The Netanyahus: An Account of a Minor and Ultimately Even Negligible Episode in the History of a Very Famous Family

“Dr. Morse was a member of that church in good-standing, but then so too are all of us, goys and Jews alike, members in good-standing and even with good intentions.”

After Ruben introduces the anecdote regarding the Church of Assumption, his life-defining pun, he proceeds to mark its symbolic value by first placing Dr. Morse in the membership and then expanding to include all of humanity. Ruben is driving at the claim that everyone makes assumptions about everyone and everything else. Sometimes those assumptions will be proven correct and sometimes false. It is also an indication to the reader to be aware of their own assumptions regarding Zionism, Judaism, Jewishness, etc. and that those assumptions will be put to the test in the book.

“America wasn’t the new Jerusalem that my public-schooling implied.”

This quotation is an example of a juxtaposition and synecdoche. It compares the idea of New Jerusalem with the United States, and the term New Jerusalem represents not just a new city, or the idea of a new city, but an entirely new chapter in Jewish history when the Jewish people would reassemble and become one people, geographically and culturally. Ruben points out the refusal of Jewish persons to assimilate into American society and culture in spite of its prowess and freedom because it wasn’t Jewish at its center. The Jewish homeland could not be relocated to the US.

“Because the converts were bad Catholics? No, not all of them. Or because they were too good at being Catholic? No, not all of them either. Rather, the reason was because: as long as the Catholics still required a people to hate, the Jews had to remain a people doomed to suffer.”

The theme of the Interpretation and Utility of History is contained within this quotation. Ruben is reading over Ben-Zion’s research, and not only is what he discovers Ben-Zion’s interpretation of the causes and reasons for the Spanish Inquisition, but also further on in the chapter and the novel Ruben’s interpretation of Ben-Zion’s research is itself made aware. Ruben interprets Ben-Zion’s research as evidence that because of his Jewishness he (Ruben) will never be able to fully assimilate into American society and culture.

“Jewish history is full of men of brilliance whose wounded hubris caused them to turn against the tradition.”

This quotation is from the letter of discommendation Levavi sends Ruben regarding the personal history, personality, and the Zionist (theological and political) undertones of Ben-Zion’s historical research. Levavi warns Ruben that Ben-Zion is very prideful to the extent that he will sacrifice Jewish traditions to achieve the recognition he feels he deserves. Considering the way Ben-Zion behaves during his lectures and interview, it would appear that in this regard Levavi’s warning was apropos.

“Time and again, Netanyahu has demonstrated a tendency to politicize the Jewish past, turning its traumas into propaganda.”

This quotation is also from the letter from Levavi, and while it is still an ad hominem argument based solely on Levavi’s personal opinion of Ben-Zion, Ruben, while reading over Ben-Zion’s research, came to a similar opinion. In Chapter 2, Ruben remarks how reading Ben-Zion’s research felt blasphemous, which reinforces Levavi’s argument about Ben-Zion going against Jewish tradition. Furthermore, Ruben likened the research to dogma. Thus, in many instances, Levavi’s letter only serves to reinforce much of what Ruben had already come to believe on his own about Ben-Zion.

“The Jews had to found an army first and a country second; the country would follow from the army, that was his belief.”

Aside from Levavi’s ad hominem argument regarding Ben-Zion, he also includes his own interpretation and very brief summary about Zionism. The novel and Levavi focus on revisionist Zionism, but there were many differing groups and opinions on how Zion should come about. Ben-Zion (and the historical Benzion) belonged to the more militant group, the NZO. Jabotinsky was wrong about the need to gain Israel by force; however, as history proved, force was necessary in keeping it.

“You maybe don’t believe me but I speak English, so you should speak English too. And then we could both be two people speaking English with each other together.”

Alter Ruben, Ruben’s father, provides a sarcastic response to his granddaughter Judy’s remark about having to work on her themes/prompts. Not only is the response sarcastic, but it is also ironic since Judy is speaking English. Furthermore, it highlights just how blue-collar and uneducated Alter is, which in turn illustrates how distanced Ruben, whose vocabulary is contrastingly erudite, is.

“Fairness is democracy in action…fairness in when women get a fair shake, and when minorities in this country, including the Negro, are treated equally…fairness is not considering legacies or family connections when making a decision, and never judging a person by judging the fact…”

Judy’s argument, her thesis for one of her university entrance essays, encapsulates many of the arguments that would surface during the civil rights movement and which are still valid for contemporary American society. Judy deliberately brushes aside the importance of family/historical legacies, which causes Alter to become so angry. Her argument against following legacies ties in with the theme of assimilation and Jewishness.

“I’m not saying these stories had an outsize influence on the future direction of the Netanyahu boys, so much as I’m saying they had an outsize influence on everyone, at the time.”

Ruben observes the Netanyahu boys watching an episode of Bonanza. He ruminates on the parallels between the traditional narrative arch of the American Western and the political and military stance of Israel and even the United States.

“Rube, I’ll shut up when you tell me: is this man a fool (narr) in a college of liars (ligners) or a liar in a college of fools?”

Ben-Zion poses this question, an instance of chiasmus, to Ruben after he, Ben-Zion, has just proved that Dr. Huggles has no sense of Hebrew even though he acts as though he does. The sentence highlights Ben-Zion’s confrontational personality but also his prideful vanity. He has little respect for Corbin University, and yet he is there hoping to be hired.

“It was the Jews who first understood the impossibility of a truth shared by all people.”

This quotation comes from Ben-Zion’s Bible lecture. He uses the history of the Bible to highlight the notion that the Jewish people have been unable to write history according to their interpretation of it. In essence, the quote reinforces the adage that history is written by the victors, which in turn addresses the overall theme of history’s utility via its interpretation and who is doing the interpreting.

“Speaking frankly, the specific period doesn’t matter to me as much as do the Jews, who for me are chiefly a vehicle for the study of how history is written.”

During his interview, Ben-Zion makes this statement about his reasoning for studying the medieval period. However, as he points out, he is less concerned about the period and more about the Jewish people from that time, before, and after. He is reinforcing what Levavi said about him: His historical research is less about history and more about politics. Nevertheless, he also highlights the fact that history is open to interpretation depending on the perspective one takes when reporting it.

“The work we do, gentlemen, is so separate and removed from ordinary life as to approach the priestly.”

Ben-Zion’s statement here reinforces several themes in the novel. First is the Utility of History. He remarks that the history professors’ work and research is so specialized that it cannot possibly have any importance on the quotidian lives of the average person; their research is really only interesting to other historians. Moreover, Ben-Zion alludes to his motivation for studying the Jewish people of the Inquisition era, which is along religious-political grounds.

“The history of every people is also a history of its craziness, and the more science becomes a religion, the more religion must pretend to be a science, desperate for all logical explanations.”

Ben-Zion continues his interview and uses another instance of chiasmus. This statement is his defense for looking solely at the Jewish perspective regarding history. He attempts to blur the lines between fact and fiction, and science and religion. He argues that if a reputable academic can argue that comets caused the parting of the Red Sea that allowed Moses and the Israelites to cross, then his thesis that a need for an internal enemy was the reasoning behind the Spanish Inquisition cannot be any crazier.

“Nowadays, however, we’re quite a lenient bunch, and it can only be distressing to an honest man to witness the ranks of his distinguished profession being infiltrated by Reds who seek to pervert what must be taken as history’s purpose, which is the reinforcement of our government and political institutions.”

Dr. Hillard, the most antagonistic of the historians interviewing Ben-Zion, blatantly states his belief in the Utility of History, which is to maintain the status quo. Not only does his opinion address the utility of history, but he places himself as Ben-Zion’s antithesis. Ben-Zion wants to rewrite historical tradition; Dr. Hillard wants to maintain it. It is also an allusion to the Red Scare of the 1950s and McCarthyism, when there was a great fear of soviet/communist infiltrators whose goals were to undermine United States politics, culture, and society.

“Revisionist and Jew: both descriptors do so much, though ultimately they might describe nothing at all save the intolerance of the person who speaks them.”

Ben-Zion addresses two of the most important terms in the novel, and he points out a linguistic fallacy relating to the denotations and connotations attached to the words “revisionist” and “Jew.” Ultimately, because of the myriad meanings, images, sentiments, etc. attached to the words, any argument based upon these words results in a fallacious argument that does nothing but reveal the speaker’s opinions and belief system.

“This is a venerable historical office. You don’t realize this, but it is. Usually inherited, a patrimony. El judío de corte, der Hofjude, the Court Jew. The protected Jew. The useful Jew to keep in your pocket, as a consultant on your taxes.”

One of Ruben’s greatest struggles, and the way Ben-Zion antagonizes him the most, is through his self-doubt regarding his position at the university and in American society because of his Jewish heritage. With this quote, Ben-Zion equates Ruben to someone in a medieval court position that both permitted a Jewish person entrance to the inner sanctum of the non-Jewish world and maintained their denigrated outsider status. The Court Jew was neither a true Jewish person, since he was often seen as a traitor by other Jewish people, or a full member of the court. This is Ruben’s greatest fear: that he doesn’t belong to either Jewish or American society and culture.

“If so many Jews became Christians willingly, what need was there for an Inquisition?”

This is a rhetorical question Ben-Zion proffers to justify his thesis that the Spanish Inquisition’s motives were to maintain a foreign enemy within Catholic-Spanish society; thus, the Spanish court could divert the people’s focus away from their dealings and onto the Jewish people.

“It did so through offering the monarchy a simple redefinition: Judaism had always been defined, and defined itself, primarily as a religion–as a set of tenets, and a set of practices–but the genius of the Spanish Inquisition was to insist it was a race, with the implication that even a convert to Christianity, even a fervent new Christian, was still a Jew at heart, because Judaism inhered in the blood.”

One aspect of Ben-Zion’s thesis regarding the Spanish Inquisition is to establish the point in history when Judaism was not solely associated with a religion but with a race. It addresses the issue of Jewishness among the Diaspora and why the notion of Jewishness has been maintained as a separate culture and society regardless of a person’s belief in and observance of actual Judaism.

“This is what I think of America–nothing. This is what I think of American Jews–nothing. Your democracy, your inclusivity, your exceptionalism–nothing. Your chances for survival–none at all.”

An important theme in the novel is the comparison of the Jewish Diaspora with American society and culture. Many of the differences in political opinion, culture, and background of the Diaspora, and even those in Mandatory Palestine, created problems when the nation of Israel was established. The differences continue to exacerbate the political, economic, and cultural trajectory of modern-day Israel. Thus, the comparison is an attack against the idea of an American melting pot and a warning that irreconcilable differences that place the Other over American will divide rather than unite the people of the US.

“Your life here is rich in possessions but poor in spirit, petty and forgettable, with your frigidaires and color TVs, in front of which you can munch your instant supper, laugh at a joke, and choke, realizing that you have traded your birthright away for a bowl of plastic lentils…”

This quotation represents Ruben’s interpretation of Ben-Zion’s final lecture. It alludes to several historical factors. First, it corresponds to much of the criticism already extant in the 1950s against American society. The 1950s witnessed a greater call for uniformity and conformity within American society and culture as the Cold War intensified. Many argued this was anti-American. Second, it is an opprobrium against capitalism and the petty bourgeoisie, and third, it is a reference to the biblical story of Isaac and Esau, where the latter sells his birthright for a bowl of soup (cf. Genesis 25). In other words, American’s preoccupation with capitalism and creature comforts have caused them to surrender their American exceptionalism.

“I felt false. My suit, my tie, my pipe, my skin all felt a costume.”

Ruben uses an example of asyndeton to emphasize the disjointed sentiments he has following Ben-Zion’s final lecture. Not only does Ruben have self-doubts regarding his Jewishness and Americanness, but he is also aware of the horrible irony of the evening’s Spanish refreshments following Ben-Zion’s pejorative remarks concerning Europe’s treatment of the Jewish people in Europe and the precarious nature of American society.

“What I’m trying to say, Ruben, is that meeting this horrible man and his horrible wife, it made me realize something. It made me realize I don’t believe in anything anymore and not just that, but I don’t care. I have no beliefs and I’m OK with it; I’m more than OK, I’m glad…I’m glad I’m getting older without convictions…”

In a way, Edith’s response to Ruben regarding her experiences with the Netanyahus has not caused an existential crisis within her the way it has in her husband. Thus, Edith offers another way to perceive Jewishness, Zionism, Judaism, Assimilation, etc., which is to just not care. Within the context of the novel, most, if not all, of the problems facing the characters are internal struggles, especially for Ruben. Thus, her answer is the axiomatic phrase ignorance is bliss.