Michael Douglas Confronts Antisemitism

Hollywood actor and part-Jew Michael Douglas has written an op-ed in the LA Times after his son suffered antisemitic abuse in Europe last year.

michael douglasLast summer our family went to Southern Europe on holiday. During our stay at a hotel, our son Dylan went to the swimming pool. A short time later he came running back to the room, upset. A man at the pool had started hurling insults at him.

My first instinct was to ask, “Were you misbehaving?”

“No,” Dylan told me through his tears.

I stared at him. And suddenly I had an awful realization of what might have caused the man’s outrage: Dylan was wearing a Star of David.

After calming him down, I went to the pool and asked the attendants to point out the man who had yelled at him. We talked. It was not a pleasant discussion. Afterward, I sat down with my son and said: “Dylan, you just had your first taste of anti-Semitism.”

In my opinion there are three reasons anti-Semitism is appearing now with renewed vigilance.

The first is that historically, it always grows more virulent whenever and wherever the economy is bad. In a time when income disparity is growing, when hundreds of millions of people live in abject poverty, some find Jews to be a convenient scapegoat rather than looking at the real source of their problems.

If we confront anti-Semitism … if we combat it individually and as a society, and use whatever platform we have to denounce it, we can stop the spread of this madness.

—-

A second root cause of anti-Semitism derives from an irrational and misplaced hatred of Israel. Far too many people see Israel as an apartheid state and blame the people of an entire religion for what, in truth, are internal national-policy decisions. Does anyone really believe that the innocent victims in that kosher shop in Paris and at that bar mitzvah in Denmark had anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian policies or the building of settlements 2,000 miles away?

The third reason is simple demographics. Europe is now home to 25 million to 30 million Muslims, twice the world’s entire Jewish population. Within any religious community that large, there will always be an extremist fringe, people who are radicalized and driven with hatred, while rejecting what all religions need to preach — respect, tolerance and love. We’re now seeing the amplified effects of that small, radicalized element. With the Internet, its virus of hatred can now speed from nation to nation, helping fuel Europe’s new epidemic of anti-Semitism.It is time for each of us to speak up against this hate.

Read the entire thing.

And kol hakavod to Michael. He is surrounded by self-hating Hollyweirdos, yet is not afraid to speak out in support of his people and Israel.

47 thoughts on “Michael Douglas Confronts Antisemitism”

  1. Not again with this. I posted on this elsewhere today.

    How on earth can Michael Douglas or his son complain against antisemitism towards them when they are not Jewish?

    Michael’s father is …yes. That’s where it begins and ends. I am sick of the US making up their own rules regarding who is and who isn’t Jewish.

    Michael’s mother wasn’t Jewish, neither is he.

    Michael’s wife certainly isn’t Jewish so the children are not Jewish.

    How Dylan Douglas made his ‘bar mitzvah’ at the Kotel I totally beyond me?

    I am not religious in any way, but I do know a good deal about MY religion and they way the USA and Hollywood celebrities twist Judaism to suit their own ends makes me sick..

    1. You are a moron. Anyone whose parent is Jewish and in addition practices Judaism as their religion ( his son was bar mitzvahd) is Jewish. That is common sense. Something you appear to lack – you bigot.

      1. Let’s not name-call here. From a halachic standpoint, Michael Douglas is not Jewish. That is a fact. if he wants to identify as Jewish and help his people, who am I to complain?

        1. You seem like a relatively smart guy to me.

          It was 1) the tone of the comment and 2) the totally cowardly (if I may use the word) neglect of the heart of the matter (morally I might add) in the comment itself that ticked me off.

          I have no issues with an academic discussion as to who considers someone else truly Jewish but this is different as I see it.

            1. I thought my reaction was appropriate here and my “rudeness” was appropriate in the context of what was said. I think this person commenting should apologize actually for not only being inappropriate but mean spirited and showing little compassion.

            2. Dave – the moral of this tale in other words is not who is Jewish but rather the fact that bigotry was involved and even worse by an adult bullying. The other stuff is hardly at issue here I think.

      2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

        Yes, this was antisemitism. Yes, Douglas was right to confront it and deserves our support for doing so. No, he is not Jewish and your definition of who is a Jew is mistaken. Allowing non-Jews to define us empowers them. Torah and only Torah defines who is a Jew. Douglas was a victim of antisemitism, but that does not make him a Jew, and neither does having a Jewish father. Calling him a Jew is ignorance and bigotry.

        1. Pardon me, where and how does Torah define a Jew by matrilineal descent? Recall that etymologically, the word Jew simply means a descendant of Judah, or one originating from the Kingdom of Judea. The other definition — a follower of Judaism — is secondary.

          1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

            Yes, it is secondary. And the Torah does not use the word Jew at all; it talks about Yisrael. If you are sincerely asking the source of matrilineal descent, I will need time to find it and get back to you. If you are merely playing word games over Jew vs. Yisrael, let me know and I won’t bother. And if you think that Torah is confined to the written text of the Chumash and does not include Oral Torah, then you are talking about something other than Torah.

            1. My question about the matrilineal descent in Torah is completely earnest. I don’t think it’s there at all, but I will defer to someone who is more familiar with the subject. If I remember correctly, the decision to switch to matrilineal descent was made only after the return from the second Babylonian exile. so that the returning Jewish men don’t intermarry with Samaritan women. Of course, I may be mistaken. But if not, it has all the signs of a politically dictated decision.

              1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

                Okay, I will need some time to look it up and get back to you; the Sages derived the law from several verses from the book of Shemos (Exodus) dealing with taking a non-Jewish wife.

                Disqus showed me a that you asked “Was Rebeccah Jewish before she married Isaac? Were Leah and Rachel, before they married Jacob?” but I don’t see those questions here. These are good questions, and similar questions can be asked about the wives of Jacob’s sons and their descendants, including Moses and Aharon. The short answer is that all of these marriages occured before Matan Torah (the giving of the Torah at Sinai), and therefore cannot be used as examples or precedent, as the laws of conversion were different at that time.

                1. Interesting. I edited my question within minutes after submitting it, realizing that in the English tradition they would be referred to as Hebrews, not Jews, anyway. Does Disqus keep ALL earlier versions of our exchange?

                    1. I don’t reject either actually. My point was that it’s more complicated than Matan Torah being the single definitive event after which being Jewish went acc to maternal line.

              2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

                Okay, my mistake — the verses I was thinking of are in Devarim (Deut.) 7:3–4, not in Shemos. The Sages point out in Kiddushin 68b that the text calls a son born to your daughter by a non-Jewish father “your son”, i.e. a member of the Jewish people; and calls a son born to your son by a non-Jewish mother “her son,” i.e. a member of her non-Jewish people. Conversion, of course, changes everything.

                1. Thank you. The English translations that I was able to find by googling “Deut 7:3-4” and reading “Matrilineality in Judaism” on Wikipedia simply forbid ALL intermarriage. Thus, reading this passage at its face value provides little guidance. The Wikipedia article further mentions Ezra, who seems to have instituted this rule, which reinforces my previously stated view that it’s a later development dictated by social problems of the day, not based on Torah directly.

      3. ahad_ha_amoratsim

        how ironic to call someone bigoted for refusing to adopt a Nazi definition of who is Jewish. I do not agree with parts of shirlin’s pist, but some might conclude that it is you who are bigoted for trashing people who refuse to depart from the Halachic definition of a Jew.

        1. The same definition as Israel uses to grant full right of return citizenship and census figures etc. They may not marry in a religious ceremony, but otherwise acc to their Teudat Zeut, Jewish.

          1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

            I can understand Israel wanting to give them a refuge from anti-semitism. But calling them Jewish is a huge mistake, creates and perpetuates division, and endangers Israel’s existence. Not to mention the bigotry of Ben Gurion and other founders of Israel against Jews who refuse to shed their Judaism, surviving today among Meretz, Lapid (both of them), Hediot Acharanot, and others. Which takes us back to my original point: it is those who adopt the Nazis’ definition who are bigoted, not those who reject it.

            1. There are separate concepts of recognition as a Jew, they are sort of parallel rather than contradictory. There is a national recognised Beit Din, which is orthodox, and they do determine religious laws in Israel re marriage, divorce and such, as pertaining to Halacha, and they are really quite strict. However, in terms of recognition of Jews for migration under Right of Return, and citizenship, and army service the laws are more to do with recognising Jews as a nation, rather than the definition under religious law. It’s difficult to understand the distinction if you are not used to being defined as a nationality, but in Israel (as in Russia) it is defined as a nationality and it is stated as such in the internal ID.

            2. Firstly, it’s not a matter of “giving them refuge”. It’s a matter of laws of citizenship and migration. If Michael Douglas or his son wanted to make Aliyah, they could just as much as any 20th generation Orthodox Jew. In their Teudat Zeut it would say “Jewish” for nationality. They would also then be conscripted for compulsory army service (not Michael obviously). I personally agree with the religious definition of who is considered a Jew by Jewish law. However, the fact is that Israel has laws, like other countries, and religious laws and civil laws co-exist. It is not always a harmonious co-existence, but in fact, considering how much of a divide there is between the Jewish law and the civil law, it’s amazing that there isn’t much more friction. If this was any other western country, it would be a much bigger issue, judging by how much of a big deal is made over laws (or absence of) re gay marriage. It is quite remarkable how Israelis can be on so many different ends of spectrums but pull themselves together.

        1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

          And a non-Jew never becomes a bar mitzvah, no matter how many parties or ceremonies he goes through, unless and until he becomes a Jew by undergoing a valid conversion.

    2. And yes I know you consider yourself Jewish (maybe). I consider you to be intolerant and even worse totally moronic for ignoring the fact totally that a supposedly responsible adult attacked his son (and for wearing a star of david no less). Disgusting behavior on a variety of levels. Why do you not comment on that?

    3. The Douglas family identifies as Jewish. I know that they are not considered “halachicly Jewish” however would that have stopped Hiltler from murdering them during WW2?! Nope. Israel recognizes these families when it comes to the Law of Return. I have huge love and respect for humans who identify as Jewish or identify with the Jewish People. More love. Less hate. Amen.

    4. I do not understand why THAT is your takeaway from this op-ed. I AM an observant Jew, and I refuse to judge negatively Michael Douglas’ actions and sentiments here.

    5. With respect, did you read his article? Michael Douglas understands first hand what it is to be confronted with Antisemitism. You don’t need to be Halachadly Jewish to be targeted. For what it’s worth, if you break down the Jewish population of Israel into those who are Jewish by Halacha and those who are not, the Jewish population will reduce significantly as many migrants from Russia (or former Soviet Union) are not Jewish by Halacha. I quite agree with you about your (our) religion, but Antisemitism is not really about religious belief is it?

    6. The bigot by the pool launched into his anti-Semitic tirade when he saw Dylan wearing a Magen David. The fact that Dylan isn’t halachically Jewish doesn’t make it any less of an anti-Semitic attack. What makes it anti-Semitic is the expression of hatred of Jews, not the halachic status of the person being attacked. So, yes, Michael Douglas’s words to his son, that he had just had his first taste of anti-Semitism, were accurate.

    7. The halachic definition is the rule for certain purposes. When it comes to anti-Semitism, whoever stands with us is a Jew.

    8. I am sick of these “Halacha” fanatics. If a person identifies as a Jew they are a Jew despite what some Rabbi from 1500 years ago says – that’s pretty much what Ben-Gurion felt.

      1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

        So you are sick of Jews who think that Judaism actually means something, instead of what anyone who may or may not be Jewish and who may or may not have devoted any effort to learning about it wants it to mean. Duly noted.

        1. I don’t happen to believe it only means what you think it means. Until G-d tells me otherwise that’s what I believe.

          1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

            G-d told the entire Jewish people to follow the opinion of the Sages as to what it means. Until He tells us all otherwise, that’s what I intend to do. Ben Gurion is not my role model; he believed that Torah Judaism was less than worthless, and would disappear within a generation or so. And Ben Gurion did not say that anyone who idenitifies as a Jew is a Jew; on that point, he deferred to the Rabbis under the Status Quo agreement, believing that in a generation or so they would be gone and the state could do as it pleased.

    9. The point in question is whether or not the person abusing the child was motivated by antisemitism. That is contingent upon the abuser’s belief that the boy was Jewish, and the fact that halachically, he may not have been, is totally irrelevant.
      Moreover, I prefer a half-Jew who might not be halachically Jewish but who is proud of his Jewish ancestry to a self-hating Jew with four Jewish grandparents who loses no opportunity to vilify Israel.
      BTW, it was not always the case that Jewish identity was passed on by the mother.

  2. I truly wish I knew what part of southern europe this took place in – so that at least I could boycott the place by never ever going there (and I suspect others reading the article by Michael Douglas feel the same way.

    Why was this adult not arrested and charged for harrassment of this child? This kind of thing is truly unbelievable.

  3. “A second root cause of anti-Semitism derives from an irrational and misplaced hatred of Israel. Far too many people see Israel as an apartheid state and blame the people of an entire religion for what, in truth, are internal national-policy decisions..had anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian policies or the building of settlements 2,000 miles away?”

    No refutation of the “Apartheid” claim. Implicitly acknowledging it as “policy” – and policy separate from the Jewish nation – it’s over there…way over there in Israel. Artificially dividing between the tribe and her land. And then the fallacious demonizing of our ancestral lands, the “settlements”.

    And this kind of pathetic response is partially why the misunderstandings and dehumanizing continue.

    1. he probably could have phrased it better and not given so much credence to those that hold those views….probably should have said, “mistakenly see israel as an apartheid state”

      1. I agree. As I commented above, he calls hatred of Israel “irrational and misplaced.” He also makes no value judgement about these “settlements”. He does not call them “illegal” for instance.

    2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

      Now that I think about it “root” cause? No, neither anything Israel does nor Israel’s very existence is a “root” cause of anti-Semitism, merely a vehicle as Dafna points out below. Jew-haters believe that the existence of a real or imagined grievance against one or more Jews anywhere justifies harming any or all Jews, anywhere. Someone evil enough or sick enough to accept that premise does not need a reason, only an excuse, and will make one up if they can’t find one.

      If Jews approached the world the same way anti-semitten do, we could justify assaulting almost any non-Jew, with the possible exception of people from Fiji or Micronesia. Oh, you’re British? Well that’s for York, the expulsion, and the Mandate. French? That’s for the massacre at Marseilles during the Crusades, the burning of the Talmud, the depradations of Louis the Pious aka St. Louis, and coddling numerous genocidal “Palestinian liberation” terror groups. The list goes on: Belgians, Germans, Austrians, Muslims, Turks, Arabs, socialists, Marxists, Lutherans, Catholics, secularists, and so forth. It’s a rotten way to think, it’s a rotten way to treat people, and it’s a rotten way to live. The only ones who think Israel is a reason to mistreat Jews have already embraced the rottenness.

  4. Ruth the Moabite – was she Jewish? Yes – her complete identification body and soul with the Jewish people seemed to be enough. To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the Bible is there mention of Ruth’s ‘halachic’ conversion. Against all odds the ‘Douglas’ family members (including Catherine Zeta-Jones) do seem to have their hearts in the right place regarding their ‘Jewishness’ and this, to my mind, is surprising and wonderful.

    I came across a most interesting article written by Kirk Douglas – Michael’s father, about love, marriage and being Jewish. It’s an enlightening and good read which shines a light on the on the family’s ‘Jewishness’ issue. Enjoy!

    http://www.latimes.com/style/laaffairs/la-hm-affairs-20140621-story.html

    1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

      You obviously never looked at Rashi or other commentators on Ruth’s conversion. In fact, according to some opinions she converted twice – once (invalidly) when she married Ruth’s son, and (according to all opinions) when she returned with Ruth from Moab. Christians draw conclusions from the naked text of “”the Bible”. Jews look at what the Sages and commentators had to say on the topic.

      1. Thank you ahad_ha_amoratsim for your correction. Yes you are right in that I do not know all sides of the story regarding Ruth’s conversion. I have always looked at the story of Ruth in a rather direct manner. I assumed that as soon as she told Neomi that “Your people will by my people – your God my God…” was sufficient to make her Jewish. Perhaps I was mistaken – I do not have the knowledge.
        That said, it remains surprising that this ‘un-Jewish’ family demonstrates such a positive and pro-active attitude towards Judaism.

  5. I was angered by Michael’s implied acceptance that Israel had a policy of Apartheid and that “settlements” (rather than Arab terror) on “occupied land” (instead of stolen JEWISH land) had anything whatsoever to do with antisemitism!! The modern State of Israel has NOTHING to do with antisemitism except how its given antisemites a new way to cover it up when it rears its ugly head!!! So, yes, I agree that Michael identifies himself as a Jew but even if he believes that he is automatically connected with Israel, I feel sure that he is not proud of that fact because he has obviously accepted all the lies about Israel!!!

    As for Michael’s and his son’s status as Jews, that question should not even be in this discussion since it’s not the topic and it’s a personal matter which is really nobody’s business but their own!!! I’m certain that they don’t need anyone on this blog or anywhere else to tell them the Hallachic definition of being a Jew. The topic is how Michael and his son felt when his son experienced antisemitism for the first time while on vacation in Europe. His son definitely experienced antisemitism because he was IDENTIFIED AS A JEW (how he thought about himself didn’t matter in the least!!!) in this case because he was wearing a Mogan David and an antisemitic stranger verbally assaulted him with anti-Jewish insults!

    I think it was a good thing that Michael Douglas spoke out against antisemitism but I think it’s too big a topic for him to try and tackle since he’s obviously removed himself from what’s been going on in the world in the past 40 years or so if this very minor incident of antisemitism shocked him! But, minor or not, it WAS antisemitism!!!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top