When it comes to Jews and Israel these days, there is a creeping dehumanization

ISit paranoid or nitpicking to perceive and object to a certain prism in media coverage of the Jewish People today? I know that sounds abstract. Please permit a few preliminary parallels to make the point.

“Frustrated drivers stuck in a traffic jam were said to be stuck in a traffic jam.”

Or: “People eating dinner at the kosher deli were said to be eating dinner.”

Or: “Fans at the ball game were said to be watching the ball game.”

Of course they were in a jam, or having dinner, or at a ball game. They weren’t “said to be” doing these things. Yet in a news story by four journalists on page one of the New York Times, we read about the June 1 firebombing of Jews in Boulder, Colorado. We read of an attack “on a group said to be honoring hostages being held in Gaza.”

Said to be honoring hostages.

A small, nonviolent demonstration, objecting to violent hostage-taking from Israel, is not acknowledged for what it is. It is only “said to be” in honor of the hostages.

Now, the marchers, who chant nothing and make no ruckus, and who are mostly Jews, have gathered in 230 locations to call attention to the hostages for more than a year and a half! It is well known what they are doing. But to four journalists at the New York Times, they are only “said to be” honoring the hostages.

What the marchers are doing cannot be credited. When it comes to Israel or to Jews — and of course, most of the time they are the same — there needs to be a qualification. They are “said to be” honoring the hostages — maybe yes, maybe no. All the journalists can know for sure is what the subjects of their reporting say. Maybe the fans at the ball game were watching a ball game — maybe yes, maybe no. We can only tell you what they say. They bought a ticket and came to the game? Not enough. That’s not evidence.

People eating dinner at a Jewish deli were said to be eating dinner — maybe yes, maybe no. When it comes to Jews, you never know.

Here is a parallel: Israel-based data on the war in Gaza is noted in news stories, but is often qualified. The data is characterized as presented by Israel, “without citing evidence.”

If the source of the data is Israel, it is stigmatized with the phrase “without citing evidence.” However, what the Gaza health ministry says about how many people Israel has killed in the current war — this data is very often cited without need for evidence. The label “without citing evidence” is not attached to data from the Gaza health ministry — i.e., from Hamas. The terror group’s figures are taken for granted. There is no “without citing evidence” qualifier.

If it is absurd to say that those who keep awareness of the hostages before the public are “said to be” honoring the hostages, the following is also absurd: to object to referring to the murderer of two Israeli embassy staffers, at a Jewish event, at a Jewish museum, as “anti-Semitic.” How can one jump to such a wicked conclusion? How can one know the murderer is anti-Semitic? Is there any proof of motive on his social media posts? How unfair to stigmatize him as anti-Semitic.

Excuse me, the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers at a Jewish event at a Jewish museum is “anti-Semitic.” What could be more anti-Semitic than murder? But no. One can only know for sure that the murderer was “thought to be” anti-Semitic.

When it comes to Jews and Israel these days, there is a creeping dehumanization. It’s at least as dangerous as the actual attacks on Jews. That’s because as of now, at least, these attacks, horrendous as they are, are limited, if growing. What could boost their recurrence exponentially is the idea that Jews and Israelis are inherently legitimate targets.

When people say “It can’t happen here,” they mean that the murder of Jews on the scale of the Nazis’ “final solution” cannot happen in our part of the Diaspora. I look at “It can’t happen here” differently. What is the “it”? The mass murder of Jews is Stage Two of the “it.” Stage One of the “it” is the dehumanization of Jews. It is to cast doubts on the character of (mostly) Jews walking nonviolently for the sake of (mostly) Jews held in captivity.

Stage One is the idea. Stage Two is the act. Stage One lays the groundwork for Stage Two.

“It can’t happen here” — but it is happening here. The idea is happening here. Nazism succeeded at mass murder because it legitimated the idea that Jews are vermin. That idea made it okay to persecute Jews and okay to kill them indiscriminately. Kristallnacht in 1938 happened because of the ideas crystallized in the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, and those ideas were crystallized in Mein Kampf much earlier. The idea ended up encouraging and legitimating the acts of 1938.

We are not at that level in this part of the Diaspora, thank G-d. But there is a discernible change. Jews don’t do good things, they are “said to be” doing them. Hamas need not “cite evidence” for its claims; Israel must.

This is not the old double standard surrounding Israeli behavior and the behavior of others. This is different, this is worse. This is a subtle undermining of the legitimacy of Israel and of its supporters not by obvious distortion or hypocrisy, but by seemingly innocent, steady, degrading insinuations. Said to be. Without citing evidence. Or, ignoring the obvious: Murder of Israelis is anti-Semitic.

Blatant anti-Semitic remarks that show up in comments sections and elsewhere take their strength and confidence from the more subtle aspersions that increasingly show up in accepted, respected media, such as the New York Times, page one.

Rabbi Hillel Goldberg is the editor and publisher of the Intermountain Jewish News, for which he has written a weekly column, “View from Denver,” since 1972, and the author of numerous seforim about the mussar movement and other subjects.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1069)