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.