By now, the spectacle is familiar enough to breed contempt. A public figure emits a noxious signal – perhaps an X post – and within moments, the predictable ritual begins. Apologies, if they come, are bloodless. Contexts are manufactured. Meanings are dissembled. And standing off to the side, like a man holding an umbrella in a house fire, is the Centrist Commentator, solemnly warning us all not to “overreact.”
This week’s case study comes courtesy of Liam Hehir, a New Zealand lawyer-columnist who has fashioned for himself a persona of sober-minded moderation – the kind of man who prides himself on being too sophisticated to take sides, and thus too cautious to take stands.
When confronted with the fact that Dr. Peter Davis – academic, Labour-royalty adjacent (as consort to former Prime Minister Helen Clark) – had reacted to a piece of antisemitic graffiti in the Leftist stronghold of Aro Valley with the claim that Israel predictably makes people hate Kiwi Jews, Hehir’s response was to wave away concerns of antisemitism as, perhaps, a bit overwrought.
And yet, Davis had form. He had already having referred to the rape and massacre of the Oct 7th Hamas-led pogrom as a slave revolt. In both instances sympathy for Jewish lives, be they in Israel, or the Wellington child passing the malicious missive on the way to school, were absent.
A mealy-mouthed apology followed the latest post – more an apology for the reaction than for the action, to which Hehir suggested that was good enough for him and that we should all move on. But Davis evidently wasn’t done and quickly returned to his digital playground with polemical posts on the Gaza war prefaced with I pray I am not offending you tapped out with a smirk, a lock on his account so that those he was taunting could not respond.
Does Hehir now regret jumping in? Probably not. A member of the bearable-Right, this painfully reasonable routine guarantees a cosy spot between a reactionary-Right and frothing Leftist on a panel discussion. You do not select Hehir to condemn, but to tell the rest of us to calm down.
There is a kind of moral vanity in all of this, and it can be far more dangerous than open bigotry. A Davis may troll from the fringe – but the centrist dignifies him when they refuse to call him what he is.
The challenge here is not one of political alignment. Antisemitism festers on both extremes and often wears the mask of whichever cause is most convenient. The challenge is whether our commentariat is willing to recognise it when it is politically and socially inconvenient to do so. Whether one can say, without flinching, “This is beyond the pale” – even if the offender once shared a TV panel, a bumpy landing into Wellington, or a chardonnay and vegan roll.
Otherwise, what in the way of commentary do they think they’re truly offering?
