NYT Lost On What Synagogue, Kosher Market Have In Common

“We note the worrisome trend of people associating violence by people of the Muslim faith with violence by people of the Muslim faith.”

New York, February 15 – Editors at the New York Times are struggling to find a common denominator among shooting incidents that targeted Jewish sites in Europe, wondering whether in fact Europe is simply being convulsed by random acts of violence, the paper noted today.

In an editorial published Sunday, the board of the paper lamented the seeming upsurge of attacks by radicalized men, but admitted failure in forming a coherent picture that might explain why such seemingly unrelated locations as a Jewish house of worship, a Jewish museum, a Jewish school, and a kosher supermarket would all be targeted. The editors urged investigators to remain vigilant and warned readers not to jump to conclusions about the events, especially conclusions that might give rise to Islamophobia.

“Observers, especially those with a political agenda, might be tempted to rush to judgment that a spate of attacks by men professing Islamic faith on individuals and institutions associated with some Jews might be more than mere coincidence,” declared the editorial. “But sober minds such as President Obama’s know that the victims could easily have been selected at random. We must not foment sectarian flames, given the very real danger that Muslims might be made to feel uncomfortable.”

Editors offered two alternative angles for viewing the attacks that might explain what they have in common. “The HyperCacher supermarket in Paris and the Kruttønden cafe both have sans serif fonts,” notes the editorial. “Establishments such as Target, Wal-Mart, and Crate & Barrel might do well to beef up security in the wake of such a realization. Not that we wish these stores to overdo it, but we cannot think of what else the attacks have in common, if anything,” it suggested.

A second explanation involved a conspiracy to frame Muslims for violence. “We note the worrisome trend of people associating violence by people of the Muslim faith with violence by people of the Muslim faith,” read the article. “A decent respect for critical thinking demands that we refrain from such irresponsible notions and ask the real question: how can the conclusion that Jews are victims be avoided?” Viewing Jews as victims, warn the editors, places society on the slippery slope of not reflexively condemning Israel for any negative development in the Middle East.

The latter sensibility, explain the editors, is what guided the paper in not mentioning the words “Jew” or “Jewish” even once its article about the shooting at a Copenhagen synagogue Saturday.

In conclusion, the editorial admitted we simply do not know what attacks on Jewish sites might have in common, but an open mind is necessary. “In the end what links these events, what the victims have in common, might never be known.”