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
Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election
(JTA) — TEL AVIV – Israel’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of Arab parties to run in the Oct. 27 election could make it more difficult for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new coalition after the election.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Joint Arab List and Ra’am, the two Arab-led political lists competing in Israel’s elections, could run. The ruling overturned a decision by the Central Elections Committee, a largely political body in which parties in Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition hold a majority of the seats, which had voted last month to bar the lists from running.
“The court found that the materials submitted to the Central Elections Committee did not meet the standards established in the case law for disqualifying a list of candidates,” the court said in its ruling, which did not include extensive reasoning.
The decision restored the parties that traditionally represent Israel’s more than 2 million Arab citizens and in doing so helped the opposition block. Now a wide constituency that rejects working with Netanyahu will have a reason to head to the polls rather than stay home.
Most polls have shown that the opposition bloc would need to include the parliamentary seats held by the Ra’am party, led by MK Mansour Abbas, in order to gain the lead over Netanyahu’s coalition. Unlike Ra’am, the Joint Arab List has never sat in an Israeli coalition and there is no expectation that it would join with Zionist Jewish-led parties to do so.
The court also took a number of other steps regarding the upcoming election. It overturned the committee’s decision to disqualify Ofer Cassif, a Jewish lawmaker running as part of the Joint List. In Cassif’s case, the decision was made by a 7-2 majority.
The Supreme Court justices said they “strongly condemn the outrageous statements and actions by Cassif that evoke revulsion.” At the same time, they ruled that “these statements or actions do not meet the stringent tests established” for disqualifying a candidate.
According to the petition seeking Cassif’s disqualification, he had legitimized Palestinian violence during the war, referred to those seeking to attack Israeli soldiers as “freedom fighters” and taken actions against Israel in international legal forums.
The most significant development, however, came in the case of Sami Abu Shehadeh, the leader of Balad, one of the parties that make up the Joint List.
During a Thursday hearing, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of indicating to Abu Shehadeh that a majority of the justices were inclined to disqualify him and recommended that he withdraw his candidacy.
Following internal consultations, Balad announced that Abu Shehadeh would withdraw his candidacy, rendering the court’s expected ruling on his disqualification moot.
“Sami Abu Shehadeh did not retract his positions and did not flee the struggle. Only after the court itself announced its intention to uphold the disqualification did he decide to withdraw his candidacy,” Balad said in an official statement.
A central part of the case against Abu Shehadeh focused on an article he published on Oct. 8, 2023, one day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, in which the terror organization killed 1,200 people in Israel and took another 251 hostage.
In the article, Abu Shehadeh described the Oct. 7 events as an “important historic event” and suggested that lessons could be learned from how Hamas had managed to surprise Israel and carry out its invasion. His comments were cited as evidence that he supports armed struggle against Israel, one of the grounds on which candidates can be disqualified under Israeli law.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said there was “a consensus that the things said by Mr. Abu Shehadeh are painful, outrageous and revolting.” The decision to disqualify Abu Shehadeh was also supported by the Democrats, Israel’s most left-wing Zionist party.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Abu Shehadeh acknowledged that “this paragraph was not written correctly.” He said, “I have never supported violence in my life,” and said that he knows victims of the Oct. 7 attack.
Balad said Abu Shehadeh would continue to lead the party’s political activities even without serving in the Knesset.
The Joint List sharply criticized the court’s handling of the case. In a statement, the list said that “the heart of the matter” was “preventing an Arab political leader from running in the elections and infringing on our public’s right to choose its representatives.”
The list accused the court of acting “following a campaign of incitement and political persecution led by the fascist and Kahanist right, joined by the leaders of the Zionist opposition parties.”
“The court must bear responsibility for its disgraceful decision before our public and before public opinion in Israel and around the world, for providing judicial cover for political exclusion. This ruling is another link in the chain of persecution of our public.”
Right-wing Israeli politicians also criticized the court for declining to issue a ruling formally disqualifying Abu Shehadeh rather than merely pressing him to withdraw.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, an ultranationalist member of Netanyahu’s government, called the court’s proposal “too merciful” and said it “harms the democracy of the State of Israel.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis
על-פּי צופֿאַל האָב איך הײַיאָר פֿאַרבראַכט עטלעכע טעג אין די פֿראַנצייזישע אַלפּן-בערג. די בילעטן זײַנען נישט געווען אַזוי טײַער, און „בוקינג“ האָט רעקאָמענדירט אַ דאָרף נישט ווײַט פֿון ניצע (ניס).
דאָס דאָרף, סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי , איז פֿאַרשפּרייט אויף אַ באַרג אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך, און די קאָלירפֿולע הײַזער גיבן אָנצוהערן, אַז עס געפֿינט זיך נישט ווײַט פֿון דער איטאַליענישער גרענעץ. אין מיטן דעם דאָרף איז פֿאַראַן אַ טײַך, און אַלץ איז מלא-חן, פֿול מיט סאָסנע־ביימער און רײַפֿע טרויבן. אויף אַזעלכע ערטער זאָגט מײַן מאַמע: „מײַן באָבע האָט אויך נישט געהערט פֿון דעם.“
אָבער עס ווײַזט זיך אויס אַז מײַן באָבע וואָלט יאָ געקאָנט הערן פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. שוין אינעם ערשטן טאָג האָב איך געפֿונען דאָרטן אַ ייִדיש פּינטעלע, און דווקא גאָר אַ וויכטיקס. די וועגווײַזערין פֿון דאָרף, אַן סיווירין, האָט אונדז דערציילט אַז אין דער צײַט פֿונעם צווייטן וועלטקריג איז סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי געווען כּמעט אַ יאָר לאַנג אַ מקום-מיקלט פֿאַר מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן.
צווישן די ייִדן זײַנען געווען פּליטים פֿון דײַטשלאַנד, פּוילן, האָלאַנד און בעלגיע, וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן צו דער „זאָן ליברע“ – דעם פֿרײַען געביט, ד״ה דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, וואָס איז אין די ערשטע צוויי יאָר פֿון דער מלחמה געבליבן פֿרײַ פֿון די נאַציס. אויך מײַן באָבע פֿייגע, צוזאַמען מיט דער משפּחה, האָט פּראָבירט אַנטלויפֿן פֿון בעלגיע קיין דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, אָבער צוליב פֿאַרשיידענע סיבות איז עס נישט געלונגען, און די משפּחה איז געבליבן אין אַנטווערפּן.
אין נאָוועמבער 1942 זײַנען די דײַטשן אַרײַן אינעם „פֿרײַען געביט“, און זייערע אַליִירטער, די איטאַליענער, האָבן אָקופּירט די דרום-מזרחדיקע געביטן פֿון פֿראַנקרײַך. פֿאַר די ייִדן איז עס דווקא געווען אַ גוטע בשׂורה. כאָטש די איטאַליענער האָבן געפֿירט זייערע אייגענע „ראַסע-געזעצן“, האָבן די ייִדן אין איטאַליע — און דערווײַל אויך אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך — געקאָנט לעבן; און לעבן איז גאָר נישט געווען קיין קלייניקייט אין סוף 1942, בשעת ס׳רובֿ ייִדן פֿון אייראָפּע האָבן די דײַטשן שוין דערמאָרדעט.
אַ דאַנק די באַמיִונגען פֿון אַנדזשעלאָ דאָנאַטי, אַן איטאַליענישן ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט אין ניצע, האָבן די איטאַליענער מסכּים געווען צו שאַפֿן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי אַ צענטער פֿאַר ייִדישע פּליטים, וווּ זיי זאָלן קאָנען לעבן כּמעט אַ נאָרמאַל לעבן. אַזוי זײַנען אָנגעקומען אין דאָרף מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן. פֿאַר דער מלחמה האָט דאָ געוווינט נאָר איין ייִדישע משפּחה — די משפּחה לעווין-דריזדאָ, און מיט אַ מאָל איז עס געוואָרן ממש אַ ייִדיש שטעטל.
אין מיטן דער מלחמה, צווישן די אַלפּן-בערג און די וועלדער, האָבן ייִדן פֿון אָנהייב 1943 זיך געלערנט, געדאַוונט, געאַרבעט, געשאַפֿן יוגנט- און ספּאָרט-אָרגאַניזאַציעס, און אַפֿילו חתונה געהאַט. די אײַנוווינער, די פֿראַנצויזן, האָבן זיי בדרך-כּלל פֿרײַנדלעך אויפֿגענומען, און אַ סך האָבן זיי געגעבן עסן און געהאָלפֿן אויף אַנדערע אופֿנים — אַ זעלנטקייט, און נישט נאָר אין פֿראַנקרײַך.
אין אָנהייב סעפּטמבער 1943, נאָך דעם ווי די איטאַליענער האָבן קאַפּיטולירט, איז אָבער געקומען אַ סוף צו דעם גן-עדן. די דײַטשן זײַנען אַרײַן אין איטאַליע, און אין אַ פּאָר טעג אַרום זײַנען זיי אָנגעקומען אויך אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. ווען די ייִדן האָבן דערהערט די נײַעס זײַנען אַ סך פֿון זיי, מיט דער הילף פֿון די אָרטיקע, אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, מיט דער כּוונה צו גנבֿענען די גרענעץ קיין איטאַליע. די טעג זײַנען געווען קאַלטע און רעגנדיקע, און יציאת-סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי איז געוואָרן שווער אָן אַ שיעור (אויך פֿאַר מיר, ווי אַ טוריסט, איז דאָס קלעטערן געווען כּמעט אוממעגלעך).
אין איטאַליע האָבן הונדערטער ייִדן געפֿונען נײַע באַהעלטענישן, אָבער אַ סך האָבן די דײַטשן דאָרטן געכאַפּט. צוזאַמען מיט ייִדן וואָס זײַנען געבליבן אין דאָרף — מסתּמא אַלטע לײַט און קינדער — האָט מען זיי דעפּאָרטירט קיין דראַנסי, לעבן פּאַריז, און פֿון דאָרטן קיין אוישוויץ.
אָבער אויך דעמאָלט זײַנען צענדליקער ייִדן געבליבן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, און אָרטיקע מענטשן האָבן זיי באַהאַלטן אין פֿאַרשיידענע ערטער. פֿאַרשטייט זיך, נישט אַלע אין דאָרף האָבן זיי געהאָלפֿן, אָבער ס׳רובֿ אײַנוויינערס, וואָס האָבן געוווּסט וואָס קומט פֿאָר, האָבן דאָס קיינעם נישט אויסגעזאָגט. נאָר איין ייִד האָט מען געמסרט — דעם ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט דאָ פֿאַר דער מלחמה.
מיט דער צײַט האָט „יד־ושם“ אַנערקענט צען אָרטיקע מענטשן, וואָס האָבן געראַטעוועט ייִדן ווי „חסידי-אומות-העולם“.
אויב איר האָט גאָרנישט געהערט פֿון דעם העראָיִשן, באַשיידענעם דאָרף זײַנט איר נישט די איינציקע. אַפֿילו אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט מען יאָרן לאַנג נישט גערעדט וועגן די געשעענישן במשך פֿון דער צווייטער וועלט־מלחמה. „עס זײַנען געווען די וואָס האָבן געהאָלפֿן און די וואָס האָבן קאָלאַבאָרירט, און אַלע האָבן געדאַרפֿט לעבן אין איינעם נאָכן קריג“, האָט דערקלערט די וועגווײַזערין, אַן סיווירין. „אָבער איין טאָג האָט אַ יונגע פֿרוי געהערט, ווי די אַלטע לײַט ריידן צווישן זיך וועגן ׳די באַהאַלטענע ייִדן׳, און די פּאַנדאָרע-קעסטל האָט זיך צעעפֿנט.“
פֿון דעמאָלט אָן שטאָלצירן די איינווינערס פון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי מיט דעם וואָס די מענטשן פֿון זייער שטעטל האָבן געהאָלפֿן ראַטעווען ייִדן בעת דער מלחמה. אין יעדן פֿראַנצייזישן דאָרף שטייט אַ דענקמאָל לזכר די געפֿאַלענע במשך פֿון די צוויי וועלט־מלחמות (און אויך אַנדערע קריגן). לעבן דעם גרויסן דענקמאָל אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטייען הײַנט דרײַ גרויסע דענקמעלער: איינער לזכר די אומגעקומענע ייִדן; אַ צווייטער אין אָנדענק פֿון די „חסידי-אומות-העולם“, און אַ דריטער וואָס דערציילט די גאַנצע געשיכטע.
הײַנט קאָן מען לייענען וועגן דער פּרשה אין פֿאַרשיידענע ביכער: איין ביכל אויף פֿראַנצייזיש, וואָס סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט אַרויסגעגעבן: „די ייִדן און ‘צדיקים’ פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי“; אַ בוך אויף ענגליש: „די חורבן־אָדיסייעס: די ייִדן פֿון סאַן־מאַרטען־וועזובי און זייער פּליטה דורך פֿראַנקרײַך און איטאַליע“, און אויך אַ ראָמאַן אויפֿן סמך פֿון יענעם קאַפּיטל געשיכטע.
סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטאָלצירט מיט נאָך עפּעס. אינעם גרויסן קלויסטער פֿון דאָרף שטייט אַ הייליקע סטאַטוע פֿון דער מאַדאָנע, אַ הילצערנע סטאַטוע וואָס די אָרטיקע הייליקן שוין הונדערטער יאָרן. לכּבֿוד דער אַלטער מאַדאָנע מאַרשירן זיי יעדעס יאָר אין אַ גרויסן פּאַראַד צו די בערג, על-פּי דער טראַדיציע איז איר מקור. אין גײַסט פֿון יענער טראַדיציע האָבן די אײַנוויינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, מיט בערך 10 יאָר צוריק, באַשלאָסן אײַנצופֿירן אַ נײַע טראַדיציע: יעדן 3טן סעפּטעמבער מאַרשירן זיי לכּבֿוד די ייִדן וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, ביז דעם באַרגפּאַס אויף דער גרענעץ מיט איטאַליע. דאָרטן, לעבן דעם טאָוול לזכר די ייִדן, דערמאָנען זיי די אומגעקומענע און די וואָס זײַנען ניצול געוואָרן אַ דאַנק די אַמאָליקע אײַנווינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. אויך די קינדער אָדער אייניקלעך פֿון די געראַטעווטע ייִדן נעמען צו מאָל אַן אָנטייל אין די פּראָצעסיעס.
אויפֿן טאָוול שטייט געשריבן, אויף איטאַליעניש און פֿראַנצייזיש: „דורך דעם באַרגפּאַס, אין סעפּטעמבער 1943, זײַנען דורכגעגאַנגען הונדערטער ייִדן פֿון גאַנץ אייראָפּע, וואָס האָבן געזוכט מיטלען זיך צו ראַטעווען פֿון די אַנטיסעמיטישע רדיפֿות.“
און גלײַך נאָך דעם בײַט זיך דער טאָן פֿון די ווערטער אויף אַ גאָר רירנדיקן אופֿן: „דו, וואָס דו גייסט דאָ אין דער פֿרײַ, דאַרפֿסט געדענקען אַז דאָס קאָן געשען ווען מע לאָזט נישט אַלע מענטשן געניסן פֿון די זעלבע רעכט.“
The post A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story.
(JTA) — A string of U.S. House primary successes for democratic socialists, most of whom are sharp Israel critics, was hailed as a major shift in party politics over the course of the summer. But now that the primaries have concluded, a full picture of the results shows that the group’s victories were concentrated in House races in the deepest-blue districts, while few politicians have scored wins in Senate races.
During the primary season, candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won seven out of the 25 U.S. House primaries in which they competed, securing two wins in Michigan, one in Colorado, three in New York and one in Pennsylvania, according to the DSA’s vote tracker. However, these wins have all occurred in Democratic strongholds: New York City, Detroit, Denver and Philadelphia.
“It’s a little bit dangerous to overinterpret a handful of elections compared to all the others,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Calling the DSA the new big kid on the block is a little bit premature.”
In addition to the seven DSA primary winners, another DSA candidate who ran in a California nonpartisan primary advanced to a U.S. House runoff against a Democratic incumbent in November. Two additional democratic socialists, from Kansas and New Hampshire, withdrew before their respective House primaries.
Of the DSA’s 18 House primary losses, seven occurred in deep-blue areas – demonstrating that even in the country’s most progressive pockets, democratic socialists often weren’t popular. These defeats notably included one in St. Louis, where incumbent Wesley Bell trounced DSA firebrand and anti-AIPAC crusader Cori Bush.
Granted, the DSA victories are still unprecedented in a country where socialism has long been anathema. The candidates might have only succeeded in deeply Democratic districts – but that means they are all but assured victory on Election Day. Taken together, they’ll constitute a larger contingent in Congress than ever before.
Many of the DSA candidates made Israel and its supporters central issues during their campaigns, and there’s little doubt that their presence will tilt the Democratic caucus in the Congress further away from Israel.
The DSA’s official stance on Israel includes an end to the country’s “colonization and occupation of all Arab lands,” the “self-determination of the Palestinian people” and the cessation of “U.S. complicity in Israel’s genocide and apartheid.” Although the DSA has won fewer races than it has lost, the victories would more than triple the group’s presence in the U.S. House, with five newcomers in addition to Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Jeff Robbins, a Boston-based attorney and former Democratic Senate staffer, said that supporters of Israel should be concerned by the wins, even if they don’t constitute a wave.
Robbins, who also served as a delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights under former president Bill Clinton, warned that if anti-Israel DSA politicians keep racking up wins, Democratic strategists will discourage candidates from supporting Israel’s response to Hamas after the Oct. 7 attacks.
Recommending any action to the contrary, he argued, will result in “the quickest campaign you’ve ever seen.”
“It will be over before you can say ‘the Golan Heights’,” Robbins quipped.
And yet, although the media spotlight has shone on the DSA’s standout victories, establishment candidates have secured more wins at the ballot box from a numerical perspective. In addition, democratic socialists have focused more on the House than the Senate, where they would need to appeal to broader statewide electorates to win seats.
One major exception to that rule is Florida DSA member Angie Nixon, who pulled off a stunning primary victory in a state that Trump won by about 13 percentage points in 2024. But she didn’t join the DSA until shortly before the election and she didn’t get its endorsement.
Another DSA Senate candidate, Gregory Levy of Ohio, will be running in the November general election as an Independent.
But the three other staunchly progressive Senate candidates who will be on the Democratic ballot in November – in Maine, Michigan and Minnesota – don’t define themselves as democratic socialists. While many are still highly critical of Israel, they have differences with DSA and are more interested in making sure they appeal to the more politically diverse populations they will face statewide. They face close races where swing voters who don’t identify strongly with either party are likely to make the difference.
For instance, though many of Abdul El-Sayed’s positions are similar to DSA policies, last month he told The Wall Street Journal that he is “not technically or practically DSA” and that he doesn’t oppose capitalism. At the same time, he has earned the support of many democratic socialist politicians, including Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Kamarck observed that Michigan, which has a huge Arab-American population, remains the nerve center of the Democratic Party’s pro-Palestinian movement. Yet although polls forecast a landslide victory for El-Sayed, who sharply criticized Israel throughout his primary campaign, she termed his victory in early August as “a squeaker.”
“It was a one-point race,” she said. “What that says is that this is not finished.”
Haile Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said in a statement at the time that although her group was disappointed in El-Sayed’s victory, his “razor-thin margin isn’t the resounding win for the far-left that was predicted.”
An Economist model issued shortly after El-Sayed’s victory predicted that the Democratic Party’s chances of winning in November fell to 48% following the primary. But a Marist poll published on Wednesday gave El-Sayed a seven-point lead over Republican Mike Rogers, with a 3.8% margin of error.
Meanwhile, post-primary predictions showed that Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan would secure an easy victory in her blue state’s Senate race. However, a new KSTP/SurveyUSA poll found that her five-point lead over Republican Michele Tafoya had narrowed to a statistical tie. Like many party progressives, Flanagan has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
As for Maine’s Jackson, the progressive was trailing Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a five-term incumbent, by 3 points, with a 3.1% margin of error, according to an AARP poll released on Thursday.
Nixon in Florida was 11 points behind Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, with a 4% margin of error, a Stetson University from late last month poll found. On the other hand, St. Pete Polls placed the candidates in a dead heat just the week before, giving Moody just a 0.3-point edge, with a 3.2% margin of error.
In a testament to the growing power of the DSA – even in a red state – Moody reportedly told Fox News Radio this week that she is “seeing way-too-close-for comfort polls in many Republican Senate races.”
And in an email blast sent the same day, according to Florida Politics, Moody warned that “the polls have been all over the place.”
“Some have us up. Two have us tied,” she wrote. “We’re in the final stretch, where everything we do, and your support, really matters.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story. appeared first on The Forward.
