Dr. Jonah Cohen, the Communications Director for Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Research and Analysis (CAMERA), explained how one should respond to an antisemite in a social situation in a November 18 webinar.
The webinar, the third in a three-part series on antisemitism, was hosted by the Massachusetts-based Congregation Or Atid. Cohen began the webinar by highlighting a September piece in Alma, a feminist Jewish culture publication; the author, Irish actress and writer Susan Getz, explained how she experienced antisemitism when she took her husband’s last name. Getz recounted how when she told a co-worker that her husband’s last name is Jewish, the co-worker ranted “about how all Jewish people were destroying the world through the conflict in the Middle East, that they used the Holocaust as their excuse for murder, and if he were me, he would be ‘very careful’ about having children with my new husband.” “I stood frozen in shock and anger,” Getz wrote.
Cohen said that Getz was in a “tricky situation” and that it’s “hard to know what to do when so many social and societal factors” are at play in situations like that. Cohen posited that antisemites use “rhetorical techniques” to make such conversations “unnerving” for Jews, calling it the “Antisemitic Three-Step.” These three steps involve taking the moral high ground, ascribing motivations to Jews for their viewpoints, and force the burden of proof on Jews, not themselves. As examples, Cohen pointed to how antisemites accuse Israel defenders of supporting “crimes against humanity” and provide stories about the power of the “Israel lobby” over Congress.
Cohen’s solution is his own three-step process, which he has dubbed “The Gadfly Method”: to simply ask questons.
“When [the antisemite] applies the antisemitic three-step against you… you only have about a 10-second window to respond when he has seized the moral high ground,” Cohen said, adding that otherwise the response will be “awkward” and “forced.” Cohen’s solution is his own three-step process, which he has dubbed “The Gadfly Method”: to simply ask questons. He suggests starting off by gathering information through asking questions like, “What do you mean by that?” After the antisemite answers that question, you should then ask questions like “Why do you think that?” Finally, you should eventually start asking leading questions to expose flaws or inconsistencies in the antisemite’s argument.
As examples, he pointed to PBS’ “Firing Line” host Margaret Hoover’s line of questioning to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) about her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2018. Ocasio-Cortez had lamented the Israeli “occupation of Palestine,” prompting Hoover to ask what she meant by that. Ocasio-Cortez responded she was referring to the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank; when Hoover pressed her to expand further, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she is “not the expert” on the matter. Cohen said that he felt like Ocasio-Cortez has been “unjustly” maligned over the interview since “admitting one’s own ignorance is a virtue” but the interview shows the “power about this seemingly simple question” of asking someone to elaborate on their claims.
Another example he pointed to was Axios reporter Alexi McCammond’s questioning of Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in an October 10 interview. After Cohen and Greenfield defended the company’s decision to withdraw from the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” in July, McCammond asked them why they don’t boycott Texas or Georgia over their recent laws on abortion and voting rights. Ben Cohen responded by pausing, shrugging and then saying, “I don’t know. It’s an interesting question.” Dr. Cohen argued that the McCammond interview is an example of “exposing the moral inconsistencies in a person’s worldview.” “What you’re doing is recalling conflicting propositions in the conversation and making your partner pick one,” Dr. Cohen said.
“Whenever you want to inform or to persuade… you try to do all that by using questions,” he added. “That way you get your ideas into the conversation while keeping the burden of proof on the other fellow.”
