Following the massacre of Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue, it has been heartening to see the empathy and genuine solidarity on display across many faiths and backgrounds. It gives me hope that we can build a united front to stand against anti-Semitism and bigotry in the future. But some reactions have also given me pause. I want to look at these reactions to see how they fail.
For example, some have said that if only there were an armed guard in the synagogue, this tragedy could have been prevented. President Donald Trump has suggested such a course of action, as has the president of the National Rifle Association. There are quite a few problems with this. Aside from the facts that armed police did show up at the shooting and were unable to stop the shooter before some of them were wounded, and that such a course of action does not tackle the root causes of anti-Semitism, spending resources on security will inevitably mean fewer resources focused on classes and services that would help build the community and moving forward. Furthermore, the presence of any armed guard in a synagogue may create a hostile environment for some, if not all, Jews — it would definitely create a hostile environment for people of color who are Jewish. Militarized police harass and brutalize people of color every day; under no circumstance should we allow that environment to manifest in places of worship.
It has also been enlightening to see some people pay more attention to some anti-Semitic crimes more than others because of who the perpetrator is. For example, there has been a lot of due attention paid to the defacement of a Brooklyn synagogue with a swastika. This act is obviously reprehensible. But I am wary of people who use it as a political cudgel. For example, the Binghamton University College Republicans’ Twitter page has multiple posts using the defacement as an attempt to smear the left, based on the fact that the perpetrator is a black man and a volunteer for members of the Democratic Party. They also allude to Louis Farrakhan, an anti-Semitic religious leader, as an example of so-called left-wing anti-Semitism. Their idol of idols, Jewish conservative Ben Shapiro, has made similar claims about the left-mainstreamed Farrakhan.
I find it incredibly interesting that the same Twitter page contains no mention of the massacre in Pittsburgh, nor of the murderer, or the fact that he was motivated to kill Jews based on the actions of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish-led organization that aids political refugees. There is no mention that the murderer called these refugees “invaders” — no mention of the underlying white supremacist ideology of it all. I also find it incredibly interesting that Shapiro brings up Farrakhan and claims he is “mainstream,” despite the fact that Farrakhan has found himself increasingly on the sidelines of society and holds no elected office, as the fascist Congressman Steve King currently does. It seems we only hear of him when people like Shapiro or the College Republicans want a convenient target to smear left-wing activists in general, and left-wing Jews, Jews of color and the supporters of the rights of Palestinians in particular. It is evident that the College Republicans care enough about Jew hatred to try to manipulate white Jews to their ideologies. It is not evident that they care about Jew hatred for the fact that it exists. So to speak, they are grifters on this issue, professional “concern trolls,” pure and simple.
This is to say when people claim to care about Jew hatred, we must listen to them further. We must ask: Do they only talk about one type of perpetrator? Do they have an understanding of power dynamics as they relate to anti-Semitism? Have they railed against other marginalized people in the past? Are they “concern trolling?” With these questions in mind, we can determine whether they actually care, or if they are attempting to subjugate us.
Jacob Hanna is a junior majoring in economics.