Marches are fun and cool, and have been for generations, even though they accomplish no more than an opportunity to wear one’s finest pink knitted cap. But the New York Times lauds a unity march in New York against Anti-Semitism to show the “true spirit of New York.” Its use of the word “true” is a curious device, as reflected in these comments to the editorial.

Had these attacks been perpetrated by white supremacists, neo-Nazis, the Times’ headline would be screaming it from the rafters. Having read its news articles, op-eds and editorials, there is one glaring omission. Not only does the Times completely avoid any discussion of why these attacks have been, and are, happening, but its abject silence as to the salient detail of the perpetrators is deafening.

Jews aren’t attacking blacks. Blacks are attacking Jews. Say it, New York Times. Say it.

This doesn’t mean blacks hate Jews, any more than anyone else hates Jews. But the Jew-hating left has been given a free pass, not because it’s “complicated,” which is merely a weasel word to avoid confronting the basic details. Remember the gay pride march where Jewish lesbians were turned away? The progressive sacred cow that hating Israel in support of the Palestinians wasn’t anti-Semitic, but anti-Zionist, brings plenty of passionate young indoctrinated Jewish students into the fold like Jews for Jesus did a generation ago.

There are fans of Farrakhan, from certain strident congresswomen to termite-loving Women’s March usurpers, who blame Jews for the discrimination blacks suffer. Worse, it’s a deliberate Jewish conspiracy, to subjugate the black race. The Nation of Islam says so, and they’re not whipping up the white supremacists.

Is there a war brewing between blacks and Jews? Not as far as I can tell, as my black friends are still happy to talk to me, hang out with me. They haven’t shunned this Jew, like a few of my white friends who have embraced the progressive ideology of identity politics have for my failure to pray at the altar of critical theory. But there is a current of blame running through New York giving rise to blacks attacking, hating, Jews.

Why can’t the New York Times bring itself to say so? What is gained by avoiding the facts at all costs, by omitting from its story about attacks in Jersey City, in Monsey, the race of the perpetrators?

Of 421 hate crimes reported in New York City in 2019, more than half were directed at Jews, according to police crime data.

In Crown Heights in August, a Jewish man in his 60s was hit in the face with a brick, breaking his nose and knocking out his teeth.

In November, an Orthodox woman and her child were walking in the Borough Park neighborhood of Brooklyn when three young boys threw eggs at them.

Just weeks later, two Orthodox teenagers were assaulted in Brooklyn, one of them hit in the head, his yarmulke removed.

See anything missing? Were these the alt-right bastards who marched in Charlottesville? Were these frog-boys whipped up by Trumpian idiocy? Could be, since there’s no mention of who did these terrible things. But of course, it wasn’t, even though the left, in its magnificent employment of chaos theory, manages to shift the problem to the climate of hate caused by Trump that’s infected this nation.

In this editorial, the Times mentions the word for the first time, but even in doing so, can’t bring itself to face the facts.

Other incidents appear to have been carried out by young people, sometimes in neighborhoods with long histories of tensions between Jewish and black and Hispanic New Yorkers.

Tensions? Is that what this is about?

Not clear enough?

There are facts here, but the New York Times can’t bring itself to state them as their adherence to the orthodoxy of identity politics forbids them from stating that the perpetrators of these attacks are black. In the scheme of progressive ideology, no fault can be placed on any person with a favored identity as the ideology falls apart, the theory crumbles and its inherent fallacy is revealed.

And consequently, the refusal to acknowledge the factually accurate problem precludes any viable solution. So let’s have a march instead, where we can all lock arms, sing Kumbaya and ignore the problem. After all, when it’s black guys attacking, it’s complicated, except to the Jewish guy minding his own business, walking down the street, who gets beaten.

And lest anyone think this is an indulgence into identity politics, except from the Jewish side, it makes no difference whether the attacker is white or black, whether the victim is Jewish or Baptist. Whatever it is, whoever does it and whoever they do it to, it’s still a violent attack. They get no pass because of their race, color, religion or any other characteristic, no matter how many excuses the woke can proffer at any given moment for their alt-brand of “tolerance.”

If a gang of orthodox Jews attacked a black kid walking down the street in Brooklyn, the New York Times should say so. And they would. And they have (remember Crown Heights, Rev. Sharpton?). But given the tenets of social justice, they can’t do the same when the perps are black. There can be no facts that violate ideology, and so we march and pretend instead.

Update: Even if the New York Times can face the facts. Jacobin can:

Only the Left can offer a real alternative, because only we can offer a political analysis of antisemitism. That analysis must emphasize the fact that, especially when the perpetrators are poor and black, the culprits are white supremacy and capitalism — which benefit precisely by dividing oppressed groups against each other.

At least they acknowledge who the perpetrators are, even if they perps aren’t the culprits.