Jane Eisner writes Dec. 16, 2013:
Well, I certainly never had that happen before. In years of moderating sometimes heated public conversations, never has a panelist just walked off the stage. But that’s what Commentary editor John Podhoretz did Monday night. And I’m still trying to figure out why.
Of course, I expected a feisty evening when the venerable 92nd Street Y asked me to moderate a panel about what it means to be “pro-Israel” (their words), with Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street; David Harris, executive director of American Jewish Committee, and Podhoretz. And from the outset, it was clear that Ben-Ami and Podhoretz were going to disagree about everything, with Harris positioning himself — literally and figuratively — in the middle.
We talked about the latest controversy at the Swarthmore College Hillel, and who should or should not be invited to speak at a Jewish institution.
We talked about the results of the Pew Research Center study that American Jews are more critical of Israeli government policies than many “pro-Israel” leaders would like, and what that means.
Throughout it all, Podhoretz was firmly, even aggressively, disagreeing with Ben-Ami, and the back-and-forth between them became a little testy. This is the hardest part of being a moderator – trying to make the split-second judgements over when to step in, and when to allow the debate to run its course.
But then we turned to an audience member’s question about the decision announced today by the American Studies Association to endorse an academic boycott of Israel. And things got harder, still.
Ironically, everyone on stage, myself included, believed that this was a hypocritical and ultimately counterproductive action. But after saying he disagreed with the ASA vote, Ben-Ami segued into talking about Israeli government policies that, in his view, make it difficult for some Americans to believe Israel really does want peace with the Palestinians.
You’re blaming the victim, cried Podhoretz. Some members of the audience became enraged, and, mystifyingly, the Commentary editor encouraged them, challenging them to boo and hiss.
And then — honestly, it’s a bit of a blur, but this is what I remember — he started wagging his finger at Ben-Ami in a manner at once threatening and condescending. That’s when I stepped in, trying to rein in the argument, using my hands (I am known to gesticulate) to try to calm him down.
Instead, Podhoretz angrily said that I raised my hand at him and stormed off the stage.
Whoa.
I am, physically, much, much smaller than John Podhoretz, so he could hardly allege that I was intending to do him harm. More than that, I was the moderator, and he had a responsibility to be civil on stage and, at the very least, listen to my requests. I was stunned by what I can only describe as a temper tantrum.
So was everyone else. To the great credit of Harris and Ben-Ami, we continued the conversation for the allotted time, with a spirited debate about the lengths to which American Jews can and should speak up and about Israeli policies.
But the damage was done. The chair was empty. Yes, I made a joke at one point about “Elijah” but it is hard not to view this lopsided scene as an incredibly sad commentary on the difficulty of engaging Jews with vastly different views on Israel in civil dialogue.
Or maybe it was just about one rude, angry man.
From the comments:
* Here is the significant part of Podhoretz's reply:
In the course of her account, she claims that “mystifyingly,” I “encouraged” the audience to boo and hiss me. In fact, after a prolonged bout of booing, I responded by suggesting—in a manner that was intended, for what I would have thought were obvious reasons, to be ironic—that the crowd might try hissing too. Which they did. Maybe they didn’t pick up on the irony; Eisner apparently didn’t, given her level of mystification.
Eisner then says I wagged my finger “in a manner threatening and concescending” at Ben-Ami. As it happens, I had no problem with Ben-Ami personally throughout the panel, though we disagreed vehemently. And given that he was five or ten feet away from me and we were having an exchange that was mutually heated, I’m not sure how threatening my condescending finger-wagging could have been. (I am unaware there was any finger-wagging, by the way, but I will stipulate for the sake of comity that some wagging took place.)
Whatever I did, it was, to be sure, no more “threatening” than Eisner’s response, which was to put her hand up close to me for the purposes of quieting me down. Eisner seems to think that when I spoke in objection to this gesture, which I did angrily, I was perhaps fearful she was going to attack me physically—which is the height of silliness. I was annoyed by the hostility of the crowd, one of whose number had shrieked at me, and I was troubled by Eisner’s effort to shush me.
Bottom line: I’d had a long day and I didn’t see the point in spending more of it getting booed and shushed. So I left. So sue me.
* JPod is a chicken hawk and a chicken debater. The good news is that he just reduced his likelihood of being invited to other settings.
* Recreating a CNN “Crossfire” episode in front of a live audience of cranky, opinionated East Side middle-aged Jews is as likely to bring out thoughtful debate as posing the issue to a NASCAR audience during a crash slowdown.
* Eisner has served as an exemplary moderator on a number of occasions, and, as per my search, has never had any issues while serving in that role before. It seems, despite my surprise at the sincerity and openness of his response, that Mr. Podhoretz was responsible for the improprieties that took place at this event
