Weekly Items of Note (12/16)
David Shasha
1. On Saturday afternoon October 6th an event took place at New York’s New School moderated by Adam Shatz which featured Norman Finkelstein – perennial scourge and bete noire of the Zionists – and the younger activist Anna Baltzer.
The event entitled “Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End” has just been broadcast on C-Span’s Book TV:
C-Span has not yet posted the program on-line, but it can be seen at the New School Vera List Center site:
http://www.veralistcenter.org/currentprograms/?p=3850
What is fascinating about the program is the intensity of the debate over anti-Israel tactics on the radical Left. Naturally, as is always the case, the discussion is among Ashkenazi Jews who all seem to know best what Palestinians want and need. Beyond this constant Ashkenazi Jewish dominance – not at all limited to the Right Wingers – is the way in which the Left has been buoyed by the changes that have been described by Peter Beinart in his now-seminal New York Review of Books article:
That article discussed the cognitive and existential disconnect of many younger Jews between their Liberal values and Israel’s aggression towards the Palestinians and their alienation from the standard Jewish approach to Israel advocacy.
The influence of Beinart’s article has been profound and a new movement of social and political activism has indeed emerged which seeks to challenge the dominant establishment Jewish narrative on Israel.
A recent post by New Republic editor Leon Wieseltier express the deep malaise of mainstream Jewish thinkers who have clearly run out of ideas:
Nature, of course, abhors a vacuum and in the absence of any constructive ideas to break what has become a static consensus on the conflict, new approaches will be tested and deployed.
It is thus natural that Norman Finkelstein, whose many books and lectures have held aloft the banner of this anti-Israel critique over many years, would become a renewed object of attention. But, oddly enough, during the New School event he takes on the role of defender of Israel against the new activism.
Over the course of the program the tone of the discussion is quite favorable to Finkelstein who was once excluded from any mainstream discussion of Israel and Zionism. We see an extremely conciliatory Adam Shatz and a performance by Finkelstein that is nothing less than astounding: refusing the radical approach, he affirms the Two-State solution – already marked as dead by the current activist community – and aggressively fights off the so-called “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement that has become one of the primary tools being used against the Israeli occupation and its refusal to come to terms with Palestinian human rights claims.
It was indeed odd to see Finkelstein – who has really not changed his position, but has changed his tone and approach – arguing against what is now the dominant viewpoint on the radical Left. It was Finkelstein who boldly represented the radical Left for many years and paid a high price for doing so. But now it appears that there is some difference of opinion between him and the younger groups:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/two-critiques-of-norman-finkelsteins-recent-appearances.html
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/norman-finkelsteins-disinformation-about-bds.html
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/norman-finkelstein-slams-the-bds-movement-calling-it-a-cult.html
As we see in the Mondoweiss posts, the tide has been turning against Finkelstein. Finkelstein’s dry and legalistic approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict has not found favor with the new activists. Perhaps it is because Finkelstein has been unable to process the profoundly troubling changes in the Israeli position which has obstinately refused to address the matter of West Bank settlements while continuing to drift further and further away from a negotiated settlement presented on a number of occasions by the Arab League at meetings that Israel refused to attend. Israel’s drift to the extreme Right is a product of this intransigence.
The situation in the Middle East never remains static and the new activism seeks to deal with that dynamic by ever more radical measures, marking Israel as the new South Africa and acting accordingly. Finkelstein continues to see the conflict in monochromatic terms as if things today are as they were back in the 1980s when he began speaking out on the subject.
It is in the heated rhetoric of Ms. Baltzer – an aggressive supporter of BDS and the new activism – that we can see how profoundly the tone of the radical Left’s critique has now been formulated. In contrast to Finkelstein’s coldly formalistic approach to the conflict, the younger activists are quite emotional and animated about the moral and ethical questions raised by Israel. Indeed, the situation has now become very much redolent of the internal Ashkenazi debates in religious circles as they take on a PILPUL-like character and have developed into a form of contentiousness and acrimony that sometimes forgets the larger context of the overall debate with the Conservative and reactionary Jewish world.
Most interesting about the discussion is the hard-line approach of the younger activists and its shrugging-off of the larger context presented in the Zionist world that Finkelstein constantly references in his remarks. He continually repeats the assertion that politics is not about our ideals, but about what is possible in the prevailing social conditions. It is a serious bone of contention with Ms. Baltzer and the values she so emphatically represents.
Indeed, it is altogether possible that the new activists will find success by ignoring the potential problems that are posed by a diplomatic attitude. Their zealousness has already caused much worry in establishment Jewish circles – as Beinart’s article shows – and has the potential of moving the discourse decidedly to the Left.
In the end, there is no real way of knowing what is going to come of all this contentiousness, but it is most certainly something we need to keep a close eye on.
2. Over the past couple of weeks I have made mention of The New York Times’ shabby treatment of the recent brilliant concerts by the legendary iconoclast Neil Young and his band Crazy Horse. The Times ignored their first show at Madison Square Garden, preferring instead to highlight the next night’s performance by the equally-legendary artiste Justin Bieber. And when they did review Young’s show at Brooklyn’s Barclays’ Center the writer Ben Ratliff was somewhat ambivalent and rather equivocating in his assessment.
So when the same Ratliff was given the chance to review the 1% extravaganza-fest of the tired Rolling Stones, he gave us this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/arts/music/the-rolling-stones-at-barclays-center.html?ref=arts
The review is a classic sop to the rich and famous which has all the hallmarks of insider snobbery. Perhaps another article from the paper can clarify the matter further:
For those of us concerned with the offensive lifestyles of the financial thieves on Wall Street it is good to be reminded that the current Rolling Stones provide them with the platinum-plated soundtrack to their jet-setter lives. You can just feel the fetid stench of their ill-gotten wealth.
“I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” indeed!
If there is any question about how Rock music has become the opposite of its once-revolutionary tendencies, this story puts it to rest.
A few days prior to the Stones’ New Jersey concerts I checked the Ticketmaster website and found that there were tickets available at the $450 and $850 price levels, confirming that the less well off were locked out of the event and that the rich are now the real “base” for the band.
Also worthy of note in this regard is the aforementioned Ratliff’s review of this year’s Z-100 Jingle Ball concert, a true masterpiece of trash aesthetics:
In breathless tones more appropriate for Tiger Beat or Seventeen magazine, the article once again displays an unfathomable seriousness as it discusses the most puerile Pop trash. This gravitas is – at least for me – positive evidence not only of the weakness of our contemporary culture, but the corporatized obsequiousness of journalists who do not really hold to high critical standards, preferring instead to follow the tide of contemporary culture wherever it may lead, even to the proverbial sewer. They write articles to feed the beast rather than to inform us about what is or is not artistically significant.
A final note on our depressing music culture: It has been impossible over the past few days to avoid the infuriating specter of the 12-12-12 concert that was a veritable orgy of 1%-er Rock star washouts. I considered writing about it, but decided that it was just another putrid example of the stodginess, arrogance, and excess of aging Rock stars – and new members to the cult of hubris like the deplorable Kanye West and the saccharine Chris Martin – whose combination of smug elitism and Limousine Liberalism was on full and obnoxious display for close to 6 excruciating hours at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night – more that the 5 hours that were scheduled.
More than anyone else this toxic spirit is embodied in the self-glorifying puffery of “Sir” Paul McCartney who continues to think he is a poor teenager from Liverpool when in reality he is a boring old hack who is one of the richest men in the world lording it over the rest of us. His pandering performance and his relentlessly smug cheerfulness is a strong riposte to whatever made his music great in the first place. It has all become a vulgar caricature; a relentless bathing in the sleep-inducing waters of nostalgia and bathos.
There is truly little hope left for Rock music in today’s toxic culture.
A very tiny ray of hope for Rock music can be seen in the excellent recording of British band Blur’s triumphant reunion concert at London’s Hyde Park at the close of this summer’s Olympics:
http://www.blur.co.uk/news/blur-parklive-available-on-download-cd-and-cddvd/
It is a concert that explodes with joy and energy, reminding us that Rock music can still matter to some people. The band – not all that well-known here in the States but huge stars in the UK – reclaimed their substantial legacy of smart, incisive, and witty songwriting and brilliant Popcraft. Blur are heirs to a British musical tradition that includes The Jam, Madness, Pet Shop Boys, and The Smiths; all brilliant purveyors of catchy and meaningful songs that deeply touch the mind and the soul. The concert is a bracing embodiment of sheer artistic passion marked by authenticity and integrity. It is a rarer and rarer thing to see these days.
3. Last week I made a note of the great Hollywood movie director Frank Capra and his brilliant legacy of American Religious Humanism. I was reminded this week of the derision that many of the hipster generation have for him:
http://www.salon.com/2001/12/22/pottersville/
This 2001 smackdown by the co-founder of Salon.com teaches us a valuable lesson – seen above in the case of the Rolling Stones and their grizzled 1% supporters – in how cynicism can turn into immoral values.
In the attempt to tarnish authentic American ethical values, this benighted article actually deigns to praise the degeneracy of the elites and their cruelty towards the less well-off. Even in the pre-George W. Bush era, we can see the emergence of a winner-take-all culture that shows us how cold and callous the elites can be. Screw the poor and elevate the bullies!
The one thing that I do agree with is that the degenerates have indeed won the battle. How the war ends, though, is an altogether different question. And for those of us who continue to believe that truth and justice will win out, I truly hope that the degenerates are wrong.
4. I am not quite sure how to even address this article:
Sheygetz is the male equivalent of Shiksa – the Gentile woman so beloved of Jewish men.
In the Sephardic tradition there are people who leave the faith and assimilate into Gentile society. They generally do not regard themselves as Jewish. It is not some deep religious issue and people move on in their lives.
With the Ashkenazi tradition there is a whole psychological crisis that takes place that takes on monumental existential meaning. Whole new Jewish categories are developed and PILPUL analysis is deployed to try and make sense of it all.
As Sephardim continue to become assimilated into Ashkenazi ways, this sort of thing will become more and more common with the religious blowback more pronounced.
It is sadly one more example of the deep torment and psychological dysfunction that marks how many modern Ashkenazim see their Jewish identity.
5. Country Music Television (CMT) has an ongoing concert program called “Crossroads” which pairs a Country music artist and a more mainstream Rock or Pop artist. A recent show paired the peerless Emmylou Harris with the British sensation Mumford and Sons. Little needs to be said about the genius of Ms. Harris who is one of the pre-eminent artists of the past half-century. Her music began with her legendary duets with the immortal Gram Parsons and has continued with great consistency over the decades. She continues to tour and record adding to her legacy of brilliance. The more recent success of Mumford and Sons is rather surprising given that they play roots oriented Americana and Celtic music in an age dominated by mindless Pop and malignant corporate Hip-Hop.
The episode of “Crossroads” brings these two artists together for a performance that will affirm the integrity of our Anglo musical heritage.
The full show can be accessed on-line:
http://www.cmt.com/videos/cmt-crossroads-mumford-sons-and-emmylou-harris/1694331/full-episode.jhtml
The show will be re-broadcast on CMT today, Sunday December 16th at 10:00 AM.
6. I have been printing a bunch of articles on the anti-Sephardi racism of the institutional Jewish world. Here is one more:
The article – as is usual with these things – is not overtly racist. There is no mention of Sephardim or non-Ashkenazi Jews. But for those of us with personal experience of the institutions named – and so many others like them – we know very well that what is meant by “Integration” is an internal Ashkenazi process that ensures that only Ashkenazi views and values are permitted in the discussion. It is not that there are no Sephardim in the process – though the number is quite limited – but that Sephardim do not have the opportunity to be involved in a way that would affirm Sephardic culture and history.
The categories are completely those of the Ashkenazim. It is this dominance that puts the lie to any idea of “Integration.” It is an institutional process that is completely pre-occupied with following the rules – formally expressed and informally internalized – that place a straitjacket around Jewish institutions.
What is even sadder is the fierce conformity and need for compliance that even younger Jews in the institutional Jewish world must adopt in order to receive funding and other forms of logistical support from the establishment.
Sephardim do not stand a chance in this world – unless, that is, they relinquish their culture and history and adapt to the Ashkenazi paradigm(s).
7. Here is a tortured article trying to turn the Pop-trash icon Katy Perry into a feminist:
http://www.alternet.org/print/gender/why-critics-shouldnt-be-so-quick-shame-katy-perry
The reason I bring the article to our reader’s attention is to show the lengths that some on the Left will go to contort reality and attempt to make use of Pop culture ephemera to align with their own politics. It should be remembered that American culture once had actual musical artists who were interested in social issues and in personal expression. It was not necessary to take performers whose ethos is essentially that of Pornography and twist them into some progressive heroes.
8. This past week saw the tragic death of Mexican-American singer Jenni Rivera in a plane crash over Monterrey, Mexico:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/opinion/jenni-rivera-american-diva.html?ref=opinion
Ms. Rivera’s death presents a number of important points in our current culture:
The singer was almost completely-unknown to the Anglo-American public while having attained near-legendary status in the Hispanic world. Her death was marked by saturated coverage in the Spanish-language media for a community on both sides of the border who saw her as the ultimate embodiment of the immigrant experience.
Born in California, she adopted the Mexican musical tradition of Banda and did not choose to cross over to the Anglo-Pop mainstream. Her music was a pure iteration of Mexican tradition and this made her unique among artists whose sole aim is to capture Anglo market share. She did things her own way and did not seek to become a Madonna-clone. Her body image too reflects the point: Rather than starving herself to the point of anorexia as so many female singers do, Rivera was a full-figured woman who stood her ground proudly in an entertainment culture where thin is the way to go.
But I think that more importantly Rivera’s obscurity to the Anglo audience expresses a critical divide between Spanish-speakers and English-speakers. In the celebrity-obsessed culture that we have it is performers like Rivera who represent national cultures and populations. Unlike the many nameless victims of the Drug War, Rivera’s death is big news and allows many immigrants to take pride in their historical culture and identity. Like another icon not very well-known to American audiences, Selena Quintanilla Perez, Jenni Rivera represented the Mexican community in the U.S. While Selena was at the time of her tragic death poised to cross over to the Anglo market, Rivera stood proudly on the Spanish side, committed to maintaining the Mexican cultural tradition that she had to learn as a native-born Californian.
It is a story that raises important questions about identity-formation and the role of culture in our society.
9. I have commented on the issue of Arab food as an issue of contention between Israelis and the Arab world.
Here is another entry for the discussion:
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=32444&lan=en&sp=0
The article dances around the fact that Jews once lived in the Arab world and were very much a part of the culinary tradition of the region as any other religious or ethnic group.
But – as is always the case – the Arab Jews are ignored and the matter becomes another chapter in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.
10. In SHU 482 I printed an interview with the Sephardic documentarian Nissim Mossek:
https://groups.google.com/group/Davidshasha/msg/0a274ca9b0d09d33
Mossek has just given an interview discussing The Israeli Black Panthers and other matters related to the degradation of Sephardim in Israel on the radio program Voices with Vision:
http://archive.wpfwfm.org/mp3/wpfw_121211_100001mornpab.mp3
The Mossek interview begins about 25 minutes into the show.
More information on Voices with Vision is available on their Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Voices-With-Vision/210949235630191
11. The matter of women’s participation in Jewish ritual has become a very big deal in liberal Orthodox circles due to the work of Feminist activists. One of the most contentious areas is in the wearing of the fringed garment the Tallit. Rabbi Michael Broyde has written an article that shows the profound anxiety over the matter:
http://torahmusings.com/2012/12/women-wearing-tallit/
What is clear in the article – and might be somewhat difficult for those not familiar with Jewish legal discussion to grasp – is the PILPUL process that creates layers of confusion and misdirection in trying to come to a legal conclusion. Indeed, the discussion never cuts to the heart of the matter: Whether or not it is permissible from Talmudic law for women to participate in Time-bound commandments (Misvot she-ha-zeman gerama bahen) or whether they are prohibited from doing so. We already know that women are not required to perform these commands, but it is not clear whether – if they choose to do so – they be permitted to do them.
Rabbi Broyde avoids dealing with what is the central issue: What precisely is the Talmudic position on the matter? Instead what we get is a PILPUL over custom and sociological usage when these categories do not allow us to go through the legal process in a rational and orderly fashion. It is clear that custom has developed over time in ways that might be connected to misogynistic attitudes that obscure the basic legal issue. In other words the discussion delves deep into a particular tradition of Jewish anthropology and ignores the actual legal principles involved in the process of determining the law. In this view women are seen as dangerous creatures that must be prevented from donning the Tallit. It is a matter of primordial importance that transcends legal discussion.
Many Sephardic authorities like Maimonides – not mentioned in a discussion dominated by Ashkenazi rabbis (though there are many medieval Ashkenazi rabbis who do permit it) – permitted women to perform these ritual actions given that there is no explicit Talmudic prohibition for them to do so (Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Sisit 3:9). This position was reiterated by Middle Eastern authorities like Rabbi Yom Tob Algazi (the Aleppo rabbi who became chief rabbi in Jerusalem) who wrote a text approving the usage back in the late 18th century (in his book Yom Tob de-Rabbanan page 86).
And this is in many ways the central difference between Ashkenazi and Sephardi rabbis when it comes to Jewish law: For Sephardim there is a primary focus on the actual law and not on extraneous sociological considerations which would create a greater stringency in the Halakha. The idea is that we understand that the law can sometimes be burdensome and it is the job of the legal decisor to make the process simpler and more amenable to the community. We must not undermine the integrity of the legal process in this regard, but neither should we create stringencies (Humrot) where they are not mandated by a strict reading of the law.
The Ashkenazi Orthodox rabbi often looks for ways to make things more complicated and difficult as the law is seen as an existential burden that must weigh the community down. Legal strictness in the performance of ritual is seen as making for a better Jew. Authority in both traditions is exercised in very different – and antithetical – ways.
A Woman wearing a Tallit is seen by Rabbi Broyde – as is the case with many Ashkenazi Orthodox rabbis – as an existential challenge of the first order. The Jewish law is an overwhelming reality that oppresses us because there is an occult metaphysical process taking place in the performance of ritual actions. If these actions are performed in what these rabbis see as an “incorrect” manner then the Torah will be destroyed. According to this twisted logic we are forced to use extra-legal considerations in our legal deliberations and to do so by means of the tortuous PILPUL.
A woman wearing a Tallit is thus seen as a matter that could destroy the equilibrium of the universe!