It is strange to say this, but the best response to Rabbi Daniel Lapin’s predictable minimizing the significance of Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic diatribe is Mel Gibson himself.
Whether Gibson’s second apology, in which he said there is no excuse and no place for the anti-Semitic remarks he made, was sincere will be evidenced in the months and years ahead.
At least he, unlike Lapin, recognized that his initial statement was nowhere near satisfactory and did not address the seriousness of the problem.
Gibson’s second apology has exposed the absurdity of Lapin’s approach to issues, in which he never fails to apply his religious-right ideological test.
Those who meet the test are never wrong or at least not seriously so, while those who fail the test are to be condemned in the harshest terms.
We who are in the business of fighting anti-Semitism cannot afford to eye things through a distorted lens like the one Lapin sees through. We know that anti-Semitism can spring from many sources, left and right, Christian and Muslim, religious and non-religious, black and white.
Our task is to expose it and educate the public to reject and condemn such manifestations no matter where they come from. Does that mean that we do not distinguish the more serious anti-Semitic threats from the less serious, as Lapin accuses us and others of doing? Nonsense. Criticizing Gibson in no way even remotely signals the notion that we do not see the far greater threats to the Jewish people.
We do not take a back seat to anyone in combating Islamic extremism, whether from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas or al Qaida, and identifying it as the greatest threat to Jews since the Nazi era.
Still, this reality should not be used as an excuse to minimize the seriousness of Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism. As a revered filmmaker and movie idol, his words and actions take on added meaning because of the possible impact on many ordinary people.
That is why a real apology was important. As to Gibson’s motivation for his 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ,” it is no longer feasible to believe that the revived dangerous stereotypes of Jews as Christ-killers, as all-powerful, as money-lovers, did not come from a deep-seated problem he has with the Jewish people.
The important point here is that this incident should open the eyes of many who dismissed Jewish concerns about the film, both with regard to the content of the film itself and the goals of the filmmaker.
Ultimately, Lapin’s defense of Gibson serves one useful purpose. It reminds us that if organizations like ADL are to be successful in the fight against bigotry, it is vital to be consistent and nonideological.
Hatred is hatred, anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism, and any effort to obscure a particular manifestation of it because it comes from a particular camp, undermines credibility in the struggle.
At a time when Israeli citizens are attacked by missiles, when too much of the world and media see Israel as the source of Middle East problems, when global anti-Semitism continues to surge, the proper approach is not to ignore a Mel Gibson-like story. It is rather to address it and move on.
We have done exactly that. There is, finally, a larger point which Lapin misses. We believe that one of the contributions ADL has made to civil society in America over the years is to make it unacceptable for individuals, especially, but not limited to those who are well-known, to make anti-Semitic or racist comments.
This has not made hatred disappear, but it has made America a much more humane and welcoming place.
It has not eliminated anti-Semitism but it has, along with the hate crime legislation which Lapin vilifies, made Americans more aware of the pain that hatred — words or actions — causes. Fighting anti-Semitism is a serious and complicated business.
Lapin demonstrates anew that he is not really serious about the subject. Those of us who are cannot take him very seriously.
Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism.”