The Seinfeld Principle
An open letter to Rabbi Jonah Winer
Dear Rabbi Winer,
Sitting on the terrace of my hotel and looking over the marina at Gordon Beach, I was awed by your decision to validate New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s most recent travesty of journalism and, perhaps unwittingly, give yet more ammunition to those who would like to see Gordon Beach (along with the rest of Tel Aviv) returned to its rightful owners. In the face of so much evidence that should at a minimum raise doubt about the factual basis of Kristof’s screed, you invoke rabbinic authority with apparent indifference to the effects of your words on the Jewish condition generally and the situation here in Israel specifically. Here your analysis will elicit shrugs from a population exhausted from war and accustomed to incessant reproach from outsiders modestly offering “tough love.” But the courageous humanists of Park Slope will surely be grateful for your gift, and from an orthodox rabbi no less! (At least we now know that the Reform movement doesn’t have a complete lock on phony left wing anti-Israel “progressivism.” Let’s hope that Rabbi Amiel Hirsch’s call to action reaches your minyans too.)
How and why you chose to side with Kristof against his critics, including Deborah Lipstadt, one of the most learned writers and thinkers on matters of Israel, Judaism, and antisemitism, is simply incomprehensible. You object to the “mainstream Jewish response,” and take aim in particular at the American Jewish Committee, for “slandering courageous survivors.” But opposition to Kristof’s essay was registered widely and deeply. For example, I refer you to the outrage expressed by conscientious journalists elsewhere, as well as to rebuttals from rabbis, jurists, and canine experts; and from Israelis who may be known for their opposition to their current government and could use help, not harangues, from their brothers and sisters in the diaspora.
That sexual violence raises moral questions is indisputable. I suppose we should be grateful to you for that reminder and for including the liturgical lesson. With respect, though, I hope you didn’t mean to suggest that sexual violence is so complicated that we need Talmudic or biblical reasoning to condemn it; or, worse yet, that we might excuse it based on some other theological interpretation of written or oral law or the poetry in prayer books. I imagine there has been spirited discussion in Israel’s many and diverse synagogues over all this, even before you weighed in. And you will perhaps be glad to know that the secular Israeli press and legal system haven'’t exactly been sleeping through the alarms ringing with allegations of IDF abuse. Your input I’m sure is welcome, even if it does come across as a bit self righteous.
In any case, the main question here is about the validity of the claims and not whether, if valid, they violate moral or ethical or religious norms. Kristof has a track record for being unfriendly to Israel, so I’m not surprised he’d go off the rails with the sordid tale of canine rape he heard from some of his “sources.” But I am surprised that you accept his “evidence” as sufficient to indict the alleged perpetrators of those heinous acts and as robust enough to impugn, by innuendo if not in so many words, the whole population and its government. (To estimate how representative of Israel those alleged acts were, by the way, requires statistical analysis well outside Kristof’s intellectual range; that he didn’t even think to ask the question, though, is stunning for its insufferable arrogance).
This egregious lapse in editorial responsibility brings to mind what I’d call the Seinfeld principle, based on this exchange between Jerry and a priest in one of the most memorable episodes of the show:
Jerry: I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism purely for the jokes.
Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person?
Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.
Does Kristof’s article offend me as a Jew? Yes, and I make no apology for my apparent lapse into Jewish particularism. But I am as or perhaps even more offended as a former journalist. In my college years I worked at the New York Times, where the masters tried hard to teach me about journalistic integrity and evidentiary standards. My impulses to believe and then report juicy stories of crime and corruption had to be tamed by the rigors of sourcing and fact-checking, requirements that seem to no longer be enforced especially on the opinion pages. (As editor of my campus newspaper I was sometimes guilty of violating those rules when I blasted this or that student or administrator with whom I disagreed on political or ideological grounds; at the Times I had better supervision.)
So yes, Kristof’s self-righteous tone and sloppy reproach of Israel do offend me as a Jew. But his article should offend anyone really, Jewish or not, who believes that a free and credible press run by professionals who aspire to high standards of evidence is a linchpin of our democracy. The Times was for decades the standard bearer, its lapses and imperfections notwithstanding; but with Kristof’s piece it stoops to sensationalism that was once the province of tabloids and is now the fuel powering wildly uncurated social media engines. Today it’s dogs raping Palestinian freedom fighters, tomorrow it will be Jews with horns wrecking the global economy.
Invoking the Seinfeld principle, then, the main objection to Kristof — even for people who may share his discomfort with what Israel is and stands for — should be his egregious failure to apply rules of evidence in making his claims. (Just check his sources!) His enablers and editors who rose to his defense have also abdicated their professional and moral responsibility, and together they have placed at risk one of the real treasures of the American media system.
I expect readers of this letter might ask the obvious follow-up question: did Rabbi Winer’s essay offend me as a Jew? I’ll respond in Jewish fashion, with a question: shouldn’t it?
Thank you for listening.