Uncategorized
What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel
(JTA) — Eric Alterman, born in 1960, says the view of Israel he absorbed growing up in a Jewish family in suburban Scarsdale, New York, was decidedly one-sided.
“I went on this nerdy presidential classroom thing when I was in high school,” he recalls, “and some Christian kid from the South raised his hand and said to the rabbi, ‘I don’t get it, if the Jews could have a state, why can’t the Palestinians?’ And I was like, ‘How dare you?’”
Alterman would go on to attend Cornell University, where he wrote his honors thesis on Israel, Vietnam and neoconservatism; spend a semester abroad at Tel Aviv University; study Israeli military history while earning his master’s degree in international relations at Yale, and research a dissertation on American liberalism and the founding of Israel as a doctoral student at Stanford.
Although he frequently writes about Israel as a contributing writer at the Nation and the American Prospect, Alterman is best known for his liberal analysis of the media and U.S. politics. He’s written 11 previous books, including one on Bruce Springsteen.
Yet he never stopped thinking about the widening gap between the idealized Israel of his youth and the reality of its relations with the Palestinians, its Arab neighbors and the West. Even when Israel’s revisionist historians were uncovering evidence of massacres and forced expulsions of Palestinians during the War of Independence, and Israeli politicians and intellectuals began asking why, indeed, the Palestinians didn’t deserve a state of their own, he saw that such discussions were considered blasphemous in most American Jewish circles.
Alterman, now a CUNY Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, explores that gap in his latest book, “We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel.” The book surveys U.S.-Israel relations, but with a focus on the ways defending Israel have shaped public discourse. It’s a book about arguments: within the administrations of 14 presidents, between Washington and Jerusalem, and mostly among Jews themselves.
Earlier this month we spoke about how the pro-Isael lobby became a powerful political force, the Jewish organizations and pundits who fight to limit the range of debate over Israel, and what he thinks is the high price American Jews have paid for tying their identities so closely to Israel.
“I try to take on shibboleths that in the past have shut down conversation and take them apart and sympathetically show the complexity of the actual situation that lies beneath — so that [criticism and disagreement] over Israel can be understood rather than whisked away by changing the subject, or what-aboutism, or by demonizing the person who is raising them,” said Alterman.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Let me start by congratulating you: It’s the first book about U.S.-Israel relations with a chapter named after a Bruce Springsteen album: “Working on a Dream.”
Eric Alterman: Nobody else has caught that. But it’s not about U.S.-Israel relations. It’s the first book about the debate over Israel in the United States. There’s a million books on U.S.-Israel relations.
So let’s define that more narrowly. The title reminds me of the United Jewish Appeal slogan over the years, “We Are One,” which was about American Jewish solidarity. So who is the “we” in your title, “We Are Not One”?
There are three or four different meanings. The “we” in this book are obviously the United States and Israel. An awful lot of people argue that the United States and Israel have identical interests in the world and that’s crazy, because Israel is this tiny little country in the Middle East and we’re a global superpower thousands of miles away. So obviously, we’re going to have differences. Number two, American Jews and Israeli Jews are very different people. They have very different life experiences. And they see things quite differently as evidenced by the political split between them. The title also refers specifically just to Americans, because we can’t even discuss most things anymore. The pro-Israel community, such as it ever was, is enormously split and it’s split in angry ways.
Much of your book is about what happens to American Jews when the idealized portrait of Israel’s founding and its presumed blamelessness in its actions toward the Palestinians comes up against reality. In that context, tell me a little about your choice to devote a chapter to the Leon Uris novel “Exodus,” an extremely sanitized version of Israel’s founding, and the 1960 movie based on it.
The influence of “Exodus” is something I didn’t understand until I wrote the book. It’s crazy, because Leon Uris was this egomaniac who wrote kind of a shitty book and said that he wanted to add a new chapter to the Bible, and he kind of succeeded. I was born in 1960. When I was growing up in suburban New York, every single family had “Exodus” on their shelves. When the movie came out Israelis understood this. They said, “We can just shut down our public relations office now.” And from the standpoint of reality the movie is worse than the book because it has Nazis — the Arabs in the book are working with Nazism. Uris didn’t have the nerve to do that. So the book created this idealized Israel and this idea of [Palestinians as] evil, subhuman Nazis.
What most Americans don’t understand, or choose not to understand, is that before the 1940s most Jews were anti-Zionist, or non-Zionist. This changed in the 1940s, when, as a result in part of the Holocaust, and the reaction to that, and the triumph of Zionists, they became intensely pro-Zionist, leading up to the creation of Israel. But after that, they kind of forgot about Israel. One might have given their children JNF boxes to carry on Halloween instead of UNICEF boxes, or maybe they paid to plant trees. But Israel doesn’t show up in the American Jewish Committee’s 1966 annual report until page 35 or 36, and Nathan Glazer’s 1957 book “American Judaism” says that the creation of the Jewish state has had “remarkably slight effects on the inner life of American Jewry.”
With the events of 1967, Uris’ idealized notion of Israel came together with this terrible fear of a second Holocaust, and the terror and shame and frightening nature of that combined to transform American Judaism overnight to an enormous degree.
You are referring to Israel’s lightning victory in the Six-Day War, which even non-religious Jews saw as a kind of miracle, and redemption two decades after the Holocaust. And that transformation, you argue, put defense of Israel, combined with Holocaust consciousness, at the center of Jewish identity.
More than just the center: It basically comprised almost all of it, for many secular Jews. I quote the neoconservative Irving Kristol in the book saying in 1976 that “the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel” was 100% of what Judaism means.
Which in turn led to a the tremendous pro-Israel lobbying efforts, political activism and punditry.
The budgets of American Jewish organizations overnight went from social services and liberal social justice causes to defense of Israel. And rabbis were replaced at the center of public discourse by the heads of these organizations — most of whom had no religious training or knowledge of history or Judaism.
Joe Biden, then vice president, speaks at the AIPAC 2016 Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 20, 2016.
(Molly Riley/AFP via Getty Images)
One distinction you repeatedly make is between what most Jews believe compared to the Jewish organizations that claim to represent them. Surveys show the rank and file is consistently more liberal on Israel and less hawkish than the big organizations — a gap that showed up markedly around the Iraq War and the Iran nuclear deal.
Right. The big mistake that so many in the media make is that they go to the heads of these organizations who pretend to speak for American Jews when they don’t speak for American Jews. They speak for their boards and their donors.
The shift to Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel coincides with an era in which there is seldom daylight between what Israel wants and what the United States wants or agrees to — often to the frustration of presidents. You are critical of those who exaggerate the pro-Israel lobby’s influence — folks like Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, authors of the 2007 book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” — but, at the same time, you write, referring to the Israel debate in America, about “the continued stranglehold that money, power, organizational structure, and clearly defined paths to personal career advancement continue to hold over the shape of foreign policy.” How will you respond to critics who will say your book is trafficking in the myth of Jewish power and its conspiracy-minded hold over American policy?
The short answer is, that’s why I wrote a 500-page book — basically, for two reasons: One, everything is incredibly complicated. And some of those complications are consistent with antisemitic myths, and therefore they have to be teased out and broken down in such a way that you’re telling the truth rather than portraying the myth.
If you say things without context, they sound antisemitic. I say that yes, Jews are very powerful in the media and many use that power on or about Israel. But I think if you lay out the examples that I use, if you look at them and examine them, I don’t see how you can conclude otherwise. The people I describe often say that about themselves — how much power and influence they yield.
Secondly, I’ve always found it just about impossible to discuss Israel with anyone, because you have to share exactly the same assumptions with that person. And if you don’t, then they take it personally, or you’re an antisemite, or, at best, you’re insufficiently sensitive to how important antisemitism is. And if you describe ways in which American Jews act in ways that are consistent with antisemitic myth, it has a way of shutting down the conversation.
Undoubtedly there’s some criticism of Israel that is motivated by antisemitism, but there’s an awful lot of reasons to be critical of Israel, particularly if you are a Palestinian or care about Palestinians. This accusation [antisemitism] has shut down the discourse and part of my hopes in demonstrating the complexities of this history is to open this up.
So let me ask about your own stake in this. Your educational background and relationship to Israel are similar in many ways to the writers and thinkers in your book who tolerate no criticism of Israel. I don’t know if you call yourself a Zionist, but you have some connection to Israel, and you’re also willing to tolerate critiques of Israel. What’s the difference between you and some of the other people who went on the same journey?
For the longest time I was comfortable with the words “liberal Zionist,” but I don’t think they have any meaning anymore. I don’t think it’s possible to be a liberal Zionist — you have to choose. Israel is the only putatively democratic country that prefers Trump to either Obama or Biden, and it’s not even close. And young Israelis are moving further in that direction and young American Jews are moving further in the opposite direction.
So you ask me if I am a liberal Zionist. I don’t think the word “Zionist” is useful at all anymore, because Israel is a country and it’s not going anywhere. I sometimes call myself an anti-anti-Zionist, because anti-Zionism is dumb. I’m very anti-BDS. If I thought [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement] could end occupation, I would support it, even though the idea of boycotting Jews puts a bad taste in my mouth. But the theory behind BDS apparently, and I’ve spent a lot of time on this, is that the world will force Israel to give up its identity and turn the country over to its enemies. It’s inconceivable that Israel would do that and inconceivable the United States would pressure them to do that. So BDS is entirely performative. It’s more of a political fashion statement than anything else.
And to me, it speaks to the failure of Palestinian politics throughout history. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians and their bad politics because it’s based on two problems. One is that they have never been able to see the future very well. So they should have agreed in 1921 and 1937, or whenever they would have had the majority and they were being given a country by the British. They should have taken the lousy offer from Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in 2000. I kind of get it because they have so many competing constituencies, and it’s impossible to satisfy all of them at the same time. I understand that. It’s hard to imagine a Palestinian politician who could say yes, and if you look at Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, in both cases, it’s hard to imagine making peace with them.
I read that in your book, and my first thought was, well, isn’t that basically just confirming what the pro-Israel right has always said — that Israel has no partner for peace? So maybe the best it can do is maintain a status quo that assures some security for Israel and a workable something for the Palestinians.
Well, number one I hold Israel significantly responsible for the conditions under which that has developed and that they can change those. And number two, that’s no excuse for the way Palestinians are treated, either in the occupation or in Israel. So yes, I agree. There’s no one to make peace with today, but there are many steps Israel could take that could vastly improve the lives of the Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and inside Israel. And there are a lot of steps they could take that could build confidence for a future that could weaken Hamas, that could strengthen the Palestinian Authority, so that one day peace would be possible. But they do the opposite.
An Israel supporter at a New York rally to tell the United Nations “no more anti-Israel documents or resolutions,” Jan. 12, 2017. (Don Emmert/AFP via Getty Images)
You talk about funding of Israel studies and Jewish studies departments as a reaction against fears of a pro-Palestinian takeover of academia. At the same time, you write how Palestinian supporters “succeeded in colonizing Middle East studies departments, student faculty organizations, and far-left political organizations.” Why does that matter in the long run if, as you also write, nothing’s really going to change American policy on Israel?
I gave a talk before the book came out at Tel Aviv University and someone asked me that question. I said, You care about these transformations for two reasons. One, you really will be all alone in the world. You’ll have the support of conservative [Evangelical] Christians who are in many respects antisemitic and are using you for their own purposes. So if you lose American Jews, you will be existentially alone in a way you’re not now and that strikes me as very unpleasant.
I do think that the quote-unquote pro-Israel community has a stranglehold on American politics that I can’t see changing anytime soon, and I think the change in the Democratic Party [that it will turn more pro-Palestinian] is very much exaggerated by both sides for their own reasons.
That being said, the people who are being trained now to be in the State Department and the National Security Council and the Defense Department and the think tanks and the places where the intellectual foundation of U.S. policy is made are learning something very different from what you and I learned in college. Right now, there’s no such thing as an influential Palestinian lobby in this country. There’s no pushing back. There’s no percentage for anyone opposing Israel who has a career interest in the future. That will change, and the whole shaping of the discourse will change and that will change the relationship between the United States and Israel. It’s not going to happen anytime soon, but it’s definitely going to happen.
As Jews in this country have remained largely liberal, Israel appears to be getting more illiberal, as we’ve seen with a new government that is more right-wing than any previously. And Israel has become more of a divisive element among Jews than a unifying force. As this gap appears to be widening, do you have any real hope for changing the discourse?
No, I don’t have any hopes for that. I don’t have anything optimistic to say about Israel. I think, politically speaking, from the standpoint of American Jews, everything is going in the wrong direction. But by demonstrating just how different Israeli Jews are than American Jews, and how little Israeli Jews care what American Jews think, I do think that it presents an opportunity for American Jews to think about what it means to be an American Jew in the Diaspora. Roughly half of the Jews in the world live in the United States. And since 1967 American Jews have defined themselves vicariously through Israeli Jews and taking pride in Israel. They expressed their identities by defending Israel and attacking the media when the media didn’t defend Israel.
Meanwhile, American Jews hardly ever go to synagogue. According to Pew, 20% of American Jews regularly attend synagogue and half of them are Orthodox, who are 10% of the community. What brought me back into Judaism was studying Torah. And hardly any American Jews are ever exposed to that.
So I think there’s an opportunity to reimagine Diaspora Jewry now that the Israel story doesn’t work, and it’s clear that it doesn’t work. Young American Jews are leaving or voting with their feet. They’re walking away. Israel-centric Judaism is in part responsible, although it’s not the whole story. Intermarriage is a big part of the story. The de-religionization of all groups is part of the story. But personally, I don’t see what a liberal American Jew would see in a Judaism that defines itself as it has for the past 50 years as defending Israel and remembering the Holocaust.
—
The post What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Progressive US Jews call for Israel’s opposition bloc to welcome Arab parties
(JTA) — Liberal U.S. Jewish leaders are urging Israel’s opposition parties to abandon their campaign promises and join hands with Arab parties in order to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Following Tuesday’s vote, Netanyahu’s bloc was projected to win 53 seats in the Knesset, Israel’s legislature, while the camp of his main rival, Gadi Eisenkot, is projected to win 48 seats. That means both fall short of the 61 votes required to form a new majority governing coalition.
One of the most significant shifts in electoral politics coming out of Tuesday’s results was the success of Israel’s two Arab parties, the Joint List and Ra’am, which nearly doubled their representation to 19 seats.
Those gains would be enough to give the Netanyahu or Eisenkot blocs the necessary seats to form a coalition, but neither has publicly indicated a willingness to include Arab-led parties in their coalitions. The idea is also anathema to much of the Jewish Israeli electorate after the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023.
Nonetheless, U.S. Jewish voices urged Eisenkot and his allies – collectively known as the “change” bloc – to welcome the Arab-Israeli parties as partners for implementing that change.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the liberal Zionist lobby J Street, hailed the “extraordinarily high voter turnout,” estimated at nearly 78% of eligible voters, and praised “the historic participation of Arab citizens of Israel,” saying that “their voices and votes are a vital part of Israel’s democratic fabric.”
“This is a moment for the Jewish opposition parties to demonstrate genuine leadership by reaching out to the Arab parties and working together to form an alternative government,” Ben-Ami continued. “Israel cannot build a stronger, more inclusive democracy while treating the political representatives of one-fifth of its population as illegitimate governing partners.”
Dan Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, commended the voters for creating an “important opportunity for change.” That change, he added, could occur if Eisenkot’s bloc worked with Arab parties.
Shapiro added in a follow-up post that “in almost no scenario” would far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich “continue to have the influence they currently enjoy.”
“Ensuring that is the case is an important incentive to the opposition bloc to avoid going to new elections, which would extend the damaging tenure of these extremist ministers,” Shapiro said.
Gabriel Epstein, a senior policy associate at the Israel Policy Forum, encouraged Eisenkot and his partners not to shy away from taking the historic step of joining with Ra’am and Joint List, both of whose support they would need to come to power.
Epstein said in a post on X that there were benefits beyond politics: “Greater integration of the Arab community into Israeli society is also key for political and democratic legitimacy.”
Israelis for Peace NYC, a self-described group of “anti-occupation activists,” praised Palestinian citizens of Israel for voting in unprecedented numbers and delivering “a victory to the anti-Netanyahu bloc” by dislodging the current ruling coalition. At the same time, however, the group slammed the change bloc for “refusing to accept this gift, out of no other reason but deep-rooted, unexamined and systemic racism.”
Describing the current choice as “a shared future or no future at all,” Israelis for Peace warned that a fifth of the population is “being completely and shamelessly disregarded,” referring to the approximately 20% of Israel that is Arab.
“But this isn’t over,” the group added. “The liberal majority in Israel can hit the streets in mass demonstrations, like it has done so well against Netanyahu for four years, and pressure Eisenkot and other opposition leaders to sit with the Arab parties.”
But Jacob Stoil, a research professor of Middle East Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that “there are some real challenges to putting together a coalition that includes the Arab parties,” given the political positions they take and the campaign promises made by Eisenkot’s partners.
Although one party, the Islamist Ra’am, previously served in a coalition and has expressed willingness to do so again, multiple members of Eisenkot’s bloc have pledged not to sit with an Arab party. Meanwhile, the second party, the Joint List, rejects the definition of Israel as a Jewish state and therefore refuses to serve in a Zionist-led government.
One plausible option could be “a minority government with the Arab parties essentially voting to keep the government in office and protecting it,” according to Stoil, who said his comments did not reflect the views of the U.S. Army or the U.S. government. But he warned that such a minority government could “create a lot of challenges in passing legislation.”
“There is a realistic pathway,” Stoil said, noting, however, that this pathway toward partnership with Arab parties can only be determined once the full results of the election are tallied.
At this point, he explained, there are still many things that can change. For example, Israel’s Central Elections Committee has yet to tally ballots cast by soldiers, prisoners and diplomats stationed abroad, which will reportedly add another 430,000-480,000 votes to the mix.
The Jewish Federations of North America, meanwhile, released a neutral statement after the election, applauding “the shared values that bind Israelis and North American Jews, including a deep commitment to democratic principles and civic participation.” The organization said it would continue working “with leaders across the political spectrum.”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying group whose influence has played a sizable role in November’s U.S. midterm elections, offered similar accolades to Israelis for showing “their commitment to democracy through free and fair elections.”
The massive voter turnout among multiple religious groups “underscores Israel’s diversity and steadfast commitment to the democratic process – a value shared and cherished in America,” an AIPAC statement added.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Progressive US Jews call for Israel’s opposition bloc to welcome Arab parties appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish Floridians chew over the pros and cons of Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon
(JTA) — BOCA RATON, Fla. – Over a bagel with cream cheese and lox, Ron, a Jewish South Florida attorney, admitted that he hasn’t quite figured out his ballot.
Seated at Flakowitz Bagel Inn, a New York-style Jewish deli nestled in a Boca Raton parking lot, Ron — who declined to share his last name to protect his privacy — said he tends to go with moderate Democrats.
And that’s making the U.S. Senate race a real puzzler.
“I’m really torn,” said Ron, a Boynton Beach resident.
He has no intention of voting for Ashley Moody, the Donald Trump-backed Republican who was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis to replace Marco Rubio last year when Rubio became secretary of state. But he also is unsettled by some of the stances taken by Angie Nixon, the left-wing challenger who hopes to be Florida’s first Democratic U.S. senator in eight years.
“For example, Israel is important for me, and I suspect that she’s not in that direction. So that’s a problem for me,” Ron said between bites. He added that he is considering not voting in the race at all, but conceded that “not voting is as much as giving a vote.”
Nixon, who was first elected to the Florida House in 2020, accuses Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza and has said that she opposes sending U.S. military aid or selling weapons to Israel “at this moment.” In November 2023, she introduced a statewide bill advocating for “de-escalation and cease-fire in the state of Israel and occupied Palestine,” which was defeated 104-2 in the Florida House.
In August she soundly won the Democratic nomination with a progressive platform focused on universal healthcare and free childcare.
Next week, Nixon — who is trailing between 4 and 6 percentage points in the latest polls — finds out whether her Israel stance affects her performance among the state’s substantial Jewish minority. (A 2021 study found that there are approximately 665,000 Jewish adults in Florida, the third-largest Jewish electorate nationally.)
Some attendees at a recent Boca Raton congressional candidates’ forum, which featured Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz and GOP challenger Scott Singer, expressed reservations about Nixon, who was not endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America but became a member of the left-wing political organization earlier this year.
In the Senate race, “I’m going to vote Republican,” said Peter Davidson, a sales rep and a member of Congregation B’nai Israel, the Reform temple in Boca Raton that hosted the forum. He said that he is an independent who sometimes votes for Democrats, such as the staunchly pro-Israel Moskowitz. But he added, “Right now, the Democrats are not friends of the Jewish people in general. Jared Moskowitz is an exception.”
Marsha SanFilippo said she plans to vote for Nixon because she is “not comfortable with Ashley Moody.” She added, however, that Nixon “would not necessarily have been my choice of candidate because I don’t know if she is going to be able to win” in a Florida general election.
Leaders in the Florida Democratic Party’s Jewish Caucus, which had endorsed Nixon’s opponent in the primary, Alex Vindman, have started to come around on Nixon. Vindman, who is Jewish and pro-Israel, has endorsed Nixon.
Former state legislator Rick Stark, president of the Jewish caucus, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he will “probably close my eyes and vote for her.”
“I can’t do the alternative unfortunately,” he said, saying he is counting on Democrats to flip Congress and the U.S. Senate.
Mitchell Mallett, president of the Sarasota-Manatee Democratic Party Jewish Caucus, wrote in the Times of Israel last week that Nixon “will be a friend to both the Jewish community and the State of Israel,” and noted that she has “largely stopped making Israel an issue in her campaign” since the primary. He also referred to a meeting between Nixon and about 70 people at a private home, during which she spoke about the historical relationship between Black and Jewish Americans, and said he felt they had “found common ground in the shared experiences of our ancestors.” Nixon would be Florida’s first ever Black U.S. Senator, if elected.
The race between Nixon and Moody is a special election, meaning another election will be held in 2028 for a full, six-year term.
“If Angie Nixon turns on Israel, we can do what the DSA does: we can primary Angie,” Mallett wrote.
Meanwhile, a number of progressive Jewish Floridians have pointed to Nixon’s Israel stance as one of their reasons for supporting her.
Donna Nevel, a member leader of the anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace’s South Florida chapter, told JTA that Nixon “cares deeply” about the Jewish and Muslim communities and combating all forms of hate.
“What I love is that it’s not just rhetoric for her, it’s like — that’s who she is,” Nevel said, adding that Nixon speaks to Jewish constituents “from so many different perspectives” and is able to connect with voters despite disagreements they may have over Israel. Nevel said she witnessed at least one voter tell Nixon that she won her over, despite differences on Israel, following a private event at a Coral Gables home that also featured Vermont Rep. Becca Balint, who is Jewish.
According to Stark, the former state legislator, Nixon’s outreach to the Jewish community has been “very good” since the primary. His assessment came two months after Vindman’s election night event in August, where Stark said that Nixon’s “outreach to the Jewish community has not been good.”
Stark told JTA that he and a handful of others in the Florida Democratic Party Jewish Caucus met with her privately in September, which he described as a positive interaction. He said that they were “upfront” with Nixon about her Israel stance and wanted to “see what we can do to moderate” some of her positions to win more of the Jewish vote.
“If she had moved over just a little bit of an iota and was stronger on Israel’s right to exist, and refrained from the rhetoric about genocide, apartheid, I think she would do a lot better,” he said.
Nixon’s coalition of supporters now includes former President Barack Obama and a number of high-profile progressives in Congress. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders traveled to Florida for a series of campaign rallies with her in October.
James Fishback, the far-right politician who lost the Republican gubernatorial primary, made headlines when he said he would be attending one of those rallies and was photographed with Nixon supporters there. Nixon said that Fishback was welcome to attend but “just can’t be bigoted.” Afterwards, Fishback wrote that he disagrees with much of Nixon’s platform, but that “her opposition to data centers, private equity buying homes, and taxpayer money to Israel is popular and sound.”
At Flakowitz, however, Nixon’s stance on Israel seemed to be a sticking point for lunchgoers, who mostly shared their thoughts anonymously.
“It’s terrible,” said one woman about the state of politics writ large, adding that she feels the only politician she can trust is Moskowitz.
Boca resident Don DePaola, who is of Italian descent and not Jewish, said that he loves Israel and the city’s Jewish community. As for how he’s voting: “Republican, down the line.”
For Ron, the decision was not so easy.
“I just don’t know what I’m going to do about that race yet,” he said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Jewish Floridians chew over the pros and cons of Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Could a foie gras ban remove chopped liver from the deli menu?
Could an effort to defend ducks and curb the cruelty that some believe creates foie gras accidentally outlaw a favorite staple in Jewish delis? One Jewish resident of Washington D.C. fears that could be the case.
A measure on the ballot in Washington next Tuesday would bar the sale or distribution of “any fattened bird liver product within the District of Columbia.”
Activists say the legislation aims to ban the sale of any product resulting from force-feeding a bird, including foie gras. But the D.C. ordinance defines “fattened bird liver product” as “any food product or by-product made from the livers of birds fattened through any method or practice … regardless of marketing terminology.” It includes foie gras, pâtés, spreads, and processed meat products derived from the livers of “ducks, geese, chickens, turkeys, guineas, or squabs.”
“I am a fan of all things liver,” said Jordan Weissmann, an editor at the Progressive Policy Institute, who calls himself a libertarian when it comes to gastronomic matters. “I grew up eating chopped liver. I’m a fan of schmaltz and all pâtés, but there are much bigger issues facing Washington D.C. right now. So I was not going to get too fired up about this.”
Then a friend suggested he look at the language of the ordinance. Its lack of specificity, leaving enforcement up to interpretation, ruffled his feathers.
“My eyes popped out of my head,” he told the Forward. “It sounds like a sweeping ban. I immediately fired off a tweet.” That post and the conversation it generated has since gone viral, garnering thousands of views and hundreds of comments.
Pro-Animal DC, the campaign that drafted the ban, insists that’s not the intention. The law simply seeks to end the torture of farm-raised fowl.
“When laws are enforced this would not affect Jewish delis or chopped chicken liver,” said Natalie Fulton, media and content lead for Pro-Animal DC. She said when regulators enforce laws, they look at their entirety. They don’t look at “a sentence taken out of context.”
In addition to ending the sale of poultry products, the proposed ordinance also makes force-feeding birds illegal within the District. It doesn’t regulate possession of force-fed products or affect what Bubbe puts in the blender.
Fulton acknowledges that the definition of poultry, including chickens, is quite broad.
“We basically put that in there to make sure foie gras producers wouldn’t just shift to chickens. I’m not even sure it’s possible biologically. It safeguards if someone tries to get around the law that way.” If the initiative passes, she said, the City Council can clarify the language to prevent any confusion.
French for “fatty liver,” foie gras is the liver of a duck or goose that has been deliberately fattened by force-feeding, a process the industry calls gavage.
Workers insert a tube down the bird’s esophagus to pump in grain and fat, causing the liver to swell with fat until it is many times its normal size. The organ is then harvested, deveined, and seasoned in a variety of ways before it is baked in a terrine or pan-seared.
Mark Caro, author of The Foie Gras Wars, a book about a local war between Chicago chefs that escalated into a nationwide and international debate and a citywide ban of foie gras that lasted two years before it was repealed, writes that chopped liver is in fact a direct descendant of foie gras, which was once central to Jewish cuisine.
“The most-repeated theory is that foie gras survived thanks to Jews who had learned of force-feeding practices while under Roman rule and carried the tradition around Europe as they kept getting kicked out of countries,” Caro wrote. It even became the topic of a Talmudic commentary on animal cruelty by 11th Century French rabbi Rashi, as Judaic law prohibits tza’ar ba’alei chayim, or the suffering of animals.
But there were practical reasons to force feed geese at the time, Caro wrote. In the Mediterranean, Jews could cook with olive oil. In Babylonia, they could use sesame oil. But as Jews migrated north and west across Europe, they needed something besides pork fat, beef fat and butter to conduct heat in their skillets. The chosen alternative was poultry fat, or schmaltz, extracted from fattened goose livers.
In his book, Caro also includes the story of Holocaust survivor and third-generation Hungarian goose farmer Moshe Friedman, who in 1948 began producing fat goose livers on a kibbutz in the new Jewish state, and made it one of Israel’s first exports.
Israel is now one of 20 countries that bans foie gras produced by force feeding. California, New York City, Pittsburgh, Portland, Ore., and Brookline, Mass. all prohibit stores and restaurants from selling products from force-fed ducks and geese. A similar measure is on the ballot this fall in Denver.
Weissmann just hopes the Denver ordinance is more precise.
“You’d have to be an overzealous vegan to throw all the pâté out of Whole Foods,” he said. “You never know.”
The post Could a foie gras ban remove chopped liver from the deli menu? appeared first on The Forward.
