The difference between active and passive antisemitism — and why TIME falls on the wrong side of the line
One of the dominant PC d0ctrines is that you’re not allowed to dislike people based upon race, religion, creed, country of national original, sexuality, gender, etc. This is one step beyond federal law, which merely says that you cannot discriminate against people on those grounds.
I heartily agree with the federal law. In a free, democratic society, your skin color or religion (or whatever else), standing alone, should not subject you to discrimination.
(Please note that I said “standing alone.” I do believe that, if your religion requires you to engage in certain practices that are inconsistent with a job, its reasonable for the employer not to hire you, since he is discriminating based on conduct, not religion. Neither the orthodox Jewish woman nor the conservative Muslim woman should be applying for a job at Hooters, and Hooters is right to refuse them employment if they refuse to wear the Hooters’ costume. Likewise, considering that fire fighters carry tons of gear and drag people out of burning buildings, I don’t think a 5′ tall, 95 lb gal should get the job because it would be “discriminatory” not to hire her. In the event of a fire, I want to be rescued, as opposed to burning to death in the glorious consciousness that I have sacrificed my life to political correctness.)
PC, though, cannot change the fact that, within our own heads, we may well dislike a specific group. I happen to dislike one group. I don’t like their language, their culture, their food or their music. BUT I DON’T WISH THEM ILL. I wish them every success, I want them to enjoy the full benefits of our country’s wealth and freedom, and if a family from this group moves into my neighborhood, I will welcome them with open arms, provided that their desire is to blend with my neighborhood, not to change it. Are you my feelings irrational? Absolutely. Are they invalid? No, I don’t think they should be. Because I DON’T WISH THIS GROUP ILL.
The same holds true for what I’ve long called “active” versus “passive” antisemitism. Kelly LeBrock may have whined for years that one shouldn’t hate her because she’s beautiful, but I’ve always come at it from the other side, which is that you don’t have to like me just because I’m Jewish. You see, in a healthy society, we don’t force people to like each other, but we do prevent them from harming each other based on those dislikes.
A perfect example, to my mind, of passive antisemitism, is Dorothy Sayers’ first book, Whose Body?
Active antisemitism is different, because it adds to the hostility a desire for Jewish destruction. We saw this with the Nazis, and we see this with the Muslims. It is not enough to say “I don’t like Jews.” This antisemite must take it to the next level of physical suffering and death.
Of course, as with everything, there’s a continuum. The Time Magazine cover story claiming that Jews don’t care for peace shows a magazine on the move to the ugly side of that continuum. On its face, the article seems to be passive antisemitism, in that it simply repeats ancient, ugly tropes about Jews being amoral, money-grubbing animals. Fine, Time doesn’t like Jews.
But there’s a subtext here, which is the fact that the article is written as part of the coverage regarding yet another round of Israel/Palestinian talks. And what the article doesn’t acknowledge is that the Palestinians have been very open about their active antisemitism: they want Jews dead, very, very dead. And so when Time writes an article like this, it is working to hasten Israel’s destruction by empowering the Palestinians in a sham “process,” that has as its ultimate goal Israel’s destruction. TIME WISHES JEWS ILL. And that is the type of antisemitism that is as active as it gets.
