The first words in the New York Times story about the shooting referred to Glick this way: “An Israeli-American agitator who has pushed for more Jewish access and rights at a hotly contested religious site in Jerusalem”. The original headline also referred to Glick as a “right-wing activist,” as captured in the URL, but was later changed by removing “right wing.”
Agitator, the New York Times editors apparently believed, was just fine as an adjective to describe Glick.
And that’s probably why the problem is so wide-spread, but what do we do when Israel-loving Jews who made Aliyah believe it and repeat it as fact?
Is Glick an activist? Sure. Is he a far “right wing” activist? An “extremist,” a “far-right” activist? How about just a Jewish rights activist?
Such a tiny point, but we really are all both suffering from and contributing to the ‘Chinese Water Torture’ (which may have neither been invented or used by the Chinese) erosion of our rights when we hold back from correcting others.
That’s why words matter and what people say, what they repeat, how they describe the situation matters.
The Arabs understand this point and use it relentlessly and effectively. We Jews, sadly, as smart as we are, don’t.
What’s worse, so many of the worst offenders don’t do it because they have unconsciously embraced the idea they would most vigorously reject, that Jews are somehow morally superior, that Jews are “better” so can afford to be more generous, to give up more.
Maybe that’s what should be pointed out to those Jews who are always pushing away any efforts by the Jewish People to assert our own rights to which we are entitled. They are suffering from a Jewish Moral Superiority Complex. The Long-Suffering Jews who rush to embrace more suffering for Jews.
And when we don’t, that’s on us.