to z

every mayor does what, visit every murder victim not true.

What about make a statement? condemning the horrible murder? Would you want the mayor to make 334 statements per year condemning every horrible murder? only if the victim is a member of a large group of people that care about him or her? I do not want my mayor making such statements every day, for ever murder that takes place. Where would you draw the line? How about if once every three months the mayor condemns all terrible murders, he can even say the names of the 80 people killed that quarter. Would that be enough?

Would you want the moetzes gedolei Torah to condemn this murder? Why not? They are our leaders and I certainly hope they condemn this crime. Do you want the governor of NY state to condemn this? What about the NY Yankees? Also, at the end of the day, why is it important for a public official to publicly condemn that which every single NYC resident — including the terrible murderers ym”sh — know?

The Silence of the Good People

In light of the New York Post’s refusal to apologize for their lurid coverage of Menachem Stark’s murder, many people are questioning the necessity of the efforts the community has employed in the condemnation of this newspaper. The press conference in Borough Hall, the petitions on social media, the calls to advertisers asking them to boycott the paper, the numerous verbal denunciations by other newspapers, journals, blogs, etc. – all of it, it would appear, had been for naught. The Post has not apologized nor expressed regret in any way. In fact, they continue to refer to Stark derogatorily.

Furthermore, we know that as with all occurrences, this brouhaha will soon die down. This is human nature. Sad and horrifying as this murder is, it will soon give way to new events. In a few days or weeks, nothing will have changed. Regardless of what the Post has written, Menachem’s family and friends will remember him as a loving son and brother, a loving father and husband, and as a kind, friendly, generous person. The chassidic community will continue to live their lives. And the Post’s writers, too, will find new culprits to vilify, new stories to sensationalize.

Why, then, all the efforts?

About a half century ago, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

And this is why we speak out. Do we have more power than Rupert Murdoch? Can we physically stop a writer from writing or a newspaper from publishing? Of course we can’t. And we know it. But our powerlessness should not stop us from speaking up.

At about the same time when Dr. King was appealing to the “good people,” Hannah Arendt shook the literary and Jewish world when she published her article on the Eichmann trial. Her articles and subsequent book were controversial mainly because despite its philosophical credence, it, in essence, placed part of the Holocaust’s blame on the victims themselves, and because it humanized, some would say justified, the acts of the Nazi perpetrators.

The New York Post acted similarly.

In our current internet age, where anyone can post anything, it’s difficult to ascertain truth from lies. But the veracity of the Post’s (or others’) claims is not the issue. No matter what, Menachem Stark did not deserve to die. He is not the one to be put on trial here; his killers are.

And so, we speak out. We write, we shout, we cry. And we do all this not because we think the Post will change –unethical people tend to remain unethical—but to preserve our own humanity. Complacency when faced with injustice, “the appalling silence of the good people” – sadly, history has taught us what that can lead to.

Print Friendly