Numerous pundits have pondered on the evolution of Limbaugh’s style and have stated that, at least in its early stages, it had served to balance Left and Right perspectives in American media. Yet it has become ever more evident that much of his rhetoric was disruptive, undermining and unnecessarily confrontational. Such divisiveness in the political and social discourse has not proven to benefit anyone but other younger politicians and radio “shock jocks” since the 1980s. Wishing for the prosperity and safety of the United States and Israel with such methods are at odds with the equally important need to preserve and extol the spiritual and humane virtues both societies claim to bestow unto the nations of the world.
Netanyahu must receive credit as the staunch defender of Israel’s physical well-being, its right to exist in peace, and its role as a haven for Jews around the globe. As we have just marked the 30th anniversary of the First Gulf War, Netanyahu’s public appearances on international newscasts in his role as deputy minister of foreign affairs come to mind.
His defense of Israel and its policies had served to cement his earlier record as one of the Jewish state’s eloquent representatives at the United Nations. After warning against Saddam Hussein, he rightly continues to warn the world against the Iranian regime’s quest for doomsday weapons. He has deliberately compared the existential threat to Israel posed by nuclear warheads in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists with the genocide committed by Nazi Germany and the fear of atomic bombs falling into Hitler’s hands.
However, defending against terrorism and fighting the calls for the destruction of the West from outside elements loudly contrast with the acceptance of caustic elements from within. The adverse cuddling of plebeian right-wing conservatism only helps to foment an unashamed peasantry, in both Israel and in America. A commitment to no more than “patriotism” without intellectual and cultural prospects is to deny purpose and hope.
Whereas Limbaugh shocked his American listeners into trenching their heels into ever deeper divisive stands and reinforcing tribalism, the late Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz shocked the Israeli public and the Jewish world at large for the opposite reasons. In one instance, “Limbaugh defended his coinage of the term ‘feminazi’ to describe some feminists against charges that it diminished the Holocaust.”
He explained, “A feminazi is a woman, a feminist, to whom the most important thing in her life is seeing to it that all abortions possible take place.” This, of course, is an oversimplified and provocative approach to a sensitive and nuanced issue. For his part, Leibowitz had been recognized for “smashing idols” as his mission (“Yeshayahu Leibowitz: Idol smasher or idol maker?” Jpost.com, June 22, 2019), including attacks on Reform Judaism and the Israeli control of the territories after the Six Day War.
Most notably, in one of his most referenced provocations, he coined the phrase “Judeo-Nazi” in reference to the possibility of extremist tendencies capable of creeping up even among Jews when power goes unchecked. In using such terminology, Leibowitz was risking controversy for the sake of moving Jews back onto a path of sanity and common sense. His statements may be read as a warning regarding fragility of the universal humanity we all share. Just as Hitler and his henchmen were not foreign elements, but rather acted upon and within their own familiar environment, so too should all people be weary of radicalism, and must form an inclusive and tolerant society for all.
The writer holds a PhD in contemporary Jewish history.