Before journalist Daniel Pearl was beheaded by Islamists in 2002, his captors videotaped him saying, “My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am Jewish.”
Like Pearl, I am Jewish. For over two decades, his filmed “confession” has haunted me because it implies that Jewishness confers guilt so irredeemable it warrants death.
This dim view of “the Jews” has been shared by many cultures and regimes throughout history, and it is held by a large number of people today. Although modern neo-Nazis (“White Nationalists”) tend to carefully avoid genocidal language, they almost universally believe that Jewish people exert a disproportionately malevolent or subversive influence on society as a whole.
Contemporary leftists believe the same thing, but they pretend not to by referring to Jews as “Zionists.” This doesn’t make their position any softer, but it does make it more disingenuous. At least Nazis and jihadists are honest about how they feel.
#TheNoticing
It’s been said that a friend knows your virtues, but an enemy knows your flaws. To learn the truth about how Jewish flaws are perceived, I spent some time reading neo-Nazi blogs and chatting with Jew-haters on the internet.
To my surprise, I quickly learned that many people who believe in the innate malevolence of Jews are not stupid, nor were they raised in antisemitic households. Many of them describe “awakening to reality” once they started “noticing.” Noticing, in this context, refers to observing the disproportionate over-representation of Jewish individuals in positions of authority, particularly within organizations or behind policies perceived as antithetical to human health, freedom, and prosperity.
My initial response was to dismiss this assertion as an example of confirmation bias. Jews are only 2% of the US population, so I assumed that even if you allow for the statistically higher level of literacy and entrepreneurship within the Jewish community, you’d have to look pretty hard to find Jews everywhere something antisocial is happening.
To my unpleasant surprise, I was wrong. You don’t have to look hard at all. It’s not even a conspiracy theory. From banking to government to business, in media, academia, and even pornography, an uncomfortably high percentage of decision-makers are Jewish. There are plenty of non-Jewish villains, of course, but there are definitely too many Jewish ones.
In fairness, one could persuasively argue that, due to centuries of cultural focus on educational and business attainment, Jews are over-represented on the “good” side as well as the “bad” side of any given issue. Furthermore, because of the generational trauma of repeated persecution, expulsion, and mass murder, it seems clear that many Jews seek out positions of influence in an effort to prevent such atrocities from happening again.
One could even argue that some Jewish “leaders,” such as COVID-era Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and CDC director Rachelle Walensky, are actually scapegoats: powerless figureheads chosen to be the face of evil policies and products so that their Jewish identity deflects blame from the WASPs whom they represent.
But, after careful consideration, I do not think that this is the best approach. These arguments are valid and have their place, but they still ignore the elephant in the room: too many Jews are doing terrible things. Ignoring that fact places all Jews at risk by making it easier for our enemies to attack us, and more difficult for our friends to defend us.
Social Identity is Key
Jews are not unique in downplaying the misdeeds of group members. According to research in social psychology, human beings have an innate tendency to view ourselves and any groups we identify with as favorably as possible, while viewing other people and their groups negatively.
For example, when a stranger does a bad thing, you assume this proves that he is a bad person; if you do the same bad thing, you tell yourself there were extenuating circumstances. That’s called the fundamental attribution error. We attribute our own misdeeds to circumstance, but the misdeeds of others to personality.
In the same way, when a person from a different group does something bad, you assume that his action represents the group. If someone from your group does the same thing, you assume that the action was an outlier, and that it does not reflect the values and norms of the group. That’s called in-group loyalty .
In-group loyalty or bias is closely associated with social identity theory, which proposes that our self-esteem is based, at least in part, on the perception of the groups we identify with (our “in-groups”). The better our in-groups are doing, the better we feel about ourselves.
On a less positive note, this same tendency underlies the universal phenomenon of prejudice. Just as an achievement by one of the in-group feels good for the other group members, a blunder feels bad. So, to preserve our own self-esteem, we instinctively emphasize undesirable actions perpetrated by “out-groups,” while excusing, minimizing, or ignoring misdeeds perpetrated by members of our in-group.
All of this explains two things:
Why “bad Jews” get so much attention. For 98% of the population, Jews are an out-group. This means 98% of people would rather focus on the misdeed of a Jew than an equivalent offense committed by a member of their own group. This 98% is also likely to ignore the Jewish identity of people whose actions they support or agree with. That’s why “good Jews” go unnoticed, but “bad Jews” get memed.
Why Jews are hesitant to criticize other Jews. Knowing that the sins of any in-group member will reflect negatively on the rest of the group, it’s natural to want to avoid drawing attention to anything unsavory. If calling out Jewish misbehavior makes all Jews look bad, it feels safer to stay quiet.
But the truth is that silence is a bad idea. It allows evil to continue, and provides evidence for those who accuse Jews of condoning toxic behavior.
Loss of Trust
In-group loyalty fosters belongingness and safety within a group, but when it becomes unethical, it creates mistrust between groups. A consistent argument I heard from antisemites online was that Jewish “tribalism” was evident in the Jewish community’s reluctance to condemn individuals like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein.
This argument is equivalent to the often-heard complaint, “Why don’t moderate Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism?” In both cases, the answer is, “They do.” Jewish writers not only excoriated Epstein and Weinstein, but even explored potential cultural origins for their predatory behavior.
Nonetheless, as with the lackluster Muslim condemnation of the murder of Daniel Pearl, the Jewish voices willing to criticize high-profile Jewish offenders are, on the whole, rather muted. And, on the involvement of Jews in more controversial topics, such as the appalling policies spearheaded by Jewish members of President Biden’s cabinet, or the COVID response and mRNA-based pharmaceuticals, they are virtually silent.
While understandable, this approach is not helping the Jewish community. On the contrary, it reinforces negative stereotypes. The answer to prejudicial attacks from the outside is not prejudicial defensiveness from the inside.
The Duty to Correct
In the Jewish tradition, the solution for every problem can be found in the Torah. The issue at hand is no exception, although the proposed answer - “the duty to correct” - might sound uncomfortable to modern ears.
Thousands of years before psychology was invented, the Jewish sages understood the potential impact one person’s actions might have on the community. As a result, they developed several teachings to promote mutual responsibility and accountability.
Tochacha
Deuteronomy 19:17 states, “You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.” This concept is called Tochacha - “rebuke” - and is an important element of Jewish ethics. It commands Jews to correct each other, both to prevent them from continuing in their wrongdoing, and to mitigate the risk of collective guilt.
Consider the allegations that “everybody-fucking-knew” about Harvey Weinstein’s predatory behavior. If some of his close associates had stopped him early on, imagine how much harm could have been prevented.
Derech Eretz
The core values of Jewish ethical behavior are summarized by the term Derech Eretz - literally “the way of the land.” These values include respect, kindness, honesty, and responsibility towards both the Jewish community and humanity as a whole.
Providing support and guidance to others at a peer-to-peer level is a crucial component of Derech Eretz. This is not done with judgmental or punitive intent, but to lovingly help one’s friends and neighbors adhere to ethical standards, and to maintain the integrity of the community.
Incidentally, while antisemites often claim that Judaism permits exploitation or abuse of non-Jews, Derech Eretz emphasizes the importance of demonstrating principled behavior and promoting peace and harmony in all interactions, regardless of religious or cultural differences.
Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh Bazeh
The notion of Jewish collective responsibility is described by the axiom Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh Bazeh (All of Israel are Responsible for One Another). According to this tradition, all Jews are required to look out for each other’s spiritual and material welfare. This includes the duty to hold one another accountable, because the actions of one Jew can impact the entire group.
Rebuking Is Not Public Shaming
These traditions emphasize the moral responsibility of Jews to keep each other behaving ethically and honorably, both for the good of humanity and the security of the Jewish community. However, there’s an important aspect to this doctrine that should not be overlooked: if at all possible, rebuke should be done privately and with compassion. The goal is not sanctimonious virtue-signaling, it’s preventing harm and providing guidance or encouragement.
There is, once again, a practical and a spiritual dimension to this. Morally, it is reprehensible to shame another person, especially in public. On a material level, correcting someone’s misbehavior before it escalates to the level of hurting others is both a service to the world and a kindness to the potential perpetrator, who then has a chance to change their ways.
As a hypothetical example, consider Nina Jankowicz, whose appointment in 2022 as leader of the blatantly Orwellian Disinformation Governance Board of the United States resulted in a savage torrent of sexist and antisemitic abuse. Had she received (and heeded) a compassionate, private rebuke from other Jews prior to accepting the job, she might have weighed the value of this prestigious role against the authoritarian mission it represented and the potential backlash it would provoke. Based upon this, she might have declined the role, been spared the heartache, and there would not have been a Jewish face attached to the Biden administration’s militant censorship efforts. This would have been good for her, good for the Jewish community, and good for the nation.
When It Doesn’t Work
Peer-to-peer guidance might work well in a shtetl or kibbutz, but it’s not particularly feasible for a Jew in Atlanta to rebuke a Jewish public figure in D.C. or Hollywood. So, does that mean we have no ethical obligation to speak up? Absolutely not.
The Jewish Bible contains numerous accounts of kings and leaders (who, presumably, were unreceptive to private guidance) being publicly denounced. The prophet Nathan rebuked King David for his grievous sins. Elijah did the same with King Ahab, Isaiah called out the corrupt leaders of Judah, and so on.
As these prophets demonstrated, when all else fails, we must have the courage to speak up, and speak loudly.
It’s Time to Change Course
From the Jewish perspective, there will always be those who scapegoat and demonize us, regardless of what we do. Nothing would have changed the minds of the people who cut off Daniel Pearl’s head because he was a Jew.
Likewise, many of the people I spoke with online - both on the left and the right - were so biased that they not only interpreted every Jewish action as malevolent, but assumed that any malevolent action taken by a non-Jew was somehow caused by a Jew. They are so fully committed to this viewpoint that nothing is going to sway them.
However, most people are not Jew-hating fanatics. They form opinions based on the patterns they see. If they see silence, excuses, and other expressions of in-group bias, the opinions they form are likely to be negative. This is how in-group bias fosters mistrust, increases the likelihood of collective blame, and pushes fence-sitters toward Jew-hating ideologies on both ends of the political spectrum.
It might feel unfair, but if we don’t rebuke our own as we are commanded to, the outside world will continue to judge all of us by the actions of the worst of us. From George Soros’s pro-criminal presecutors to Alejandro Mayorkas’s open border policies, the misdeeds of influential Jews take on an exaggerated importance in the view of the public. No amount of Jewish philanthropy will counteract that prejudice, but Jewish criticism would at least dispel the illusion that Jewishness is to blame.
There is no way to immediately or completely solve this problem, but our traditions point the way forward. We should start by privately and compassionately correcting each other. When that is impossible or unsuccessful, we should not hesitate to publicly denounce actions that are unethical or ill-advised. By doing so, we can avert harm, strengthen the integrity of the Jewish community, and build goodwill and trust with other groups. It’s the smart thing to do, the right thing to do, and the Jewish thing to do.