People love to demonstrate. A demonstration can be in the form of a protest or a gathering to support a social cause; they remain part of American life. Whether arguing on behalf of civil rights, against intervention in Vietnam, or regarding countless other issues, individuals usually express feelings of accomplishment at the end of their structured events.  Most recently, as a means of professing their unity and concerns, thousands of Jews rallied against a surge in anti-Semitic incidents, most of them occurring in the New York metropolitan area.  At the end of their march over the Brooklyn Bridge, community leaders expressed an intention to “do something” to prevent similar incidents. Unfortunately, the Jews protesting in New York, numbering about 25,000 (when the number of available recruits geographically is in the millions), seem to have accomplished little. Unlike the massive hundreds of thousands of individuals who gathered in Washington D.C. in the 1980’s to condemn the refusal of the Soviet Union to allow Jews to emigrate, or similar massive displays in support of Israel, the goals of this most recent demonstration, were much more amorphous.

Whatever the purpose, decisions to demonstrate must be taken seriously. Goals must be well-thought out and thoroughly explained. Marching may have side-benefits, but the objectives must be unambiguous. Also, where, when, and how to demonstrate are key questions. Marching for political demands and/or to secure economic benefits from public bodies, should occur where relevant decision-makers are able to “get the message.” That may best occur in a state capital or in Washington, D.C.

Demonstrations on behalf of Soviet Jews succeeded because protestors sought objectives that most of those in attendance believed were attainable. But, gathering together to walk across a bridge seems meaningless, especially when those most affected by the events precipitating the demonstration (i.e. Ultra-Orthodox Jews), were few in attendance. When Hasidic Jewish leaders were asked why the low-turn-out, the primary response was that the event was “meaningless.”

Most analysts of this recent spurt of anti-Semitic behavior correctly tend to date its origins from the early days of the Trump administration. The President’s comments and actions since then—especially following the Charlottesville race riot—makes it apparent that little has changed: white supremacists are “good people,” American Jews also have their own country and Prime Minister, respectively, Israel and Netanyahu, all according to Trump.

American Jewish leaders should not, therefore, be entitled to escape the truth—anti-Semitism is systemically embedded in this administration. Demonstrations may bring attention to the problem, but do little to eradicate it.

In a recent column in The Washington Post (1/10/2020), Michael Gerson delineates an appropriate plan of action to confront anti-Semitism. He observes: “When anti-Semitism emerges as hate crimes or violence, as in New York, there must be a concerted community response: aggressive prosecution by police and aggressive condemnation from political leaders. When anti-Semitic tropes crop up in our discourse, they need to be effectively marginalized. And all these efforts become more powerful when we are willing to criticize anti-Semitism within our own ideological tradition—conservatives confronting problems on the right and liberals criticizing problems on the left—rather than locating the problem mainly among our opponents. When the charge of anti-Semitism is used as a political weapon, it ceases to be a shared moral imperative.

” Effectively opposing anti-Semitism is not only a moral task, but it is ultimately a moral task. The virus of bigotry is defeated by a healthy cultural immune system, defined by the prevalence of tolerance, mutual respect and basic decency. And all must be carefully taught.” Amen.