fbpx

January 28, 2010

Israeli team honored on return from Haiti

The 200-member Israeli military medical and rescue team in Haiti was honored upon its return to Israel.

“You raised peoples’ spirits; you raised the name of the State of Israel and the name of the IDF,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday morning during an official military ceremony at Ben Gurion Airport. “Precisely during these days, during which there are those who conspire against us, and distort and degrade the name of the IDF and the name of the State of Israel, you showed the world the true spirit of the IDF.”

Senior officials of the Israel Defense Forces and the government attended the ceremony.

“You have merited praise from all over the world and have turned into a source of pride for every Jew and every Israeli,” said Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. “Lately there have been those who complain about the IDF and have chosen to muddy its face, and complain against its morals and ethics. In your work you have proven the opposite to be true—our values guide us to cross continents in order to save lives. That is what guides us today and will continue to guide us in the future.

“As commander of this army, I was excited to represent you,” he said.

The IDF made the decision to pull out after the arrival of more aid forces to Haiti, as well as the U.S. military and civilian aid organizations. Several Haitian hospitals are also operating in some capacity, the army said.

The team left more than 30 tons of medical equipment and supplies in Haiti to help further earthquake relief efforts, according to the IDF. It will be distributed to tent cities throughout Haiti, coordinated by the Israeli ambassador in the country.

In Haiti, the delegation treated more than 1,100 patients, conducted 319 successful surgeries, delivered 16 babies including three Caesarean sections, and saved many from the ruins of the devastating Jan. 12 earthquake. The team also brought a 5-year-old Haitian child to have heart surgery in Israel, according to the IDF.

Israeli team honored on return from Haiti Read More »

How a Modern Orthodox Jew struggled to reconcile her yogic practice with her Judaism

A few years ago, freshly moved to Los Angeles, I started practicing yoga. I was feeling anxious and worried, and if I were still a New Yorker, I’d have gone on anti-depressants. But I’m a big believer in doing what the Romans do, and as it turned out, yoga helped a lot.

Now, in class, as I take my first bow—a stretch upward, followed by an open-armed dive to my toes—I am no longer thinking about survival. Instead, with room to breathe and think, I instead wonder about the implications of bowing, of doing yoga in the first place.

Yoga, with its meditation, with its mysterious secrets and ties to Hinduism and Buddhism, isn’t just a physiological practice; it’s a spiritual one. And I am a Modern Orthodox Jew. By practicing yoga, I’m now forced to wonder, am I practicing a religion outside my own? Am I sinning before God?

When I first took up yoga, this question never occurred to me. I was dealing with a difficult time, but I had also abandoned my religious upbringing. I was at peace with a secular life that included some High Holidays observance and crippling guilt when I didn’t observe Passover.

Now, married to a man who converted so that we could be together, I find myself running an Orthodox home. (You know the old joke: Don’t date a non-Jew unless you want to end up really religious.)

I’m surprisingly happy in my lifestyle, but I’m also realizing that a true immersion in yogic practice may very well be a violation of my Jewish one.

There is a statue of Ganesh, the Hindu deity, in the yoga studio I attend. At the end of the class, my instructor says “Namaste” and bows toward the class. We bow back. I am bowing toward the teacher, but also toward the statue. Namaste means “The Divine in me salutes the Divine in you.”

During many of the meditation sessions, we are asked to put our hands in “prayer position,” which is what it sounds like: hands joined together at the heart. The more I thought about it, the more I worried that yoga might be its own religion, and that I might be committing a sin—worshipping an idol, even—by practicing it.

This might seem like a niggling question of minutia, but Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism, is a religion filled with niggling questions of minutiae—how an animal is slaughtered, at what angle, exactly, a mezuzah should be affixed to a door post.

Committing idolatry carries serious implications, whether you do so accidentally or not. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 74), it states that there are only three sins in which a person is commanded to die rather than commit the sin: the second and third are incest and murder. The first is idolatry.

That was the Lubavitch rebbe’s rationale when, in 1977, he forbade his followers from practicing yoga, transcendental meditation and the like.

“In as much as these movements involve certain rites and rituals, they have been rightly regarded by Rabbinic authorities as cults bordering on, and in some respects actual, ‘avodah zarah,’ ” he wrote, using the Hebrew term for idolatry. “Accordingly Rabbinic authorities everywhere … ruled that these cults come under all the strictures associated with avodah zarah, so that also their appurtenances come under strict prohibition.”

But, of course, I’m not a Lubavitcher. So I asked my yoga teacher at City Yoga in West Hollywood, Linda Eifer, a Conservative Jew, what she thought.

“Yoga is not a religion,” she said emphatically. “It’s a spiritual practice that combines the body, the mind and the spirit. It’s based on an ancient Indian tradition that includes inspiration from statues, which are a mythology that combine human and divine characteristics.”

Aside from the statues, that’s pretty much what my religion is to me.

David Adelson, a Reform rabbi in New York who is enrolled at the Institute for Jewish Spirituality, a two-year program that includes yoga retreats and text study, offered a distinction.

“If I’m in a church around Christmastime, I sing and even say ‘Jesus’ in the hymns. I know that I am just singing because I like singing, and in no way praying, so it doesn’t worry me,” he said. “Yoga feels just a bit dicier because I am a full participant in the experience, not an observer. But I believe in general that to constitute avodah zarah, you probably need some kavana,” or intention.

Kavana is an interesting thing. Intuitively, it would seem that a religion demanding absolute morality would be concerned with intention. But, actually, that’s not really the case. If you eat bread on Passover, even accidentally, you have sinned. If you give charity but grudgingly, the charity still counts for the good. On Yom Kippur, we repent for sins we didn’t even know we did. And then there are Hannah’s sons—seven Jews who chose to die rather than bow to Antiochus, the Greek ruler who tried to forcibly convert Jews in 167 BCE. Bowing but not meaning it wasn’t an option.

Judaism is concerned not just with your actions but also very much with how your actions appear to others. Bowing is the physical manifestation of idolatry, whatever your intention.

“Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves,” says Leviticus 26:1, “and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it.”

But let’s ignore that for a second and accept Adelson’s argument that intention does matter. Even so, don’t I intentionally practice yoga? And while my yoga teacher had said she doesn’t find yoga incompatible with Judaism because her status as a Jew isn’t compromised by her practice of yoga, I have a more literal view of Judaism and what it expects from me. I believe that I’m supposed to practice only Judaism. I don’t believe the practice of another religion makes me an adherent of that religion, but I do believe that I choose to only practice Judaism.

The rituals and chanting that was expected of me in yoga seem like another religion to me—and practicing another religion is practicing another religion.

But Srinivasan, the senior teacher at the worldwide Shivananda Yoga Vedanta Centers, says I have it backward.

“Yoga is not a religion but a science of religion,” he explained. “It applies to all religions. It’s not that yoga comes from Hinduism. Hinduism originates in yoga. Buddhism comes from yoga, too.”

Srinivasan doesn’t see how spiritual yoga practice and Judaism are incompatible.

“Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach used to come to our ashrams,” he said. “He understood we were talking about the same thing. Chasidic mysticism and Kabbalah are very much in line with yogic thought.”

I explain to Srinivasan that the approach may be similar—even some of the text and ideas may be similar—but that only proves my point that yoga is a religion.

“There is yoga in every religion,” he responded. “Yoga means ‘union’ or ‘absolute consciousness’ with God. Don’t look at the differences; look at the similarities. Yoga is beyond words or institution. When you use the word ‘religion,’ people want to know what books you read, what language you speak.”

Srinivasan also says that though some sects of yoga won’t even use the word God, the tradition is similar to monotheis

“We’re all talking about the same God,” he said.

To him, the statue of Ganesh at the front of many yoga studios is the same God to whom Jews pray.

“Don’t confuse the map for the actual place,” he said. “God is everywhere. There is no conflict here. There is respect for that diversity. To explain God is to limit God.”

So could I just be bowing in front of this statue without bowing to the statue? I asked Pinchas Giller, an Orthodox rabbi who practices yoga at the same studio I do.

“Many Hindus argue these days that their deities are just archetypal principles,” says Giller. “But any third-grader in Hebrew school will tell you that those are idols.

“Veneration and offerings are unacceptable. I avoid classes where the teacher is too into the mythos. It’s hard to escape the impression that if you take some of the practices too seriously then it could be avodah zarah.”

Giller practices yoga for the exercise and only for the exercise, he’s careful to say.

Chanah Forster, a Chasid and yoga teacher in Brooklyn, N.Y., may have found a solution.

“Yoga absolutely is a religion,” she says.

Before she became religious, Forster lived on an ashram, where she became certified to teach yoga. She still teaches it, but with an approach tailored to her current audience. There is no chanting in her class—not even Om, the vibrational sound recited at the start of most yoga classes. She describes poses, but won’t use their traditional Sanskrit names. She also won’t say their English translations, like Downward-Facing Dog.

“Instead I’ll say to raise your hips to the ceiling,” she explained to me. “The Sanskrit names have a spiritual meaning. If you don’t call these poses by their Sanskrit names, it’s just exercise.”

Forster believes that when you do any of these things—chant, say Om, speak in Sanskrit—you are opening yourself up spiritually to outside influences.

“These aren’t just words,” she said. “They have meanings and repercussions to your ‘neshama’ ”—your soul—“and they are at odds with Jewish spirituality.”

But despite all these things at odds with Judaism, yoga seems to have a strong pull on Jews. In the past few years, several yoga minyans, prayer services in which yoga stretches accompany liturgy, have gotten under way. At least half of the people who frequent my yoga studio, as well as many of its teachers, are Jewish. India is a hotbed of Israeli tourism, and the great Hindu leader Ram Dass was born Richard Alpert, a nice Jewish boy. (The author Rodger Kamenetz wrote a whole book, “The Jew in the Lotus,” about Jews struggling to understand and relate to Eastern spirituality.)

Though unresolved, it’s a debate that’s new to me and that has new urgency for me as I’ve returned to religious observance. The kabbalistic viewpoint asserts that we are born with a pintele yid, a Jewish spark always searching for spirituality. If you live in America in 2010, your pintele yid may be a little malnourished, and whether because of assimilation or a lack of Jewish practice, some Jews seek to feed this hunger outside of the synagogue.

And the question of yoga’s compatibility with Judaism might just be an unanswerable one. In Adelson’s Reform world, it’s the Jew’s intention that matters. But in the Judaism I know, the one I have chosen to participate in, intentions, or even wishes, are not the only things to consider.

My Judaism is a Judaism that is preoccupied with my physical life as much as my spiritual one. It has laws for when I eat, what wear, how I wash my hands. The problem isn’t what yoga might ask me to think or believe; it’s what it asks me to do. And despite my physical flexibility—you should see my frog pose—I don’t have the same spiritual agility.

Further practice of Judaism has not, historically, helped me become more open-minded. But perhaps that is where yoga can be an asset, not a detriment, to my religious practice. Yes, yoga walks a fine line (verboten to some; certainly not to all). But maybe my uptight approach to religion requires yoga and its nuances of illicit practice to help me remain flexible in my spirit, as well as my body. Maybe having something that isn’t so easy to reconcile, a gray area, is good for me.

Taffy Brodesser-Akner, a writer living in Los Angeles, has been published in the Los Angeles Times, Salon and the Daily Beast. Reprinted from Tabletmag.com, a new read on Jewish life.

How a Modern Orthodox Jew struggled to reconcile her yogic practice with her Judaism Read More »

Israel’s Multicultural Ajami Contends for Best Foreign Film Oscar—in Arabic

Lost in all the international debate on the Israeli-Palestinian question is the fact that Israel has become a complex multicultural society. No film makes that more evident than Ajami—Israel’s strong entry into this season’s Oscar race.

Shot with mostly non-professional actors by Arab and Jewish co-directors Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani, the film is a harsh reality-check on the country’s healthcare system, relations between police and the citizenry, inter-Arab gang rivalries, and the rift that separates Jews, Christians and Muslims.

The film explores five different stories in Ajami, an inner-city hood in Jaffa, which is to Tel Aviv as the Valley is to L.A. The narrative centers around a corrupt Jewish cop and several working-class Arabs, most of whom are bilingual although their cultural identity is strongly Palestinian. It is a gritty drama shot with a small budget, and the novice actors do some great—sometimes stupendous—work. The structure borrows from Memento and The Usual Suspects as it is fragmented and broken into chapters that are juxtaposed so as to play with our expectations of time.

The Arabs in the film come across as real people, even if most of them are involved in nefarious activity of one kind or another. The Jews are also real people who are not better or worse than the Arabs. There is racism in both directions, even as some characters are struggling to break free of boundaries: when for instance Hadir (Ranin Karim), a young Christian Arab woman, falls in love with Omar (Shahir Kabaha) and wants to marry him, her father considers a Muslim off-limits. Or when Binj—a Palestinian played by co-director Scandar Copti—wants to move in with his Israeli girlfriend, his friends think he’s become too comfortable with the Jews and stalk away angrily.

Ajami is not about the occupation per se, and its marketing campaign insists that it is “apolitical”; yet almost nothing about Israel and the Palestinians can ever escape the grim reality that has characterized this strained relationship since 1948.

To better understand Ajami’s reception inside Israel, it is instructive to read what Haaretz, the country’s liberal daily, had to say about Ajami after it had won attention at Cannes last year and then walked away with one of the country’s top film awards, the Ophir:

“First it should be said that the film Ajami is a masterpiece by any standard, and it rightfully garnered the Wolgin and Ophir prizes for best film. It is surprising, gut-wrenching, fascinating, shocking and brimming with humanity; written and shot wisely; directed and acted meticulously and powerfully; and accompanied by an excellent score….But another amazing achievement is not obvious: The film that will represent Israel to the world is in Arabic and was directed and written by two Israelis, an Arab and a Jew. One feels like shouting for joy.”

Yes, Ajami is almost entirely in Arabic, and this is perhaps the most surprising and ultimately rewarding pleasure of all, because in truth Israel has long thought itself a European outpost on the eastern Mediterranean seaboard. It has favored its relationships with Europe and the United States, while treating its Levantine and Middle Eastern neighbors like backwater cousins. Now it has become apparent that Israel’s Arabs (20% of the population) and Jews from Arab countries including Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia (nearly 50% of Israel’s Jewish population), are the country’s dominant cultural force. The question is, will Arabs and Arab Jews manage to coexist in such a way as to influence the formation of a neighboring Palestinian state, at long last?

Despite its grim storylines (ailing mothers who can’t afford the operations that will save their lives, Arabs killing each other for drugs or money or both, corrupt Jewish police who will stop at nothing to avenge Jewish deaths), Ajami proves satisfying because it demonstrates that Israel’s Arabs and Jews can and do work well together. It is quite powerful to see Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani together, speaking about their film, as I did during an early preview screening in January. As they walked on stage to introduce Ajami, Copti and Shani seemed almost related, like brothers or cousins. Their film reinforces the fact that there is ultimately very little that separates Arabs and Jews.

Jordan Elgrably is a journalist, editor at Levantine Review and a long-time observer of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel’s Multicultural Ajami Contends for Best Foreign Film Oscar—in Arabic Read More »

J.D. Salinger dies at 91 — and was Jewish

“Catcher in the Rye” was a great book, an anthem for teen angst (what a wretched choice of words). But I was always more a fan of “Franny and Zooey;” in fact, it’s among my favorite books.

All I’ve ever known about their author, J.D. Salinger, and all I suspect most people knew about him, was that he was famous for being a great writer and for being more of a hermit than a Tibetan monk.

Based on that, I don’t know what news I found more surprising today: that Salinger had died at the age of 91 or that his father was Jewish and young J.D. had become bar mitzvah. From JTA:

The author was born in New York in 1919 to an assimilated Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother of Irish descent. Salinger’s father, Sol, was the son of a rabbi. He worked as an importer of ham and tried to get his son into the business, according to The New York Times, but the younger Salinger instead became a writer.

Read the NYT obit here.

J.D. Salinger dies at 91 — and was Jewish Read More »

Howard’s Healthy Ego

One of the criticisms you hear about Stern is that he has an out of control ego.  I think a better term is healthy.  Howard’s healthy ego is a lesson in itself.  And the lesson is this: ego is good.

People say we live in a narcissistic society, that we are the twisted children of a Me generation of unbridled entitlement and desire, but often I find just the opposite: people shrink from their true power and their true potential.  Every rabbi at some point drags out the story of a sage named Zusia who had a vision of what the angels would ask him in heaven. They wouldn’t ask him why he wasn’t as great as Moses, or Joshua.  They would ask him why he wasn’t as great as Zusia.

“They will say to me, ‘Zusia, there was only one thing that no power of heaven or earth could have prevented you from becoming.’ They will say, ‘Zusia, why weren’t you Zusia?’”

Howard doesn’t shirk from being fully himself.  He has used his talents to their fullest, and asserted his personality into a sedate media landscape.  He’s been fully Howard.

The apotheosis of this is of course the Howard 100 News—an entire professional news team devoted to gathering and presenting news about Howard Stern and his universe.  Is there a better spoof of our celebrity-crazed society?  Is there a more brilliant parody of celebs who feed on creating TMZ- worthy moments?  The Howard 100 News is celebrity culture taken to its goofy extreme, where every star hires his or her own team of journalists to report on their every thought. (The difference between TMZ and Howard 100 News is that Howard uses truly seasoned journalists.  I’ve been interviewed by Steve Langford a few times and there is zero difference in professionalism and approach between him and someone reporting on health care or nuclear terrorism).  I’m trying to think of any comedian who’s done something similar to the Howard 100 News, and I can’t. It’s not like having a straight man, it’s like having a division of straight men.

That comic idea—that a star deserves his own news channel—can only come from someone who isn’t afraid of asserting his ego, of taking total control of his world and his image. Howard’s got an out of control ego?  Like that’s a bad thing……

Howard’s Healthy Ego Read More »

What Am I?

What am I?

Isn’t that the question any religion worth its holy water forces its believers to confront. 

Food begs the question too.  As Michael Pollan pointed out, we can eat anything, so we must decide what to eat.  In that decision we are deciding not just what our relationship is to the planet, to animals, to our fellow humans.

But I would go farther, deciding what we eat is deciding in a deep way who we are.  What do I believe, and how willing am I to act on those beliefs?  Who else am I like?  What kind of life do I want to lead?

These are the questions wrapped up in the religious search, but you can skip the prayer and rabbis and priests and gurus and just confront them on your plate.  We don’t ask other, “What do you eat?” We ask, “What are you?  Are you a vegetarian?  Are you a pescatarian?”  It’s not enough to describe what foods we will and will not eat, we strive to find a word for it.  Locavore.  Carnivore. Gastrosexual.  Our desire to give our bundle of food preferences a single name reveals our inate sense that we are what we eat, and we are what we don’t eat.

So who am I?

Today I had lunch with Tori Avey, the insightful woman behind a new blog called Shiksa Goddess.  We ate at Afshan, a kosher Persian restaurant in the fashion district.  Afshan’s traditional menu is all Persian (except for an inexplicable listing for “Buffalo Wings.”  Do they even have buffalo in Iran?)  It’s a hole in the wall, low on decoration yet oddly high on charm, the kind of place that’s chock a block in New York’s garment district, where each enthic denizen has its own commissary.  For nine bucks I got chicken koubideh (ground spiced grilled chicken), rice with sour cherries, grilled tomato, two kinds of salad.

Tori and I fell into talking about what we are… vegetarian, etc.  In the end I came up with a word to descrivbe someone who won’t say no to tasting anything, our of a love for good food and adesire to connect with the people who eat it—but who doesn’t make a habit of eating things he finds morally or religiously objectionable.

“What would I call myself?” I asked.  “I guess I’m a tryatarian.  I’ll try anything once.”

What Am I? Read More »

Dating a Bozo

As seen at ” title=”www.send-email.org”>www.send-email.org to merissag[at]gmail[dot]com.

Dear Yenta,

I have been dating this guy a few times and he has an obnoxiously loud voice. Every time he speaks when we are at dinner I want to crawl under the table because everybody is staring at him. When is it too soon to tell a guy you have been seeing that he talks too loud?
To make matters worse, when he wants more water he waves his glass and shouts “hello, hello” to the waiter. Last night we went out for sushi and he demanded a spoon and started shoveling the sushi in his mouth. I am totally embarrassed. What do I do?

– Desperately Seeking a Normal Boyfriend in the Big Apple

Dear DSNBBA,

Well, for this one I summoned the powers of my mother, who said flatly, “Get rid of him.”

My own first question would be to ask why you are dating him, what are his redeeming qualities? Do you like him for him, or are you sitting and enduring these dates simply because he likes you? Is there something fantastic about this rude boy that makes you want to overlook his flaws? Or, are they what take the cake?

My mother says that you can’t tell him what’s wrong with him. She says you need to find another man, or learn to love this one’s weirdness, you can’t change him.

I think it is important to look closely at the ticks that are bothersome about another person. Why does his loudness agitate you? His yelling at the waitress like a slave? Is it something in you, or something in him that needs to be changed? The insensitive details you listed lead me to believe that this man’s flaw is a basic lack of self-awareness and lack of respect for those around him. Why would you want to keep dating someone like that? What does he give you? Also, what kind of bozo eats sushi with a spoon?

There is, though, the possibility that he has something valid wrong with him, in which case choosing patience would be up to you. Again, a decision based on what he does that is positive and enriching in your life.

Only you know what kind of man you are looking for, what kind of things turn you on and off, and only you know if there is more to this story or if the buck stops here, table manners reflective of his general personhood.

Step one in finding New York’s finest dating prospects, in your case, would be drastically raising your standards and believing you deserve the very best in table manners, respect and general enjoyment. Also, knowing what you are looking for in a man makes dating less torturous. This way, if he doesn’t have what it takes you don’t have to agonize over it, you just know. Patience is key when searching for a worthy match. That, and remembering that you should have the very best.

Dating a Bozo Read More »

J. D. Salinger: The End of a Life Veiled in Irony and Mystery

The death of Jerome David Salinger brings to an end one of the great lives in American letters.  For me, and for generations after me, “The Catcher in the Rye” is much more than an “evergreen” best-seller; it is truly a rite of passage, as much for my own children as it was for me.  I studied the text of “Franny and Zooey” and “Nine Stories” with the devotion of a Talmudic scholar, and I recall how the publication of a new short story by J. D. Salinger in the pages of The New Yorker in 1965 was a rare and much-anticipated event.

J. D. Salinger is all the more remarkable because he so resolutely rejected the celebrity that was his for the asking.  He was a famous recluse, and he became all the more famous because of his self-imposed isolation and his decision to simply stop writing.  Salinger even went to court to prevent the use of quotations from his work in an unauthorized biography, and he scuttled the plans to issue his last published short story in book form.

His life was always veiled in ironies and mysteries.  His father was Jewish but his mother was not – she changed her name from Marie to Miriam, and he did not learn of her Christian origins until the occasion of his bar mitzvah.  So it turns out that one of the most admired Jewish-American writers of the 20th century is not Jewish at all according to Halakha, and Salinger himself reportedly embraced the beliefs of Christian Science. Of course, it is exactly such ambiguities and conflicts that make him an archetypal American Jew no matter what he actually believed and practiced.

What remains after his passing at the age of 91 is what we have possessed all along — a small but superb body of work that has never gone out of style or out of print.  Indeed, “The Catcher in the Rye” is so thoroughly and uniquely American in its voice and its concerns that it deserves to be called one of the great American novels.  Indeed, the case can be made — and has been made — that the social and cultural turmoil that we call the Counterculture may have begun with Holden Caulfield and his contempt for all that is “phony.”

Salinger himself spent his life making war on phoniness, and it is a war that he won.

Jonathan Kirsch is the book editor of The Jewish Journal. 

J. D. Salinger: The End of a Life Veiled in Irony and Mystery Read More »

Why Rush Limbaugh owes us an apology after all

In a flashback episode of the old Odd Couple series, Felix and Murray the cop are in the army together. Murray is feeling down in the dumps, and a sympathetic Felix asks if it’s because the men are making fun of Murray’s big nose.

Murray says, “I didn’t know the men are making fun of my nose!”

“They are,” says Felix. “I heard them. One said it looked like a two-car garage.”

The joke here, of course, is that Felix thinks he’s being helpful — kind of the way Rush Limbaugh did last week, when he suggested why Jews who voted for Obama should be feeling “buyer’s remorse.”

“There are a lot of people, when you say banker, people think Jewish,” Limbaugh said on his Jan. 20 broadcast. “People who have prejudice, people who have, you know — what’s the best way to say — a little prejudice about them. To some people, bankers — code word for Jewish — and guess who Obama’s 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 starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”

Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League jumped all over this one. He said Limbaugh’s remarks were “borderline anti-Semitic,” and trafficked in the “age-old stereotype about Jews and money.” He demanded an apology.

Rush is defiant. His website posted a defense of his remarks by Norman Podhoretz. The neoconservative icon noted that Limbaugh twice referred to “prejudiced people” who equate Jews with high finance. All Limbaugh was doing, writes Podhoretz, was expressing the “undeniable fact” that for prejudiced people “the words ‘banker’ and ‘Wall Street’ are code words for ‘Jewish.’”

Or was he? Michael Ledeen of the National Review Online also defended Limbaugh, decrying Obama’s “attacks on ‘greedy bankers’ (which Rush mentioned), free broadcasting, and of course the crusade against American medicine, all enterprises in which Jews have long flourished.”

Note the confusion. Podhoretz said Limbaugh was only referring to the opinions of “prejudiced people.”  Ledeen says, approvingly, that Rush had it right in suggesting that banking is a Jewish “enterprise.”

Remember Felix, folks. The key thing about Limbaugh’s remarks is that it appears he’s trying to be sensitive to the Jews. But for his logic to work, Jews (like Ledeen, for instance), need to accept that the anti-Semites are right — we are a bunch of bankers. Either that, or we have to agree that Jews identify so closely with banking that we will, or at least should, interpret an “assault” on the banking industry as a cause for communal concern and group action.

Limbaugh has gone down this road before. Last August, he equated the Democrats and the Nazis because both “were opposed to Jewish capitalism.” Again, to accept his logic, you have to accept the borderline anti-Semitic premise (in this case, that capitalism is somehow “Jewish”).

The Zionist Organization of America and other right-wing Jewish groups have also jumped to Limbaugh’s defense. All Limbaugh meant, according to a ZOA release, is “that when Obama criticized bankers and Wall Street, some prejudiced people could have interpreted this as an Obama attack against Jews.”

First of all, that’s not all Limbaugh said. The radio personality specified that “a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish.” (Thanks, Rush. If the anti-Semites weren’t aware of that before, they are now.)  Furthermore, he strongly suggests that Jews should interpret Obama’s actions against the banking industry as an assault, coded or not, on the Jews. It’s like the friendly neighbor who says you ought to be careful because he heard bullies are picking on ugly people.

Foxman is right that Limbaugh’s remarks were “borderline anti-Semitic.” There’s been a lot of creepily coded rhetoric floating around since the start of the current financial crisis, with bankers being referred to as “moneylenders” and “bloodsuckers.” Jews on the Left and Right get a little worried whenever people talk like this. If Limbaugh and his allies weren’t interested in scoring the usual ideological points (“Mr. Foxman, if you really want to go after anti-Semitism you should first start looking at it on the Left,” he said the next day), they might have acknowledged that in linking Jews and the banking industry, he stumbled, inadvertently or not, into toxic territory.

But Foxman doesn’t come off so well either. His statement slips into disingenuousness when he writes the following: “[Limbaugh’s] notion that Jews vote based on their religion, rather than on their interests as Americans, plays into the hands of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.”

C’mon, Abe. It’s hardly anti-Semitic for someone to suggest that “Jews vote based on their religion” or – in Limbaugh’s case, perceived group interests. We all talk about the “Jewish vote.” And by “we” I mean Jewish newspapers, mainstream pollsters, all the major Jewish organizations, and your zayde. A politician would have to be an idiot to wander into districts with large Jewish populations and not consider the ways Jews, like all ethnic groups, vote their particular as well as general interests.

This whole episode is an object lesson in how not to talk about the ethnic vote. Of course Jews have voting tendencies (and a tendency is not the same thing as a conspiracy). It’s fair game for a pundit to discuss the factors that may lead the Jewish majority to lean one way or the other.

But the difference between that sort of analysis and Limbaugh’s comes down to the central premise of modern anti-anti-Semitism. The goal is not to keep people from talking about Jews, but to keep them from talking about Jews using hurtful, false, historically resonant, and dangerous stereotypes.

Feel free to discuss the pro-Israel vote, or the Jewish Left. But spare us your conjectures, well-intended or not, about “Jewish bankers.”

It’s the difference between making fun of someone’s politics, and making fun of his—well, his nose.

Andrew Silow-Carroll is Editor-in-Chief of the New Jersey Jewish News. Between columns you can read his writing at the JustASC blog.

Why Rush Limbaugh owes us an apology after all Read More »