Published: 11 October 2024
Last updated: 15 October 2024
Growing up in a house with lawyer parents and then going into the professional world I chose working in newsrooms, debate is inherent part of who I am, made stronger by my desire not to surround myself with people who agree with me, but more, people who test me, challenge me and open my mind to other ways of viewing a situation or an issue. Always, of course, within reason.
We won’t always agree, but I will be made a better, smarter, stronger person, as a result of this challenge.
When I read this article Jenna Price’s article Jews are being torn apart. If my sister were alive, even we wouldn’t be talking in The Age/SMH, I actually did agree, for the most part, with the assertions of the author.
That is, until I got to this line: “This is Israel’s revenge on Hamas and Hezbollah, but as a country that claims to represent Jews the world over, it implicates Jews in mass murder.” At that point, my blood ran cold.
Words matter. They are important and they are powerful. Anyone who has a column in a national media outlet should by virtue of their job, understand this.
The word “implicate”, in its very definition, as per the Oxford English dictionary means: “to show (someone) to be involved in a crime”.
By asserting that “Jews” (broadly, without any distinction) are responsible for or implicated in "mass murder" is a blood libel.
It may be clumsy, but it is both damaging and dangerous. Distinguishing between a government or leader and its people is basic common sense.
Comments5
Wesley Parish15 October at 08:39 am
“Conflating the words Jews, Israelis and Zionists – either together or individually – with any one political, ethical or moral position is both lazy and dangerous.”
I have been called an antisemite for protesting the conflation thus confusion of anti-Zionism, the opposition and repudiation of Israel’s anti-Palestinian policies, with antisemitism, the hatred and fear of Jews for merely being Jews.
I’m afraid it’s Israel and the pro-Israel crowd who are generally responsible for that conflation among the Jewish communities and allies, while it is the antisemites who are responsible for that conflation thus confusion amongst the persecutors. It’s not a good look, and an even worse feel.
Rachel Holt14 October at 09:51 pm
Damn. This is perfect. Thank you.
Ramon Capel14 October at 01:03 pm
I do not agree with Ms. Oderberg’s interpretation. The sense in which I interpret this article is that the Israeli government always expresses itself as if it represents all the Jews of the world, as if the state of Israel is equivalent to the Jews as a whole.
And in that sense they seek to benefit from the use of the word anti-Semitism against anyone who criticises the actions of their government. A government that seeks to benefit under that umbrella that covers any atrocity, and that any mistake is protected by a right above all others. In that sense I think every Jew outside Israel should say: they do not act in my name.
This automatic class susceptibility to the non-Jewish world can lead us to defend and accept behaviour that in principle has never been in our ethical parameters.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)