Dog-Whistles, et al

By MItzi Alvin

It is unfortunate that the group, IfNotNow, which claims to support Jewish liberal causes, is trying to portray Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib as the fair-minded, equitable representative of a Jewish liberal constituency. Setting aside her foul-mouthed description of the President, she has aligned herself with virulent anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan, with Hezballah supporter, Abbas Hamideh, a man who praises the murder of Jewish children, and she has suggested that those in congress who support Israel (read Jews or those subject to Jewish pressure) have forgotten “what country they represent.” Considering that she celebrated her electoral victory by wrapping herself in a Palestinian flag, she has shown herself to be not only an anti-Semite, but a hypocrite of the first order.

But Ms. Tlaib is only one instance of a broader concern. The Progressive Left often accuses those who take exception to their agenda of using what they call “dog-whistles,” a kind of code that signals, to a coterie of believers, views that avoid politically incorrect language, but are, in fact, a disguise for racism. Anyone, for example, who strongly favors border security, is, according to this formula, covering for xenophobia, Islamophobia, and prejudice toward “people of color.” Supposedly, such circumlocution is solely, a disease of the right. I would suggest, however, that Progressives are attuned to these ultra-high frequencies because this “trick” designed to hide unacceptable beliefs with moralizing sound tracks, is a large part of their own political arsenal.

In the case of Tlaib, and some of the other newly-elected, often highly praised, congressional figures, along with many in the new Women’s movement, anti-Israel remarks are made that, upon inspection, turn out to be well-worn and recognizable anti-Semitic libels. But because they appear in the guise of anti-Zionism, and, or, criticism of Israel, they should not be considered racist, or offensive to Jews. Thus, while pretending to make a legitimate critique of the Jewish State, these righteous souls presume a license to haul out, from their cellars and lairs, the hoariest and most vile of anti-Semitic stereotypes. But because the word “Jew,” is used only in the narrowest sense (“Of course, we don’t mean all Jews”), Israel’s critics can swear up and down that they are not anti-Semites.  On the contrary. The real racists, they insist, are supporters of “apartheid Israel.”

Furthermore, this kind of inversion is becoming commonplace in the liberal media. The “dual loyalty” question is merely one of the milder anti-Jewish shibboleths. In a recent NYTimes op-ed piece, we learn that Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson is using his wealth to influence foreign policy. Since it is well-known that the head of the present administration is averse to taking instruction from anyone, including his closest advisers, this sort of bald manipulation is hardly likely. What is obvious, to anyone familiar with anti-Semitic conceits, is that the writer has picked up a major theme derived from the notorious “Elders of Zion” pamphlet about “Jews and Jewish money controlling the government.”

Worse! In the same issue, is a long op-ed piece entitled “Breaking the Silence on Palestine.” Although there is not and has never been a sovereign state called “Palestine,” and prejudicial criticism of Israel has been a Times’ practice almost as consistent as their criticism of Donald Trump, the staff editors feel perfectly comfortable that their readership will overlook this contradiction and the patent lie it intends to obscure. But just in case someone might catch on, they show, on the same editorial pages, exactly how to parse “Fake News,” suggesting, implicitly, that what they do is the epitome of fair and honest reporting. Anyway, if complaints are made, the editors can easily assert that what you see on opinion pages “doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of this paper or its staff. We want to present all sides of an issue.” The fact that the Times devotes nearly a page and half of its valuable space to this article is, somehow, beside the point. And the dog-whistle remains: that a powerful few (read Jews) with influence in high places not only control the government’s behavior, but they ensure that the war crimes of the Jewish State will not come to light.

The Detroit Free Press has also jumped onto the dog-whistle bandwagon. A front-page article on Ms. Tlaib, dismisses criticism of her positions by passing them off as good intentions toward suffering Palestinians, and her support for anti-Israel BDS as a principled stance for freedom of speech. It’s hard to believe that members of the press are unaware of this congresswoman’s well-publicized anti-Semitic associations, but not a word of that is mentioned.  Still, the higher registers are at work. The message they relay is that since a reputable public medium accepts, without question, that Israel is an oppressor nation, criticism of this honorable individual must be driven by Jewish bias.  As for those who don’t hear the “music,” and are not invested in Jewish, or anti-Jewish causes, they will take for granted that Israel is, often as not, a bad actor, and that Jewish stereotypes may have a kernel of truth.

It’s not as if the Free Press is actively anti-Semitic. The suppression of relevant factors, here, has a more pragmatic mission. After all, Ms. Tlaib is planning many good things for Michiganders. Good works should cancel out bad behavior — shouldn’t they?  Maybe. But soft antisemitism is still antisemitism.  In fact, the very mildness of these apologetics is insidious. Presented as good-faith concern for worthy causes, they are less likely to be dismissed as “off-the-wall.” And when the media play down or distort what has been clearly shown to be bad behavior by “people of color,” those who wish to speak out, especially in today’s accusatory climate, are terrified that they will be the ones who appear as racist and possibly face pariah status. As a result, more than a few seekers of justice are silenced and canards of Jewish derogation continue to gain ground. Meanwhile, it’s no accident that anti-Semitic incidents, from both ends of the political spectrum, are on the rise. When false accusations and bigot-baiting myths are given credibility by mainstream media, it becomes easy for nut-jobs, like the one who murdered eleven Jews in Pittsburgh, to decide they have a mandate to “get out there and clean things up.”

Let’s be clear. Anyone whose eyes are open and whose ears are not clogged with meretricious noises, can see that unique and obsessive criticism of Jews and Jewish interests is not a matter of Jewish paranoia. In terms of both etymology and history, it is racism. But, because demonizing Israel has become fashionable as a way of demonizing Jews, and because, with more than a little help from the “big” press, Islamophobia has been conflated with Black Lives Matter, and because, consequently, is it is becoming mainstream, we should not be fooled. Ms. Tlaib and her ilk are racists. For them to call themselves liberals is a contradiction in terms. And their apologists, when not self-delusional, or anti-Semitic themselves, are political opportunists and portend a real danger, not just to Israel and to Jews, but to Democratic independence of thought.

The canary in the coal mine is not an overripe cliché. It is a truth that needs to be continually acknowledged. Nor does it help the struggle for racial equality to sacrifice Jews on the altar of political correctness. If it is wrong for whites, for Jews, for the Buddhists of Myanmar, to be racist, it is, regardless of creed or color, wrong for everyone.