Recently in Jews Category

OK, so this story is a little long in the tooth, but given the cast of characters it's hard to resist. Last week, discussing Norman Podhoretz's book, Why Are Jews Liberals? in the wake of the Massachusetts election and Obama's pivot against Wall Street, Rush Limbaugh delivered himself of the following speculation:

To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He's assaulting bankers. He's assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there's - if there's starting to be some buyer's remorse there.
Leaping out of his metaphoric seat, the ADL's Abe Foxman issued a statement calling these "borderline anti-Semitic comments"  and explaining:

Limbaugh's references to Jews and money in a discussion of Massachusetts politics were offensive and inappropriate. While the age-old stereotype about Jews and money has a long and sordid history, it also remains one of the main pillars of anti-Semitism and is widely accepted by many Americans. His notion that Jews vote based on their religion, rather than on their interests as Americans, plays into the hands of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.
Whereupon, Norman Podhoretz sprang into action, claiming El Rushbo was just speaking about "prejudiced people" and anyway was just making Podhoretz's own point about Jewish voting, and charging Foxman with chutzpah for attacking "so loyal a friend of Israel." And Limbaugh agreed, saying he was only referring to what "the Jew-haters, the bigots" believe.

As MediaMatters pointed out, that last bit is patently untrue--unless Limbaugh wants to include himself among the Jew-haters. He begins with what "some people think" and then associates himself with the view. His speculation is that Jews--three-quarters of whom voted for Obama--may be having buyer's remorse because Obama has started attacking their co-religionists on Wall Street. Only someone a lot more familiar with traditional Gentile attitudes about Jews than with the American Jewish community could entertain the idea that the latter would have second thoughts about supporting a candidate who attacks Wall Street bankers. As usual, Limbaugh was channeling the views of the Cape Girardeau WASP elite from which he springs.

As for Foxman, it's perfectly silly to pretend that American Jews don't constitute an ethno-religious voting bloc--like Mormons, white evangelicals, Hispanic Catholics, and others. The issue at hand was posed years ago by Milton Himmelfarb, when he quipped that Jews "earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans." That reality has caused Jewish conservatives like Podhoretz to gnash their teeth in rage for a generation, and his dreadful book  represents one more effort  to persuade their co-religionists to behave differently.

Foxman's own view of things harks back to the crouch that American Jews used to go into when any Gentile would start a sentence with the words "Jews are" and not conclude it with something like "public-spirited citizens who want their children to get the best education possible."  Why shouldn't Jewish voting be shaped, in some way, by Jewish values and history? In its own way, "on their interests as Americans" expresses as blinkered an account of American Jewry as Limbaugh's "some buyer's remorse there."
| 3 Comments | No TrackBacks
Steinhardt.jpegIn our day, a statement of such awe-inspiring obtuseness has been emitted by a Great Personage that it not only demands widespread notice but actually merits special recognition for all time. Therefore and herewith, I announce the b'rit milah (we Jews don't do baptisms) of the Michael H. Steinhardt Award for Macher Dopiness, the first recipient of which is, of course, Michael H. Steinhardt himself.

Steinhardt, for those of you who don't know, is the billionaire founder of the Steinhardt, Fine, Berkowitz & Co. hedge fund and a Jewish philanthropist of no mean donations. These days, he is perhaps best known as having funded (with Charles Bronfman) Taglit-Birthright Israel, which has sent some 200,000 young American Jews on an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel. That's a lot of trips.

Now comes a good sociological study, by Brandeis University's Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, showing that the trips have markedly increased the likelihood that the young Jews who go on them will marry other Jews. Specifically, 72 percent of those who make the trip do so, as opposed to a 46 percent rate among a control group that didn't manage to make the trip. So, in the American Jewish community, this is good news. Except (as Gal Beckerman of the Forward reports):

The only voice to pierce the self-congratulatory tone of the gathering was that of Birthright co-founder Steinhardt. During a question-and-answer session, he stood up and railed against the notion of time and energy being spent on reports and what he called "dialogue."

"This study is an important study, and I think it says some very significant things," Steinhardt said. "But do you recall any Jewish study meaningfully changing the Jewish world over the last 20 or 30 years? I don't."

Now, 19 years ago, the National Jewish Population Study "changed the agenda of American Jewry." It did so by finding that less than half of American Jews--say, about 46 percent--were marrying other Jews. In short order, the agenda of the organized Jewish community became "continuity"--i.e. keeping the next generation within the fold. And a key element of that agenda has been, you got it, Taglit-Birthright Israel. And you know what? It appears to be working.

So a study created an agenda that created a program that appears to be helping to solve the problem identified by the study. Mazel tov, Mr. Steinhardt. And congratulations on your new award!

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Bringing the hammer down on Norman Podhoretz's new book, "Why Are Jews Liberals? ("a potted history followed by a re-potted memoir") in yesterday's New York Times Book Review, Leon Wieseltier ventures his own answer to the question. Podhoretz's answer boils down to an old story: Just as the leftists of the past made Communism their God, so the liberals of today do the same with Liberalism. And as the former God failed, so should the latter have long since, in Podhoretz's view. So why hasn't it?

For Wieseltier, the point is that Judaism is not about left or right: Liberals as well as conservatives can seize on this or that part of the tradition to justify their politics--contra Podhoretz, liberalism does not make for bad Jews. But there's more to it than that. The politics of left and right have shifted markedly since the days of Jimmy Carter (for whom Jews had relatively little use). Nothing has done more to keep Jews within the liberal fold than the Republican alliance with conservative evangelicals and their distinctive concerns. Enthusiastic about Israel the latter may be, but their rejection of strong church-state separation, their injection of their religious beliefs into domestic politics and policy debates, and their alien cultural style have all been profoundly disturbing to American Jews. Over the centuries, Jews have learned to run the other way when Christians are on the march, and these Christians have been on the march.

My counter-factual hypothesis is that absent a religious right, Jewish liberalism would be, if not a shadow of its former self, a good deal less pronounced than it is today. The God who failed to bring American Jewry to Podhoretzian enlightenment was, I'm afraid, the evangelical Christian God.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Inglour.jpeg
Back in harness after a splendid summer break, I will ease into serious business by considering the moral panic that has seized certain high-minded movie critics (e.g. the New Yorker's David Denby, the New York Times' Manohla Dargis, and Slate's Dana Stevens) in their respective considerations of Inglourious Basterds. The burden of their distress lies in director Quentin Tarantino's apparent trivialization of the Holocaust. I'll spare you the quotes--you can read them yourselves. The point to note is that, as Rutgers Jewish studies prof. Jeffrey Shandler points out (in his Jews, God, and Videotape, pp. 98-103), there has never been a piece of American popular entertainment dealing with the Holocaust--including such high-minded exercises as Schindler's List--that haven't come in for such criticism. As usual, Tarentino just takes the genre to the max. He does it by incorporating the Nazi war against the Jews into a send-up of the World War II escapade genre--call it a Shoah-Dirty Dozen mash-up.

From the Jewish perspective--hey, Weinstein bros!--Inglourious Basterds is best thought of as a Purim spiel, the sole traditional theatrical undertaking of European Jewry, staged during the spring holiday that is the Jewish equivalent of Carnival, that riotous pre-Lenten enactment of the world turned upside down. Purim turns the world of the Jewish diaspora upside down by destroying, with extreme prejudice, the would-be destroyer of the Jews, the Persian king's vizier Haman. (The punishment includes Haman's family, though this section of the Book of Esther tends to be glossed over in synagogues these days.)

All in all, Inglouriouis Basterds is a revenge fantasy very much on the order of Purim. If you're looking for an Esther, there's Shosanna Dreyfus, who contrives the destruction of the entire Nazi high command at her movie palace. (The Haman figure, SS Col. Hans Landa, manages to escape the ultimate fate, but ends up marked for life as the evildoer he is.) The behind-the-lines Jewish Avengers serve up a different Jewish resistance fantasy--dating to the sicarii of the first century, who killed Romans and Roman sympathizers with concealed daggers and ended up defending the fortress of Masada after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70. The squad is, to be sure, led by a non-Jew; but Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine is part Indian, a member of one of those lost tribes, eh? He has all his men use their daggers to take Nazi scalps.

Does Inglourious Basterds pander to the primitive fantasy of doing to others what they would have done to you? Of course it does. Proper moralists are entitled to turn up their noses at such Purim-like narratives. But let us acknowledge the popular appeal--as testified by the initial box office returns in a summer of Hollywood discontent.

Update: Tarentino in an interview with the Forward: "If you're dealing with people like the Nazis ... well, you either eat the wolf or the wolf eats you. You know? And so that's where I would be coming from in a situation like that. ...."
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Arlen Specter's party switch leaves just one Jewish Republican serving in Congress--House GOP whip Eric Cantor (R-Va).
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
WH seder.jpgJ-Spot recommends turning the White House seder into a big annual event. Bad idea. Let the president have an annual seder for a few close Jewish friends and staffers if he likes. Don't turn it into one more routine mega-religious event with, in this case, every Jewish mover and shaker seeking a place at the table. 
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Maybe. In its story on New York's new archbishop, the Jewish Week got this from Paula Simon, executive director of Milwaukee's Jewish Council for Community Relations.

Simon, in a telephone interview with The Jewish Week, said the archbishop apologized for the impression given by the pope's action that the Catholic Church condones denial of the Holocaust's historical authenticity. "We're embarrassed. This is inappropriate," she reported the archbishop as saying about lifting of the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, who has said the Holocaust was exaggerated and no Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers.
It certainly seems as though Dolan, on the eve of his translation to the Big Apple, was directly criticizing the pope's action. No?

Update: Meanwhile, the Vatican is rejecting this by way of apology from Williamson: "To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize." Huh?
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks

RJC.jpegJTA's Eric Fingerhut reports that Michael Steele enjoyed good relations with the Jewish community in Maryland. Neil Rubin of the Baltimore Jewish Times sees it a little differently. There was that unfortunate incident where Steele compared stem-cell research to Nazi experiments. Rubin also calls attention to Steele's role as head of President Bush's faith-based operation in the state, when he was less that forthcoming about how that was to operate. The main point Rubin makes--and it's picked up by James Besser over at the New York Jewish Week, is that by the standards of Maryland Republicanism, Steele is a real social conservative. That is to say, he's a far cry from your standard, pro-choice Northeast GOP governor type.

But the question, for my money, is less what Steele's own positions may be (or have been) than how he conducts party rebuilding. If he's serious about the task, he's got to get social moderates back under the tent. And in that regard, Jewish Republicans may be a useful bellwether. No one believed Obama would win close to 80 percent of the Jewish vote in November, and so long as the GOP is known as the POP (Party of Palin), they're not coming back.

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks

Well, maybe not quite a U-Turn, but let's just say that the fledgling lobby has walked back its pick-no-side position on Gaza . This it did in an unsigned response to Eric Yoffie and a message from executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami. In the former, it portrays itself as part of a large company of worried Israel supporters; the latter includes these lines:

J Street unequivocally condemns Hamas’ indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel and its use of terror against civilians over the years.

We reiterate that J Street is deeply committed to Israel, its security and the safety of its citizens.

J Street's skepticism about the Israeli assault and its earnest desire for a ceasefire remain intact, but it has rhetorically made clear that it is a pro-Israel more than a pro-two-state-solution enterprise. That puts it (back) in the mainstream of Jewish peace organizations, in Israel and abroad.

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks

J-Street, the fledgling peacenik alternative to AIPAC, has gotten itself in a crack for, in the eyes of some, seeing a moral equivalence between Hamas firing missiles into Israel and Israel's bombing campaign against Hamas in Gaza. That's not quite true, but close enough. Here are relevant passages from its most recent statement:

As friends of Israel, we felt immediate pressure from friends and family to pick a side. Did we think that Israel's actions were fully justified or disproportionate? Did Hamas bring this on itself by firing rockets and provoking Israel or are the strikes an act of aggression against a people trapped in misery and poverty? Couldn't we see who's right and who's wrong?...

Israel has a special place in each of our hearts. But we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong. While there is nothing "right" in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing "right" in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.

And there is nothing to be gained from debating which injustice is greater or came first. What's needed now is immediate action to stop the violence before it spirals out of control.

For this, J-Street has been taken to task by no less a peacenik than Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. Unsurprisingly, on the Commentary wing of the Jewish world, Noah Pollak has happily pronounced J-Street "an anti-Israel organization"--for which he's been properly called out by Matt Yglesias.

But there is a problem here, and it has to do with J-Street's actual identity. Its self-description admits of some ambiguity on that score. Calling itself "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement" (as opposed to what, the military arm?), it says, in part:

J-Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole.

If J-Street is indeed, as it proclaims, a pro-Israel organization, then its arguments need to be based on the premise that its first concern is what's good for Israel. And there are no shortage of pro-peace arguments to be made on that premise. But if it is equally committed to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, then it is operating on premises that may or may not be in Israel's best interests. J-Street's refusal to "pick a side" in the Gaza situation suggests not that it is anti-Israel, but that it is not prepared to take its stand with Israel, whatever that means. It's entitled to adopt such a position, which is hardly a dishonorable one. But many of those whom it would like to represent may decline to go along.

| 3 Comments | No TrackBacks

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Jews category.

Human Rights is the previous category.

Left is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.