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.
Uncategorized
Mourning the victims of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire
דעם 25סטן מערץ וועט ווערן 105 יאָר זינט דער שרעקלעכער טראַגעדיע — די שׂריפֿה אינעם טרײַענגל־שוירטווייסט־פֿאַבריק, אין 1911. 146 יונגע אַרבעטאָרינס, ס׳רובֿ ייִדישע און איטאַליענישע, זענען אומגעקומען, ווען די טיר, וואָס האָט באַדאַרפֿט בלײַבן אָפֿן זיך צו ראַטעווען אין אַזאַ פֿאַל, האָבן די סוועטשאַפּ־באַלעבאַטים געהאַלטן פֿאַרשלאָסן.
צו יענער צײַט, האָט דער פּאָעט מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד געאַרבעט אין „פֿאָרווערטס“ סײַ ווי אַ זשורנאַליסט, סײַ ווי אַ פּאָעט. ער איז אָנגעקומען צו דער שׂרפֿה, בעת די טראַגעדיע איז פֿאָרגעקומען און האָט במשך פֿון עטלעכע וואָכן געשריבן עטלעכע אַרטיקלען און לידער וועגן דער טראַגעדיע. מיר דרוקן דאָ אַן אויסצוג פֿון זײַן אַרטיקל, וואָס איז געווען געדרוקט אויף דער ערשטער זײַט פֿונעם „פֿאָרווערטס“, אַ וואָך נאָך דער טראַגעדיע, און אַן אויסצוג פֿון אַ פּאָעמע וואָס ער האָט געשריבן אין אָנדענק פֿון די אומגעקומענע מיידלעך.
זינט עס זײַנען אין ניו־יאָרק איבער הונדערט לעבנס פֿאַרברענט געוואָרן צוליב דער צוגעשלאָסענער טיר, וואָס האָט לויט דעם געזעץ געזאָלט זײַן אָפֿן, קוק איך מיט פֿאַרדאַכט אויף אַ טיר, אויפֿן געזעץ און אויף פֿײַער.
איך באַטראַכט זיי אַלע פֿאַר איבעריקע זאַכן.
וואָס טויג מיר אַ טיר, אַז זי איז פֿאַרשפּאַרט? וואָס טויג דאָס געזעץ ווען מען פֿירט אים נישט דורך? און פֿײַער… יאָ, מיר דאַכט, אַז מענטשן ווייסן נישט וואָס צו טאָן מיט זייער פֿײַער…
איך האָב פֿון אייביק אָן געוווּסט, אַז מיט פֿײַער שפּילט מען זיך נישט. איצט אָבער ציטער איך פֿאַר דעם וואָרט פֿײַער. איך קען קיין נאַכט נישט שלאָפֿן. פֿײַערדיקע חלומות שרעקן מיך, זיי פֿאַרברענען מײַן מנוחה און איך ליג און שוידער.
מיר דאַכט, אַז הימל און ערד האַלטן אין אײַן ברענען, אַז עס פֿלאַקערן די זון, די לבֿנה און די שטערן, אַז די מלאכים שפּרינגען ברענענדיק פֿון די הימלשע פֿענצטער אויף דער ערד און פֿאַלן אַרונטער טויטע… און די אַמבולאַנסן פֿירן זיי אַוועק אין מאָרג (מתים־שטיבל).
מיר דאַכט, אַז גאָט אַליין איז אײַנגעהילט אין אַ פֿײַערדיקן טלית און ברענט. ברענט און גיסט מיט פֿײַערדיקע טרערן, וואָס פֿאַלן אַרײַן און פֿאַרלירן זיך אין זײַן וועלטן־גרויסער, פֿלאַקערדיקער באָרד, און פֿון זײַנע נאָזלעכער זעצט אַ רויך ווי פֿון אַ צוויי וווּלקאַנען.
איך זע ווי די גאַנצע פּמליא־של־מעלה קרימט זיך, דרייט זיך מיט גסיסה־שמערצן אין אַ ים פֿלאַמען, ווי די כּרובֿים און שׂרפֿים און חיות־הקודש צאַפּלען מיט די פֿלאַמענדיקע פֿעדערן, רײַסן זיך די אָנגעצונדענע האָר פֿון די ברענענדיקע קעפּ און קלאַפּן פֿאַרצווייפֿלט מיט די רויטע, פֿײַערדיקע פֿליגל אין אַ שווערער, גרויסער, אײַזערנער טיר און די טיר איז פֿאַרשלאָסן… דער שׂטן האָט איר פֿאַרשלאָסן און באַהאַלטן דעם שליסל…
איך זע ווי די „אופֿנים“ און „גלגלים“, די „הימלשע רעדער“ דרייען זיך און פֿלאַקערן, און מיר דאַכט, אַז דאָס זײַנען שנײַדער־מאַשינען, און אין די ברענענדיקע, צום טויט־שפּרינגנדיקע מלאכים דערקען איך די פּנימער פֿון די פֿאַרשׂרפֿעטע אַרבעטער־מיידלעך, די טעכטער פֿון דער ייִדישער גאַס אין דער בלוטיקער פֿון פֿרויען־יאַקעס פֿון וואַשינגטאָן פּלייס.
איך שרײַ, איך ליאַרעם, איך וויין, איך פֿלוך, איך לאַך און כאַפּ זיך אויף אין היסטעריע.
פֿײַער… פֿײַער…
וואָס איז אייגנטלעך פֿײַער? איז דאָס אַ ברכה? איז דאָס אַ קללה?
די תּורה איז געגעבן געוואָרן אין פֿײַער, די אינקוויזיציע האָט געהערשט אין פֿײַער.
פֿײַער איז די נשמה פֿון דער וועלט. אין פֿײַער גייט אויף דער טאָג און מיט אַ פֿײַער פֿאַרגייט ער.
דאָס לעבן פֿון יעדן באַשעפֿעניש איז פֿײַער.
דער מענטש, אין וועמען זײַן פֿײַער האָט אויסגעברענט, דער האָט אויפֿגעהערט צו „זײַן“.
אַפֿילו די מילב האָט אין זיך אַ קליינעם לאָקאָמאָטיוועלע מיט פֿײַער, וואָס טרײַבט איר דורכן לעבן.
ליבע איז פֿײַער, דענקען — פֿײַער, אַרבעט — פֿײַער, האַס — פֿײַער, ראַכע (נקמה) — פֿײַער. אַלץ איז פֿײַער, אַפֿילו דאָס וואַסער: מיר גיסן אין זיך וואַסער צו פֿאַרלענגערן אונדזער פֿײַער. די דורשטיקע ערד טרינקט וואַסער, כּדי צו האָבן גענוג פֿײַער אַרויסצוגעבן אירע געוויקסן.
איך קען דאָס קלענסטע ליד נישט זינגען, ווען איך זאָל נישט דערפֿילן אין דער נשמה אַ ברען, אַ פֿײַער, דעם הייליקן פֿײַער פֿון שאַפֿן.
איך פֿאַרגעטער דעם פֿײַער, ער איז דער סימבאָל פֿון טעטיקייט, פֿון שטרעבן, פֿון שטײַגן, פֿון גיין אַרויף, הויך, הויך הימלווערטס…
אָבער איך פֿאַרער נאָר אין פֿײַער דאָס שאַפֿערישע און נישט דאָס צעשטערנדיקע. איך בענטש אים ווען ער גיט, אָבער נישט ווען ער נעמט. איך בענטש אים אויפֿן סיני און פֿלוך אים (שעלט אים) אויפֿן שײַטער־הויפֿן.
איצט פֿאַרדאַם איך אים. ער האָט פֿאַרצערט אַ פֿאַבריק מיט אַרבעטער־מיידלעך. ער האָט פֿאַרוואַנדלט ניו־יאָרק אין אַ לוויה־שטאָט און איז געוואָרן די קללה פֿון דער מענטשהייט.
ברעכט אויף די טיר און באַפֿרײַט זיך!
און אָט איז דאָס ליד וואָס משה ראָזענפֿעלד האָט דעמאָלט אָנגעשריבן:
די פֿאַרשלאָסענע טיר (פֿײַער־געדאַנקען איבער פֿאַרברענטע אַרבעטער)
דער פֿײַער בושעוועט אָן שיעור
עס זעצט דער רויך, די העל דערוואַכט.
מען שפּאַרט זיך צו דער רעטונגס־טיר,
אומזיסט! אָ, וויי, זי איז פֿאַרמאַכט!
מען שרײַט, מען ראַנגלט זיך, מען פֿאַלט,
אין טײַוולס בלוטיקן געצעלט.
מען בלײַבט אין זײַן פֿאַרפֿלוכטן גוואַלט,
אַיעדער אויסגאַנג איז פֿאַרשטעלט.
מען לויפֿט, מען ווייס אַליין ניט וווּ,
און יעדע האָפֿענונג איז גענאַרט.
די שווערע גיהנום־טיר איז צו,
דער אַשמדאַי האָט איר פֿאַרשפּאַרט.
ניט רופֿט דעם שוואַרצן שד צום דין!
אַ שאָד די מי, ער איז גערעכט…
צו דער פֿאַרמאַכטער טיר אַהין!..
און אַלע, פּונקט ווי איינער, ברעכט!
מען בלײַבט אין דעם גיהנום־בראַנד
כּל־זמן דער שלאָס איז אים געטרײַ…
קומט אַלע גלײַך, לייגט צו אַ האַנט!
ברעכט אויף די טיר און איר זײַט פֿרײַ…
די העל איז נאָר אַ העל ווי לאַנג
דער שלאָס פֿון טײַוול הענגט אויף איר.
געפֿערלעך איז איר פֿלאַם, איר צוואַנג
נאָר בײַ אַ צוגעמאַכטער טיר…
אַ צווייט ליד וואָס מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד האָט אָנגעשריבן וועגן דער שׂריפֿה האָט די פֿאָרשערין און זאַמלערין פֿון ייִדישע לידער, חנה מלאָטעק, אָפּגעדרוקט אינעם פֿאָרווערטס אין 2011 — פּונקט הונדערט יאָר נאָך דעם אומגליק, אינעם אַרטיקל, קינות וועגן דעם טרײַענגל־פֿײַער. דאָס ליד געפֿינט זיך אויף דער פּלאַטע „דאָס גאָלדענע לאַנד“ פֿון יאָסל מלאָטעק:
די רויטע בהלה (אויף פֿאַרברענטע פֿאַבריק־מיידלעך אין ניו־יאָרק)
ניט קיין שלאַכט, ניט קיין פֿאַרטײַוולטער פּאָגראָם
האָט אָנגעפֿילט די גרעסטע שטאָט מיט קלאָגן,
די ערד האָט ניט געציטערט אין איר תּהום,
עס האָט קיין בליץ, קיין דונער ניט געשלאָגן;
סע האָבן קיין שוואַרצע וועטער־וואָלקנס ניט געקראַכט,
און קיין קאַנאָנען ניט די לופֿט צעאַקערט —
אָ, ניין! דאָס האָט אַ מוראדיקע העל דערוואַכט,
אַ שקלאַפֿן־נעסט מיט שקלאַפֿן ווילד געפֿלאַקערט,
דאָס האָט דער גאָלד־גאָט מיט אַ בראַנד־געלעכטער
געפֿרעסן אונדזערע זין און טעכטער,
געלעקט די לעבנס מיט זײַנע רויטע צונגען —
זיי זײַנען אין דעם טויט געשפּרונגען,
אין זײַן שויס געדרונגען,
ער האָט זיי געכאַפּט, געלאַכט, געזונגען…
ער האָט זיי פֿאַרשלונגען.
* * *
זיי זײַנען געזעסן אין זייער יאָך פֿאַרטיפֿט,
זייער שווייס האָט געטריפֿט —
אין דעם פֿאַרטויבנדן געזשום
פֿון מאַשינען אַרום, —
ווען צען שטאָק אין דער הויך,
האָט זיי פֿאַרוויקלט דער רויך,
פֿאַרשפּונען דער פֿלאַם,
און אַ גלוטיקער ים
געפֿרעסן, גענאַשט,
פֿאַרקוילט, פֿאַראַשט!
* * *
שוועסטער מײַנע! יונגע שוועסטער!
מײַנע יונגע ברידער!…
טרויערט מײַנע לידער!
יאָמערט און טרויערט!…
זעט ווי עס לויערט
פֿון טונקעלע נעסטער
דעם אַרבעטערס טויט;
ווי ער האַלט זײַן ברויט…
ווי ער גלאָצט בײַ זײַן טיר,
בײַ זײַן אָרעם געצעלט —
וויי, וויי איז מיר!
וויי, וויי דיר, וועלט!
אַ שבת איז דאָס געווען,
אַן אַרבעטערס אַ שבת,
זײַן „קידוש!“… זײַן „הבֿדלה!“…
די רויטע בהלה
איז פּלוצלינג געשען,
געשיקט פֿון דעם רײַכן,
דעם פּרינץ פֿון געלט.
אָ, אָ, וויי אָן אַ גלײַכן!
פֿליסט טרערנטײַכן,
אַ פֿלוך דער אָרדענונג!
אַ פֿלוך דער אומאָרדענונג!
אַ פֿלוך דער וועלט!
* * *
אויף וועמען זאָל מען פֿריִער קלאָגן?
אויף די פֿאַרברענטע?
אויף די ניט־דערקענטע?
אויף די, וואָס קדיש זאָגן?
אויף די פֿאַרקריפּלטע,
פֿון „זײַן“ געטראָגן?
מײַן טרערנטײַך
אויף אײַך אַלעמען גלײַך!
* * *
פֿאַרהיל זיך אין שוואַרצן, דו גאָלדן לאַנד!
צו טיף דײַן פֿאַרברעכן, צו שרעקלעך דײַן שאַנד,
צו טויב דײַן געוויסן, צו בלינד דײַן געזעץ,
צו טײַוולש דײַן „האַווען“, צו בלוטיק דײַן נעץ,
דײַן נעץ, וועלכע פֿאַנגט דײַנע אָרעמע־לייט —
ס׳וועט קומען די צײַט!… ס׳וועט קומען דײַן צײַט!…
* * *
צינדט יאָרצײַט־ליכט אָן אין די ייִדישע גאַסן!
דער בראָך איז דער בראָך פֿון די ייִדישע מאַסן,
פֿון אונדזערע מאַסן פֿאַרחושכט און אָרעם.
ס׳איז אונדזער לוויה, יאָ, — אונדזערע קבֿרים,
ס׳האָט אונדזערע קינדער, וויי, אונדזערע בלומען,
דער פֿײַער פֿון אונדזערע אָרעמס גענומען.
וויי! אונדזערע ליבע פֿאַרשׂרפֿעטע קוילן,
וויי! אונדזערע פֿריידן אַ העלע מיט גרוילן,
וויי! אונדזערע גליקן אַ באַרג מיט אַרונות,
וויי! אונדזערע זיסע — גיהנום זכרונות!…
אַ צווייט ליד וואָס חנה מלאָטעק האָט דעמאָלט געדרוקט הייסט „מאַמעניו, אָדער עלעגיע פֿאַר די טרײַענגל־פֿײַער־קרבנות“, ווערטער פֿון אַנשל שאָר, מוזיק פֿון יוסל רומשינסקי:
עס רײַסט דאָס האַרץ פֿון דער שרעקלעכער פּלאָג,
ס׳ייִדישע פֿאָלק קלאָגט און וויינט, און ברעכט די הענט.
עס ברעכט אויס אַ פֿײַער, אין העלן טאָג
און הונדערטער אַרבעטער, זיי ווערן פֿאַרברענט.
די וואָס זײַנען פֿון פֿײַער אַנטרינען
האָבן שפּרינגענדיק זייער טויט געפֿינען.
די „מאָרג“ איז פֿול,
מען ווערט שיעור דיל,
ווי אַ מאַמע קלאָגט דאָרט אין דער שטיל:
— אוי־וויי, קינדעניו!
רײַסט זיך בײַ די האָר די מאַמעניו,
— צוליב דעם שטיקל ברויט
האָט אַ שרעקלעכער טויט
גערויבט מיר מײַן איינציק קינד;
טויט ליגט מײַן מיידעלע,
תּכריכים ׳שטאָט אַ חופּה־קליידעלע,
וויי איז מײַנע יאָר,
אַ קינד פֿון זעכצן יאָר,
אוי, מאַמע, מאַמע, וויי איז מיר!
חנה מלאָטעק האָט אויך אַרײַנגענומען טייל פֿון אַ ליד וואָס זי האָט באַקומען פֿון איוו סיקולאַר. די ווערטער זײַנען פֿון לויִס גילראָד און די מוזיק — פֿון ד. מייעראָוויץ. דער אָנהייב לייענט זיך אַזוי:
די שטונדע האָט געקלאַפּט,
דער שאַפּ האָט געסטאַפּט
אין דער גרויסער ווייסט־פֿעקטאָרי.
די אַרבעטער, זיי
האָבן געקראָגן די פּיי
און געאײַלט זיך אַהיימגיין פֿאַר פֿרי.
נאָר פּלוצים, אוי־וויי,
אַ שרעק, אַ געשריי,
אַ העלישער פֿײַער ברעכט אויס.
פֿון איבעראַל קומען
פֿאַרצווייפֿלטע שטימען
אַיעדער וויל פֿריִער אַרויס.
פֿײַערלײַט קלינגען,
פֿון צענטן פֿלאָר שפּרינגען
מיידלעך פֿאַר אַנגסט און פֿון נויט.
עס קראַכט אומגעהײַער
דאָס שרעקלעכע פֿײַער
און פֿאַרברענט יונגע לײַבן צום טויט.
The post Mourning the victims of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
I had a shot and rock ‘n’ roll fame — I chose a lifetime of Shabbat instead
In 1986, saying no was not part of the plan. I was 26, newly signed to Island Records, and for the first time in my life, the machinery of the music business had begun to move in my favor. My songs “Waning Moon,” “I Feel Young Today,” and “1000 Years,” from my second album Gematria, were on the radio and MTV. There was talk of tours, of opening slots with artists like Sting, Joe Cocker and Greg Allman. My job, as everyone understood it, was simple: Say yes. Yes to every opportunity, yes to every kind of exposure, yes to everything that could possibly give my career momentum.
Lou Maglia, the president of Island Records, was an old-school Italian record guy — street-smart, direct and deeply invested in the artists he believed in. I was among his first signings. He had taken me on largely because of an independent record I had made called This Father’s Day, written and recorded as tribute to my dad, who died at 54, just a day after I’d turned 24. He was my mentor and my hero. Those who say his death had much to do with my sudden turn toward observant Judaism are partly right.
The other part is that in seeking a record deal since I was 13, and then finally getting one, I discovered it wasn’t the answer to what I’d actually been searching for, which was a loving family, a clearer understanding of what my life’s purpose might be, and a deeper sense of belonging in my tribe — the Jewish people.
That’s why, one afternoon, when I walked into Lou’s office and closed the door behind me, what I said to him must have sounded incomprehensible.
“Lou, I’m starting to keep this Jewish thing called Shabbos, and I won’t be available to perform on Friday nights anymore.”
He stared at me for a moment, then burst out laughing.
“Ha! Fucking Shabbos. Ok, that’s a good one, I get it. But can we talk about these opening slots?”
It wasn’t a cruel laugh. It was the laugh of a man encountering something he had no category for. In Lou’s world, artists did all kinds of self-destructive things and made radically poor decisions. But remove themselves from the single most important performance night of the week? Never. Ever.
I was, in effect, telling him I had decided to become unavailable for my own ascent.
At the time, I couldn’t have explained my decision in any coherent way. I didn’t have the vocabulary or even the conceptual framework. All I knew was that after my dad’s death something had begun to feel hollow. Not the music. The music was real. It was everything around it. The sense that if I just kept moving forward fast enough, saying yes often enough, I’d arrive at some point where things would finally make sense. They didn’t. (I can state for the record, 40 years later, they still don’t.)
But around that same time, through a chain of introductions, I met the record producer and singer Kenny Vance, of Jay and the Americans fame. Kenny, now my dear friend, had worked with everyone, and he wasn’t shy about mentioning it.
“I used to date Diane Keaton,” he told me. “I know Woody Allen. I was the music director for Saturday Night Live. But tonight, I’m gonna take you to my main connection, a religious Jew in Brooklyn.”
I suspect he thought I’d roll my eyes at the prospect. I did nothing of the sort. I was excited.
Before long, we were crossing the Brooklyn Bridge, the lights of lower Manhattan burning behind us. We arrived at an apartment in Crown Heights where Rabbi Simon Jacobson greeted us. I connected with Simon right off the bat. His eyes reflected a paradox, an awareness that being alive was both a source of great humor and great sadness. Simon told me about his work reconstructing the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s talks from memory, highly complex talks that lasted for hours and drew on thousands of Jewish sources. The scale of it was incomprehensible to me. It belonged to a world governed by entirely different assumptions than my own.
Later that night, after Kenny, who seemed very old — I think he was 40 — got tired and left for his home in Far Rockaway, I asked Simon about the paintings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe hanging on the wall.
“What’s the deal with those pictures?” I said. “They seem sort of cultish to me.”
Simon wasn’t offended. “I enjoy them,” he said. “To me, the Rebbe is like a very inspiring grandfather.”
Makes sense, I thought.
He grew quiet, then continued. “There are people called tzadikim,” he said. “They have no sense of self. They live only to serve others. And they can do anything they wish.”
I knew enough to know he wasn’t using the colloquial tzadik, as in “What a tzadik, that Herb Shapiro. Got me such a deal on my new Firestones.”
“Really?” I asked. “Can they fly?”
Simon looked at me. He became serious.
“I’ve never seen anyone fly. But for a tzadik, flying is no greater miracle than walking.”
The remark just about toppled me. Not because it sounded weird and mystical, but because it cohered with something I had always felt, but had never heard expressed so simply: that walking itself was a miracle. That breathing, eating pancakes, taking a piss, that just being alive, was a miracle.
One could accurately say that I was the fastest person ever to join the “cult.” I went out and bought tzitzit the next day. I began keeping kosher. “One less shrimp,” was how I thought of it. Then came Shabbat observance in my dumpy railroad apartment on 47th and Eighth Avenue in Hell’s Kitchen.
Shabbat, like music, was the space between notes. A kind of purposeful interruption. For one day each week, I stopped. I stopped producing. I stopped striving. Most importantly, I stopped trying to turn success into proof of my worth. It wasn’t only about stopping work. That’s too simple. It was about remembering that I was more than my work. It felt like an authentic subversion of shallow cultural norms, something that instinctively appealed to me. It was the more truthful version of the so-called subversion that rock and roll had always only imitated.
This is why I told Lou Maglia no.
Not because I was certain, but because I had begun to understand that if I lost this, I might lose something far more essential than a career.
My friend, the late Lou Maglia, lapsed Catholic, soulful man that he was, stopped laughing. He saw that I was serious. He didn’t drop me. Far from it. He became my biggest champion. When it would have been only logical for us to play cities like Cleveland and Chicago in support of one of my recordings, Lou even helped finance my tour of the Caucasus in what was then the USSR. (Another story for another time.) He knew that my music wasn’t a posture, but a reflection of my deeply held values.
Hey Lou, if you’re up there listening, thank you. You were a beautiful man with a beautiful spirit.
People sometimes ask me if the cost to my career was worth it. There are two issues I have with the question. First, it assumes the career was the central measure of my life. Second, few ask what I received in return. I have, thank God, been blessed with a beautiful marriage, a tight-knit, loving family, grandchildren, a body of work that I could never have imagined at age 26, and time. I have been able to see the value of time and secure it as my own.
As for music, Shabbat didn’t take any of it away from me. It taught me to hear it better, write it better, and perform it better.
I have never struck a better bargain.
The post I had a shot and rock ‘n’ roll fame — I chose a lifetime of Shabbat instead appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Spain withdraws ambassador to Israel, widening diplomatic rift as Trump threatens to sever trade
(JTA) — MADRID — Spain has permanently withdrawn its ambassador to Israel in a symbolic rebuke of the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has emerged as an unequivocal and lonely voice in Europe against the Iran war, widening Spain’s rift with Israel and making an enemy of President Donald Trump.
Ambassador Ana María Salomón Pérez was removed from her post on Tuesday, according to an announcement issued Wednesday by the Spanish government. Israel recalled its ambassador to Spain, Rodica Radian-Gordon, shortly after Spain said it would recognize a Palestinian state in May 2024.
Spain’s move marks an escalation in the countries’ strained relations, which have severely deteriorated since the start of the war in Gaza in 2023.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez became one of Europe’s most vocal critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s prosecution of that war. Over the last three years, he rallied support for Palestinian statehood, accused Israel of genocide in Gaza and imposed a total arms embargo on Israel.
Pérez was summoned to Madrid in September, following a diplomatic row over Spain’s ban on aircrafts and ships carrying weapons to Israel. Israel’s foreign minister Gideon Saar called the measure antisemitic and barred two members of Sánchez’s Cabinet from entering Israel, saying they supported “terrorism and violence against Israelis.”
Spain and Israel are now both represented in each other’s embassies by their respective chargés d’affaires, lower-ranking officials who reflect their downgraded relations. It is the same status that Israel maintained with South Africa before the two countries ejected even the lower-level envoys earlier this year.
Sánchez has been one of few major European leaders to emphatically reject the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, calling them “an unjustified and dangerous military intervention” that he says violates international law.
As the leaders of Germany, France and Italy have taken more conciliatory tones, Trump has lashed back at Sánchez. After Spain refused to allow the United States permission to use two jointly operated bases in its territory for strikes on Iran, Trump threatened to sever trade.
“Spain has been terrible,” Trump said during a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on March 3. He added, “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”
Sánchez, in response, has revived the “No to war” slogan that galvanized Spaniards in 2003. At the time, millions took to the streets to reject then-Prime Minister José María Aznar’s support for the Iraq war, contributing to his center-right party’s collapse in 2004. The war was also seen as a driver behind a deadly terrorist attack in Madrid whose 22nd anniversary Spain marked on Wednesday.
Sánchez said the slogan summed up the Spanish government’s position in a televised address on March 4. In a pointed line, he said leaders who have not improved their people’s lives “make use of war to hide their failure whilst filling the pockets of a few — the usual ones, the only ones who win when the world stops building hospitals in order to build missiles.”
Even more pointedly, without naming Trump, he said, “We are not going to be complicit in something that is bad for the world and contrary to our values and interests, simply out of fear of reprisals from anyone.”
The post Spain withdraws ambassador to Israel, widening diplomatic rift as Trump threatens to sever trade appeared first on The Forward.