Luke Ford

This Orthodox rabbi below finds a connection between Megyn Kelly’s insufficiently angry reaction to Ann Coulter’s Jews tweet Wednesday night and the Holocaust.

By Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz:

This may surprise you – I don’t give a fig about Colter’s remark. My concern is manifest regarding the interview of Ann Colter on the Fox News program, “The Kelly File”, and Megyn Kelly’s reaction to her disgusting statement.

Beginning the interview by sharing Colter’s vile remark and the negative response to it from both the left and the right. Kelly asked Colter, “So do you want to take it back?” Colter’s immediate response was “no.” She then began to qualify her answer by saying that perhaps the remark would have been better directed toward the Evangelical community, note – no pejorative used for the Evangelicals.

My English teacher in eighth grade, Gertrude Keys, made me keenly aware of the parts of speech by teaching us how to diagram sentences. I was required to designate the subject and the predicate the nouns, pronouns, adjectives and adverbs. The concern levied by all regarding Colter’s remark had nothing to do with the issue of who she should have leveled it against or if in fact it had any merit. Rather the critiques leveled concerned the ADJECTIVE she used to modify the NOUN Jews – the most widely used pejorative in American English today. Kelly, usually a very good interviewer who gets to the root of the matter simply avoided the salient issue in Colter’s remark and moved on to another subject.

The first thought that came to my mind was the 1961 movie, “Judgment at Nuremberg.” For those unfamiliar with the movie, here is a brief review.

“After the end of World War II, the world gradually became aware of the full extent of the war crimes perpetrated by the Third Reich. In 1948, a series of trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, by an international tribunal, headed by American legal and military officials, with the intent of bringing to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity. However, by that time most of the major figures of the Nazi regime were either dead or long missing, and in the resulting legal proceedings American judges often found themselves confronting the question of how much responsibility someone held who had “just followed orders.” Judgment at Nuremberg is a dramatized version of the proceedings at one of these trials, in which Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) is overseeing the trials of four German judges — most notably Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) and Emil Hahn (Werner Klemperer) — accused of knowingly sentencing innocent men to death in collusion with the Nazis.”

The most intriguing aspect of this movie was the fascination the American, Judge Haywood (Spencer Tracy), had with the motivations of the famous German jurist, Dr. Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster),, whose brilliant legal decisions were well-known to Haywood. Haywood could not understand how such a man deeply committed to human rights and freedom as evidenced by these decisions would be complicit in the horrific activities of the Nazi regime. Eventually, in a magnificent speech Judge Janning explains what had transpired and defines himself as “human excrement.” He admits he knew at the outset, what Hitler was all about but remained silent because Hitler gave renewed pride to the German people after the humiliation they suffered at Versailles. The price of the lives of a few Jews were of little consequence. In the end, he thought Hitler would be rejected by the sophisticated German people. When that didn’t happen it was too late for him to do anything about it.

Of course Megyn Kelly is not an internationally recognized jurist and we’re not talking about a society similar to the Germany of. Post-World War I, or are we?

The patriotism of my youth has waned. Government is seen as unresponsive to the needs of the people by many of all political stripes. The economy has been in the doldrums for years with no bright future ahead for our youth. As in post-World War I Germany, there is a growing need to find someone to blame – a scapegoat. Is it the liberal big spending politicians, or Wall Street and the uber rich or the influential lobbyists or is it a particular grouping of individuals,?

Why did not Kelly immediately pounce upon Coulter when she refused to take back her remark about the “f—ing Jews”? Why? Am I not correct in assuming that Kelly would have reacted immediately and decisively if that adjective, that pejorative, was fixed to the words Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, or Muslims? Why didn’t she react?

They don’t bother making coherent arguments. They simply seek to destroy her.

Fox News had Ann Coulter on right after the second GOP debate:

I’ve been talking to various Jews about this controversy and this is a summary of what I’m hearing:

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. It is the typical ADL playbook where the slightest innocuous comment is used to wholly discredit someone.

Does making the comment, even if it were “vile” which I don’t think it is, justify destroying a person’s career? How many books has she written? How many columns has she written? Who among pundits has been as influential in bringing an issue to the fore in American politics as she has with immigration? How many commentators are unwilling to debate persons with whom they disagree because somehow or other that would legitimize them? Ann Coulter will debate anybody on any topic anywhere.

It is interesting that she was dropped for the column she wrote for National Review in the aftermath of 9-11 (when she said invade their countries, kill their religious leaders and Christianize them.) She also survived the kerfuffle when in her interview with Donnie Deutsch she said that Christianity is in effect perfected Judaism. This is of course the correct theological view from the standpoint of Christians, regardless of denomination, but Jews are so used to politicians and columnnists buttering us up that they couldn’t handle this.

Anyway, we shall see how this plays out. The problem is that the people who are condemning her have so much invested in wresting either contrition from her or marginalization of her, that if they fail, it may weaken them and open the door to much more biting criticism that may in fact be anti-Semitic.

It is good that you are sticking up for her by highlighting all of the out of control condemnations of her.

It is important to really figure out what she was saying.

When she asked rhetorically how many fucking Jews are there in this country, that is open to two interpretations: (1) that despite their small number Jews wield too much influence, especially in the Republican party or (2) the Republicans are needlessly pandering to the Jews, Jewish interests, Israel and Evangelicals since there is no need to dwell on the confluence of views of Republican candidates.

Neither is anti-Semitic although the first interpretation does call in question Jewish power and influence, something that organized Jewry has consistently (1) downplayed and (2) pounced upon and punished those who espouse such views by labeling them anti semites and getting them ostracized.

You are a firm believer in free speech and in fearlessly pointing out where there is Jewish influence and power.

What bugs me about Coulter’s critics are:

In the case of “conservatives”, they criticize leftists, liberals and Democrats as being too politically correct and afraid of honest discussion, calling them “pearl clutchers, delicate little flowers” and people who go their “fainting couches” when confronted with micro-aggressions.

What Ann wrote is not especially offensive, especially in the context of her string of tweets during the debate, yet the “conservatives” feel the need to distance herself from them. This leads me to believe that many of the “right wing websites” PJ Media, Hot Air, Powerline, American Thinker, are in fact basically what pretend to be American conservative promoting sites, but in reality are simply pro Israel sites with the American political stuff serving simply as window dressing.

In the case of the Jewish Press and Jewish Rabbis condemning Coulter, I wonder how many of them publish her or read her with any regularity. I do realize she was a featured columnist for IJR) and if they do, if they share any views with her. Jews are traditionally liberal, consistently voting for Democrats and almost all elected national officials are Democrats (Sanders, Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, Blumenthal) and the Obama administration has many Jews in appointed positions, most significantly for financial decisions, Jack Lew and Janet Yellen. So I suspect that many if not most of the criticism of Coulter is coming from persons who don’t share her political views and are using this as an opportunity to either take her down a notch or sideline her permanently (a la Joe Sobran)

In the case of the liberal press, it is also seen as a means to marginalize Coulter and her views.

I realize you are a small voice against this, but you are an Orthodox Jew. She has been supported by others who are not widely read, such as Ilana Mercer, and by Mickey Kaus, but they are hard pressed to influence the conventional wisdom once the juggernaut is under way.

Many critics of Jews rejoiced in Ann Coulter’s Wednesday night tweets.

I see the world as full of different groups with different interests. The pro-Israel crowd is sometimes pro-America but sometimes not. The pro-America crowd is sometimes pro-Israel but sometimes not.

In the Middle East, the stronger Israel is, the weaker the Arabs appear.

England’s foreign policy for centuries has been based on dividing its continental competitors and encouraging them to feud with each other. Israel’s foreign policy, at times, reminds me of this.

About 95% of American Jews are Ashkenazi and identify as white. Jews generally prefer whites to other races, prefer to marry whites than other races, and prefer to live around whites. A tiny number of American Jews, however, loudly proclaim they are not white. Why? Because the flight from white is massively incentivized.

Jews leaders in the West have generally tried to make their Gentile host nations more tolerant of diversity, more multi-cultural, multi-racial, more divided, and less cohesive. They want Gentile nations to be user-friendly for Jews. For instance, every major American Jewish organization including the Orthodox Union and Agudath Israel supports immigration amnesty.

Former ADL head Abraham Foxman said in 2013: “How do we balance the drive for assimilation with the interests of our community? That’s the Catch-22 of the ADL. We make America as user-friendly to Jews as possible. So, who’s worried about Jews wanting to be Jews? But that’s been the struggle in American Jewish life for as long as I can remember.”

When critics of Jews complain about “Jewish supremacy,” they don’t mean that Jews are supreme in everything. They don’t mean that Jews dominate the energy industry or that Jews dominate white nationalist movements or basketball or farming or extreme sports. They mean that Jews enjoy disproportionate influence in certain sectors of society, such as media and banking and politics. This seems true to me.

On the other hand, you could convincingly argue that blacks are the most important people in this country because they shape all our discussions about crime and punishment, welfare, education, and the like. They are the most likely to riot. They have many gifted charismatic speakers who command your attention.

On the other hand, you could argue that the Japanese are the superior race or the Germans or the Chinese. You could complain about the Saudi Lobby and have very good reasons for your complaints.

I don’t get in a tizzy when people accurately point out black power, Mexican power, latino power, Jewish power, Saudi power, Arab power, Chinese power, Japanese power, etc. Many groups exercise disproportionate power in different parts of life, including Jews. Pointing out the obvious should not be a thought crime deserving of expulsion from polite society. Adding the word “f*******” to a group is not heinous. Only a wuss who lacks self-awareness gets upset about that.

Here’s a classic smear you’ll often hear around your Shabbos table — guilt by non-association.

Making logical sense is not the point. Getting angry and outraged and intimidating your critics is the point.

Forward.com: In a reference to the Republican Party debate, Iran’s Supreme Leader’s decried on Twitter that “presidential candidates try to satisfy Zionists.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei referred to Wednesday night’s CNN-sponsored debate in a tweet on Thursday, part of a series of anti-Israel tweets.

In a follow-up tweet, Khamenei reiterated a claim he made earlier this month that Israel will not last:

US govs put their people under Zionists custody.Isn’t it a shame that presidential candidates try to satisfy Zionists&prove their servitude?— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) September 17, 2015

Zionist regime is an imposed regime, made through coercion; no entity made by coercion would last. This regime will not survive either.11/13— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) September 17, 2015

On Wednesday night, conservative political pundit Ann Coulter similarly slammed the Republican candidates for pandering to “f—ing Jews.”

Khamenei also called for the West Bank to be “armed to be ready for defense.”

The Washington Jewish Week does not bother to form an argument, it just hurls insults at her.

Link: Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has a reputation for sharp words and jarring rhetoric. But she went way too far in a Twitter post during the final minutes of last Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate. Following a number of references to Israel by debate participants, Coulter Tweeted: “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” In doing so, not only did she join two words that should never go together, she went way over the line of what constitutes appropriate speech and into the territory of offensive, hateful drivel. Coulter should be ashamed of herself — but she appears to have no shame.

The ADL called Coulter’s remark “ugly, spiteful and borderline anti-Semitic.” We will go farther: Coulter’s remark was anti-Semitic, plain and simple. Although Coulter markets herself as someone “who stirs the pot,” her outrageous, very public utterance crossed the line of decency, and reflects a level of disrespect and hatred that cannot be tolerated.

For some, Coulter’s foul mouthed anti-Semitism comes as no surprise. They point to the fact that after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Coulter proposed: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” And in 2007, she told an interviewer that she wants her dream America to be completely Christian, with “Jews to be perfected, as they say,” meaning that Jews should be converted to Christianity. And there is more — but none of it worth repeating.

Unfortunately, Coulter’s most recent ugly rhetoric obscures the fact that that a lot of substantive policy discussions actually took place among the presidential contenders at the second debate. But that didn’t seem to be of much interest to Coulter. She was much more focused on the “f—ing Jews.”

We condemn Coulter’s remark, and condemn her bigotry. Ann Coulter is a hateful noisemaker, who should be ignored.

Ann Coulter and Iran’s Supreme Leader have so much in common.

Arutz Sheva:

Right-wing commentator Ann Coulter’s rant about “f—king Jews” was “misunderstood,” she claimed in a Daily Beast interview late Thursday, as she denied that the remarks reinforce anti-Semitic stereotypes.

“I think it was ripped out of context and lied about,” Coulter stated. “Anyone following any of the debate in America knew exactly what I was talking about… My tweet was about Republicans and the pandering. It wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Jews. It’s what Republicans are thinking in their little pea brains.”

Coulter then dug herself deeper, taking a shot at Evangelical Christians.

“I could say the same thing about Evangelicals,” she said. “Who are you pandering to? A lot of it is to Sheldon Adelson and the Evangelicals…this kind of suck-uppery is humiliating.”

“There is no doubt that the Republican Party is the party of Israel and of Life,” she added. “So why keep sucking up on Israel?”

When asked whether her remarks could perpetuate the idea that Jews “run Hollywood” or the media, Coulter admitted: “Well, this episode is not going a long way to disprove that.”

Coulter then took cheap shots at Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, oddly choosing to link his policies with the US’s illegal immigration issues.

“I’d like to move Israel to the northern border of Mexico, and see what happens then,” she said. “These Republicans say fences don’t work – I’d like to see some of them explain Netanyahu’s policy on the fence.”

Even before her attempted explanations, Coulter’s remarks sparked a stream of support from anti-Semites, including Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

From the Jerusalem Post:

The backlash was instantaneous. Followers accused Coulter of being “anti-Semitic,” and “desperate for attention,” calling her statement “f—ing offensive.” Several followers mentioned they believed her account had been hacked while others suggested she was drunk after playing a drinking game while viewing the debate.

“Last night, Ann Coulter made appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, anti-Semitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purposes of supporting Israel at America’s expense,” Zionist Organization of America head Morton Klein said.

“When GOP candidates speak of strengthening the US-Israel relationship which has been harmed by President [Barack] Obama within the context of the need to ensure that Iran doesn’t go nuclear; to strengthen America’s hand in the world when dealing with vicious totalitarian enemies who seek the demise of the US, they are defending America’s interests,” Klein said.

“Instead, and for reasons best known to her, she chose to misrepresent their entirely legitimate statements as pandering to Jews.”

“Ann Coulter was gratuitously offensive and anti-Jewish in her remarks on twitter yesterday,” Klein said. “If such was not her intention, there is a simple remedy: she should immediately retract and make a heartfelt apology for her words.”

“Failing this, Fox News should dismiss her immediately.”

While Coulter does appear regularly on the Fox News Channel to offer her views, she is not a paid employee of the network.

They just call her names.

Welcome to the Ashkenazi debating style. Attack the person, hurl insults, and don’t bother with coherence.

There are only two honorable debating techniques — to challenge facts and logic. Ann Coulter’s critics don’t bother to do either.

Jews and non-Jews I encounter often talk about groups with the prefix of “fuc****.” I hear people all the time complain about bleeping blacks, latinos, goyim, Jews, Muslims, etc.

It must suck to be such an oversensitive pussy to get all hot and bothered by such elementary remarks.

Of course Jewish activists are over-reacting to Ann Coulter’s tweets. Does this routine over-the-top hyperventilating serve Jews by intimidating the goyim or is it just preparing a massive death pit for Jews or is it just another tempest in a tea pot massively incentivized by our current moment and has nothing, in the final analysis, to do with Jews?

From the JewishJournal.com and JTA:

Christians United for Israel excoriated Coulter in a news release.
“Ann Coulter’s tweets this evening concerning Israel were completely inappropriate,” spokesman Ari Morgenstern said in the statement. “The U.S.-Israel relationship is both a moral and strategic imperative. There are tens of millions of Christians in this country who stand with the Jewish state.”
Jonathan Greenblatt, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, described Coulter’s remarks as “hyperbolic and hateful.”
“Ms. Coulter is pandering to the basest of her base. Her messages challenging the candidates’ support for Israel were offensive, ugly, spiteful and borderline anti-Semitic,” Greenblatt wrote in a statement. “Her tweets give fodder to those who buy into the anti-Semitic notions that Jews ‘control’ the U.S. government, wield disproportionate power in politics, and are more loyal to Israel than to their own country.”
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said, “Ann Coulter asks ‘how many f—ing Jews’ are there in America and then blithely dodges Fox News’ direct challenge of her gratuitous anti-Semitic slur. Disgusting. And if a simple ‘I am sorry’ is beyond the reach of the vocabulary of this noted wordsmith, then perhaps she has unearned her spot among top tier political pundits.”

Notice how the rabbis don’t bother making an argument. They just call her names.

Ann Coulter is a Palm Beach resident, having bought a home in the community in 2005.

From the Sun Sentinel Jewish Journal:

The next day (Thursday, Sept. 17), Coulter defended her comments to Jay Michaelson of The Daily Beast — an American news reporting and opinion website focusing on politics and pop culture.

Coulter told Michaelson that she doesn’t hate Jews — just the Republican Party candidates sucking up to them — and that the whole controversy was all based on a misunderstanding.

Coulter said she didn’t mean to say that Jews were hoarding influence in this country, telling Michaelson: “I’m accusing Republicans of thinking the Jews have so much power. They’re the ones comedically acting out this play where Jews control everything.”

In response, Michaelson asked Coulter whether she could understand how many Jews might be offended by her language, reminiscent as it is of the centuries-old claims that Jews have disproportionate power and influence in world affairs.

Coulter replied: “No. I don’t think it was my language. I think it was ripped out of context and lied about … Anyone following any of the debate in America knew exactly what I was talking about … My tweet was about Republicans and the pandering. It wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Jews. … There is no doubt that the Republican Party is the party of Israel. … So why keep sucking up on Israel?”

The majority of South Florida rabbis the Jewish Journal spoke to weren’t buying Coulter’s explanations, however, and felt her tweets were anti-Semitic.

Rabbi Eliot Pearlson of Temple Menorah, a Conservative synagogue in Miami Beach, said: “Unfortunately this merely confirms my belief that Ms. Coulter is a negative, mean-spirited hateful person. Her defense that this wasn’t an attack on Jews is not substantiated by her past comments nor her failure to apologize.

“The subject of the comment is ‘The Jews.’ She could not have been making a reference to the candidates. She’s a professional writer — I think she knows the difference between subject and predicate. I wonder if there would have been more outrage expressed by the press and her supporters if she had said ‘F***king Blacks’ or ‘F***king Latinos.'”

Added Rabbi Barry Silver of Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor, a Reform synagogue in Boynton Beach: “Ann Coulter made her views about Jews known in an interview with Donny Deutsch on Oct. 11, 2007 when she said that Jews need to be ‘perfected’ by becoming Christian. Most Christians gave up this notion centuries ago, but Ann Coulter still lives in the past. She shares the sentiments of Muslim extremists who also believe that there is no place for Jews in their world order.

“It is therefore not surprising that she would use expletives as an adjective for the Jewish people and repeat old classic canards (unfounded rumors) about the inordinate power of the Jews. Her comments say nothing about Jews, but speak volumes about the intolerance of Ann Coulter.”

Rabbi Andrew Rosenkranz of Temple Beth Torah, a Reform synagogue in Wellington, commented: “Are Ann Coulter’s words anti-Semitic? Absolutely! They are hurtful and divisive. There’s no place in America for this kind of anger. What we need to be practicing is respect and civility in our public discourses. Frankly, Ms. Coulter owes the Jewish community a big and sincere apology.”

Said Rabbi Bradd Boxman of Congregation Kol Tikvah, a Reform synagogue in Parkland: “We worry so much about anti-Semitic remarks from groups outside our country like Iran and ISIS, but here we have someone inside our country saying something so blatantly anti-Semitic. For her to tweet these things to hundreds of thousands of people using that kind of anti-Semitic language is very offensive and calls to mind the names of other infamous anti-Semites who had no problem openly voicing their hatred of Jews.

“These kind of remarks also point to the general decline in public civility. With the popularity of Donald Trump, it is said that people don’t have to be ‘PC’ (politically correct) any more. Well, PC is just another word for respecting the dignity of the opinions of other people. We are seeing the loss in our society of people knowing how to communicate with each other in a civil manner.”

Rabbi Tom Heyn of Temple Israel of Greater Miami, a Reform synagogue, said: “I frequently point out to my congregants that we all possess multiple intelligences. Ms. Coulter is a perfect example of how someone can have a very high IQ but is less-developed when it comes to EQ (Emotional Intelligence) and SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). She’s probably enjoying all the attention she’s getting from this media circus, but her thinking is full of contradictions and is not constructive. It reveals a deeply-engrained racist attitude evident in her other comments.”

Added Rabbi Alon Levkovitz of Temple Beth Am, a Reform synagogue in Jupiter: “Ann Coulter was able to come up with a Twitter version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion” — referring to the anti-Semitic 1903 Russian book claiming Jewish world domination.

Rabbi Dan Levin of Temple Beth El of Boca Raton, a Reform synagogue, simply said: “We have no comment on someone as disgraceful as Ann Coulter.”

However, Rabbi Efrem Goldberg of Boca Raton Synagogue, a Modern Orthodox synagogue, acknowledged what he believes is Coulter’s past support of Israel.

Goldberg said: “Ann Coulter’s tweets were offensive and deeply concerning as they contribute to the classic Anti-Semitic rhetoric that Jews disproportionally ‘control’ politicians and are pandered to by them. I sincerely hope she apologizes and returns to being an outspoken supporter of Israel and the Jewish people.”

In an interesting twist, Rabbi David Baum of Congregation Shaarei Kodesh, a Conservative synagogue in Boca Raton, suggested that Coulter’s comments could provide a teachable moment for everyone during the High Holidays — which requires Jews to look at all of our actions, whether intentional or accidental, to repent, and to atone.

Baum said: “I was deeply disappointed with Coulter’s comments. Social media is a great medium to be heard by millions in an instant, but sometimes we may not think through all the ramifications of our words.

“Besides, I think the candidates spoke about Israel not because they were pandering to anyone, but because they believe Israel is an important strategic partner for the U.S. Furthermore, I think support for Israel must be a bipartisan issue in the future as it has been for years.”