Lieberman
excommunicated by rabbi
- Reply-To: H-NET History
of Antisemitism List
- Sender: H-NET History
of Antisemitism List
- From: Albert
S. Lindemann
- List Editor: Richard
S Levy
Sunday, August 20, 2000
I completely concur that we must restrict our
discussion of Lieberman to issues having
implications for antisemitism. I think there are a great
many such implications, some obvious, some less so. Let
me address first the point made by Milton Goldin,
that fear of being charged with antisemitism will inhibit
a free discussion of Lieberman's record and candidacy --
certainly a disturbing notion, one with antisemitic
implications. (It is of course related to the point that
Milton made earlier that criticism of Jews by Jews
themselves is often labeled "self-hating.")
According to an article in the Forward,
published on Aug. 4, before Sen. Joseph Lieberman
was tapped as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, a
curse is to be put on him by a prominent New York rabbi,
Mordechai Friedman, host and producer of a t.v.
program, "Judaism, The Series." The excommunication is to
be pronounced today (August 20). Moreover, Rabbi Friedman
has denounced Lieberman as a "moser" (informer to the
Gentiles); according to Rabbi Friedman, citing
Maimonides, "it is both a commandment and a
mitzvah to kill an informer. In fact, the person who does
so is meritorious."
This has a chilling resemblance to the charges against
Rabin by ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel before
his assassination. I am a little surprised that in the
endless discussions of Lieberman's candidacy, no other
newspaper (at least none that I have seen) has even
mentioned Rabbi Friedman. Were a Christian minister,
producing a t.v. program entitled "Christianity, The
Series," to have made comparable statements, I think it
is a fair assumption that he would be getting quite a bit
of coverage, even if it were recognized that he was a
sectarian without a large following
And if Farrakhan (again, a man with a small
following) had made them, we would be seeing bold
headlines. I agree with Milton Goldin that this apparent
double standard could turn in antisemitic directions. The
issue of how much of a following Friedman actually has is
uncertain; a spokesperson for him, Rabbi Yerachmiel Ha
Levy of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, who directs activities
in the South for followers of Friedman, reported to
Forward reporters that Friedman
speaks for all of us, and I believe that most
Orthodox rabbis agree with Rabbi Freedman but they're
afraid to voice them on their own.
Not only are commentators chary of saying anything
negative about Judaism (or what a given rabbi claims to
be Judaism), polls are suggesting that more voters
consider Lieberman's Jewishness to be actually a positive
rather than a negative matter (though most simply say it
makes no difference). In an Newsweek article by
Jonathan Alter, entitled "Post Seinfeld America"
(August 31, pp. 32) the point is made that a Jew in a
prominent position of national politics is no longer "a
big deal." Alter also notes the irony, the historical
reversal, in the extent to which a Jew is now considered
a "purifying" factor -- cleansing the Democratic Party of
its association with Clintonite moral depravity --
whereas in the past the charge has been that Jews were
themselves the polluters, that Jews undermined a
nation.
Alter does not much pursue the implications of the
title of his article. He notes that Seinfeld has
sensitized non-Jewish Americans to Jewish issues, but I
think he misses a much larger point, for in fact
Americans have long been sensitized to Jewish issues;
what the Seinfeld series came to epitomize is the extent
to which Jews are no longer "other" in the consciousness
of non-Jewish Americans. Jerry, Elaine, Kramer --
they all are "like us" (and, by the way, in a very
ordinary, comfortable, and not particularly heroic or
high moral sense). And indeed there is more that Alter
neglected: The Seinfeld series regularly mocked Jewish
oversensitivity -- Uncle Leo who suspected
antisemitism when his hamburger was overcooked, or Jerry
who was charged with being an "anti-dentite" when he made
disparaging comments about dentists (his dentist informed
him "you don't know how we have suffered").
What Rabbi Friedman's curse brings up is the
possibility that Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, might be
considered "other" after all (or perhaps, to use the
omnipresent word by the under-30 crowd, "weird"). His
curse, by the way, had to do with the fact that Lieberman
(a "traitor" to the Jewish people) had signed a petition
last year urging Clinton not to include a pardon for
convicted spy Jonathan Pollard in any peace
settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Pollard case, which Norman Podhoretz in an
OpEd piece after Pollard's arrest and conviction (nearly
fifteen years ago), described as a "Zionist's nightmare"
is more broadly a Jewish American's nightmare -- a
revival of the Rosenberg case, with no doubt about
Pollard's guilt. Will this case be coming up again for
extensive discussion? And can those Jews agitating for
his release really be "like us"? (Lieberman of course is
not vulnerable on this issue -- except with other Jews --
but the issues surrounding the Pollard case almost
inevitably will haunt any Jewish candidate, as will the
Israeli connection, one that divides Americans, Jews and
non-Jews, much more bitterly than in the past).
Presidential campaigns have a way of getting dirty and
ruthless, especially in their last weeks. Can we expect
that Lieberman's Judaism will permanently shield him from
harsh criticism, fair or unfair -- especially if the
Republicans fear they may lose? Are there any messy
details to Lieberman's divorce? And what about the large
sums of money that he has allegedly accepted from the
Cuban exile community (and his votes in their favor)? It
can only be expected that a man who has been presented as
a moral paragon will be held to very high (if not
impossible) standards.
And can we really be confident that Americans, now
being massively instructed, as one rabbi put it, in
"Judaism 101", will not recoil at certain aspects of
Orthodox belief and practice? Such a recoil seems even
more likely when presented by those who seek to embarrass
Lieberman and undermine his candidacy -- preferably
toward the end of the campaign, when adequate rebuttal or
clarification will not be feasible. And just how many
Friedman types -- to say nothing of Pollard types -- are
there finally in America? Will that question now be asked
more often and urgently? And has Lieberman dealt
adequately with the myriad of problems that promise to
arise from his observance of the Sabbath? Will the Secret
Service approve his plans to the inauguration --
especially when a rabbi has said that killing him will be
a mitzvah? And what would be the impact if Jewish
assassins not only succeed in killing the prime minister
of Israel but the United States vice-presidential
candidate?
I am personally optimistic in most of these regards;
Lieberman has after all been a senator for some time, and
he has already faced many of these questions -- with very
great success, it seems. More than that, he projects
warmth and has a good sense of humor. That he does not
wear a kippa in public (or his wife cover her hair) is in
many ways symbolic of an Orthodoxy that is not
particularly "visible" (except of course to those other
Orthodox Jews who complain that modern Orthodoxy as
practiced by the Liebermans is no Orthodoxy at all). And
it seems that he has found in the doctrine of pikuakh
nefesh a potentially open door, in that as a national
leader, he can argue that protection of human life comes
into play, at least potentially, in nearly everything he
might do, any day of the week. And he shakes hands with
women.
(Oops: a question from the "students" in
Judaism 101: "What's that you say? Why wouldn't he
shake hands with women?" Because touching a woman's
hand might awaken lustful urges, just as seeing a
woman's hair might. Or because the woman might be
unclean, in her menstrual period. "Oh. [huh?]"
"And what was that you were saying about a moser? And
what, again, is a radef? And what did Rabbi Yosef
Ovadia say about Holocaust victims? And explain again
why Pollard sold secrets to the Israelis? And why
can't Lieberman drink wine made by a Gentile? And what
does the Talmud say about Jesus Christ? And will you
go over again what you said about niddah, shekhita,
mamzeroth, agunoth?)
How far any of this kind of questioning will reach a
national audience is impossible to say, but one does
wonder how much of "Judaism 101" can be suitably digested
by the guys down at the local tavern -- what will they
make of it all, especially as if filters down through the
national media?
This could be a very interesting campaign (though I
hope not in the sense of the old Chinese curse: "May you
live in interesting times").
Albert
S. Lindemann
Send
comments and questions to H-Net
Webstaff Copyright
© 1995-98, H-Net, Humanities & Social Sciences
OnLine Click Here for an Internet
Citation Guide.
