fbpx

January 12, 2022

Comms Firm for Nonprofits Declines to Work With Jewish Think Tank Over “Programming in Israel”

Big Duck, which describes itself as a “smart communications for nonprofits” worker-owned cooperative, declined to work with the Shalom Hartman Institute, a Jewish think tank, because the think tank conducts “significant programming in Israel,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reported.

The January 11 JTA report stated that think tank’s communications director, Dorit Rabbani, took notes during her phone call the week before with Farra Trompeter, the co-director of Big Duck. Her notes said that Trompeter asked if the institute is “Zionist” and against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS); Rabbani answered in the affirmative, prompting Trompeter to rebuff the institute’s interest, claiming that the cooperative’s employees “would have trouble bringing passion to work with Hartman,” JTA reported. Rabbani lamented to JTA that if Trompeter engaged in dialogue with the think tank, she would see “why our work is actually so important [in] furthering coexistence and peace.” The institute works to “promote pluralism and Israeli democracy” and engages with the American Muslim community, according to JTA.

Trompeter, however, told JTA that the decision to reject the Hartman Institute had nothing to do with their support for Zionism and opposition to BDS, as “Big Duck does not use litmus tests.” As evidence, she pointed to the fact that Big Duck has worked with various Jewish organizations, which includes Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), Keshet and National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), per JTA. “We do ask if [potential clients] are open to working with a team and company that is questioning Israel’s policies and practices among other issues, and consider that in evaluating whether we will be a good fit for creating their communications and fundraising materials,” she said. Trompeter also told JTA that Big Duck’s employees aim to fight “oppression,” which has “has led us to more active questioning of working with organizations with significant programming in Israel, among other issues, and in those cases, we have mutually agreed that it does not make sense to work together.” She added Big Duck will still work with Jewish organizations and “profoundly rejects anti-Semitism.”

JTS told JTA that they are “disheartened” by Big Duck’s decision to reject the Hartman Institute and that when JTS worked with Big Duck they never questioned “our views on Israel.” The heads of Keshet and NCJW also told JTA that Big Duck does not support BDS and echoed Trompeter’s claim that the cooperative doesn’t impose litmus tests.

Following the publication of the JTA article, the Hartman Institute published a statement on their website standing by their version of the story. “We approached Big Duck about doing some work together; we were almost immediately asked a set of questions about the Institute’s political positions on BDS and in light of our ‘presence’ in Israel; and Big Duck said they would decline our business because of these commitments,” the statement read. “In these respects, Big Duck’s decision represents a moving of the goalposts on BDS from Israel to North American Jewish organizations, and applies a standard on North American Jewish commitments that would exclude the vast majority of the members of our community. Big Duck’s claims to not apply litmus tests nor to adhere to a BDS policy as a company are belied by their application of a litmus test here, and by their allowing those employees who support BDS to exercise a veto over business decisions on the basis of that commitment.”

They acknowledged that there could have been “a miscommunication by Big Duck, though that miscommunication was carried forth from their original comments and through their misrepresentation of the story to the JTA reporter. We also are open to the possibility that Big Duck would genuinely like to learn more about how and why Jewish organizations like ours are triggered and offended by such litmus tests, and how the causes of justice, human rights, and the advancement of democracy in Israel are undermined by the refusal to work with liberal Zionist institutions in North America.” The institute called on Big Duck to apologize and show that they’re willing “to learn from this misstep” through “distancing itself from the culture of anti-Zionist litmus testing that is growing in some sectors of the Jewish community.” Big Duck did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment by publication time.

Various Jewish groups denounced Big Duck’s decision to reject the Hartman Institute.

“This is an unacceptable litmus test, period,” Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted. “In the wake of rising #antisemitism prompted by those who demonize the Jewish state and literally attack Jews as a result, this is yet another sign of the disturbing normalization of hate.” He added in a subsequent tweet that “the vast​ majority of American Jews are Zionist. A wide range of Jewish & non-Jewish [organizations] support the state of Israel and its right to exist. Is @BigDuck going to poll all its clients to gauge opinions on [Middle East] peace? Or only the Jewish ones?” Greenblatt concluded his Twitter thread by noting that the ADL has previously conducted business with Big Duck but “will never do so again.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Center tweeted that Big Duck’s actions reflects “the #BDS inspired demonization and purge of Israel and Zionism expands in the US. Any consequences?”

Stop Antisemitism tweeted that “One of the [main] goals the Shalom Hartman Institute is to promote dialogue between Jews and Arabs,” calling Big Duck’s decision “truly sickening behavior.”

Rabbi Joshua Stanton of the East End Temple, a reform synagogue in New York, tweeted that Big Duck’s rationale for rejecting the Hartman Institute was “embarrassingly incoherent” and “laden with the evidence of a double-standard (or worse) for Jews and Jewish organizations.”

https://twitter.com/JoshuaMZStanton/status/1480931937430736908?s=20

 

Comms Firm for Nonprofits Declines to Work With Jewish Think Tank Over “Programming in Israel” Read More »

COVID Versus Wokeism: When Viruses Collide

One crisis is brutal and primal, the other delicate and emotional.

COVID is brutal. Trillions of tiny viruses with the power to kill us are trying to invade our bodies.

Wokeism is emotional. It revolves around our feelings and the right to not be offended.

It’s odd that these two major forces have hit us at the same time. They’re mirror opposites. The fear of dying from COVID makes us small and humble and deeply grateful just to be alive.

Wokeism nurtures the opposite of gratitude. We feel cocky, entitled and intolerant. Anyone who offends us must be attacked, if not cancelled. Any speaker who will offend us must be stopped. We have a right to not be exposed to anything that might hurt our feelings or make us feel “unsafe.”

The fear of dying from COVID makes us small and humble and deeply grateful just to be alive. Wokeism nurtures the opposite of gratitude.

Wokeism looks, on the surface, as if it’s about fragility, but in reality, it’s more about power—the art of grabbing power through grievance and victimhood. The aggrieved, in today’s world, own the high ground. If you have any doubt, ask a college dean who receives a demand letter from a victim group: Who has the most power these days?

If wokeism is about gaining social power, COVID is about losing physical power. The virus doesn’t care about our feelings. It will invade our lungs whether we’re far right or far left, in a good mood or bad mood, woke or not.

Wokeism is a symptom of modern decadence, when maximum convenience and comfort trigger a nostalgia for epic struggles and dramatic causes. Absent these historic movements of yesteryear, the woke must come up with endless grievances to gain power and boost their self-esteem. That’s why they can’t stand to recognize real progress—it undermines their grievance-obsessed narrative.

A key tenet of wokeism is to preach inclusion and diversity, but with a crucial catch: Wokeism scrupulously excludes ideological diversity, which would be too messy. We’re inclusive in all ways, in other words, except when it comes to your opinions.

COVID is truly all-inclusive. It comes after all of us. It’s straightforward. It wants to enter our bodies and contaminate our cells.

But if COVID contaminates our cells, wokeism contaminates our souls. We’re intolerant of those with different views. We blame everyone but ourselves for our problems. We spend our lives on a high horse of self-righteousness from where we can easily spit on anyone who’s not on our team.

If there is one thing COVID and wokeism do have in common, it is an utter absence of humor. As much as the coronavirus allows little room for levity, wokeism allows even less. If my feelings are hurt, I don’t care if you’re funny.

Television star Steve Harvey, in a recent interview, explained why he stopped doing stand-up comedy. “If I had tried to continue as a stand-up,” he said, “there’s no way I could maintain a TV career. Because political correctness has killed comedy. It’s killed it. Every joke you tell now, it hurts somebody’s feelings.”

COVID is indeed a dangerous virus, but as horrible as it looks, it will eventually go away.

If COVID contaminates our cells, wokeism contaminates our souls. It’s dangerous not because it looks bad, but because it looks moral.

Wokeism is dangerous not because it looks bad, but because it looks moral. It uses a vocabulary that suggests fairness and justice—such as “anti-racism” and “equity”—to lull us into complacency. Who can argue against anti-racism? It’s only when we dig beneath the surface that we see how wokeism ends up hurting the very people it claims to help.

Bill Maher, a classic liberal, says that the woke have “gone off the deep end.” Deep end or shallow end, wokeism has infiltrated our culture, is spreading rapidly and won’t be easy to shake.

When we finally shake COVID, it will leave us bruised and exhausted, but more appreciative of the preciousness of life.

If we can’t find an antidote to wokeism, it will leave us more entitled and divided, less grateful and tolerant, and, ultimately, culturally and humanly diminished.

Which virus is more brutal?

COVID Versus Wokeism: When Viruses Collide Read More »

D.T.R.

On this week’s episode of Schmuckboys, Libby, Maxine, and Marla discuss one of the biggest issues in Jewish dating – finding someone that doesn’t just match your energy but also your Jewish observances. From input from friends, to feeling judged, to how you were raised, the ladies will cover everything that comes with the challenge of trying to figure out the role you want Judaism to play in your relationship. And of course – ending off the episode is a fun game of “Cute or Cringe!”

D.T.R. Read More »

The Incredibly Shrinking Conception of Jewish Social Justice

A few days ago I came across the recently published “The Social Justice Torah Commentary,” an anthology of essays by various rabbis and Jewish social justice activists on issues such as racism, climate change, mass incarceration, immigration, disability, women’s rights and voting rights. The book is meant to be a guide for weekly Torah study and is undoubtedly a rich source of material for sermons. I haven’t read all the essays, but the ones I have read provide an interesting take on Jewish texts and concepts. 

As a criminal justice reform and mental health advocate, I especially appreciated Rabbi Joel Mosbacher’s essay riffing on Parashat Acharei Mot, addressing the overrepresentation of people with severe mental illness in our criminal justice system. I do not agree with every point made in the book’s essays but regard such commentary as a completely legitimate way to look at Torah in light of contemporary moral and social realities.

But then I read a Times of Israel article by Rabbi Barry Block, the anthology’s editor, and I was reminded of precisely what’s wrong with contemporary Jewish social justice discourse and, perhaps, with the book itself.  

Referencing the battles over the way race and racism are taught in K-12 schools, Rabbi Block said that as a rabbi he is “troubled by this assault on the concept of social justice, which Jewish religious leaders have been championing for longer than the term has existed.” 

“The truth is,” he said, “that social justice is a noble and worthy concept that has every place in our classrooms and our broader society. At this critical time in our nation’s history—when many Americans have a renewed understanding of the extent to which systemic racism has infected our nation, while many others willfully close their eyes to that harsh reality—embracing our Jewish tradition of social justice has never been so pressing.”

I couldn’t agree more that social justice is central to who we are as Jews and our role in the world. And I couldn’t disagree more with the narrow manner in which some rabbis and activists define that term for the community. 

Last I checked, nowhere in the voluminous commentary on social issues in the Jewish tradition is there a single mention of the term “systemic racism.” To be sure, racism is a perfectly valid explanation of disparity among different groups in society. But it is not the only explanation. Attributing our social ills to “systemic racism” alone ignores the crucial role played by poverty and socio-economic status (especially generational wealth), family structure, and the sheer amount of time it takes for a community that experienced centuries of oppression to rise out of its previous conditions. Indeed, insisting that there is a single way to understand group outcomes and that anyone who disagrees or cites alternative explanations is “willfully closing their eyes” is mind bogglingly illiberal. 

This is gospel, not “commentary.” 

This shrunken conception of social justice—I call it “Tikkun Olam Hakatan” (a small tikkun olam)—excludes from its covenant millions of American Jews who want to make the world a better place but may not agree with this particular formulation about what needs to be fixed or how to fix it. We shouldn’t have to all agree on exactly what ails society or from where it derives in order to be part of the social justice fold.

According to the Pew Survey, 45 percent of politically conservative Jews say that social justice is essential to their Jewishness. Seventy percent of very liberal Jews agree. If social justice weren’t so closely linked to a particular ideological and political agenda, imagine how many more conservatives might emphasize it. Nearly half do already!

My friend Leon is a Jewish political conservative. He is highly engaged in supporting people with disabilities, volunteers an untold number of hours to the cause and donates thousands of dollars every year. While Leon recognizes that American history is replete with racial discrimination and that such discrimination persists in certain sectors, he doesn’t believe—and not for lack of consideration of the evidence—that systemic racism exists in America today. While I do not agree with Leon that there is no systemic racism in society, I know that his heart is in the right place and I honor his support for people with disabilities in the best tradition of Jewish social justice. 

Does Leon’s “wrongthink” on systemic racism bar him from this very exclusive Jewish social justice club for the ideologically pure?    

One can feed the hungry and not agree with the systemic racism explanation of disparity.

One can welcome the stranger and not agree with that explanation of disparity. 

One can work to change our criminal justice system and not agree with that explanation of disparity.

What’s missing from the Social Justice Torah Commentary—not just from the book but from the philosophy—are the multiple ways people can engage in social justice and make the world a better place. The Talmud—the original commentary on Torah—is a collection of thousands of arguments among rabbis, and then even more arguments by later rabbis about what the earlier rabbis were arguing about. 

One would expect that progressive Jewish thinkers would emulate this mode of commentary and argumentation about how to best lift people up. One would hope that their vision of a more perfect world would include people with whom they disagree just like the rabbis in the Talmud did in their time. 

“Nothing about social justice should be controversial,” Rabbi Block tells us. To the contrary, everything about social justice should be controversial. 

It is through controversy and argumentation that we develop both better insights into and more creative solutions to our social ills. The Rabbis in Talmudic times understood this in their own context. Too many in today’s progressive rabbinate don’t.

The problem with modern Jewish social justice discourse is not that it doesn’t have anything valuable to add to Jewish life, but rather that it claims an absolute monopoly on the truth and regards anyone who disagrees as ‘willfully closing their eyes.’  

The problem with modern Jewish social justice discourse is not that it doesn’t have anything valuable to add to Jewish life—it has much to add—but rather that it claims an absolute monopoly on the truth and regards anyone who disagrees as “willfully closing their eyes.”  

We need a bigger, more inclusive vision of Jewish social justice.


David Bernstein is the Founder of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV.org). Follow him on Twitter @DavidLBernstein.

The Incredibly Shrinking Conception of Jewish Social Justice Read More »

Rabbis of LA | Ahud Sela: Finding Faith After a Devastating Diagnosis

Rabbi Ahud Sela had his life planned out. He was going to graduate from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in biochemistry and work as a scientist. But in the winter of his senior year, his life suddenly ground to a halt: He was diagnosed with cancer.

“The physical toll was one thing, but the mental and emotional toll was another,” he said. 

His first reaction was, understandably, why did bad things happen to good people?

“I didn’t have a good answer,” he said. “I sought help from a number of different people I talked to, like the Hillel rabbi in Santa Barbara and an Episcopalian priest.”

The latter was the mother of one of his high school classmates who had died of cancer during their sophomore year. Even though Sela, who grew up in New Haven, Connecticut, wasn’t particularly close with his classmate, he visited her in the hospital, writing notes to her up until two days before she died. 

“To this day, I’m not sure what possessed me to write this, but I wrote her one note about how difficult it must be to have cancer and how if I could trade places with her, I would,” he said. “I didn’t know what it meant at the time. I thought I could take a turn and deal with the cancer for a little bit to give her a break because I was young and strong.”

When he was in his freshman year in college and studying in Israel, Sela decided he’d call the priest on the yahrzeit of her daughter’s death. At the time, the priest was dealing with a crisis in faith. She’d talked to her own priest about how she was praying for a sign from God so that she wouldn’t lose her connection with her daughter. However, the sign wasn’t coming. 

“She then told her priest that a classmate who wasn’t so close with her daughter had called her from Israel,” he said. “Her priest said, ‘Hold on. You got a call in the middle of the night from the holy city of Jerusalem from someone who wasn’t even close to your daughter because he was thinking of her? You wanted a sign from God? That’s a sign.’” 

Sela and the Episcopalian priest stayed in touch, and when he got sick, he reached out to her for help. 

“She was a wonderful pastor for me when I was going through treatment for seven months,” he said. “When I was set to go back to college, she asked me what the experience meant for me. I said I thought I wanted to be a scientist, but I didn’t know if I was cut out for the lifestyle. She asked me if I thought about becoming a rabbi because she knew how committed I was to my Jewish identity. That’s when it first came to mind for me.”

Sela would go on to study and receive his rabbinic ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York while earning his Master’s in Bioethics from the University of Pennsylvania. He then served as assistant rabbi at Sinai Temple under Rabbi David Wolpe before starting in his current position as rabbi of Temple Ramat Zion in Northridge in 2010. 

While he was interviewing for the job, Sela was once again faced with his own mortality. At 33, he learned he had heart disease. This time, however, it was challenging in a different way since he was a husband to Alisha and a father to Yael, Gavi and Eitan at this point.  

“It was much scarier because I had people who were dependent on me,” he said. “But I made it through and I’m healthy again, thank God.”

He wrote [in his book] that being sick “helped clarify for me what direction my life should take, but only with the help of other people, my angels in the shadow of death.”

In 2019, he wrote a book about his near-death experiences called, “Seeing Angels in the Shadow of Death: A Rabbi’s Journey Through Illness and Health.” He wrote that being sick “helped clarify for me what direction my life should take, but only with the help of other people, my angels in the shadow of death. They helped show me the light when all I saw was darkness. And now I try to be an angel myself, to help those who feel like they are living in death’s dark shadow.”

In his work, Sela finds it rewarding to help his congregants and community members who are struggling as well. One thing that he learned was how important it is to meet people on their level.

“I was very offended when someone said, ‘This will be a wonderful experience for you’ when I was first diagnosed,” he said. “I can’t assume that anyone will have a certain reaction or that there is one right away to react. I try to help them figure out what they need in that moment. It’s about compassion and love and care. I try to help them create some meaning out of this and a path forward.” 

Along with working with congregants in a pastoral capacity, Sela enjoys teaching and giving people pride in their Jewish identity. To open their eyes to something in Jewish life they’ve never experienced is immensely gratifying. 

“I love seeing the joy on someone’s face when they find that connection,” he said. “I can’t believe people pay me to help give them purpose and meaning and connection. It’s such a joy to be able to have that as my life’s work.” n

Fast Takes With Ahud Sela

Jewish Journal: What do you like best about living in Granada Hills? 

Ahud Sela: It feels like a neighborhood. We like to walk to places, like our local Menchie’s for a frozen yogurt.

JJ: What’s your favorite Jewish food?

AS: Matzo ball soup.

JJ: What TV show are you binging right now?

AS: I just finished “Medici,” which is an interesting look at the Medici family in the 1400s in Florence. 

JJ: Do you miss autumn in New England?

AS: I only miss the changing of the leaves. When I go back to visit my parents, I try to visit in November or May.

JJ: If you could have a vacation home anywhere, where would it be and why?

AS: An island off the coast of Israel so I could easily get to Israel. I’d like a nice Mediterranean getaway. And in Santa Barbara, where I went to college and met my wife. 

Rabbis of LA | Ahud Sela: Finding Faith After a Devastating Diagnosis Read More »

What Betty White, Sidney Poitier and Bob Saget Taught Me About America

As a teenager, my mother had a crush on a Black man. That’s not a big deal today, but this was in the 1960s. And in Iran, no less. 

I believe my mother’s exact words upon seeing Sidney Poitier’s glorious face in the 1967 film, “To Sir With Love,” at a Tehran movie theater were “Mashallah, mashallah.” It’s an Arabic way of praising God for having created something wondrous, though Iranians of all faiths use the word without any Islamic or religious connotation. 

My mother doesn’t use social media, and I didn’t have the heart to tell her last week that Poitier had died at the age of 94; instead, she heard the news from her favorite Persian-language AM radio station. She was saddened by his death and humbled by the realization that her teenage crush was in his nineties, rendering her anything but a young woman.

Poitier joined two other actors — Betty White and Bob Saget — who also passed away recently, and who played an integral role in my (and my family’s) understanding of our country of refuge. Their obituaries, printed in newspapers across the country, highlighted what they meant to millions of Americans, but let me tell you how these three larger-than-life celebrities affected a family of Iranian Jews.

To this day in Iran, many people are not acquainted with Blacks. Some “Afro-Iranians’” reside along the coast and southern parts of Iran, but they constitute a minority population. Since at least the 6th century BC, Persia (before it changed its name to “Iran” in 1935) practiced slavery, like most Middle Eastern countries, though much of it was domestic slavery. Iran officially banned slavery in 1928, but as my mother once explained, most Iranians, even in the 1960s, still associated Black people with the terrible legacy of slavery. For centuries, Blacks in Iran literally waited hand and foot on mostly wealthy Shi’ite families, often with little to no pay. They were seen as exploited and downtrodden, even after slavery was formally banned (sadly, more modern versions of slavery, including child labor and human trafficking, still exist at disturbing levels in the Islamic Republic of Iran today).

For Iranians like my mother, the association of Blacks with a lack of agency and dignity all changed when they set their eyes on Sidney Poitier on screen. Here was a strong Black man who metaphorically stood taller than anyone in the room; he was no one’s domestic servant. 

When we came to the United States, I finally was able to watch one of his films on television. Like mother, like daughter, I found my teenage crush, too, only I discovered Poitier in the 1990s. 

He was one of the first Black men I saw on screen, and I was spellbound. 

If Iranians had preconceptions of Blacks, they also had rigid ideas about older women. That’s where Betty White blew everything out of the water for my family and me in terms of what we believed about women of a certain age. 

In Iran, I had never met a fabulous older woman. I’m sure she existed (beneath the oppression of the post-revolutionary headscarves and other Islamic attire that were forced upon all Iranian women starting in the early 1980s). Older women were supposed to be modest and homely. Their nails weren’t supposed to be painted. Who could peel dozens of potatoes and mix bowlfuls of ground meat with fabulously painted nails? When a woman grew old, she traded any sign of youth, including her social life, for what we Iranians saw as the dignity of sacrifice in one’s old age. Goodbye to glamorous clothes, youthful ideals, and even leaving the house after 5 p.m. 

Suffice it to say, when my family and I first watched four fabulous older women take a bite out of Miami life on reruns of “The Golden Girls” in the early 1990s, we were almost offended. Grandmothers didn’t go out on dates. They didn’t even wear sequins. And they certainly didn’t go shopping for condoms in anticipation of romantic getaways with their boyfriends. But there was the luminous Betty White and her three equally amazing roommates on “The Golden Girls,” living life at an age when most women in Iran, especially widows, were already buying their burial plots because they didn’t expect to live much longer. 

I, for one, was prepared to see half-naked, fabulous women and even teenagers in America even before we arrived here; my parents had given me ample warning about liberal American values. But nothing could have prepared me for the sight of Rose Nylund, a ditz who was nevertheless rewarded with best friends, a meaningful job, and a boyfriend whom she loved. Why, despite being such a simpleton, was she granted such blessings? Because, I deduced, she was in America. 

And now, so was I. And that could only mean one thing: Maybe one day, I could escape all of the literal (and metaphoric) potato peels that had rained on my female elders’ heads for centuries to become a fabulous, thriving older woman (in many decades to come, I assure you). For that, I will always be grateful to Betty White.

Whereas Poitier showed me the dignity of a Black man, and White made me excited to grow old, Saget was my first introduction to fathers in America, however fictional. 

Finally, there was Bob Saget. Whereas Poitier showed me the dignity of a Black man, and White made me excited to grow old, Saget was my first introduction to fathers in America, however fictional. Every Friday night, after my mother had lit her Shabbat candles and we had said the blessing over wine, my family and I (and our guests) raced to our fat television set to watch Saget play the perfect father to three young daughters on “Full House.” But there was something different about Danny Tanner, Saget’s best-known role:  The man loved to clean.

Can you guess where I’m going with this? If I’d never seen a fabulous grandmother in Iran, you can bet that I’d never, ever seen a man who cleaned his own home. But there was Saget’s Danny Tanner, armed with the one thing my own father possessed in spades (compassionate wisdom) and the one thing my father had never held in his life: a broom.

If I’d never seen a fabulous grandmother in Iran, you can bet that I’d never, ever seen a man who cleaned his own home.

Saget formed a literal bookend to our early weekends in America. On Friday nights, we obsessively watched “Full House” and on Sunday nights, we were treated to shenanigans on “America’s Funniest Home Videos,” which Saget hosted from 1989-1997. Perhaps I’m overdramatizing, even stereotyping, when I say that back in Iran, we didn’t associate camcorders (if anyone was lucky to have one) with hilarious hijinx; we lived in a hideous, repressive theocracy; we feared camcorders because it meant someone was recording us in “un-Islamic” acts, such as not wearing our mandatory headscarves. In America, we learned, most people used camcorders to capture the exact moment their uncle fell over a hill trying to hit a golf ball (I later learned “AFHV” was based on a Japanese variety show).

In contemplating what these three individuals taught me about this country, I’m reminded of a song — the theme of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” — and the words which lifted my anxious heart as a little girl in front of that television screen:

“You’re the red, white and blue/Oh the funny things you do/America, America this is you.”


Tabby Refael is a Los Angeles-based writer, speaker, and civic action activist. Follow her on Twitter @RefaelTabby

What Betty White, Sidney Poitier and Bob Saget Taught Me About America Read More »

The Jewishness of The Lehman Brothers

Jewish history is complicated. A favorite song of mine that satirizes our messy existence in the Old World is Daniel Kahn’s “The Ballad of How the Jews Got to Europe,” which uses Yiddish and unconventional instruments to drum up feelings of chaos. The final line of the tune is:

“The prince needs men? The new world slaves? Have we got stuff to sell! We are the middle men of Europe’s modern earthly hell…” 

Such is the story of the Jews. For centuries, our position in society has been, on many occasions, that of the salesman; the people designated as bargainers between the Christian world and the Muslim world, forced to be comfortable with borrowing, lending, and redistributing wealth. This was ultimately a method of survival for the Jewish people, who understood that in order to avoid persecution, being useful to the majority in your respective country was a smart strategy. The “middle man mindset” followed us across the ocean in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and into the new world, and provides important context for the drama of the Lehman Brothers, three Jewish men who started with next to nothing but by the dawn of the twenty-first century had established one of the largest investment banks in the world. 

Several weeks ago, I attended a performance of The Lehman Trilogy, a three-act play that presents the lives of the first Lehmans to arrive in America: Chaim, changed to Henry upon arrival; Mendel, changed to Emmanuel; and Meyer. These men punctuate their sentences with “Baruch Hashems” (thank God), they keep kosher, they hang mezuzahs on their doors, and they observe all the laws of shiva when there is a death in the family. Yet I found the first act difficult to watch, not in spite of the brothers’ Jewishness, but because of it. The Lehmans began their climb to the top of American wealth in Alabama, working as mediators between white slave owners and northerners who desired their precious cotton. The Lehmans seem to have no moral reservations about their work, but rather consider themselves using a country’s political and economic apparatus — no matter how corrupt and depraved — for their own survival. We don’t see a racist before us when Meyer sets out to win the investment of plantation owners, we only see a Jew who is doing what he can to make ends meet in a strange land. The Jews in audience sitting in front of me, beside me and behind me were no doubt uncomfortable, yet what we were viewing was the truth. 

The Lehman Brothers were drunk on changing what it meant to be Jewish, and if I can’t say I’m comfortable with this new American intoxication, perhaps I at least understand it.

When the Civil War tears America apart, the Lehmans encounter severe challenges in order to change their business model and survive financially. They succeed, winking at the Jewish European proclivity to remain standing even as nations annihilated each other in bloody strife. 

The second act is no less disconcerting. As the first generation of Lehmans die off, their children seek to intensify their economic domination by moving to New York and exploiting the fruits of the Gilded Age of oil tycoons and robber barons. The family becomes increasingly less religious, allowing the allure of the newly-opened New York Stock Exchange to replace Judaism as their spirituality of choice. Whereas the Lehman business used to shutter its doors for an entire week to honor a deceased brother, it now only closes for a few days in order to not disrupt business. The expanding country is an irresistible opportunity to invest in rail, in cars, and in factories. Of course, on the other side of the coin is crippling poverty in American cities, the rise of Jim Crow, and exploitation of the working class leading to huge income inequality. None of this seems to matter much to this family of former huddled masses yearning to breathe free – now seizing every opportunity presented to them. 

In the third and final act, the Great Depression rattles the country. Banks slip and fall, stock brokers commit suicide, and the well of money the Lehmans drank from begins to dry up. In a daring climax, Bobby Lehman, the grandson of Emmanuel and now head of the company, works through unthinkable odds to change the company once again. He pivots, with much risk, to surviving industries: radio, weapons of war, and entertainment. He succeeds; only now, the Lehman business only closes its doors for two minutes when a family member has died. Judaism has officially evaporated from their lives. In the penultimate scene where scenery spins behind him, Bobby manically dances, faster and faster as he grows older and older and as America grows more absurd and discombobulated. The play ends in 2008, when Lehman Brothers officially declared bankruptcy as a financial crisis shook the halls of power once more. 

The narrative is complicated, but through both the good and bad, in the richest and in the poorest of us, it is the story of finding a safe harbor in success.

As I left the theatre, I asked myself why, when I certainly did not feel any admiration for these men, did I feel sympathetic toward their characters and wanted them to overcome their obstacles? They were, at almost every turn, not the most compassionate or ethical people. Was it simply because they were Jews? No, it was far more sentimental than that. This play began in the 1840’s and concluded with a historical event I myself remember. And through it, we see the ways in which Jews have created and altered history, not least their own. Our traditional position of subjugation in Europe made the United States our playground — from humble tenement homes we soon outgrew to the top of the economic and political pyramid. The Jewish people epitomize perhaps the most romantic yet complex expression of the American dream: Rags to riches, with all of the struggles and ethical compromises that inevitably go with it.

Lehman Brothers Inc. should be condemned for its involvement in the abhorrent businesses of slavery, of colonialism, of polluting the planet. But I found myself getting chills in the last moments of the play, when the company finally goes up in smoke, and the original brothers retake the stage to recite a haunting Kaddish. The curtain closed, and I realized what propelled us, and mandated us, to get ahead and stay ahead: the fear and paranoia and sense of death following us for two millennia. The Lehman Brothers were drunk on changing what it meant to be Jewish, and if I can’t say I’m comfortable with this new American intoxication, perhaps I at least understand it.

I saw in the faces of The Lehman Brothers selfishness and greed, yet all the same, the same face of my great grandfather who walked up and down the streets of Manhattan each day humbly looking for work. His family remained observantly Jewish, organized labor strikes, sent their children to public school, and voted for progress and equality on their ballots. Yet his story and the Lehman story both create the Jewish narrative of the middleman in America. The narrative is complicated, but through both the good and bad, in the richest and in the poorest of us, it is the story of finding a safe harbor in success.


Blake Flayton is New Media Director and columnist at the Jewish Journal.

The Jewishness of The Lehman Brothers Read More »