Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On NR’s (Several) Disgraceful Swipes at Jews
Several days ago, National Review ran a news item about the rise in anti-Semitism in the tri-state area. It had this bizarre quality of trying to give both sides of the situation, but here’s the problem: on one side of the “issue” are Jews getting massacred and on the other, people who call those same Jews “locusts.” The piece intended to give “context” to the rise in tensions, but it operated under a false pretense: there is no excuse for anti-Semitism, Jews are not to blame for Jew-hatred. The writer, Zachary Evans wrote,
The ultra-Orthodox population is also a heavy user of government resources such as Medicaid and food stamps. This is due to the perception that many of the men either don’t work or make low salaries, choosing instead to devote their time to studying religious texts.
“Many in the community look at the Hasidim as locusts, who go from community to community . . . just stripping all the resources out of it,” said a Jewish, but not ultra-Orthodox, resident of upstate New York. The resident, who vociferously objects to ultra-Orthodox development and asked not to be named for fear of retribution by the ultra-Orthodox community, added that “nobody here doesn’t like them because they’re Jews. People don’t like them because of what they do. Rural, hardworking people also want to live our lives too.”
The entire premise was moot considering the assailants in Jersey City and Monsey; they weren’t neighbors of Jews concerned about “overdevelopment” or any other issue bigots across the tri-state area have clung to in order to explain their anti-Semitism against Hasidic Jews. The attackers in both the Jersey City and Monsey attacks drove from out of town to perpetrate their crimes; they weren’t motivated by anything but hate.
In this bizarre news item, the victims of these attacks are portrayed as crooks, moochers and “locusts” and the bigot using this kind of language is protected because he’s afraid of retribution.
It was victim-blaming and incendiary at a time where Hasidic Jews are under attack daily across the New York and New Jersey area.
Online, conservatives and liberals lit the piece on fire. Editors at NR got calls, emails and even an in-person visit from Jews concerned about how the publication allowed the victims of a spike in hate crimes to be portrayed. In response to this outrage, NR ran a bizarre follow-up note on the piece with the original author explaining,
This quote has attracted controversy. My decision to include it obviously does not constitute an endorsement of its language or its argument. Throughout the article, I quote multiple other people who label similar rhetoric, and the attitudes underlying it, as anti-Semitic. My intention in this article was to present a picture of what is happening in the counties surrounding New York and to convey the feelings of all residents of the area, amid a housing boom and the thankfully growing awareness of New York’s anti-Semitism problem (which I have covered before).
This is a complicated subject that can veer into exceptionable territory. It is extremely vital to understand what people in the area are feeling in order to defuse any misunderstandings or ill-will among observant Jews and their neighbors. It is my hope that the reader will come away from the article with a little more knowledge of those attitudes.
Here’s the issue with the quote, spelled out: Jews are not responsible for Jew-hatred. Let me repeat that. Jews. Are. Not. Responsible. For. Jew. Hatred. This kind of exercise, trying to use logic to explain it, only excuses it. The attacks aren’t about overdevelopment in Monsey, Jersey City or Brooklyn. They are about hate. When those saying it are black, conservatives don’t seem to have a hard time understanding that. But the same reasoning applies to a writer for National Review, yes, even if he served in the IDF.
In response to all of the outrage, Kevin Williamson decided to weigh in. And here’s when NR really, really steps in it. He writes,
I don’t think most people who read the news are too stupid to understand the news. I think they are too dishonest.
I am frankly embarrassed that we’ve found it necessary to append a note to Zachary Evans’s report on anti-Semitism to emphasize that quoting a person to illuminate his sentiments does not constitute an endorsement of those sentiments. That’s obvious. Every mentally functional adult is able to understand as much. But because there are people who want to smear National Review for political purposes, they pretend that an article about anti-Semitism written by a veteran of the Israeli military is itself an exercise in anti-Semitism. I have a hard time believing that is an honest error, because people dumb enough to make an error like that, and make it honestly, can’t read.
Here’s the thing: You don’t have to agree with my original assessment that the piece never should have run. But the fact is there were plenty of Jewish conservatives (and a few non-Jewish ones too) who expressed horror at the way Hasidic Jews were characterized. That doesn’t make them stupid. It doesn’t make them dishonest. It doesn’t mean they were motivated to “smear National Review for political purposes.” They saw a piece that attacked the victims of a wave of hatred and they expressed their anger at it.
It’s times like these it’s interesting to see who really means it when they decry anti-Semitism. When attacks happen or when the New York Times or the Washington Post write something stupid about Jews, there are plenty of conservatives ready to pounce. But when it’s one of our own, like National Review, calling Jews concerned about how Jews are portrayed dishonest and acting in bad faith, there’s an awful lot of silence. And that silence speaks volumes.
Published in General
Glad you said this, @iwe. And to state the obvious, none of this hatred or othering justifies violence. But, we simply won’t all get along. The best we can hope for is to leave each other alone.
By that metric, plenty of wicked people who face appropriate persecution receive solace when “taking flak.” That’s a bad metric if there ever were one.
Isn’t that the point of twitter? People say nasty things about other people all the time, even on this site. I assume, the author spoke to more than one person and got the gist of the lay of the land and used this quote as a descriptor.
Trump referred to MS-13 as animals, and given the behavior of that gang I would say that was an accurate descriptor.
Also, it is a human trait that we can never change, although the language police are trying to. People notice patterns of behaviors of different groups. I know that does not give anyone carte blanche to treat them as less than human. All people are made in God’s image and deserve the dignity of such. Mark Levin, did not advocate treating blue state transplants as less than human, but he noticed a pattern of behavior, and described it. Albeit, in a negative way but it’s also quicker. It’s like when Trump was asked by a reporter to not use the term “Anchor baby” because it had a negative connotation, and when the reporter gave him another way of saying it, it was so much longer and needed more explanation. Trump stuck with Anchor baby, it’s easier. . Not nice, but easier
I don’t think you’re using “persecution” appropriately. Wicked people may face appropriate punishment. But, of course, then we have to define “wicked.”
I read the original article and thought it was a mess. I can see how it can be taken as anti-Semitic (or not) but I couldn’t get past the poor writing enough to draw any conclusions on that front. In addition to conflating two (apparently) unrelated issues (strife in the community and murders committed by people outside the community), much of the rest of it is a muddled mess.
Take these two sentences, for example:
Really? The reason they consume a lot of government resources is because there is a perception that they don’t work? Seems like an editor dropped the ball here.
FLDS in a place like Colorado City and various other outposts view attempts to rein in their grotesque and abominable practices as “persecution” by wicked outsiders who are bigots. We view such attempts as appropriate justice.
Which of us is righteous and which monstrous in that case? We can point to reasons why we think we’re the good guys but to prosecute is quite literally to persecute because our laws are in direct conflict with their dogma.
There is no line. Everyone pretends there is, and the IRS tries to make it clear, but the line between “avoidance” and “evasion” is just mush.
If the government wants to get you, they will call whatever you do illegal. Witness all the asset forfeitures.
I do not game the system very well – I don’t even manage to avoid paying for airline tickets (it is a Jewish hobby to be so good at the credit card / frequent flier game that one always flies business class without paying). Perhaps I am a bad Jew – or just have better things to do with my time.
Every system can be gamed. Jews are very good at it. It is not clear to me that it should be criminal to be good at it. As far as I am concerned, the only way to have a system that is not game-able is to not have a system. Which is fine with me!
I haven’t caught up on all the comments, so excuse me if this one has been made. It’s pretty obvious.
If the article had begun with an account of two young black men lynched in two separate incidents, and had quickly segued to a description of community frustration with blacks because of their reliance on public assistance, their music, and their tendency to move into communities and establish their own sub-communities, I think the piece would have received more scrutiny prior to publication and, had it been published, would have quickly been acknowledged as deeply flawed.
I don’t think we’re arguing.
Even if I agreed with that this concedes that there is a spectrum even if there isn’t a firm line. There is a line even if it’s hazy and indistinct at the margin. The point is that if you’re arguing about where the line is you’re probably too close and playing with fire.
I disagree with it in principle, but agree generally that people shouldn’t be able to benefit from the fruits of their criminal behavior.
Perhaps not!
Old Yiddish proverb: When you’re out to beat a dog, you’re certain to find a stick.
Must we have more internecine squabbling?
The cited article reads like two different pieces smashed together. One is a followup to recent news stories, and the second is a backgrounder piece, but that background doesn’t match the news – it even admits as much:
They should have been run separately and/or a backgrounder done that matched the newser, e.g., something about the Black Israelites, who have turned up in more than one story of late, c.f. the Covington kids.
However, the OP itself smacks of the leftist “we can’t talk about that” trope. Is there some reason we can’t talk about conflicts between in-migrating populations and existing communities? I live in a rapidly growing part of Idaho, and I can certainly point to similar local conflicts arising between natives and newbies, who largely share ethnic and religious backgrounds. If the story was about black or Hispanic moving into a white area, the left would fly the ‘racist’ flag if one dared to discuss it. Are we going to do the same thing on the right, because the conflict centers around a Jewish sect?
This OP is so disappointing. In several recent posts, I detailed the facts. There is no evidence, in the crime statistics, of a significant increase in anti-Semitic violent crime. The number of Jews killed in anti-Semitic attacks is very, very low. Obviously, all violent crime is a terrible thing, and murder is exceptionally terrible.
But I am very disappointed that Bethany continues to peddle a narrative that I have demonstrated to be unsubstantiated, and that the best evidence indicates to be false. As I did in my other posts, I concede that it is possible that there has been a very recent, substantial increase in anti-Semitic violence, but anecdote is not evidence, and this is not substantiated by any crime statistics that I have seen cited.
For those interested:
(1) Here is my post from Jan. 5, citing the latest FBI crime statistics and demonstrating, among other things, that: (a) violent anti-Semitic hate crime was 0.0033% of total violent crime in the US in 2018; and (b) murders motivated by anti-Semitic murder were 0.017% of all murders in 2015-2018.
(2) Here is iWe’s post from Jan. 12, in which my comment #22 cited worldwide statistics on anti-Semitic and anti-Christian killings in 2018, based on reports from the Israeli and UK governments. Among other things, I demonstrated that there were 318 anti-Christian killings for each anti-Semitic killing. Also, the rates were quite low and concentrated in very unusual circumstances — about 85% of the anti-Semitic killings were in the single, terrible Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (there were only 2 others reported in the entire world), and over 90% of the anti-Christian killings occurred in the radical Islamic persecution of Christians in Nigeria.
At Ricochet, we are supposed to engage in fact-based, reasoned argument. These are the facts, as I have been able to determine them, and they indicate that there is not a significant problem. Obviously, all crime should be investigated and prosecuted, but there is no meaningful evidence of widespread targeting of Jews for violent attack.
As always, I am open to the presentation of additional evidence. I am disappointed in Bethany’s continued failure to address the facts, and to rely instead on anecdote, misleading narrative, and even hysteria.
I find this to be very divisive. A false accusation of widespread anti-Semitism actually tends to prompt a hostile reaction. A focus on the 0.0033% of violent crime that is anti-Semitic hate crime directed against Jews, while ignoring the other 99.9967% of violent crime, is not a uniting message. It comes across as a claim of special importance on the part of a specific group, and disdain for everyone else. I understand that this may not be the intent, but it is the impression that is given.
There was this scandalous article in National Review a number of years ago about taking pride in teaching Holocaust denial. I wonder what the author would say about taking pride in teaching slavery denial in Southern states? Yes, you do have to expect such articles dissing Jews from time to time, even on conservative sites.
Lots of reading between the lines going on. I am not very good at that, so I went back to the OP.
Here is my problem. This
is very difficult to square with this.
It seems to me that Conservatives are, in fact, pouncing on all three pieces and there does not seem to be an “awful lot of silence”.
So I don’t get the point of the OP. Because reality doesn’t seem to be squaring with what Bethany said.
Have things gotten to the right number of decibels yet?
My impression about the awkward “mashing” together of these 2 separate themes is that the author wanted to write an article about local politics and the Orthodox Jews are “gaming the system” but was reluctant – didn’t – not enough material to stand on it’s own, could be perceived as attacking those Jews, etc. However, the attack gave him the understandable opportunity to write about a current event and then attach the real article he wanted to write.
Obviously, I have no idea what his personal feelings are. But we see this often in media where a current topic is used simply to introduce something that the author wants to write about.
Another way to put “gaming the system” is “taking advantage of all the rules in place to your best advantage”. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
It’s like when the left rails against the rich and their tax “loopholes”. A “loophole” sounds illegal, but it’s not. If a tax deduction for changing the oil in your Rolls Royce exists, you may legally deduct it if you own a Rolls and have the oil changed. If a loophole exists in any government program, it was either 1) forgotten to be addressed by Congress, or 2) intentionally put there.
The Supreme Court has already ruled every citizen may reduce his taxes as low as possible using every legal means (deductions, exemptions, etc.). I think it’s safe to assume this ruling applies to non-tax related regulations as well.
I really don’t think there would be this controversy if NR hadn’t conflated two separate stories into one article. The two stories, if written separately, seem to me to be entirely unexceptionable.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you can hide income in order to avail yourself of public services.
When we talk about deductions, we’re typically discussing “reductions to net tax liabilities” not “rebates from the treasury in excess of liabilities.”
from Shlomo Aviner, a rabbi in Israel, head of a yeshiva in Jerusalem’s Old City:
“In the book of Exodus, why do the Egyptians hate the Hebrews so passionately? What did we do to them? How did we sin against them? On the contrary, Joseph saved the Egyptians from starvation and it is not written anywhere that we did anything bad! In a letter to the Jews of Yemen, Rambam (Moses Maimonides, 1135-1204), who lived in Egypt at the time, wrote that the ancient Egyptians were not the first and not the last to hate us. Egypt, Greece, Babylonia, Persia, and Rome, all of them hate us until today. Each time, there is a different explanation. But why do they hate us? The Rambam explains that they hate the Master of the Universe. They do not want to keep His laws. They rise up against Him. But since it is impossible to do anything against the Master of the Universe, they rise up against us. Because we are his emissaries. We are the emissaries tasked with spreading His light in the world. “They rise up against Him and against His annointed” (Psalms 2:2). We brought laws and obligations into the world but people do not want obligations. Their hatred is instinctive since if the concept of obligations should spread, their barbaric souls would have no power. Therefore, they hold a grudge against us. In the future, however, all nations will see that obligations are a good thing and then they will love us.”
Besides the title, and I am often told that authors do not get to write the title, what is it that Charles C. W. Cooke says with which you disagree?
Maybe Charlie Cooke goes a bit overboard. Perhaps you shouldn’t have such discussions in kindergarten. But should we not have them among adults in college as colleges have too many political factions and having recently become a leading source of anti-Semitism in the United States? What about middle school, junior high, and high school as the teachers aren’t smart enough to show a video of a documentary with Holocaust survivors? Not every student is going to go to college. American high school and junior high teachers might be one of the reasons why anti-Semitism is less in our country. It reminds me of the charge that Joe Biden (and his family) cannot be investigated before an election, during an election, while in office, or after he is in office. That’s not the way things are supposed to work either.
Often using the four worst weasel words in modern journalism: “…. at a time when ….”. For example “these anti-Semitic murders came during a week in which President Trump sent out several vitriolic tweets”. Or “this hurricane comes at a time when scientists are warning that catastrophic weather events will become ever more common.”
This horrible form of linguistic misdirection is used thousands of times each day by the largest print media outlets, and its intent is always the same: leveraging a temporal coincidence to trick the reader into believing there is a causal link between two events without actually explicitly stating such a link exists.
Win-win: the reporter implants an unfounded notion in the reader’s mind while maintaining the veneer of objectivity.
While we are on the topic, or were last page, groups like the Amish also are free riders on the system of defense. If you refuse to participate in the defense of your nation, but live protected by its armies, that is a free rider issues.
I think any time you have free riders, you will get resentment.
Another comment, not based on my previously cited statistics.
Notice that Bethany’s point is that it is impermissible to criticize the activities of Orthodox or Hasidic Jews. The assertion was made, in the NR article, that Ultra-Orthodox or Hasidic Jews do not work hard, and are heavy users of government services. This may or may not be true. I notice that Bethany doesn’t address this issue at all, as a factual matter.
I think that it is perfectly legitimate to object to a specific group of people who move into a community and become a burden on public finance, by consuming a disproportionate share of expensive government services while making relatively little economic contribution. I do not say that this is true of Ultra-Orthodox Jews. I don’t know. I presume that the NR author had some factual basis for his assertion that: “The ultra-Orthodox population is also a heavy user of government resources such as Medicaid and food stamps.”
Such actions, if true, will understandably lead to some resentment and disapproval of the group at issue. This seems perfectly legitimate to me.
But no. If the group being criticized are Jews, it is automatically anti-Semitic, and Bethany’s response is both hysterical and absolutely one-sided. She cites a wave of violence for which no evidence is presented (and which I have disproven). She deifies the Jews and demonizes the opposition: “on one side of the ‘issue’ are Jews getting massacred and on the other, people who call those same Jews ‘locusts.'”
Kevin Williamson gives a perfectly reasonable response, and Bethany’s riposte is pure identity politics: “But the fact is there were plenty of Jewish conservatives (and a few non-Jewish ones too) who expressed horror at the way Hasidic Jews were characterized.”
I am very troubled by this. I’ve generally been quite philo-Semitic in my lifetime, but have recently noticed that the tactics of some Jewish commentators and organizations appear to come right out of the identity politics playbook.
This is likely true, but how relevant is it to the merits, or lack therof, of the article in question? The NR piece should be judged on its own. It either provides an appropriate view of its subject or it doesn’t. If anything, the hypersensitivity we see in our culture to anything that could possibly be perceived as “criticism” of other minorities could inform our views here. The nub of this is whether the article conveys something close to “truth,” and I don’t pretend to know the answer to that.
Or maybe the ancient Egyptians thought these new immigrants were taking their jobs, lowering the average wage, failing to integrate into society and speak Egyptian, they over crowded the schools and hospitals, strained public services, and worst of all voted for the wrong political party. You know the usual complaints about new immigrants.
On a serious note, how many corroborating accounts of Exodus are there historically? Aside from the biblical accounts how much do we know about the relations between ancient Egyptians and the ancient Hebrews? Egyptians were fairly prolific writers though their works are not easily preserved.
Who resents the Amish? I mean beside anyone stuck in traffic behind one of their buggies? They seems to small and inconsequential to worry about, same with these Hasidic Jews. At least in the US. Maybe in Israel where they are both more numerous and proportionally larger it is more of an issue. But how many can there be in the US? Like a few thousand? Probably less common than transvestites.
Actually, if I recall Exodus correctly, the Egyptians feared the Hebrews because they had prospered and greatly increased in numbers. This presented a threat to the Egyptian state. The Hebrews did not assimilate. The Egyptians were not confident that the Hebrews would remain loyal to the Egyptian government. The Egyptians were actually correct about all of this.
Because I am a Christian believer, I accept that the Egyptian culture and government were quite terrible.
If I wanted to tell the story from the Egyptian point of view, I could point out that they ended up paying a terrible price for having accepted a small number of Hebrew refugees from a famine.
To the best of my recollection, the Hebrews in Israel are not reported to have advocated for moral reform among the Egyptians. In fact, they did not receive the Law until after they left Egypt.
I agree that sometimes the Jews are wrongfully persecuted for bringing the truth of God to other peoples. But sometimes the Jews are treated roughly for doing the exact same things that would get any other group treated roughly, for reasons of practical politics.
I don’t like the type of argument that suggests that the Jews can do no wrong, which is what seems to be suggested in the above comment.