Connect with us
Everlasting Memorials

Uncategorized

A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary

(JTA) — Israel’s new governing coalition has been called the “most right-wing” in the nation’s history. That’s heartening to supporters who want the country to get tough on crime and secure Jewish rights to live in the West Bank, and dismaying to critics who see a government bent on denying rights to Israel’s minorities and undermining any hope for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While the far-right politics of new government ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir have drawn much of the world’s attention, a series of proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system has also been raising hopes and alarms. On Wednesday, new Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced an overhaul that would limit the authority of the High Court of Justice, Israel’s Supreme Court. It would put more politicians on the selection committee that picks judges, restrict the High Court’s ability to strike down laws and government decisions and enact an “override clause” enabling the Knesset to rewrite court decisions with a simple majority.

Levin and his supporters on the right justify these changes as a way to restore balance to a system that he says puts too much control in the hands of (lately) left-leaning judges: “We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us. Many sectors of the public look to the judicial system and do not find their voices heard,” he asserted. “That is not democracy.”

Critics of the changes call them a power grab, one that will hand more leverage to the haredi Orthodox parties, remove checks on the settlement movement and limit civil society groups’ ability to litigate on behalf of Israeli minorities

To help me make sense of the claims on both sides, I turned to Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, where he is the Leo Spitz Distinguished Service Professor of International Law and co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project, which gathers and analyzes the constitutions of all independent nation-states. He’s also a Jew who has transformed a former synagogue on the South Side of Chicago into a cutting-edge arts space, and says what’s happening with Israel’s new governing coalition “raises my complicated relationship with the country.”

We spoke on Friday. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You have written about law in Israel, which lacks a constitution but relies on a series of “basic laws” to define its fundamental institutions. You’ve written that the Israeli judiciary had become “extremely powerful” — maybe too powerful — in imbuing the basic laws with a constitutional character, but worry that the current reforms will politicize the court in ways that will undermine Israeli democracy.

Tom Ginsburg: The proposed reforms were a campaign promise of certain elements of this coalition who have had longstanding grievances against the Israeli judiciary. The Israeli judiciary over the last decades has indeed become extremely powerful and important in writing or rewriting a constitution for Israel, promoting human rights and serving as a check and balance in a unicameral parliamentary system where the legislature can do anything it wants as a formal matter. A lot of people have had problems with that at the level of theory and practice. So there have been some reforms, and the court has, in my view, cut back on its activism in recent decades and in some sense has been more responsive to the center of the country. But there’s longstanding grievances from the political right, and that’s the context of these proposals.

A lot of the concerns about the new government in Israel are coming from the American Jewish left. But in an American context, the American Jewish left also has a big problem with the United States Supreme Court, because they see it as being too activist on the right. So in some ways isn’t the new Israeli government looking to do what American Jewish liberals dream of doing in this country?

Isn’t that funny? But the context is really different. The basic point is that judicial independence is a really good thing. Judicial accountability is a really good thing. And if you study high courts around the world, as I do, you see that there’s kind of a calibration, a balancing of institutional factors which lead towards more independence or more accountability and sometimes things switch around over time. 

Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin holds a press conference at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, Jan. 4, 2023. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90)

You mean “accountability” in the sense that courts should be accountable to the public. 

Right. The Israeli promoters of these plans are pointing to the United States, in particular, for the proposals for more political involvement in the appointment process. On the other hand, in the United States once you’re appointed politically, you’re serving for life. There’s literally no check on your power. And so maybe some people think we have too much independence. If these proposals go through in Israel, there will be a front-end politicization of the court [in terms of the selection commission], but also back-end checks on the court [with the override clause that would allow a simple majority to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court]. So in some sense, it moves the pendulum very far away from independence and very much towards accountability to the point of possible politicization.

And accountability in that case is too much of a good thing.

Again, you don’t want courts that can just make up rules. They should be responsive to society. On the other hand, you don’t want judges who are so responsive to society that there’s no protection for the basic rights of unpopular minorities. 

What makes Israel either unique or different from some of the other countries you study, and certainly the United States? Part of it, I would guess, is the fact that it does not have a constitution. Is that a useful distinction?

They couldn’t agree on a single written constitution at the outset of the country, but they have built one through what you might call a “common law method”: norms and practices over time as well as the system of “basic laws,” which are passed by an absolute majority of the Knesset, where a majority of 61 votes can change any of those. But while they’re not formally entrenched, they have a kind of political status because of that term: basic law. 

By the way, the Germans are in the same boat. The German constitution is called the Basic Law. And it was always meant to be a provisional constitution until they got together and reunified.

If you don’t have a written constitution, what’s the source of the legitimacy of judicial power? What is to prevent a Knesset from just passing literally any law, including ones that violate all kinds of rights, or installing a dictator? It has been political norms. And because Israel has relied on political norms, that means that this current conflict is going to have extremely high stakes for Israeli governance for many decades to come.

Can you give me a couple of examples? What are the high stakes in terms of democratic governance?

First of all, let me just say in principle that I don’t oppose reforms to make the judiciary more independent or accountable in any particular country. But then you obviously have to look at the local context. What’s a little worrying about this particular example is that several members of this coalition are themselves about to be subject to judicial proceedings. 

Including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Right. And for example, they need to change the rules so that [Shas Party chairman] Aryeh Deri can sit in the cabinet despite his prior convictions. That indicates to me that maybe this isn’t a good-faith argument about the proper structure of the Israeli, uncodified constitution, but instead a mechanism of expediency.

Any one of these reforms might look okay, and you can find other countries that have done them. The combination, however, renders the judiciary extremely weak. Right now, it’s a multi-stakeholder commission that nominates and appoints judges in Israel, and the new coalition wants to propose that the commission be made up of a majority of politicians. We know that when you change the appointments mechanism to put more politicians on those committees, the more politicized they become.

Think about the United States process of appointing our Supreme Court judges: It’s highly politicized, and obviously the legitimacy of the court has taken a big hit in recent years. In Israel, you’d have politicized appointments under these reforms, but then you also have the ability of the Knesset to override any particular ruling that it wanted. Again, you can find countries which have that. It’s called the “new commonwealth model” of constitutionalism, in which courts don’t have the final say on constitutional matters, and the legislature can overrule them on particular rulings. But I think the combination is very dangerous because you could have a situation where the Knesset — which currently has a role in protecting human rights — can pick out and override specific cases, which really to me goes against the idea of the rule of law.  

You mentioned other countries. Are there other countries where these kinds of changes were enacted and we saw how the experiment turned out?

The two most prominent recently are Hungary and Poland, which are not necessarily countries that you want to compare yourself to.

Certainly not if you are Israel.

Right. There’s so much irony here. When the new Polish government came in in 2015, they immediately manipulated the appointment system for the Constitutional Court and appointed their own majority, which then allowed them to pass legislation which probably would have been ruled unconstitutional. They basically set up a system where they were going to replace lower judges and so they were going to grow themselves into a majority of the court. And that’s led to controversy and rulings outside the mainstream that have led to protests, while the European Union is withholding funds and such from Poland because of this manipulation of the court.

In Hungary, Victor Orban was a really radical leader, and when he had a bare majority to change the constitution he wiped out all the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. I don’t think the Israeli government would do that. But still there is this kind of worrying sense that they’re able to manipulate interpretation of law for their own particular political interest. 

Another thing I want to raise is the potential for a constitutional crisis now. Suppose they pass these laws and the Israeli Supreme Court says, “Well, wait a minute, that interferes with our common law rules that we are bound by, going back to the British Mandate.” It conflicts with the basic law and they invoke what legal scholars call the “doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments,” which is basically saying that an amendment goes against the core of our democratic system and violates, for example, Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic society. Israel has never done this, but it is a kind of tool that one sees deployed around the world in these crises. And if that happened, then I think you would have a full constitutional crisis on your hands in Israel.  

Supreme Court President Aharon Barak speaks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a ceremony in the Supreme Court marking 50 years of law, Sept. 15, 1998. (Avi Ohayon)

What does a constitutional crisis look like? 

Suppose you have sitting justices in Israel who say, “You know, this Knesset law violates the basic law and therefore it’s invalid.” And then, would the Knesset try to impeach those judges? Would they cut the budget of the judiciary? Would they back down?

When you compare Israel’s judicial system to other countries’ over the years, how does it stack up? Is it up there among the very strong systems or is it known for flaws that might have maybe hobbled its effectiveness?

It’s always been seen around the world as a very strong judiciary. Under the leadership of Aharon Barak [president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006] it became extremely activist. And this provoked backlash in Israeli politics. That led to a kind of recalibration of the court where it is still doing its traditional role of defending fundamental rights and ensuring the integrity of the political process, but it’s not making up norms left and right, in the way that it used to. This is my perception. But it’s certainly seen as one of the leading courts around the world, its decisions are cited by others, and because of the quality of the judges and the complex issues that Israel faces it’s seen as a strong court and an effective court and to me a balanced court.

But, you know, I’m not in Israel, and ultimately, they’re going to figure out the question how balanced it is or where it’s going to go. I do worry that an unchecked majoritarian system, especially with a pure proportional representation model like Israel, has the potential for the capture of government by some minorities to wield power against other minorities. And that’s a problem for democracies — to some degree, that’s a problem we face in the United States.

How correctable are these reforms? I am thinking of someone who says, “These are democratically elected representatives who now want to change a system. If you want to change the system, elect your own majority.” Is the ship of state like this really hard to turn around once you go in a certain direction?

This is an area in which I think Israel and the United States have a lot of similarities. For several decades now, the judiciary has been a major issue for those on the political right. They thought the Warren Court was too left-leaning and they started the Federalist Society to create a whole cadre of people to staff the courts. They’ve done that and now the federal courts are certainly much more conservative than the country probably. But the left didn’t really have a theory of judicial power in the United States. And I think that’s kind of true in Israel: It’s a big issue for the political right, but the political left, besides just being not very cohesive at the moment, isn’t able to articulate what’s good about having an independent judiciary. It is correctable in theory, but that would require the rule of law to become a politically salient issue, which it generally isn’t in that many countries. 

How do you relate to what is happening in Israel as a Jew, and not just a legal scholar?  

That’s a great question, because it really raises my complicated relationship with the country. You know, I find it to be a very interesting democracy. I like going to Israel because it’s a society in which there’s a lot of argument, a lot of good court cases and a lot of good legal scholars. On one level, I connect with my colleagues and friends there who seem very demoralized about this current moment. And I honestly worry about whether this society will remain a Jewish and democratic one with the current coalition. 

The rule of law is a part of democracy. You need the rule of law in order to have democracy function. And I know others would respond and say, “Oh, you’re just being hysterical.” And, “This isn’t Sweden, it’s the Middle East.” But the ethno-nationalist direction of the country bothers me as a Jew, and I hope that the court remains there to prevent it from deepening further.


The post A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Cameron Kasky embodies rising Gen Z Jewish criticism of Israel. Can it get him to Congress?

(JTA) — He’s running for Congress on Manhattan’s West Side, but lately Cameron Kasky has been focused on the West Bank.

Kasky, a 25-year-old Jewish progressive, recently went on a solidarity mission to the West Bank. He has shared experiences from the trip on social media, including chats with Palestinians who face security checkpoints and incursions by Israeli settlers, as well as videos of Kasky playing sports with Palestinian children. He joined Mehdi Hasan, a vocal critic of Israel and founder of the progressive media outlet Zeteo, for a live Q&A Thursday afternoon about the trip.

Among the pool of nearly a dozen candidates running in New York’s 12th Congressional District, Kasky is steering left of the Democratic establishment. His platform includes calling for sanctions on Israel, whom he accuses of committing genocide.

It’s a stance that could alienate some voters in one of the country’s most Jewish districts. The district covers the Upper West and East Sides as well as Midtown Manhattan, and has long been represented by Jerry Nadler, Congress’ most senior Jewish member.

But Kasky, the Jewish Parkland school shooting survivor and gun control activist, said in an interview that his stance on Israel doesn’t make him an outlier.

“I am not some anomaly,” Kasky told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The next generation of Jewish Americans is changing their tune on the State of Israel and how it operates.” 

In a year when Israel is expected to play a central role in a number of midterm races, Kasky’s candidacy will be a test of how going all-in against Israel resonates with voters. But Israel isn’t his only Jewish issue: He also spoke about plans to improve Holocaust education and address rising antisemitism on the right. 

He’s also not wrong about shifting sentiments among younger Jews. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that Americans ages 18-29 were the only age group more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis. Half of Jewish Americans ages 18-34 believe Israel has committed genocide in Gaza; that percentage number is hovering in the 30s among older groups, according to a September 2025 poll by the Washington Post

While this shift on Israel is occurring in the electorate, Kasky said he’s not aware of likeminded Jewish Gen Zers who are running for office — but he expects that to change.

“I imagine we’ll be seeing plenty more soon, especially given that far more Jewish Americans in our generation are aligned with the foreign policy positions on peace to which I’ve committed,” he said.

Gen Z has not quite reached the age of typical candidates in national elections. Young progressive Jews with staunch pro-Palestinian views are, however, starting to appear in politics, and win races. 

Across the Hudson River from Kasky’s district, a Jewish democratic socialist named Jake Ephros was elected to Jersey City Council last month. Ephros has been a vocal pro-Palestinian advocate. In October 2023 he co-organized an open letter titled “Not in Our Name! Jewish Socialists Say No to Apartheid and Genocide,” which compared Israel to Nazi Germany. 

And a 26-year-old Jewish political strategist, Morris Katz, has made a splash behind the scenes, helping run the victorious mayoral campaign of Zohran Mamdani in New York City. He is now advising the U.S. Senate campaign of another anti-Zionist progressive, Maine’s Graham Platner. Katz has said he was “radicalized” by AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby.

“This is something that we are seeing all over the place,” Kasky said, of his sentiments about Israel.

In the aftermath of Mamdani’s election success, progressive candidates are starting to emerge as primary challengers to more moderate Democrats in this year’s midterm elections, and the topic of Israel figures to play a role in those congressional races. That may prove especially true in the race for Nadler’s soon-to-be vacant seat, where Kasky’s many opponents include several other Jews. 

The 12th district includes younger neighborhoods such as Chelsea that voted strongly in favor of Mamdani, where Kasky, a democratic socialist and Mamdani supporter, could be well aligned with voters’ politics. But even for those who feel represented by his policies, Kasky’s youth and inexperience may prove too large an obstacle for getting their vote.

“I look at his positions — if he was an experienced guy, I would be very enthusiastic,” said Arlene Geiger, coordinator of the Upper West Side Action Group.

Geiger, who is Jewish, said she is also in a Signal group chat with about 15 other progressives in the district, including Democratic Socialists of America members who are “really enthusiastic” about Kasky.  

“But he’s still too young and untested, so I don’t know,” said Geiger.

Eric Alterman, a journalist and author of the 2022 book “We Are Not One,” which looks at American Jews’ growing divide over Israel, said he doubted that Kasky could win the race, even as people’s views on Israel are shifting.

In the general election, Alterman pointed out, Mamdani was able to win the Upper West Side with similar views to Kasky on Israel. 

“But Mamdani’s issue was not Israel, it was affordability,” said Alterman, who lives on the Upper West Side. “A lot of DSA types were there [supporting Mamdani] because of Israel, but most people were not there for Israel. They were there saying, ‘OK, I sort of agree with some of what he says, not all of it,’ or, ‘Who cares about the mayor’s foreign policy?’” 

Brad Lander, another progressive Jewish congressional candidate and Mamdani ally, is challenging incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman on his support from AIPAC, and Israel figures to play a major role in their primary. But Alterman pointed to a key difference between Lander’s messaging on Israel and Kasky’s, which centers the charge of genocide.

“His position is, ‘I love Israel and I wish it would behave better,’” Alterman said of Lander.

In his race, Kasky has positioned himself as the democratic socialist candidate in a crowded — and decidedly Jewish — field that includes state Assembly members Micah Lasher, who is Jewish and considered Nadler’s preferred successor, and Alex Bores, whose wife is Jewish; John F. Kennedy’s grandson Jack Schlossberg, who has said he’s “at least 100% half Jewish”; civil rights lawyer Laura Dunn; LGBTQ rights activist Matthew Shurka, who is a Jewish Israeli-American; broadcast journalist Jami Floyd; ex-Republican lawyer and anti-Trumper George Conway; and Alan Pardee, who previously worked in finance.

Kasky said he wants to strike a dialogue with voters who may have liked much of Mamdani’s platform but were uncomfortable with the now-mayor’s harshly critical views on Israel.

“I intend to talk to them in their places of worship, I intend to talk to them in their community meetings, and just have a conversation about this,” Kasky said. He also said that, if people were against Mamdani solely because of Israel-Palestine, he found this “ridiculous” since the mayor does not have a say in foreign policy.

“Yes, he said he’ll arrest Netanyahu — Netanyahu can prevent that by going to the Hague himself and facing justice,” Kasky said, referring to the Israeli prime minister whom Mamdani has pledged to arrest if he enters New York.

Kasky, unlike Mamdani, would have a say in American foreign policy if elected to Congress. His platform on Israel includes opposing “sending money or weapons to the State of Israel, ‘defensive’ or otherwise,” and backing “meaningful sanctions against Israel and the UAE for their continued support of genocides in Gaza and Sudan.” 

Kasky has drawn criticism from pro-Israel figures like Adam Louis-Klein, who recently launched the Movement Against Antizionism. Louis-Klein called Kasky a “young token” who “recently realized the political benefits of the anti-Jewish hate grift.”

On the other hand, Ro Khanna, the progressive California congressman, praised Kasky on X. “Thanks for the boldness you are showing @camkasky! You are inspiring a lot of folks,” he wrote.

After Kasky’s recent trip to the West Bank, he said in a video that he witnessed the “devastating human toll of the illegal actions that are encouraged right here” in the 12th district. 

“This hell that our government and the State of Israel have created for the people living there — it is so much worse than you think,” Kasky said following his trip. 

Kasky has said he will share more about the visit; he has so far shared videos of him playing sports with Palestinian children and photos from a Christmas peace march in Bethlehem. He has written that “we must end the settlements that violate international law and stop encouraging New Yorkers to move there. It is cruel.” He also recorded a video speaking to the camera, which he said he filmed at 5 a.m., during a night shift to look out for Israeli settlers.

His platform doesn’t only center on Israel: He also cites as priorities establishing Medicare for all, abolishing ICE, fighting artificial intelligence oligarchs and preventing gun violence.

Kasky said he gradually came to his current views on Israel after being raised with a rosy picture of the country. 

“It was a slow drip over the years, following the news closely and seeing strikes in Gaza, where I learned that the reality of the situation was not the simple ‘milk and honey land’ narrative I was raised to believe,” he said. 

He was raised in a Jewish area of South Florida, which he described as “basically just Long Island II.” He attended a Reform synagogue, Congregation B’nai Israel, and attended a heavily Jewish private school in Boca Raton before his family moved to Parkland.

He also attended Hebrew school, which Kasky said was a seminal experience — though he complained that he was cast as Haman what felt like “every single year in the Purim spiel,” and wished he could’ve played Vashti.

Kasky said the Hebrew school curriculum included things like learning about Jewish holidays and traditions. But it also meant learning about the Holocaust at a young age — an experience that he contrasted to the curriculum of his public school history classes in middle and high school.

“The Holocaust education in at least the Florida public school system is not very in-depth,” Kasky said, adding the caveat that he had dropped out of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School before he would have taken their dedicated class on the Holocaust. (Kasky had dropped out to focus on March for Our Lives with his classmates after the shooting.)

Kasky, who co-founded the gun-control activist group Never Again MSD after surviving the shooting, said he did not learn “that America was turning away Jews” until he was “much older.” He said his classes were fairly black-and-white, and did not include anything about Nazi collaborators in the U.S. government, which he said he had come to believe was important after reading a book on the topic.

Florida has required some form of Holocaust education in public schools since the 1990s, and was one of the first states in the union to adopt such requirements. Today 30 states mandate Holocaust education. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School gunman had fired into the school’s Holocaust class, killing two students and wounding four, as part of his killing spree; he had also scrawled a swastika onto one of his ammunition magazines. 

Now, Kasky wants to expand Holocaust education, and said he is meeting with education policy experts and Jewish community leaders about the issue.

In an email, he wrote that his positions include expanding funding for the Never Again Education Act of 2020; working to “develop and advocate for K-12 teacher training on combating antisemitism and preventing Holocaust denialism from reaching our children, who are already being exposed to skyrocketing Jew hate around the world, especially on social media”; and expanding “federal grants for states who are leading the way in the development of Holocaust/genocide education standards.” 

He also expressed concern about far-right figures like Nick Fuentes, who themselves speak to Gen Z audiences highly critical of Israel, but blend such criticism with sympathy for Hitler and Nazi Germany. Kasky said “dangerous antisemitic actors” like Fuentes “exploit the suffering of the Palestinian people as a way to spread Jew hatred, while having no real sympathy for Palestinians.”

Still, Kasky cautioned against Sen. Chuck Schumer’s resolution to officially condemn Fuentes in Congress, saying it would bear “unintended harmful consequences.”

“Fuentes’ base thrives on the idea that they are being attacked because they are right, and because the establishment and the Jews and the Zionists hate seeing how right they are,” Kasky said. “The idea that Fuentes’ name will even be uttered in the halls of Congress, I think only reinforces Fuentes’ message to his followers.” 

Kasky said he and his family had been the subject of antisemitic conspiracy theories online in his time as a gun control activist. He has criticized pro-Israel organizations like the Anti-Defamation League for doing “everything they can to avoid indicting the Right and MAGA.”

Kasky has also blasted moderate Democrats including Goldman and New York Rep. Ritchie Torres, who’ve both received funding from AIPAC (and are both facing primary challengers calling out that support). Kasky, meanwhile, has been endorsed by Track AIPAC, the X account that posts candidates’ AIPAC donation numbers in order “to end AIPAC and the Israel lobby’s stranglehold on American Democracy,” according to its website

Alterman noted that, since Oct. 7, American politics around Israel have changed in a way that he “could not have imagined” while he was writing his book, particularly among Jews. Before Hamas’ attack on Israel and the war in Gaza, the election of Mamdani as an anti-Zionist mayor of New York would have been “inconceivable,” he said. 

“So things are moving so rapidly that I’m not here to predict the future,” Alterman said, of Kasky’s fate in this primary. “But there’s definitely a base there to begin a political career.”

The post Cameron Kasky embodies rising Gen Z Jewish criticism of Israel. Can it get him to Congress? appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The ICE shooting in Minneapolis shattered my Holocaust survivor father’s’ American dream

Last fall, I visited a train platform in Zbaszyn, Poland, where my father saw his parents for the last time.

There, he and his brother boarded a Kindertransport to seek refuge in England in 1940. They survived the Holocaust; my grandparents and my aunt were murdered by Nazis. The years before that separation were marked by profound betrayals by the German government, which lied to them, their neighbors and the rest of the world about the violence being enacted against them, and what their future held.

I recalled that visit early Thursday morning, as I stood in front of the Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, less than a mile from Bdote — the unceded land, sacred to Minnesota’s Dakota people, where the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers meet.

That land is where Minnesota’s earliest white settlers displaced, brutalized and killed the Dakota before building Fort Snelling, one of the first United States military outposts in the American West. Later, in 1862, the federal government set up a concentration camp in the same area. Some 1,600 Dakota were sent there, and hundreds died from disease and the harsh conditions.

Now, the thousands of ICE and Border Patrol agents sent by our federal government to terrorize Minneapolis gather and stage at the Whipple Building. And yesterday, an ICE agent named Jonathan Ross left that building, traveled a couple of miles west to South Minneapolis, and murdered Renée Nicole Good.

Good, 37, was a beloved community member. I didn’t know her, but I have friends who did. Their grief is devastating.

Renee was a treasured wife, they tell me. A mom to three children. A poet, an artist, and a community caretaker.

Her unjust death is horrific. And the resonances between our federal government’s bad faith response to it, and the kinds of stories I grew up hearing about the authoritarian government under which my father was raised, are terrifying.

Within hours of Good’s killing, President Donald Trump was spreading false claims about how it happened, claiming that Good ran over the ICE agent who shot her. Multiple video analyses have shown how inaccurate his words are. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed Good, who was driving at the time of shooting, was engaged in “domestic terrorism.” It has been sickening to hear these leaders not only desecrate Good’s memory, but also try to weaponize it to further energize their campaign against our immigrant neighbors and loved ones.

LIke many American Jews, I was raised to believe in the American dream, and in a government that was here to represent me, care for me, and be a force for good in the world. And as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, I always knew how fragile principles of liberty and equality can be.

I have known for a long time that the U.S. government has never equally defended the lives and rights of all people — and that it has too often, as in the case of the Dakota and other Indigenous Americans, actively destroyed those lives. But amid the Trump administration’s campaign against immigrant communities, it’s the tragedy of Good’s death that has most completely shattered the vision of what my Holocaust survivor father had taught me to hope for in the U.S.

Our current federal government lies to us, and lies about us. They blur the lines between fact and fiction. They gaslight. They have specifically tried to foment discord within the Jewish community, and between us and our allies. They try to divide us because they’re afraid of the strength and power that we have when we rise up as one.

That is why we gathered at the Whipple Federal Building today to honor Good’s memory, and to protest ICE’s ongoing assault on our fellow Minnesotans. This is the place where some of our neighbors go to be detained, and never come back. Instead, they are deported — sometimes to countries where they have never before set foot — and ripped from those they love, just as my father was ripped from his parents.

As Jews, we remember our family histories not to make us fearful or to isolate ourselves, but rather to prepare us for moments just like this one. Our history is not meant to be forgotten. It is not meant to sit neatly on museum shelves or be tucked away in old family albums. We are meant to carry it. We are meant to learn from it. And we are meant to act because of it.

The post The ICE shooting in Minneapolis shattered my Holocaust survivor father’s’ American dream appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

AUDIO: What does the Sydney attack mean for Jews in Australia?

ס׳איז לעצטנס אַרויסגעלאָזט געוואָרן אַ ראַדיאָ־אינטערוויו אויף ייִדיש וועגן דער שחיטה פֿון ייִדן דעם 14טן דעצעמבער, בעת אַ חנוכּה־פֿײַערונג אין באָנדי־ביטש, אויסטראַליע.

פֿופֿצן מענטשן זענען דערהרגעט געוואָרן אין דעם טעראָריסטישן אַטאַק, אַרײַנגערעכנט אַ 37־יאָריקן רבֿ און טאַטע פֿון פֿיר קינדער, ר׳ יעקבֿ לעוויטאַן, און אַ 10־יאָריק מיידעלע.

דעם שמועס, פּראָדוצירט פֿון דער באָסטאָנער ראַדיאָ־פּראָגראַם „דאָס ייִדישע קול“, האָט דער דיקטאָר פֿון דער פּראָגראַם, מאיר דוד, געפֿירט מיטן מעלבורנער ייִדישיסט אַלעקס דאַפֿנער.

דאַפֿנער, אַ ייִדישע ראַדיאָ־פּערזענלעכקייט אין מעלבורן, אַנאַליזירט עטלעכע מעגלעכע סיבות וואָס האָבן מסתּמא אומדירעקט דערפֿירט צו דעם טעראָריסטישן אַטאַק. ער באַשרײַבט אויך די פּאָליטישע שטימונג אין לאַנד לגבי ישׂראל און דעם הײַנטיקן זיכערהייט־מצבֿ פֿאַר די אָרטיקע ייִדן.

 

The post AUDIO: What does the Sydney attack mean for Jews in Australia? appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News