We tend to think of attacking as the province of bullies. The truth is that most attacks, and certainly the most vicious, are carried out by people who feel like victims. A major problem of the victim mentality is that it equates weakness with virtue; people who feel like victims believe whatever they do is right because they are the good guys. It is hard to combat this perverted thinking because the anti-bully, pro-victim mentality has permeated society. That's why we so readily excuse minorities for their belligerence. After all, they are weaker, so their anger and hostility are justified.

We Jews are so used to thinking of ourselves as victims that we don't recognize when we act like bullies. We can't stand it when others attack us, but don't think twice about attacking them. Being victimized horribly in the past does not exempt us from living by the Golden Rule in the present.

We have countless organizations and individuals acting as watchdogs with their ears, eyes, and noses ready to detect anti-Semitism. As soon as someone - especially in any position of power - says something that belittles or criticizes Jews in any way, our watchdogs quickly pounce to brand them as anti-Semites. This is especially true whenever anyone, God forbid, compares some atrocity to the Holocaust. And for some strange reason, despite all of our attacks against anti-Semites, the stream of anti-Semites continues to flow.

We seem to forget that "anti-Semite" is not a compliment. It is an insult, and people don't enjoy being called anti-Semite any more than we Jews enjoy being called Kike. It is an attack, and when we label others an anti-Semite, they don't experience us as being their victims; they experience us as being bullies. If anything, it confirms the way they feel about us.

It is possible that some people feel so ashamed when we call them anti-Semites that they repent and commit themselves to only saying nice things about Jews in the future. But most people are not like this. They resent us for insulting them and fight back. They angrily deny they are anti-Semitic and try even harder to prove that their views are correct and not a result of bigoted distortions. So instead of our attacks stopping attacks against us, they lead to a continuation and escalation of hostilities. No wonder our pro-Semitic watchdogs have not succeeded in drying up the stream of anti-Semitism.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not against combating anti-Semitism.. When Jew haters do things that cause physical or financial harm to Jews, they are criminals and should be stopped and punished. Incitement to violence and official preaching of hatred against Jews are not covered by freedom of speech. I am only against fighting anti-Semitism it when it is unnecessary or counterproductive.

Disliking Jews and expressing that dislike are not crimes. People should have the freedom to think and say what they want about us as long as no tangible damage is done. If we want the freedom to insult people as anti-Semites, we have to give others the freedom to insult us for being Jews. Just don't kill me, rape me, burn my house down, or prevent me from competing in the job market. You do not have the right to do such things to me, and it's the government's obligation to protect me.

Very often, the people who get called anti-Semites really are not anti-Semitic; they may not even CARE enough about Jews to WANT to insult them. Sometimes they actually do like Jews. It's just that they occasionally happen to think that something Jews are doing is wrong. And sometimes they are right. But they are stunned when suddenly pounced upon for being anti-Semitic. Jews are often critical of other Jews, yet we expect Gentiles never to criticize us. The idea that "We can criticize our own, but other groups can't" is discriminatory and contrary to the Golden Rule. So is the idea that "They can't insult us for being Jews, but we can insult them for being anti-Semites."

COMPARISONS TO THE HOLOCAUST

Some of the worst overreactions of Jewish groups occur when atrocities are compared to the Holocaust. Jews have earned a reputation as fine abstract thinkers, yet when it comes to the Holocaust, our thoughts become concrete. Don't we realize that when an event is compared to the Holocaust, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was EXACTLY the same as the Holocaust - only that is was SIMILAR in some way to the Holocaust?

We are so concerned with keeping the idea of the Holocaust pure, as being the only genocidal event of its magnitude in human history, that we may be causing harm to the memory of the Holocaust. Celebrities know that bad publicity is better than no publicity. We should learn from them. When someone compares an atrocity to the Holocaust - even if it isn't an accurate comparison - they are helping to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive. As long as people continue to use the Holocaust as the ultimate example of intentional human cruelty, the memory of the Holocaust will be kept alive. So we should be grateful to them instead of angry. (There are exceptions, of course, as when true anti-Semites refer to Jewish Nazis inflicting a Holocaust on Palestinians. You can be excused for refusing to feel gratitude to them.)

A couple of months ago, Abe Foxman, national director of the (Jewish) Anti-Defamation League, blasted New York State Congressman Charles Rangell for comparing American silence about Iraqi civilian deaths to silence about the Holocaust. Though Rangell has a good record of support for Jews, he was vilified for using the Holocaust for the political purpose of criticizing American intervention in Iraq. Why play so naïve? Doesn't Foxman know that politicians are SUPPOSED to promote their political agendas? What was Rangell's great crime? What good did Foxman do other than earn the enmity of Rangell and his supporters and possibly increase anti-Semitism?

About two-and-a-half years ago, Jewish groups furiously denounced PETA, the animal right's organization, for a publicity campaign that compared the treatment of animals in factory farms with the Holocaust. Perhaps the campaign wasn't in great taste, and animals aren't slaughtered because of hatred as Jews were, but I have seen the way chickens and turkeys are raised for human consumption, and I could certainly appreciate the PETA campaign. But PETA was accused by the Jewish groups of having more concern with animals than with the feelings of human beings (Holocaust survivors might be offended by the campaign).

Is offending a human being's feelings a greater evil than atrocious treatment of animals' bodies? I don't think so, and if animals could speak, they'd say it isn't, too. The Bible, in fact, has exemplary laws requiring humane treatment of animals. If Biblical laws were applied, most animals raised in factory farms would be forbidden for human consumption because of the cruelty of their treatment. But our victim mentality clouds our moral judgment. In the modern world, hurting feelings has actually become a bigger crime than hurting bodies! "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words kill" is the new mantra. (See The Folly of Protecting Feelings - click on link below.) How DARE anyone take advantage of our sacred past suffering to try to ease the current suffering of hundreds of millions of animals! We want cheap meat, and don't try to make us feel guilty about it.

It's about time we Jews stopped thinking like victims and treating everyone like enemies. People do have a right to think and talk badly of us, just as we do of others. Maybe we'll even learn something of value from their criticism, so we should thank them. We should only act when others commit true crimes against us. And even then, we need to do it in the right way. The next rule, to be discussed in a future newsletter, may be of help. Stay tuned.

read The Folly of Protecting Feelings »