Personal vetting used to be reserved for positions of public trust. Now, it’s also for game show hosts.
Since Jeopardy! made actor Mayim Bialik a host, media outlets have questioned Bialik’s long-term fitness for the job. Given that Bialik’s role is reading prepared questions, the intense opposition is striking. Bialik has been criticized for past comments about hot button issues such as vaccination and feminism in Harvey Weinstein’s Hollywood. The biggest eyebrow-raiser, though, has been the reaction to Bialik’s Zionism.
Zionism is the belief that Jews, like every other people, deserve a homeland. Zionism is not anti-Palestinian. As Bialik wrote in 2017, “There are Zionists who are critical of certain Israeli policies and those who are not; there are Zionists who are anti-occupation and there are Zionists who are pro-settlement; and there are Zionists who fall between these extremes.”
Yet, nuance is in short supply when it comes to discussing Zionism.
The New York Times recently asked if Bialik is “‘neutral’ enough” to host. Bialik’s blogging “about donating money to buy bulletproof vests for the Israel Defense Forces” in 2014 was offered as one of three reasons she may not be. It’s unclear how this could taint her on-screen neutrality; the supposed bias is based on a donation Bialik made in her personal capacity. The implication is that it is controversial, and even offensive, to contribute to defensive, protective gear for Israeli soldiers who are combating terrorists.
An article in the Daily Beast also sharply criticized Bialik for that donation, citing a report from the consistently anti-Israel Human Rights Watch: “After facing backlash, Bialik quieted for a time until May of this year, where she self-identified as a ‘liberal Zionist’ who, like many other celebrities, spouted bothsidesism: ‘Israel deserves to live as an autonomous free and safe nation,’ she told Fox News. ‘The Palestinian people deserve the same.’” Bialik’s wanting freedom and safety for both Israeli and Palestinian civilians was thereby reframed as a negative.
Finally, a Gawker article counted Bialik’s liberal Zionism among her three defining characteristics before sarcastically adding, “Forgive me for what I’m about to say, but I think what Jeopardy! needs is a comedian, instead of a pro-Israel wet blanket like Bialik.” Whether that means any Jewish comedians are still considered funny remains unanswered.
These three critiques reflect the anti-Zionism commonly instilled on American college campuses. Supporting boycotts against Israeli “apartheid” and attacking Israeli “genocide,” while chanting “from the river to the sea” (supporting actual genocide), helps left-leaning students feel like they are part of something monumental and meaningful. Meanwhile, even mostly left-leaning Jewish students who won’t denounce Zionism are ostracized.
While writing and a contribution Bialik made her own time are being recast as not only concerning, but professionally disqualifying, Zionism is not some fringe belief. In 2019, Gallup found that “95% of [American] Jews have favorable views of Israel.” Are all of those Jews to be stigmatized? Because that’s where this poisonous language points. Support for Israel’s existence shouldn’t be a litmus test for participation in American society, and it most certainly shouldn’t be an acceptable reason to disqualify a game show host.
Melissa Langsam Braunstein (@slowhoneybee) is a former State Department speechwriter and an independent writer in Washington, D.C.
