Sharpton's record. Just skim his Wiki page. Democrats flock to his side.

[Vic]

A great lesson learned indeed, with precise timing. Thank you!

[The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated]

anon^^^^

Thanks for prompting me to do research on Al Sharpton. Like the lazy, middle aged pudgy balding guy that I am, I read his Wiki Page too. I like the guy...he is right on. He did shill for a car title loan joint...but we all make mistakes when we smell green. What is wrong with his record? Elaborate please? Facts? Whistling???????? Waiting. Silence.

[PaulB]

Kavanaugh and all the other names you go by. Google Al Sharpton Yankel Rosenblum. Google Al Sharpton Freddy's Fashion Mart. No wonder you can't make a living as a lawyer.

[PaulB]

Correction-it's Yankel Rosenbaum.

[anon]

PaulB

The instances you mention are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The Sharpton Wiki page goes thru many of the "highlights" of the Sharpton record.

Just contemplate this: the organ of the Democratic party on television, MSNBC, allows this man to host shows, comment on panels, etc. MSNBC is an infomercial for Democrats and against Republicans, and Al Sharpton is one of that networks principal choices to express its point of view.

I also recall the excuses that Joy Reid recently asserted for certain past instances of her "commentary." Again, she has found a home on MSNBC. Of course!

Remember: if a supporter of any part of the Republican party is deranged and does a heinous act, it is the fault of the Republican party.

If a supporter of any part of the Democratic party is deranged and does a heinous act, it is the fault of the Republican party for fostering a climate of hate. (This is self-evident: watch MSNBC: you'll find no hate there!)

Farrakhan thrives in Chicago.

Why?

The real question is: Can the American left ever acknowledge any of its own faults? (ANd, I don't mean identifying as a fault the inability to demonize Republicans more effectively.)

[For to buy a firelock]

"The real question is: Can the American left ever acknowledge any of its own faults?"

Why would they (publicly) consider it to be a fault? For one thing, there's no serious political cost to them, or one of its own, being antisemitic. Which group - other than Jews - would abandon the Democrat party over antisemitism?

Similarly, voters aren't turned away from the UK's Labour party despite its antisemitism. Indeed, it actually helps that party to (a) attract certain (minority) voters and (b) anchor their views about the nature of political power in the UK whilst nonetheless being free to deny that their views concern all Jews or Judaism.

You can say 'first they came for X, then they came for Y...' but no one actually cares about that; and frankly, it's also poor reasoning, e.g., maybe certain groups warrant such treatment...

In that regard, I haven't the slightest interest in condemning Farrakhan. Let him say what he will about the Hebrews so long as those of us in the Anglosphere can still note publicly the truth about his Prophet.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6234980-8105265%22]}

Indeed, the real problem the Left faces is confronting the fact that the grounds for one group's hatred of another and calling for the former's oppression can be the product of constitutive norms of the former's value system. To date, the Left insists that condemnation along THOSE lines is conceptually impossible (because it MUST itself be predicated upon 'ignorance' about the former group), or at least certainly off the table... (Hence, the Left's authoritarian urge to selectively silence will NOT convince a good many people that there are necessarily good grounds to do so).

[Douglas Levene]

Didn't Kerensky say, "No enemies to the left?"

[anon]

Contemplate this, from Don Lemon on CNN. If this is not THE most Orwellian segment I've heard there, it is right up there with the "best" ... As reported in the Washington Post:

“I keep trying to point out to people not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity. But we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else — some people who are marching towards the border like it’s imminent,” Lemon told CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, referring to the Central American migrant caravan walking toward the United States. … “So,” he said, “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban — you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white-guy ban. So what do we do about that?”

THis is so typical. We decry calling people names, the way the evil, venal, fascistic Republicans do. We don't demonize groups, the way the tired old white men (who must die soon) do. We shout down speakers who espouse any point of view that we believe may be different from ours (often inaccurately) because we believe in everyone being heard.

Farrakhan thrives in Chicago for the same reason it is one of the murder capitals of America. The acceptance by national democrats of his message tells a very real tale -- not so much about the crass politicians who court him, but about the party that calls only for republicans to renounce bigotry of the most heinous form.

[Matt]

anon, old buddy, you're behind the times. Farrakhan is, like you, a Trump supporter:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1058515887874064384/photo/1

[anon]

Matt

As reported by the Weekly Standard: “Farrakhan boasts longstanding ties to and tangled relationships with … Maxine Waters of California, Al Green of Texas, and William Jefferson of Louisiana. Rep. Keith Ellison, the Minnesota congressman and deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has tried unsuccessfully to obscure his longstanding ties to the Nation of Islam leader. … And, of course, Barack Obama himself was once caught on camera grinning with Farrakhan.”

I believe these folks to be Democrats, not Trump.
(To be actaully a news report, the report also noted that Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), Chelsea Clinton condemned Farrakhan’s “anti termite” statement.)

As for Farrakhan’s supposed support for Trump, you are probably referring to Farrakhan’s statement, two years ago, as reported by US News, “Speaking at the black nationalist organization's annual Savior's Day in Chicago, Farrakhan told parishioners that he admires Trump because he believes the celebrity billionaire's purportedly self-funded presidential campaign isn't taking money from the "Jewish community."” Farrakhan also has praised Trump for “standing up” to the authorities.

However, only one uninterested in the truth would think that Farrakhan “supports Trump.” Two days ago, for example, Farrakhan denounced him in Tehran.

Matt, old buddy, you are behind the times. Moreover, in keeping with the apparent skimming the headlines and lack of depth, you are mistaken. Quote the comment showing this commenter to be a "Trump supporter."

Like many shallow posts here, you mistake criticism of the Democratic party as Trump support. IT is this fundamental lack of depth and understanding (one must be "red" or "blue") that is at the heart of the angry way that the left is approaching its position today.

[Matt]

Click the link, Anon, just click the link. You'll see that Farrakhan has been an eager Trump supporter for over two years and remains so. And of course you're a Trump supporter.

[Leo]

Leaked Documentary that was banned.

“We are a different government working on foreign soil and we have to be very, very cautious,” Vaknin-Gil is shown saying at an off-the-record session of a pro-Israel conference. “We have three different sub-campaigns which are very, very sensitive,” she adds. “Regarding data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organization, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best.”

“The goal is to have the federal government establish a definition of anti-Semitism that is parallel to the State Department definition” Marcus 2016.
“You have to show that they are racist hate groups, and that they are using intimidation to get funded, and to consistently portray them that way” Marcus 2016.

https://youtu.be/qRVyR0O--kE

Documentary
Part 1 : https://youtu.be/ct5Idu330OM or https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wisw0
Part 2 : https://youtu.be/HMTxwSvhc6c
Part 3 : https://youtu.be/Mm-Dm4pO0xY
Part 4 : https://youtu.be/_1OgxfCT044

[Leo]

I hope Prof. Steve Lubet at Northwestern Law School do not delete the comments. It is justifiable for a Jewish individual to call another Jewish individual an 'antisemit' ? Are you aware of Kenneth Marcus Rutger University Case that was re-opened ?

https://canarymission.org/individual/Rose_Asaf
Rose Asaf Interview https://youtu.be/xy-kRKOP5d4

Google Cache:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5QbFBtLfXWYJ:https://nyunews.com/2018/11/01/11-02-news-bds/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Vaknin-Gil in a Knesset hearing: “Today we [have] lost the second generation of Jews, which are the millennial generation of Jews. I hear this from their parents, who come and explain to me what a hard time they’re having with their kids at Friday dinners. They don’t recognize the state of Israel and don’t see us as an entity to be admired.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/us/politics/rutgers-jewish-education-civil-rights.html

[anon]

Read the link, Matt, just read the link

Yglesias just culls headlines where Farrakhan "praised Trump."

But, as usual, just skimming headlines can be misleading. Farrakhan praises Trump when he perceived Trump was beating up Farrakhan's enemies, or when Farrakhan thought that Trump was modeling anti Semitism. But, you, unlike Yglesias, can't see the real point of this: and you have ignored Farrakhan's statements in Tehran just this week.

Moreover, you must have missed the many tweets where Yglesias, and many others have called upon the left to denounce Farrakhan, to no avail.

Just as you are misled by skimming the surface of the Farrakhan issue, your overly confident assertion that this commenter is a "Trump supporter" is equally bogus.

Again, provide a quote. Then, let's discuss your perceptions!