46 pages • 1 hour read
Joshua CohenA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
A quote from the revisionist Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky, and also the book’s epigraph, represents the overall theme of the novel, namely the juxtaposition of a Zionist/Israeli Jewish person with one from the Diaspora: “Eliminate the Diaspora or the Diaspora will eliminate you.” In the case of the novel, the Diaspora is limited to the American Jewish person. The quote addresses the need for Jewish people in general to form a unified nation, culture, and society, otherwise the dream of Zion will remain elusive. Though Jabotinsky died in 1940, and the Jewish state of Israel was created in 1948, the Jewish Diaspora remains because not all Jewish people immigrated to the new nation of Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. The setting of the novel is 1959-1960, so the nation of Israel is barely a decade old during the story. The state is still in a precarious situation economically, militarily, and politically. Most of the massive influx of Jewish immigrants came from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Many American Jewish people, even staunch supporters of Zionism, were reluctant to give up their comfort, affluence, and security in the United States and move to the great experiment of Israel. The issues are personified in the persons of Ruben Blum and Ben-Zion Netanyahu.
The Diaspora has existed for millennia, but the Jewish population never found such security outside of their homeland before the creation of the United States. Antisemitism continued to exist, but there were never any laws that strictly forbade Jewish people from living a life equal to any other American. Moreover, there was finally a government that would protect them from others. Nevertheless, the strict laws of Judaism and the long history of subjugation, exile, prejudice, and brutality continued to weigh heavily on the Jewish people as a whole. Ruben Blum discusses much of this in his opening chapters about his own childhood. He notes how his rabbinical teachers would contradict the history and cultural lessons he had in school: “I had the crazy suspicion that the rabbis had somehow been in class with men […] just so they knew exactly what to contradict and rail against […]” (40). Furthermore, those rabbis taught him that “America was synonymous with goyishe history […] it was the newest incarnation of Rome, Athens, Babylon, Egypt–Mitzraim” (41). However, Ruben was keenly aware of the contradictions inherent in these teachings, and as his life progressed and he served in the Army and went to school, he became more convinced that America was never going to turn on him or other Jewish people. Nevertheless, he continued to doubt and feel like an outsider. When Ben-Zion Netanyahu enters the scene, his personification of Jewishness and his understanding of Jewish history causes Ruben to reconsider his own definition of what it means to be Jewish.
Ben-Zion, like Ruben, is secular despite his father being a rabbi. Unlike Ruben, however, Ben-Zion did not grow up in the safety and security of the US. He was born in Poland, and his father moved the family to British Mandatory Palestine in 1920, when Ben-Zion was only 10 years old. Thus, he returned to the ancestral homeland before it became a nation for the Jewish people and grew up in Israel. His wife Tzila was born in Israel, as were his younger sons (Jonathan was born in New York). Whatever an Israeli Jewish person might be, Ben-Zion was one, and he often comes into conflict with the Jewish people of the Diaspora he encounters. Dr. Prof. Peretz Levavi, aka Peter Lügner, a colleague from Hebrew University is so put off by Ben-Zion’s personality that he writes a letter of discommendation to Ruben spelling out Ben-Zion’s eccentricities as an historian and Jewish person, specifically, he’s too violent and revolutionist. Despite these warnings, however, Ruben meets “the son of Zion” (36). It is in this vein that Ben-Zion causes the most disturbance within Ruben. Ruben sees him as a literal son of Zion and therefore more Jewish than himself. Ben-Zion foregoes the comforts and wealth of life in the United States for the Jewish cause in Israel. He had more than one opportunity to remain in the US, and his views and opinions of Corbin University do not favor the notion that he desperately wants a job so he can stay in the US. Moreover, Ben-Zion’s interpretation of the Spanish Inquisition, which he uses as evidence that the denotation of Jew is more racial than religious and further strengthens the argument for a nation of Jewish people in Israel, forces Ruben to question his own understanding of Jewishness. After entering adulthood, Ruben had done his utmost to place his Jewishness in the unmovable past, focusing on his career and being and identifying as an American rather than Jewish.
At the end of the novel, the line between American Jewish and Israeli Jewish people remains divided. Ruben denies Ben-Zion his Jewish identity by telling the sheriff the Netanyahus are Turkish; Edith has realized how little she cares about causes (including the Jewish cause): “I don’t believe in anything anymore […] and I’m OK with it” (220); and Judy is being raised without any traditional Jewish upbringing and has removed the last vestige of Jewishness from her (her nose). Of the Ruben family, Ruben is the only one who still identifies as Jewish, though he points out in the opening paragraphs of the book that “[s]oon enough, though, I guess I’ll be historical. By which I mean I’ll die and become history myself” (11), suggesting that the Jewishness in his family will die with him. This brings the novel back to Jabotinsky’s quotation. The Diaspora will eliminate the Jew by fading into the host culture and society. In other words, the argument is that an American Jew will one day cease to be a Jew and become just another American.
“I found no strength in my origins and took every opportunity to ignore them, when I couldn’t deny them” (15). Within the first four pages of the novel, Ruben has emphatically stated that he has done his best to distance himself from his Jewish heritage. In the second chapter, the reader learns just how much his childhood was involved in Judaism and Jewish culture. Though Ruben was raised an orthodox Jew, he was well aware of certain contradictions in the culture espoused by the rabbis from Hebrew school and those from his history classes at public school. His further experiences in the US Army and at university convinced him he had found his place of belonging not in a Jewish synagogue but within the confines of American culture and society. However, he was never able to fully evade his Jewish heritage, which is the driving force behind his self-doubts about himself, his position in America, at Corbin University, and even among other Jewish people. With Ben-Zion’s arrival, Ruben is forced to question why he feels he has not been able to fully assimilate and whether full assimilation is possible within American society.
The notion of assimilation centers primarily on Ruben, his background, and his perceptions of the world. At the center of his worldview, Ruben places Jewish religion, culture, and history. The religious focus is mostly on the differences in cultural celebrations, such as Rosh Hashanah and Christmas. That he and his family do not observe Christmas causes him to feel marked, especially since they don’t decorate their house like the other houses on the street. “If last year our undecorated windows had declared—to our neighbors, but more to inadequacies—‘Jews Live Here,’ this year they added ‘Sadly’” (128). Out of habit and pressure from Ruben’s family, the Rubens continue to observe Jewish religious holidays even though none of them are religious. This adherence to holidays out of nothing other than tradition reinforces the notion that Ruben cannot fully escape his Jewishness, and Ruben does attempt to explain the need to maintain tradition when he explains, “To this day, the transmogrification of ancient feuds remains the primary process by which immigrants nativize: to renew a conflict is to acculturate” (61). Thus, contradictorily, by maintaining remnants of his Jewish identity, Ruben places himself within “der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen” (60), which, according to Freud, allows for all communities to act out harmless aggressions against those closest to their own type. In other words, bickering about religious observances with other Jewish people or even other Americans is part of being American. It should be noted, however, that Freud also used this phrase to describe how antisemitism functioned in societies.
This idea of juxtaposing one aspect of Jewish culture with another ultimately aids Ruben to better define his American identity. As soon as Ben-Zion Netanyahu and his family enter the Blums’ home, the comparing and contrasting begins. The end result is that Ruben is so disgusted with the Netanyahu’s behavior that he wants the sheriff to believe they are Turks rather than have them associated with Jewishness. Ruben is able to better define his Americanness and Jewishness after testing himself against Ben-Zion.
The idea that the past can be used for means other than the intellectual pursuit of historical events and exist outside of any ideology or pre-conceived notion is thematized in various ways throughout the novel, which blends snippets of historical fact with fiction. This blend of fact and fiction is designed to force the reader to question their own assumptions and interpretations of history, culture, and society at large.
The first example of interpretable history is presented through Ruben’s memory of his childhood and the contradiction in the lessons presented to him by his schoolteachers and the rabbis at Hebrew school. He claims the rabbis presented history and time as circular and repetitive, defined by violence and oppression. American history, however, was presented as progressive, driven by capitalism and liberation toward “the ultimate transfiguration of world history into world democracy” (41). This view of history is reinforced by Ruben’s colleague, Dr. Hillard, when he states his opinion of the purpose of history, “which is the reinforcement of our government and political institutions” (185). It is to this later interpretation Ruben subscribes until the arrival of Ben-Zion Netanyahu with his interpretation of Jewish and world history.
Ben-Zion Netanyahu’s interpretation of the Spanish Inquisition parallels Dr. Hillard’s historical utility. Dr. Hillard uses history to defend the actions of the United States. Ben-Zion reinterprets the traditional understanding of the causes and reasons for the Inquisition from a Jewish perspective. His interpretation establishes the racial definition of Jewishness, claiming that like any ethnographic definition of a people, Jewishness is impossible to shirk. Thus, the long-held hope of the Jewish Diaspora to be, for example, an American who happens to practice Judaism is false. A Jewish person is first and foremost an ethnic Jew. Everything else comes secondary. This helps to justify the Jewish Zionist cause and defend their rights to the young nation of Israel. Regardless of the veracity of the interpretation, both men use their interpretation of historical events to uphold and defend what they believe to be ideologically pertinent to their situation within the parameters of their culture and society.
Just as Ruben is faced with multiple interpretations of history, the reader is in a similar position when, in the last section of the novel, Cohen reminds them through metafictional technique that the novel they have just read is itself an interpretation of an historical event. The plot and premise are based on an anecdote the author heard from Harold Bloom, a respected American literary critic. The veracity of the book is given further strength through Bloom’s wife’s approval of the novel. However, she only confirmed the story that Bloom told Cohen and gave her acceptance of its use in novel form. This does not mean the story presented in the novel is the story Bloom told Cohen. The Netanyahus by Joshua Cohen is, therefore, as the subtitle states: an Interpretation of an Account of a Minor and Ultimately Even Negligible Episode in the History of a Very Famous Family.
American Literature
View Collection
Guilt
View Collection
Jewish American Literature
View Collection
National Book Critics Circle Award...
View Collection
Nation & Nationalism
View Collection
Politics & Government
View Collection
Pulitzer Prize Fiction Awardees &...
View Collection
Satire
View Collection
The Best of "Best Book" Lists
View Collection
The Past
View Collection