|
November 20, 2022
Key Takeaways:
- Dave Chappelle's SNL monologue gave us a chance to road-test the IHRA definition of antisemitism; the definition, standing alone, is not much help--which might be why no one cited the definition in their critiques of the monologue.
- But was Chappelle's monologue antisemitic? The answer is...it depends.
- Last week, House Republicans proved again that antisemitism is no bar to success in GOP politics by electing four members with a history of unapologetic antisemitism to their four top positions. Unlike Chappelle, the GOP is not joking.
- The fourth bullet of last week's newsletter was incorrect. It should have read "Democrats won 74% of the Jewish vote in the midterms."
- Nancy Pelosi was the most effective, accomplished Speaker of the House of our time and a model of what it means to be pro-Israel.
Read to the end for upcoming events and fun stuff.
You're welcome to read for free, but if you want to chip in to help defray the cost of the newsletter, click here to pay by credit card or PayPal. Just fill in the amount of your choice. Or Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, the last four phone digits are 9479).
Hi Steve,
The same week that House Republicans elected leaders who used antisemitic tropes and never apologized (more on that below), we focused on a comedian.
If you read the Jewish press you've read about Dave Chappelle's Saturday Night Live monologue. Did he go too far? Did he step right up to the line? Was it all good clean fun? You can find support for any opinion, yet none of the critiques of his monologue referenced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism to determine whether Chappelle's performance was antisemitic.
If the IHRA definition was all its supporters say it is, you'd think that they would have jumped at the opportunity to apply the gold standard to a real-life controversy. They've been arguing for years that countries, states, and municipalities should adopt or affirm it. Oddly enough, its supporters often use some well-publicized antisemitic incident as a reason to adopt or affirm the definition and no one asks how, without the IHRA definition in place, everyone knew the incident was antisemitic in the first place--or for examples of where states or municipalities have adopted the IHRA definition and it has made a tangible difference in the fight against antisemitism.
But just because its supporters won't put it to the test doesn't mean we can't. Let's let the chips fall where they may and use the IHRA definition to help us decide to what extent, if any, Chappelle's monologue was antisemitic.
Watch the monologue. Don't rely on summaries. It's nearly 15 minutes long, but the parts on antisemitism are in roughly the first seven minutes and the last minute.
We are told that we can't decide if something is antisemitic unless we can define it. The IHRA defines antisemitism as "hatred towards Jews." Do you think Chappelle hates Jews? Nowadays, most antisemites know better than to say "I hate Jews." The question then becomes what other expressions constitute hatred toward Jews. The IHRA definition is followed by 11 examples (they really do go up to 11, although they are not numbered).
The lead-in says that the examples "could, taking into account the overall context," be examples of antisemitism. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. It depends on the overall context. The definition does not provide guidance on how to distinguish one context from another. The definition does say that these 11 examples are not necessarily the only examples.
In other words, the IHRA definition is, as David Schraub wrote, "vague to the point of incoherency, and riddled with so much imprecision and hedging that it could justify labeling anything or nothing anti-Semitic."
Don't get me wrong. I love the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It worked for its intended purpose of helping European data collectors identify possible instances of antisemitism. But using it for other purposes requires additional resources to put the examples in context. For years, the IHRA definition was the only credible definition available. That's part of the reason it gained momentum. Now we have more sophisticated tools designed to help us identify antisemitism, such as the Nexus definition.
Jonathan Jacoby, who directs the Nexus group, said that “the big mistake people are making about IHRA is that it’s the final word and there are many words and perspectives. You can think of IHRA as the Mishnah and [the Nexus definition] as the Gemora."
Indeed, on May 27, 2021, members of Congress wrote to Secretary of State Blinken, noting that "while the IHRA definition can be informative, in order to most effectively combat antisemitism, we should use all of the best tools at our disposal," citing the Nexus definition and Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, to which I would add T'ruah's very brief guide to antisemitism and the Nexus one-pager, which did not exist when these members of Congress wrote their letter.
So what is the verdict on Chappelle's monologue? He talked about "the Jews" controlling Hollywood in the context of a comedy routine that some saw as reinforcing antisemitic tropes and that others saw as satirizing and mocking those same tropes--or satirizing and mocking Jewish sensitivity to the use of those tropes or satirizing and mocking those who believe those tropes.
His monologue was like the picture that some see as a duck and others see as a bunny. Even when they are told that another picture can be seen, some people still cannot see it. What did we see on Saturday night? A scary Black man attacking Jews or a gifted Black comedian satirizing the controversy?
The IHRA definition is of no help. It's up to us (the other tools are valuable mainly as correctives to the IHRA's myopic view of antisemitism in the context of criticism of Israel). My view is that if it's so unclear whether the monologue was intended to be or is antisemitic, we should use it as a springboard to discuss and educate about the underlying issues rather than get into a fight with a comic who can deflect any criticism by saying "can't you take a joke?"
Some jokes are clearly antisemitic and should be condemned as such. We should reserve accusations of antisemitism for cases that are beyond a reasonable doubt; it's not as if we don't have enough clear-cut cases to fight. This monologue isn't there. Chappelle walked a fine line. If we think he went too far to get a laugh and we want to directly respond to a comedic monologue like this, the best way is with--comedy. Shalom Auslander shows us how.
This might be more important than an SNL monologue. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and the new Democratic House leadership are firmly pro-Israel, but House Republicans elected new leadership comprising election deniers who have never apologized for unambiguously antisemitic rhetoric. Unlike Chappelle, they are not joking.
Republicans nominated Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), an election denier, for Speaker of the House. In 2018, McCarthy posted and then deleted an anti-Semitic tweet about Jewish money in politics following outcry from the Jewish community. He not only never apologized, but he doubled down by refusing to admit it was antisemitic. His Republican colleagues responded not by censuring him, asking him to resign, or stripping him of committee assignments, but by electing him Leader. (Republicans seem to have a thing for this particular antisemitic trope--in that same election cycle, at least six Republicans ran ads featuring Jews clutching cash.)
Republicans elected Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) House Majority Leader. Scalise is an election denier who blamed “radical, Soros-backed elements of the Democratic Party” for violence against Republicans in 2018 and described himself as “David Duke without the baggage.”
Republicans elected Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) House Majority Whip. Emmer is not an election denier (nobody's perfect), but he once accused Jewish billionaires of trying to buy Congress. He's never apologized.
Republicans elected Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to the #4 spot, House GOP Conference Chair. Stefanik is an election denier who supports Replacement Theory, the same racist, antisemitic conspiracy theory that the shooter who killed ten Black Americans in Buffalo believed in.
The GOP elected four members to the top four House positions whose rhetoric is antisemitic under any definition of antisemitism, including the IHRA definition. Why aren't supporters of the IHRA definition condemning these Republicans and their colleagues who elected them? Do they have that little faith in the IHRA definition's efficacy? Or are they afraid of condemning only one side, which they'd have to do because the Democratic counterparts to these Republicans have never said or done anything antisemitic.
We should be focused on why unapologetic antisemitism is not a bar to leadership in one of our major political parties, not an SNL monologue. Despite his frequent antisemitic rhetoric, Donald Trump twice won the Republican nomination for president. Take the opposition within the GOP to Trump's 2024 run with a dollop of salt. They don't object to his character; they are worried he can't win. After he sweeps the GOP primaries they'll love him--again.
Republicans don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. In March 2016, Republican Jewish Coalition Chair Norm Coleman said that he would never vote for Trump because Trump is a bigot, a misogynist, a fraud, and a bully. The RJC supported Trump for president in 2016 and 2020 and has never called Trump out for any of his antisemitic remarks--nor has any Republican member of Congress. Trump's latest antisemitic outburst occurred yesterday, on Shabbat, at the RJC convention. The RJC did not condemn Trump--they gave him a standing ovation.
All antisemitism is problematic. Antisemitism in the highest levels of government is the most problematic. And to those who say the new Republican leaders didn't really mean it, I have one question: Why won't they apologize? Or were they guilty only of Dave Chappelle-level satire? We see what we want to see...
ICYMI. Nancy Pelosi was the most consequential speaker of our time and modeled what it means to be pro-Israel.
Mistake of the Week. In the fourth bullet of last week's newsletter, I left out a word and wrote that "Democrats won 74% of the vote in the midterms." I wish. In reality, Democrats won 74% of the Jewish vote in the midterms. I got it right in the body of the newsletter and I apologize for any confusion or head-scratching. Thanks to everyone who brought the error to my attention. Just for the record, Donald Trump said last week that Democrats won 75% of the Jewish vote.
Tweet of the Week. JP.
Classic Tweets. Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Caitlin.
Facebook Post of the Week. Isaac Luria.
Video Clip of the Week. Larry David.
This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the home of the viral Top Ten Signs You Might be at a Republican Seder (yes, I wrote it).
If someone forwarded this to you, why not subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday? Just click here--it's free.
Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. The link lets you use a credit card or PayPal. If you'd rather pay by check, please reply and I'll send you the mailing address (do not send checks to the P.O. Box). Or you can Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits of phone number are 9479).
I accept advertisements. Let me know if you're interested.
| 
