Jerold S. Auerbach, Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel 1896–2016. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2019. xii + 309 pp.

This chapter examines Jerold S. Auerbach's Print to Fit (2019). In this book, Auerbach charges that the New York Times consistently slanted its treatment of Israel in ways that discredited its struggle for survival and instead sympathized with the enemies of Zionism. Having assiduously combed through close to a century of articles, editorials, and op-ed pieces, Auerbach has discovered, especially in recent decades, a “preoccupation with Palestinian victimization — even when Israelis were the victims.” Print to Fit is especially harsh in its treatment of two of the Times' stars, the late Anthony Lewis and Thomas L. Friedman for having so often conveyed their own disenchantment with what they held to be the moral and political failings of Israel — in particular, the extension of Jewish settlements into the West Bank. Written from the political periphery of American Jewish life, Print to Fit risks overstating its case by simplifying it.

They Sure Will Be of Minority Groups

Interfaith families that are also interracial are less able to seamlessly fit into “mainstream” American Jewish life, which is dominated by Ashkenazi culture and racially coded as white. On the one hand, this can make interactions in Jewish communities more challenging. On the other, these families are often given more freedom and flexibility for including traditions from the Christian side of the family than their white interfaith counterparts.

A Congregation of Strangers

This chapter argues that American Jewish denominationalism developed not only to enshrine religious authority but to create cooperation, familiarity, and access among mobile American Jews who seemed to be “strangers” to one another. Beginning with newspapers and informal social networks, leaders like Isaac Mayer Wise and Isaac Leeser worked to develop programs for traveling preachers, rabbinic credentials, and the collection of statistics. These became some of the most important goals of their new denominational bodies, the Board of Delegates of American Israelites and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, which sought to familiarize and order American Jewish life. Efforts to create a national union failed because of sectarian and sectional divisions, but they did succeed in enshrining norms of congregational membership, professional leadership, and rational information throughout the nation.

Materially Poor, Spiritually Rich

As the fortunes and social status of American Jews grew in the years after World War II, the symbolic power of the shtetl, the immigrant slum, and the struggling new state of Israel gained in importance. Jewish writers, educators, and clergy depicted these locations as deeply authentic Jewish spaces, uncorrupted by the influence and comforts of the non-Jewish world. Isolated rather than integrated, impoverished rather than affluent, they seemed to represent the opposite of mid-century American Jewish life. In the romantic imagination of American Jewish leaders, the deprivations suffered by their ancestors and co-religionists transformed into sources of pleasure, strength, and Jewish authenticity, and poverty and isolation emerged as integral components of a genuine and deeply satisfying Jewish identity.

From Generation to Generation

Beginning in the late 1960s, young Jewish radicals rejected the middle-class culture in which they had been raised, and attempted to reinvent American Jewish life in the spirit of the era’s global youth revolt. This Jewish counterculture organized multiple religious and political collectives and advanced a variety of causes, some of which overlapped and some of which actually contradicted with one another. The common denominator linking together all of these disparate undertakings, however, was a pointed critique of the middle-class Jewish culture that had been forged by the older generation of American Jews. Indeed, when members of the Jewish counterculture created narratives to justify their investments in such issues as the plight of Soviet Jewry; the inclusion of women, gays and lesbians in American Jewish life; Zionism; or the restructuring of American Judaism – none of which pertained directly to the class position of American Jews-- they often cited American Jewish affluence as not only relevant but fundamental to the problems they were trying to solve.