Sunday, February 12, 2017

Faulty Logic betraying its Author

I hate to drop-in on a dispute between two Jews, but promise not to touch what was said by either side regarding the substance of their give-and-take. All I'm trying to do here is explore the logic of someone getting so upset about something; she destroys her own carefully constructed argument trying to have it both ways.

She is Nachama Soloveichik who wrote “Stop the Jew-Shaming,” an article that was published on February 6, 2017 in National Review Online. She tells how upset she is at Peter Beinart who wrote an article she views as being the worst of the worst, even in the annals of Leftist Jewish writings. She claims that Beinart's argument “reeks of intellectual laziness and rank arrogance”.

Before getting to what Beinart had said that upset her so deeply, she began her argument with this generalization: “Liberal Jews are falling over one another to label President Trump the latest incarnation of Jew-haters from Pharaoh to Haman to Hitler.” What Soloveichik did not realize this early on, was that she just set herself up for a big fall later in the article.

Because she does not want Peter Beinart or any of those like him “to decide who is a good Jew and who is not,” she wants him and them to stop shaming those who – like her – are “conservative, Jewish, female or black.” Beinart and company, she says, concocted and directed attacks ranging from “the exaggerated to the absurd” at those who are of her political stripe … doing so as often as “mazal tov” and “shabbat shalom” are uttered.

What really got her upset – like the straw that broke the camel's back – was Beinart's attack on Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump, President of the United States. There was a build-up to this point, she says, in that “over the past couple of months, a parade of liberals” have been telling her and other Jews (1) how they should vote; (2) what the Jewish values entail them to do and not do; (3) what should be the proverbial “Eleventh Commandment” for Jews; and (4) what the Jews should believe and how they should practice their faith.

Then came the moment when the camel's back buckled under. That's how it happened, she says: “This audacity came to a head after the president's executive order. Suddenly, every Jewish group and activist appointed itself the moral authority on Jewish values. Worse, some used Judaism to shame the Jews with whom they disagree.” It was the moment when – in her view – Peter Beinart pointed an accusatory finger at Jared Kushner.

How dare he do that? She angrily interjected. Yes, he has the right to “throw his hat in the ring. But Beinart goes straight for the jugular,” she cried out. And so she punched back at him aiming to bloody his nose: “Last I checked, Beinart is neither God nor prophet. He's no Moses or Joshua. He and his cohorts don't get to decide who is a good Jew and who is not.” That's as forcefully as a lady can go without being vulgar.

Proud of herself for this stellar performance, she feels like superwoman or close to that. But what to do now for an encore? Oh yes; there is something that can be done. She can – indeed she must – turn the table on Beinart to show him who is the morally superior of the two. He tried to tell her and her cohorts how they should practice Judaism. She crushed him, and now she'll tell him and tell his cohorts how they should practice Judaism. It's a classic case of role reversal.

She begins with this preamble: “When leftists exploit Judaism as a political weapon, they discredit their own position as well as the religion they claim to uphold.” Then guess what she does, my friend. She does the very thing she just said is discrediting. Here it is: “There's a word in Biblical Hebrew that means disgrace: bizayon … I cannot think of a greater disgrace than to manipulate Judaism to attack other people's Jewish faith.” This is only the preamble, and she lit the fuse already.

She now lets the spark move closer and closer to the explosive charge, nudging it along with these words: “Beinart should learn from Moses, who asked God, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should take the Children of Israel out of Egypt?”

Obviously, Nachama Soloveichik meant this to be a metaphor. But if Moses is represented by Beinart, who does she think represents Pharaoh? It is none other than Donald Trump. Recalling that she put Pharaoh, Haman and Hitler in the same category, she is effectively saying that Trump is the new Hitler. Kaboom; she just blew her own logic to kingdom come. She loses the fight, and Peter Beinart wins.