A Nihilist on Anti-Semitism

HonestReporting.com ^

[Brian Allen]

Communique: 31 December 2003

A NIHILIST ON ANTI-SEMITISM

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,

On December 28 The Los Angeles Times published two opposing op-ed pieces on the resurgent wave of worldwide anti-Semitism.

Remarkably, the debate wasn't about what to do about the problem, but rather if a problem exists at all.

ADL Director Abraham Foxman cited, among other recent events, the viciously anti-Jewish statements of Malaysia's then prime minister, the synagogue bombings in Istanbul, and the burning of an Indiana holocaust museum, to conclude:

Anti-Semitism is not a relic of history but a current event. Its resurgence is stronger and more widespread than even the most pessimistic among us predicted. And the threat is growing ... Democratic leaders and good people must stand up - for their own sake as well as for the sake of Jewish communities - so that the theme of "never again" will be a living reality.

Mr Foxman's words were deemed debatable by the Times, which invited Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at Ontario's Trent University, to counter Foxman with an article entitled "A Minor Problem, Overblown."

Neumann claims that anti-Semitism just shouldn't concern us today, and supports his view with arguments such as this:

Concentration camp survivors still alive deserve sympathy and justice, but they are few. Myself, I'd feel a bit embarrassed saying to a homeless person on the streets of Toronto, much less to the inhabitants of a Philippine garbage dump: "Oh yeah? You think you know suffering? My grandmother died in a concentration camp!" ... Perhaps anti-Semitism is not, after all, a high priority.

The LA Times accorded Neumann a prominent space to air his views, despite the fact that Neumann has an established record of actively supporting [In Neumann's own words] "vicious racist anti-Semitism" to bring on the destruction of the Jewish state. Last year, Neumann had a correspondence with an anti-Semitic web site called the Jewish Tribal Review in which Neumann wrote:

"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose...I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don't care."

In response to this outburst, the Canadian Jewish Congress wrote a letter of complaint to Neumann's employer, Trent University. As the matter attracted greater attention, Neumann repudiated the statement [Without denying its authenticity] -- and then apologized to the CJC.

The Jewish Tribal Review originally contacted Neumann after another article of Neumann's claimed that "we should almost never take anti-Semitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it."

In that article, Neumann goes so far as to not only compare Israel to Nazi Germany, but to indict world Jewry for what he calls "complicity" with what he calles Israel's "crimes against humanity":

"At present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews."

Read the full text of Neumann's LA Times op-ed here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-neumann28dec28,1,3969276.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Our questions to the LA Times:

-- If Michael Neumann's nihilism and deep hatred for Israel are a matter of public record, why did the LA Times grant his voice the legitimacy of its opinion page?

-- Would not a more responsible debate for the Times op-ed page have been: How to deal with the troubling new wave of anti-Semitism?

Comments to LA Times: letters@latimes.com

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

http://www.HonestReporting.com

[Brian Allen]

Ping

[jim35]

This anti-Semitism is not so hard to figure out. If you are pro-Jew, you might be anti-Palistinian terrorist, or anti-Arab-muslim-extremist-murderer, which would make you a conservative, or at least a Republican. And that would be bad. /sarcasm off/

[dennisw]

Another self loathing commie Jew. M Neumann is a disgusting member of the professortariat.

[jim35]

The backlash from this, I predict, will be that Jews will begin, more and more, to vote with those who support them, namely the Republicans. Let the Libs continue this anti-semitic crap, and embrace the palestinians. More votes for us.

[anotherview]

I would point out that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress are strongly pro-Israel. New York's two Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Shumer, both have exemplary voting records on Israel. Of course, for the average Freeper, the rest of their voting record is horrific.

Being anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic is the territory of the far left and the extremely far right. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) votes consistantly anti-Israel. So does Ron Paul (R-TX), a Libertarian who is Republican in name only. You will not attract mainstream Jewish Democrats with the argument that only Republicans favor Israel because it is patently untrue.

To convince Jewish voters to vote for Republicans you will have to show, on a candidate by candidate basis, that the *INDIVIDUAL* Republican candidate will do a better job of protecting their interests.

[anotherview]

...and the New York times is run by yet another self-hating, anti-Israel Jew.

[Sloth]

"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose...I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don't care."

Wow, pretty flagrant. Of course, Abe Foxman is equally evil, so it's hard to root for anybody here.

[JudgemAll]

Yep, a Jew looking for alibis for his own corruption... alibis used by antisemites to comit genocide and memorycide of Jews.

I mean, hasnt he read Egyptian news papers or French newpapers lately?

[dennisw]

The Sulzberger family history is Jewish but my understanding is the current NYTimes boss (Publisher Arthur Sulzberger) is not Jewish. Not raised Jewish.

[weegee]

I would point out that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress are strongly pro-Israel. New York's two Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Shumer, both have exemplary voting records on Israel.

Here is a lovely shot of Hillary Clinton kissing Arafat's wife. Somehow America found the image of Britney kissing Madonna more offensive. To each his own.

Hillary also reportedly did not challenge any of the antiSemitic statements this woman made from the podium.

[secretagent]

Being anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic is the territory of the far left and the extremely far right. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) votes consistantly anti-Israel. So does Ron Paul (R-TX), a Libertarian who is Republican in name only.

Voting against US government funding of Israel, along with Egypt and the Palestine Authority, doesn't make Paul anti-Israel.

Michael Medved, a jewish, conservative, pro-Israeli talk show host, has endorsed the same.

[veronica]

Another self loathing commie Jew. M Neumann is a disgusting member of the professortariat.

And the rantings of this Commie rat and rats like him (Norman Finkelstein, Uri Avnery etc.) are embraced by Jewhaters everywhere on the net.