Exile and the prophetic: Kitsch Israel

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

A missive from another email admirer, Sam Peleton, commenting on my blog on Alan Dershowitz:

My late grandfather (foster parent) was a religious Russian Jew who survived Stalin. He used to tell me that a Meshumed (convert from Judaism) was worse than an anti-Semite. Growing up in America, I scoffed at what I thought was an old shtetl saying.

My late Mother survived Auschwitz, most of her extended family did not. I grew up with attacks on me of Dirty Jew, swastikas in our driveway etc. The Six Day War had a big impact on me, and I eventually moved to Israel, served in combat units etc.

I now realize that my Grandfather really meant people like you and Philip Weiss and the rest of the self-proclaimed “Progressives.”

To me you are all KAPOS and no different to us than Islamic Jihad.

Here you have it, somewhat like we used to see in the old South.  As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of James Meredith’s integration of the University of Mississippi, we should keep this in mind. The bottom rung spews obscenities while the elite classes run the boardrooms of thinkable thought.  The elites distance themselves from the language they set the context for.  It’s no different in our Jewish Civil War.  There’s a direct link between my email admirers and Netanyahu’s performance at the United Nations.

The anger runs very deep in our Jewish Civil War.  At least I wasn’t condemned alone.  But obviously Mr. Peleton hasn’t been reading my blog.  Since I write as someone who aspires to be a Jew of Conscience, “Progressives” isn’t exactly the group I identify with.  I doubt that designation will assuage my emailer or Alan Dershowitz for that matter.  Details aren’t their speciality.

It runs deeper, though, don’t you think? Listening to Netanyahu and assuming a preference for Obama in the Presidential race, or even listening to Mahmoud Abbas and Mohamed Morsi, is there anything we’re hearing in the political realm that seems like a local, national and global plan for life? Is there anything we’re hearing that should be shared at a meeting on a politically viable and just future? Those who have spiritual aspirations for the political realm, forget it.

In polite or impolite company, it seems almost impossible to get a prophetic word in edgewise. Israel-speak is part of the problem.  It’s only the tip of our melting icebergs.

“Israel” has become a leverage word, a “type” that doesn’t relate to anything specific. Flesh and blood Israelis or flesh and blood Palestinians or, for that matter, flesh and blood Iranians hardly exist in American political discourse.  I doubt the Presidential debate will change this.

Israel, the Holocaust, Palestinians and Iran functions in emotive ways for Jews who have never been there and couldn’t care less that they haven’t.  Most Jews“know” the score already.  When these words such as Israel or Iran are invoked, the response is immediate.  The same thing is true for non-Jews in America.  Americans know the score already.

Israel, the concept, has become a rallying point for everything Jews have been traditionally against.  Just say the word “Israel” and Obama is destroying the country.  “Israel” = socialized medicine.  “Israel” = gay marriage.  “Israel” = affirmative action.

This is what kitsch is, more or less.  Rooting around for a good definition of kitsch, my critical favorite comes from Wikipedia.  For the most part, my withering criticism of Wikipedia is restricted to controversial contemporary authors or political figures.  Wikipedia’s definition of kitsch is worth pondering and, of course, then applying.

Kitsch is an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art or a worthless imitation of art of recognized value. The concept is associated with the deliberate use of elements that may be thought of as cultural icons while making cheap mass-produced objects that are unoriginal.

Kitsch also refers to the types of art that are aesthetically deficient (whether or not being sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative) and that make creative gestures which merely imitate the superficial appearances of art through repeated conventions and formulae. Excessive sentimentality often is associated with the term.

Now the clincher:

The contemporary definition of kitsch is considered derogatory, denoting works executed to pander to popular demand alone and purely for commercial purposes rather than works created as self-expression by an artist. The term is generally reserved for unsubstantial and gaudy works that are calculated to have popular appeal and are considered pretentious and shallow rather than genuine artistic efforts.

So as to how Israel as kitsch is used, my transposition:

As used in American public discourse, “Israel” is an inferior, tasteless copy of Israel as it really is and becomes a highly charged though worthless imitation of Israel as it might appear in Jewish history.  Israel, the concept, is associated with the deliberate use of elements that may be thought of as cultural icons while making cheap political statements that are unoriginal and bear almost no relation to fact.

“Israel” also refers to the types of politics that are deficient (whether or not being sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative) and that make provocative gestures which merely imitate the superficial appearances of politics through repeated conventions and formulae. Excessive patriotism often is associated with the term, Israel.

The contemporary definition of “Israel” should be considered derogatory, denoting a politics executed to pander to popular demand alone and purely for political purposes rather than politics created as a justice-expression by the political classes. “Israel” is generally reserved for unsubstantial and gaudy political claims that are calculated to have popular appeal and should be considered pretentious and shallow rather than genuine political efforts.

Historically speaking, it’s interesting to see how “Jew” has been used.  Rarely did “Jew” have anything to do with real Jews.  In political discourse, Jew is used less frequently today.It has been replaced by – you guessed it – “Israel.”  Rarely does “Israel” have anything to do with real Israel. 

I find it troubling that kitsch “Jew” – which connoted everything negative under the sun – has been replaced by kitsch “Israel” which connotes everything positive under the sun.

It could be coincidence that the kitsch passwords that unlock everything evil and good are still associated with imaginary Jews. 

The next time “Israel” is bandied about on the political stage think about it. 

In our Presidential political season how much has the “Jewish” situation really changed?