10 June 27 • 2019
jn
views
S
omething needed to be done.
With tensions rising between
African Americans and Jews,
it was time to reaffirm the need for
both a greater emphasis on mutual
understanding and recognition that
hate poses a threat to
both groups. Kudos
to the American
Jewish Committee
for its work in help-
ing to create a new
Black-Jewish Caucus
in the U.S. House of
Representatives. The
AJC’
s initiative brought
together Jews and blacks, Republicans
as well as Democrats in an effort to
bridge the growing divide between
the two communities, including some
well-known names like Rep. Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.); the for-
mer head of the Democratic National
Committee, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries
(D-N.Y.); the head of the House
Democratic Caucus, Rep. John Lewis
(D-Ga.), an icon of the civil-rights
movement; and Rep. Lee Zeldin
(R-N.Y.), a leading congressional
supporter of U.S. President Donald
Trump.
But while the symbolism is valuable,
the question remains as to wheth-
er this caucus will be of any use in
combating all forms of hate. At first
glance, the caucus seems like it will
primarily be working to do something
easy — combating white supremacism
— rather than the much more difficult
job of uniting Americans of all races
and political affiliations against the
growing threat of left-wing anti-Semi-
tism and hate that has been produced
by intersectional ideology.
It makes sense that blacks and Jews
should come together to work against
white-nationalist extremists. Those
who support the neo-Nazis, Ku Klux
Klan and similar groups view both
blacks and Jews as objects of hatred
and targets for violence. Whether it’
s
a black church in Charleston or syn-
agogues in Pittsburgh or Poway, such
armed extremists present a clear and
present danger.
These tragic incidents provide a
reminder to both blacks and Jews
that the far-right despises them both,
and that the bonds forged during the
struggle for civil rights a half-centu-
ry ago need to be rediscovered and
nurtured. There is a need to rekindle
a sense of shared values and commit-
ment that must extend throughout
both communities. The creation of
this caucus does have the potential to
set the kind of example that can help
in that respect. But by announcing
that its exclusive focus will be oppos-
ing white nationalism, it’
s not clear
that it will do much to undermine the
forces and the ideas that are driving
blacks and Jews apart.
The tragedies in Pittsburgh and
Poway shone a light on the threat
from racist extremists. But as shocking
as those crimes were, the fact remains
that support for white nationalism
remains confined to the fever swamps
of American life. Though they have
loud voices on the internet and have
inspired a few individuals to com-
mit acts of mass murder, those who
support such groups are smaller in
number. Nor do they have any back-
ing from within the mainstream of
American society or political life.
So while stating opposition to such
groups is necessary, it also doesn’
t
require much political courage. The
same cannot be said for standing up
against left-wing anti-Semitism.
The BDS movement promotes an
anti-Semitic ideology that seeks to
destroy the Jewish state, and to isolate
and intimidate Jews who support it.
It has established a growing foothold
on North American college campuses.
More importantly, in the last year, it
gained a beachhead in Congress with
the election of two members: Reps.
Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida
Tlaib (D-Mich.), who are open sup-
porters of BDS and who have traf-
ficked in anti-Semitic invective.
Yet while Republicans disciplined
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — the one
member of their caucus with ties to
white nationalists — Democrats have
embraced Omar and Tlaib as new
and exciting leaders of their party.
While some prominent Democrats
condemned the hate speech by these
congresswomen, the party refused to
strip them of their committee assign-
ments, as the GOP did to King, leav-
ing Omar on the prestigious Foreign
Affairs Committee. The Congressional
Black Caucus was particularly vocal in
defending them.
Given the polarized political cli-
mate, those Democrats who joined the
new caucus deserve credit for being
willing to work with Republicans
under any circumstances. That’
s espe-
cially true with respect to someone
like Zeldin, who has been vilified by
left-wingers. Palestinian-American
activist/hatemonger and Women’
s
March Leader Linda Sarsour, who
has promoted the lie that anyone who
calls out Omar and Tlaib for their
anti-Semitism is an Islamaphobe, has
been especially vocal in denouncing
the caucus.
Unless the Black-Jewish Caucus is
going to denounce Omar, Tlaib and
the BDS movement, it will be ignoring
the variety of anti-Semitism that has
the most support in contemporary
America — and not doing much to
stop hate. ■
Editor’
s Note: Michigan Rep. Brenda Lawrence,
who represents the 14th
District, which
includes much of the Jewish News’
circulation
area, was a founding member of the Black-
Jewish Caucus.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of the Jewish
News Syndicate.
commentary
Can a Black-Jewish Congressional Caucus Bridge the Divide?
Jonathan S.
Tobin
commentary continued from page 6
beloved sister, the parents arrested and
never seen again.
As the Holocaust recedes in time,
some Americans (and Europeans)
are becoming increasingly casual and
disrespectful to the mass murder of
millions. More dangerous, today the
internet disseminates insensitive or
hateful remarks with unprecedented
ease and influence. Online discussions
tend to encourage extreme opinions;
they allow people to live in echo
chambers of their own ideologies and
peers. Weimar Germany
—
the period
between the First World War and the
Nazi rise to power
—
is an exemplar
of the threats that emerge when the
political center fails to hold, when
social trust is allowed to erode and the
fissures exploited.
Quality Holocaust education may
have the potential to bridge some of
the divides our nation is experiencing.
It enables people to pause. To step
away from the problems and debates
of the present. To be challenged by this
catastrophic event of the past. That is
what good history education does. It
doesn’
t preach. It teaches. It engages
at a personal level. It promotes self-re-
flection and critical thinking about the
world and one’
s own roles and respon-
sibilities. That engagement is lost
when we resort to grossly simplified
Holocaust analogies. And it demeans
the memory of the dead.
Writing in 1953, the British novelist
L.P. Hartley said, “The past is a foreign
country; they do things differently
there.” Comparing and categorizing are
natural human impulses. We all use
categories and analogies to navigate
through life. But the nature of Nazi
crimes demands that we study the evi-
dence, alert ourselves to warning signs,
wrestle with the world’
s moral fail-
ure. When we reduce it to a flattened
morality tale, we forfeit the chance
to learn from its horrific specificity.
We lose sight of the ordinary human
choices that made genocide possible.
Careless Holocaust analogies may
demonize, demean and intimidate
their targets. But there is a cost for
all of us because they distract from
the real issues challenging our society
because they shut down productive,
thoughtful discourse. At a time when
our country needs dialogue more
than ever, it is especially dangerous to
exploit the memory of the Holocaust
as a rhetorical cudgel. We owe the
survivors more than that. And we owe
ourselves more than that. ■
Edna Friedberg, Ph.D., is a historian in the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum’
s William Levine
Family Institute for Holocaust Education.