The New Jewish Justice

President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the seat on the US Supreme Court now held by Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring. If confirmed ( a "slam dunk"), she will be the eighth Jew to serve on the Court and will increase the Jewish share of the Court to one-third, an all-time high. Obama, in less than two years in office, will have appointed more Jews to the Supreme Court than the last six Republican presidents combined.

Here is a brief look at the history of Jewish members of the Supreme Court:

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson appointed prominent Jewish attorney Louis D Brandeis to the Supreme Court. At that time Jews were routinely excluded from most law firms, corporations, resorts and suburbs. This appointment showed the Jews that the Democratic Party was especially favorable to their ambitions in American politics.

President Herbert Hoover appointed Benjamin Cardozo to the Court in 1932. After he died in 1938, President Roosevelt appointed Felix Frankfurter to the seat, which later became known as the "Jewish seat" on the Court. He was succeeded by Arthur Goldberg in 1962. When President Lyndon Johnson appointed Goldberg to be the US Ambassador the to UN in 1965, Johnson then appointed Abe Fortas to the seat. However, Fortas was forced to resign in 1969.

Then the "Jewish seat" vanished as President Richard Nixon nominated one gentile after another to fill the seat until finally Harry Blackmun was confirmed. (1)

In 1987 President Ronald Reagan nominated Jewish federal judge Douglas H Ginsburg to succeed Justice Lewis Powell, but the nomination was withdrawn after it was revealed that Ginsburg had been smoking marijuana.

Both current Jewish Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were appointed by President Bill Clinton .

Could the need to placate Jewish voters (and donors) before the 2010 congressional elections have been a factor in the selection of Elena Kagan? While Jews were more supportive of Barack Obama for President than any other white (non-Hispanic) ethnic group in 2008, many have turned against him over his hostility towards Israel. For example, publishers Mort Zuckerman (US News & World Report and NY Daily News) and Martin Peretz (The New Republic) both endorsed Obama for President, but have soured on him over Israel.

Although Jews comprise less than 3 percent of the US population, they vote and participate in politics at a higher rate than other ethnic groups. Morevoer, they are concentrated in big states in which the two major parties are highly competitive. For instance, this year the Jewish vote will be crucial in senate races in New York and Florida.(2) Jews can also tip the balance in a number of suburban congressional districts. That is also why Republicans will not filibuster the Kagan nomination: GOP senators from swing states will not dare antagonize their Jewish constituents. Whatever votes are cast against confirmation will be from hard-core Republican states in which the Jewish vote is insignificant.

Some will complain that Kagan has no judicial experience, but if Obama wanted a Jewish woman with that experience he might well have picked Judge Judith Scheindlin. Her confirmation hearings would have made great TV!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Tapes of his conversations prove that Nixon disliked American Jews, except for Henry Kissinger. His first choice to succeed Fortas was Clement Haynsworth, who was rejected by the Senate. His second choice, Harold G Carswell, was also rejected. Blackmun had no problem.

(2) Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is also facing a tough race, but since he is Jewish himself I believe he would garner the Jewish vote anyway. Since the Florida race features three serious candidates, even a small group can make a big difference!

Papers, Please!

"As American Jews,.....we must be alarmed at the notion of Arizona police officers stopping Latinos and asking , 'Papers, please.'....Not long ago in Europe, Jews were forced to carry identification papers and lived in fear of being stopped and questioned. The singling out of Jews in Europe led to a horrific end. What will become of immigrants in this country?"
Editor's Desk Column by Elana Kahn-Oren in Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, May, 2010, page 4.

Since all decent people, especially Jews, hate the Nazis, one way to turn people against a particular policy is to link it somehow to Nazism. Recall Rush Limbaugh's "feminazis" and the hideous Hitler-style moustache on photos of Barack Obama flaunted by protesters just a year ago.

In the same spirit, Mrs. Kahn-Oren would have us abhor the new Arizona law that requires police to enforce immigration law, since officers would ask to see "papers" just like the Nazis did in occupied Europe. (Actually, even the term "papers" reeks of World War II; Arizona officers would be satisfied with a driver's license, state ID or immigration "green card", none of which are really "papers." The same laminated ID cards that we all use to board a plane, rent a car or cash a check will verify American citizenship, should it be questioned.)

A Jew without the right paper (such as a certificate of Swedish citizenship) in Nazi-occupied Europe would be deported to Auschwitz, whereas an illegal (aka "undocumented") alien caught in the US would be deported back to his home country. Is that a distinction worth mentioning? The quoted column does not.

Instead, Mrs. Kahn-Oren goes on to write, "We Jews have an obligation to stand up for others....register our protest to this new law and work to prevent other such attempts to harm undocumented immigrants." By her own estimate, there about 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, nearly the population of Milwaukee. Since they cannot get jobs with legitimate businesses (per federal law since 2006), most of them subsist in the "underground economy" of day labor for cash, which means they pay no income tax. But they do place a strain on the public services provided by the taxpayers of Arizona (and the nation): education, medical, water, and the criminal justice system. The presence of a large unskilled workforce also tends to depress wages for labor, which hurts the native working class of the state.

At the end of the column, Mrs Kahn-Oren calls for "comprehensive and compassionate reform" of our immigration code, without specifying the details of the reform she wants. In other words, we Jews should be "on the side of the angels" in our compassion for the illegal immigrants, and oppose a law intended to alleviate the burden that they have placed on the citizens of our sister state. I have more compassion for the people of Arizona.

Hijab in Court?

"A judge in ...Georgia barred a Muslim woman from entering a courtroom because she would not remove her headscarf."
Associated Press

In a similar case, another Muslim woman was jailed after she "uttered an expletive" when barred from a courtroom in suburban Atlanta for refusing to remove her "hijab" (headscarf). In Michigan, a Muslim woman's case was dismissed when she refused to remove her veil for the trial.

Apparently some states and counties bar all headgear in their courtrooms, while others permit both hijabs and kipas (skullcaps). Older readers will recall that in 1969 Federal Judge Julius J Hoffman ordered witness Arthur Waskow to remove his kipa while testifying in the Chicago Seven Trial, but backed down when US Attorney Thomas Foran asserted that the Government had no objection to the headcovering. On the other hand, Rabbi Jacob Twerski (1899-1973) was permitted to wear a kipa while testifying in Milwaukee County courtrooms on several occasions.

Obviously, courthouse authorities have the right to bar weapons from the building, and everyone (except police) may be sent through metal-detectors, just like airline passengers. I have been required to remove my hat, but not my kipa, at security checkpoints both at the Airport and the Courthouse in Milwaukee County. Jewish women have been required to remove their "tichels" for security inspections, but wigs seem to pass muster undetected.

If a woman passes through the metal-detector without triggering an alarm, I do not understand why she should have to remove her headcovering, whether a tichel, wig, or hijab. The same would apply to a kipa. The possibility of smuggling a non-metallic weapon under one of these headcoverings is so remote that I do not believe that requiring the covering to be removed is justified.

In the Chicago case cited above security was not an issue, and I suspect that it is not the real reason that some judges and sheriffs are banning headgear in courtrooms today. I contend that the real reason is cultural: the authorities consider it disrespectful to the court to wear anything on one's head. This reflects the Protestant custom of appearing in church bare-headed. (1) But today America is a diverse society that includes Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and many other non-Christians who have legitimate reasons for covering their heads at all times, including when in a public building. As long as the headgear is not being used to conceal a weapon, it should be permitted in courtrooms.

Jews and Muslims are poles apart on the issue of US support of Israel. Yet, both are religious minorities in this country, and have a common interest in fostering public policies that are fair to adherents of all religions, as well as to non-believers. I would be willing to work with Muslims and others for this purpose; how about you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Catholic priests cover their heads during services, but other men do not.

Why Target Jews?

"Muslims hate Jews because the Jews killed Muhammad."
John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State (1953-58)

"Islam is a religion of Peace."
President George W Bush

The massacres in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India, last week stunned and horrified the world. From the lone surviving terrorist Indian authorities have learned that the carnage was the work of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Muslim extremist group operating in Pakistan with ties to Al Qaida. Although created by Pakistani intelligence to fight against Indian rule in Kashmir, the group was banned by Pakistan in 2002. (1)

Pakistani leaders have denied any responsibility for the attack, and I believe them. The current government is pro-Western, and has tried to improve relations with India. The unfortunate truth is that the government of Pakistan does not control large sectors of its own territory (especially those bordering Afghanistan), and disloyal soldiers in its own army are allied with the terrorists.

Apparently, there were only about ten killers (2) in the gang that attacked Mumbai, yet they managed to kill at least 174 people, wounded hundreds more, and almost destroyed the Taj Mahal Hotel. Most of the target buildings were filled with hundreds or even thousands of people: a train station, major hotel, and a cafe. If the Lushkar terrorists were trying to kill as many people as possible, why send two of them (about 20% of the strike force) to the Chabad House, where there were only about eleven people (3) ?

I contend that Lashkar leaders had a special goal of killing Jews, worth far more to them than much larger numbers of other victims. This is part of a pattern seen in other Al Qaida-related attacks on Jewish targets in Tunis and Istanbul. One of the reasons that the World Trade Center in New York was targeted on Sept. 11, 2001, was that Arab terrorists knew that thousands of Jews worked there. (4)

Some may attribute the lethal hatred toward Jews among Muslims to the "Palestine Question," but I believe that the Israel-Arab dispute is only part of the motivation. For the source of this hatred, let us look into the book that all Muslims venerate: The Quran. (5)

For example, verse 2:61 states "They (the Jews) disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully." The Quran goes on to speak of punishing the Jews for usury and cheating people out of their money in verse 4:161 : " We have prepared a painful punishment." Verse 5:60 says that Allah transformed some Jews into "apes and pigs" to punish them for violating the Covenant. Books of quotations of Muhammad (hadiths) written after his death include orders to "Kill any Jew who falls into your power!"

Although not all Muslims are devout, those who join jihadist groups like Lashkar most certainly are, and they take the words of the Quran as a literal guide to life. These quotations, and similar ones from the Quran and the hadiths, have been used by Muslim preachers to incite hatred toward the Jews, the State of Israel, and by extension, those who befriend the Jews.

It is only fair to note that the New Testament portrays Jews who did not accept Jesus, especially community leaders (the Pharisees), as responsible for his crucifixion. Christians have persecuted Jews for two thousand years because of this . Although Nazism was not a Christian doctrine, there can be no doubt that Christian anti-Semitism inculcated the hostility toward the Jews of Europe that enabled Christians to carry out Nazi orders without guilt.

Since the end of World War II, major Christian denominations (especially the Catholic Church) have downplayed the Jews' role in the Crucifixion, and condemn anti-Semitism. This transformation has not occurred in the Muslim world, however, and the ancient verses of the Quran that denigrate the Jews continue to motivate the criminal acts we see today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, December 1, 2008.

(2) Nine were killed, and one was captured. It is possible that some terrorists escaped.

(3) Including the nanny and the boy she saved.

(4) Most people who worked at WTC escaped before the towers collapsed, but hundreds of NY firefighters (of whom very few were Jewish) were killed when they fell.

(5) All the Quaranic verses quoted here are translations from The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History by Andrew G Bostom (Prometheus Books).

Hebrews in Hebron

"Israel's army sentenced 8 soldiers to 28-day prison terms for refusing orders to help evict two Jewish families from illegally occupied apartments in ....Hebron."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 3A, August 7, 2007

These families, who live in a vacant marketplace that settlers say belonged to a Jewish family before the Jordanian takeover in 1948, are among about 500 Jews who live among 150,000 Arabs in Hebron (aka Hevron). Several thousand Israelis also live in nearby Kiryat Arba.

Hebron, the last home and burial place of our ancestors Abraham and Sarah, was also the first capital of David's kingdom, before he conquered Jebus, now Jerusalem. Jews settled there during the British Mandate period, until they were massacred and survivors driven out by Arab terrorists in 1929. Jewish efforts to re-establish a presence in the city (aside from Kiryat Arba) have sparked a conflict with the Olmert government, which may be a harbinger of a much larger conflict over Jewish settlement in all of the West Bank.

Prime Minister Olmert is now meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in an effort to jump-start the establishment of a State of Palestine, as supported by the Arab League and the Quartet (1). Although about a million Arabs live in Israel, with all the rights of citizenship, Palestinian leaders are adamant that all Jews must leave the territory they want for their state.

Those who complain of Jewish settlement on "Arab land" should re-read their history books. The League of Nations Mandate, echoing the Balfour Declaration, called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Mandate did not limit Jewish settlement to any part of the land, and the Mandatory Power (Britain) did permit Jews to live in Hebron, East Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other locations in what is now known as the "West Bank." Jews did not settle east of the Jordan River, and in 1922 the British gave that land (most of Palestine, actually) to King Abdullah I to rule.

The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 called for the establishment of Jewish state in the areas of Jewish majority and an Arab state in those with an Arab majority, but the plan did not call for the expulsion of minority populations from either state. Nevertheless, when Jordan seized the West Bank territory during the 1948 War, all Jews were killed or exiled.

For Jews to live in Hebron or any other part of the West Bank nowadays is no more than a reversion to the pre-1948 situation. There is no reason for the State of Israel to collaborate with the Palestinian Authority in rendering this land "Judenrein" (2) so that an Arab state can be established there. Instead, Israel should insist that the basic law of any future Palestinian state grant Jews the same rights that Arabs enjoy in Israel today.

As noted in previous Glazerbeams (see, for example, July 18 of this year), a Palestinian state in the West Bank could pose a serious security threat to Israel. The alternatives (merging with Israel, endless occupation, expelling the Arab population, etc. ) are also undesirable. Therefore, the Government of Israel should at least demand the right of the settlers to remain in their present homes as a condition to establishment of another Arab state on her border.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) US, Russia, UN and the European Union.

(2) German for "Clean of Jews" ( a Nazi slogan)

Bloomberg for President?

"After dining recently with NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is.. . considering a run for president as an independent, (Nebraska Senator Chuck) Hagel said people might want to consider the two on a ticket." (1)

As if ten Republican candidates and eight Democrats are not enough for the 2008 election, we might also have a Bloomberg-Hagel independent ticket too. Considering that the NY mayor is a billionaire, such a ticket could probably afford a serious nationwide media campaign. But could they win? Here are some drawbacks:

Third Ticket History: The structure of the American political system makes third parties and tickets extreme long-shots. Because of the electoral college, a candidate earns no electoral votes unless he is first in some state, an extremely high bar for new parties and candidates. Ross Perot, almost as rich as Bloomberg, garnered 19% of the popular vote for president in 1992, but not even one electoral vote. Only two third-party candidates received significant electoral votes since World War II, and both did so by appealing to white racism in the South (2).

The New York Problem: Bloomberg's only chance (if any) would be to carry the state of New York, but right now the front-runners in the polls in both major parties happen to be New Yorkers: Giulani and Clinton. Just to qualify for state ballots, a new ticket must file papers before the nominees of the major parties have been selected. If either party nominates a New Yorker, let alone both, it will be virtually impossible for Bloomberg to carry his home state.

The Jewish Problem: Most ethnic and religious groups support members of their own group that have a serious chance of winning the presidency; for example, John F Kennedy benefited from overwhelming support from fellow Catholics. Jews, on the other hand, will not unite behind a Jewish candidate (like Bloomberg) because a large portion of our people fear having a Jewish president! Some fear that a Jewish president would "bend over backwards" to avoid seeming too pro-Israel; others fear that those who oppose the Chief Executive's policies will turn against all Jews and foment anti-Semitism. The record of Jews in high public office does not seem to support either of these fears (3), but they are a significant hurdle for Jews seeking the presidency.
At the same time, many devout Christians would prefer a president who embodies and advocates the principles of Christianity, which a Jew would not. That leaves Muslims, whose support I would not count on.

The Issue Overlap: Unlike political parties in Europe, Israel, or Latin America, our Democrats and Republicans are not bound to party ideologies. Our major parties are flexible, and they are not far apart on major issues. For example, Hagel is strongly opposed to US involvement in Iraq, but it is virtually certain that the Democratic nominee will feel the same way and will attract anti-war voters. Bloomberg is the consummate Wall Street insider, but then so is Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani was also mayor of the same city.

Can the proposed Bloomberg-Hagel ticket overcome all these obstacles and win the White House next year? Maybe, but I would hold off on ordering the white mezzuzas for now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, May 14, 2007.

(2) The ticket of Thurmond & Wright (Democratic States Rights, aka Dixiecrats) of 1948 and that of Wallace & LeMay (American Independent) in 1968 carried about the same Deep South States. In 2001 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R, MS) said that he wished Thurmond had been elected president, after which he lost the leadership position to Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, who presumably favored Repulbican nominee Thomas E Dewey in 1948.

(3) The first Jewish US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, was also the most friendly to Israel. Ditto for Foreign Minister Ion Georghe Maurer of Romania and Premier Pierre Mendes-France of (guess what) France.

Tommy and the Jews

"I"m in the private sector, and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition, and I do not find anything wrong with that."
Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, speaking to a meeting of the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. (1)

" A life of wealth and honor...."
Jewish prayer for the coming month

Before the end of the meeting Thompson added ..."If anybody took what I said wrong, I apologize." Since what the former governor said was neither false nor negative, I see no reason to apologize, although the demands of "political correctness" have impelled quite a few people to do so recently.

Although some Jews find it embarrassing to note, it is a fact that Jews earn more and have more than other Americans. This is also true in other countries with a free-enterprise system in which Jews are able to compete on a fair basis. Any list of the most successful businesses in the Milwaukee area since World War II would have to include MGIC, Manpower, Jack Winter, Astronautics Corporation, Fleet Mortgage, Towne Realty, Robert A Polachek Realty (now CB Ellis), Guaranty Bank, Stein Optical, Master Lock, Miller Compressing and Sampson Enterprises. All of these firms were founded and run by Jews, a group that never exceeded 3 percent of the population. Jewish professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants have also been among the leaders in their fields in this metro area.

As Thompson correctly noted, Jewish success in business stems from the traditions of Judaism, which have always had a healthy, positive outlook on acquiring wealth, as cited in the Rosh Chodesh prayer above. The Talmud considers Abraham's wealth, which was passed on to Isaac and then Jacob, as a sign of G-d's favor. Vows of poverty, still used by some Catholic orders, have no place in Judaism. In fact, the Talmud terms poverty as not much better than death. If you want to send your children to Jewish schools, eat kosher, and live near a synagogue, you need quite a bit of money.

Tommy Thompson, now seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President, was simply trying to link his new affluence with that of his audience of Reform Jews. He also referred to Israel Bonds as "Jewish Bonds" and spoke favorably of the Jewish Defense League (JDL). The ex-governor apparently did not know that many Jews are uncomfortable with references to Jewish wealth and that Reform Jews hate the JDL.

Was this a "Brainwash Moment" like the one that sank Michigan Governor George Romney's 1968 campaign for the GOP nomination? (2) Probably not, since Reform Jews (the most liberal demographic in the US) would not have backed Thompson anyway. He has certainly pleased members of Milwaukee's orthodox community(3), but they are not influential in the national Republican Party. As a modestly-funded ex-governor of a medium-sized state, whose career as Secretary of Health and Human Services was undistinguished (4), Tommy Thompson was never a major contender for the 2008 Republican nomination.

If, despite everything, Tommy Thompson does emerge as the GOP nominee next year, I will admit that I was wrong. But I will not apologize.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 17, 2007, page 3A.

(2) Gov. Romney's campaign tanked after he told TV reporters that he had been "brainwashed" by US generals in Vietnam. His son Mitt, now also seeking the 2008 nomination, has so far avoided the term "brainwash."

(3) Tommy Thompson signed the legislation creating Parental School Choice vouchers, which account for nearly half the income of the Yeshiva Elementary School in Milwaukee. In 1995 Rabbi Ben-Tzion Twerski prevailed upon the Governor to persuade Marty Stein (1937-2006) to accept the Congregation Beth Jehudah Avir Yaakov Award. Thompson also spoke at the Banquet honoring Stein and Pillar of Chesed honoree Cissy Glazer.

(4) Clueless during the 2001 anthrax crimes.

Obama: Why the Hype?

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who recently declared his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President, is running a solid second in most polls, just behind Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. The media hype has been constant since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Why?

Mr Obama has just completed two years in the Senate, and so far has done nothing to earn this attention. He is neither associated with any major legislation nor with taking any especially courageous position. He has never held a position of executive authority, such as governor or even mayor.

Among his rivals for the nomination are Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who has previously served as Secretary of Energy and ambassador. These men have more substantial resumes, but are not getting the "rock star" treatment that Clinton and Obama are getting in the media. (OK, some of the other candidates such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich and ex-Senators John Edwards and Mike Gravel deserve even less coverage than Obama, who at least represents a large state in the Senate.)

My theory is that Barack Obama's partial African ancestry goes a long way toward explaining his spectacular rise in the media and the polls in this age of " identity politics." The fact that his father was from Kenya and his mother was white makes him bi-racial, but the media usually just labels him "black" or African-American. Obama is only the third US Senator in over a hundred years to have any African ancestry, and this characteristic gives his candidacy a special cachet (1).

Several black candidates have sought the presidency, but none came anywhere near a major party nomination, even for Vice-President (2). Rep. Shirley Chisolm of Brooklyn ran in 1972, and finished far behind Senator George McGovern. Jesse Jackson sought the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988, and ex- Senator Carol Mosely Braun and Al Sharpton went for it in 2004; all lost badly . Alan Keyes, a rightwinger who had served as an ambassador under President Ronald Reagan, sought the Republican nomination in 2000. (Keyes was later the Republican nominee for senator in Illinois in 2004, and lost to Barack Obama.)

The big difference between Obama and these other candidates is that he actually won a statewide office, which proved that he could successfully appeal to white voters in a general election. Jackson and Sharpton had made their careers in racial politics, stirring up black resentment against whites, especially Jews. Any Republcan could have beaten them in a predominantly white constituency. Although Keyes did not engage in racial polarization, he could not compete with candidates like George W Bush or John McCain, who had established political bases.

The public figure most politically similar to Barack Obama, a man of African descent who appeals to whites, is one who never ran for President: Colin Powell. In retrospect, Powell might well have won the 1996 Republican nomination for President, and probably would have done better than Bob Dole, who had litttle appeal beyond the GOP base. As the military leader during the 1991 Gulf War, Powell could have followed Dwight Eisenhower's path from the Army to the White House, but he had no appetite for politics.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has both the appetite and aptitude for politics in spades. On March 2 he addressed a mass meeting of American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago, and told the Zionists what they wanted to hear, distinguishing himself from Jesse Jackson. He has already received big-time cash from Jewish moguls in Hollywood.

Whether the junior senator from Illinois can overtake Hillary Clinton, another exemplar of identity politics, will be tested less than ten months from now in Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. He has a good start.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The other two were Edward Brooke of Massachusetts and Carol Mosely Braun, also of Illinois. Both lost.

(2) Several black candidates ran for President and VicePresident on minor party tickets, but none ever received a single electoral vote.