The Roman Catholic primate of Poland during World War II, Cardinal August Hlond, released a strong denunciation of anti-Jewish violence in 1936. He wrote, “It is forbidden to assault, beat up, maim or slander Jews. One should honor and love Jews as human beings and neighbors . . . . Beware of those who are inciting anti-Jewish violence. They are serving a bad cause.”

Hlond also wrote in the same letter, “So long as Jews remain Jews, a Jewish problem exists and will continue to exist… It is a fact that Jews are waging war against the Catholic Church, that they are steeped in free thinking, and constitute the vanguard of atheism, the Bolshevik movement, and revolutionary activity. It is a fact that the Jewish influence on morality is pernicious and that their publishing houses disseminate pornography. It is a fact that the Jews deceive, levy interest, and are pimps. It is a fact that the religious and ethical influence of the Jewish young people on Polish young people is a negative one.”

Hlond’s letter mitigated this stance by asserting, “Not all the Jews are, however, like that.”

Yet Hlond’s mitigation was undone by his recommendation that, “One does well to prefer his own kind in commercial dealings and to avoid Jewish stores and Jewish stalls in the markets, but it is not permissible to demolish Jewish businesses. One should protect oneself against the evil influence of Jewish morals, and particularly boycott the Jewish press and the Jewish demoralizing publications, but it is inadmissible to assault, hit, or injure the Jews.”

There is no reason to doubt Hlond’s sincerity in his rejection of violence against Jews. Indeed, his suggestion that Jews should be honored and loved as human beings was, in the years leading up to the Holocaust, a somewhat courageous stance.1

Yet his open denigration of Jews combined with his exhortation to avoid harming them physically represents an uncomfortable echo of the words of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his 1146 “Letter to England to Summon the Second Crusade”: “The Jews are not to be persecuted, killed or even put to flight…. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered. They are dispersed all over the world so that by expiating their crime they may be everywhere the living witnesses of our redemption. Hence the same psalm adds, ‘only let thy power disperse them.’ And so it is: dispersed they are.”

As historian Robert Chazan wrote, “To label a group the most heinous of enemies and then to demand for them tolerance (albeit limited) and safety is probably to make demands that the human psyche, over the long run, must have difficulty in meeting.”2

Put differently: when a leader denigrates a population, the violence that ensues is his responsibility regardless of whether he also demanded that they be left alone. Too many people simply lack the requisite nuance to live with such paradoxical assertions. Almost inevitably, the extremist fringe will act – and the subsequent denunciations of those extremists by those who implicitly encouraged them in the first place are hollow and self-exculpatory.

When Hlond was asked about antisemitic violence that, despite his requests, took place in Poland, he responded that it represented “the criminal action of political plotters, who by attacking Jews fight the government.” Yet he never acknowledged that his own mixed messaging contributed to an environment in which such violence was more likely to take place.

The two women, squad commanders who had been visiting a soldier in their unit, were chased through the streets by hundreds of young men. The situation escalated when the police arrived and became a full blown riot, with burning dumpsters, a police motorcycle burned and a patrol car overturned. When a volunteer from Hatzalah tried to put out the flames, he was grabbed by the mob and prevented from assisting.

Immediately, politicians from the current government coalition condemned the violence, while simultaneously asserting that the mob represented the extremist fringe rather than the ultra-Orthodox community at large.

Prime Minister Netanyahu issued a statement saying that “I strongly condemn the violent riots in Bnei Brak against female IDF soldiers and officers of the Israeli Police. This is an extremist minority that does not represent the Haredi society as a whole.”

Internal security minister Itamar Ben Gvir said, “I strongly condemn the small group of violent anarchists who attacked female soldiers, injured police officers, and set fire to a police motorcycle in Bnei Brak… At the same time, it is important for me to clarify: This does not represent the Haredi community as a whole. The vast majority of the Haredi public is law-abiding, respects the security forces, and took no part in this violence. We must not allow an extremist fringe to stain an entire community.”

Shas chair Aryeh Deri said, “The Shas movement strongly condemns the acts of violence, vandalism, and rioting by a handful of extremists in Bnei Brak… Get out of our camp!”

All of these sentiments, along with the many others issued by members of the ultra-Orthodox community, undoubtedly represent the authentic viewpoints of those who asserted them. Moreover, it is undeniably true that the violence was perpetrated and approved by extremists who are not representative of the larger Chareidi public.

These statements, however, are also self-justifying and exonerative. No one doubts Netanyahu and Ben Gvir’s assertions that these actions were committed by extremists – but in protecting their political partners, they conveniently ignore the fact that the extremist violence was fed by rhetoric by many mainstream Chareidi leaders who used vituperative terminology in describing the IDF and those who advocate for greater Chareidi conscription.

When Chareidi leadership repeatedly describes the attempts to draft members of their community as a “war against Torah study” and “persecutions,” or the arrest of draft dodgers as a “terrible crime” that will lead to divine judgement, or characterizes army service as so anathema that “we will all go abroad” – what, exactly, did they think would happen when their words were taken literally by extremists? When rabbis say that “the IDF is the worst thing that can be,” and that those who push for Chareidi enlistment hate God and the Torah, and that the current attempts to do so are similar to Roman persecution – how could they not anticipate that some people would be inspired to act violently?

For that reason, the current rush to denounce the violence while simultaneously asserting that it represents the actions of the fringe is far from admirable. It represents a nakedly obvious attempt to separate irresponsible rhetoric from the consequences of that rhetoric.

When Pope Francis declared that Cardinal Hlond possessed “heroic virtues” and advocated his eventual sainthood, Jews were appalled. Yes, Hlond denounced violence – but he also set that violence in motion by concomitantly describing how perfidious the Jewish people are. The former does not mitigate the latter.

The defenders of Chareidi leadership today need to learn a lesson from the life of Cardinal Hlond.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)