“This bill would sacrifice the Constitutional rights of every citizen,
and would concentrate in the national government arbitrary powers, unchained by
laws, to suppress the liberty of all. This bill makes a shambles of
Constitutional guarantees and the Bill of Rights. It permits a man to be jailed
and fined without a jury trial. … This bill would take away the rights of
individuals and give to government the power… This bill would abandon the
principle of a government of laws in favor of a government of men. It would
give the power in government to government bureaucrats to decide what is
discrimination. This bill would open wide the door for political favoritism
with federal funds. It would vest the power in various bureaucrats to give or
withhold grants, loans, and contracts on the basis of who, in the bureaucrats’
discretion, is guilty... It is because of these and other radical departures
from our Constitutional system that the attempt is being made to railroad this
bill through Congress without following normal procedures…”
Was this Cory Booker talking about Trump’s
latest overreach? No!
It is Strom Thurmond arguing against the Civil Rights Act of 1964!
Be careful what side of history you are on. Words I wish the Rabbinical
Assembly, my union as a Conservative rabbi, would have considered when adding
its name to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs
letter last week “Rejecting False Choice Between Jewish Safety and Democracy”
Why do I feel this way? To be
sure, the violation of the civil rights of citizens and non-citizens alike
should alarm all Americans and be a call to action. Just as I would hope acts of antisemitic
violence and intimidation should alarm and awaken to action all decent
Americans. Let us explore then if there is such a dichotomy as the JCPA says,
and if the Jews should feel themselves being “used” as the letter suggests. Or perhaps, is there a complicated, yet
correct attitude one should have instead.
The Jewish Council on Public Affairs has a long and storied history. Founded in the 1940s, it was the PR branch of
Jewish Federations for most of its existence up until 2021 when it became an
independent organization. In 2023 it
hired Amy Spitalnick, the former head of J Street, to be its new leader. J Street, a progressive Zionist organization
has in recent years come in for criticism from those on the American left for
being “too Zionist.” This suggests to me that the JCPA may be attempting to
position itself as a more suitable left-wing organization on the American
Jewish scene. That is well and good, but
for the Rabbinical Assembly, an organization that represents rabbis of many
political persuasions as is to be expected of a Movement in the center of
Jewish life, it is concerning to me that the RA should think this is where to
align itself.
It is further disturbing to me that on its own website, the Rabbinical
Assembly, unless I was unable to locate it, does not bother to list its
endorsement of the JCPA letter. If we,
the RA, are going to take up causes, let us do so with conviction and boldness
and not, as it seems in this case, in such a way as to both “join the club” and
“not rock the boat.” As of Tuesday,
April 22nd, the RA is now publicizing its position more to its
membership.
For my purpose here, I will focus on the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the
Columbia University graduate student, who has been detained and against whom
deportation proceedings are unfolding, as representative of the JCPA’s claim
that democracy is being attacked under the guise of punishing those threatening
Jews in America.
Khalil is a “lawful permanent resident alien,” essentially the level just
below being a citizen of the United States.
He holds Algerian citizenship. He
was a campus leader at Columbia of the encampment protests following the
October 7th, 2023, attack on Israel.
Khalil created a group called CUAD, a successor to Jewish Voice for
Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine at Columbia.
Columbia University Apartheid Divest is, according to their own charter:
“a coalition of student
organizations working toward achieving a liberated Palestine and the end of
Israeli apartheid by urging Columbia to divest all economic and academic stakes
in Israel. We seek an end to all interlocking systems of oppression through
collective action and solidarity with oppressed people worldwide.”
“We believe in the right
of self-determination, Land Back, and the Right of Return, from Palestine to
Turtle Island.”
Those words in themselves are inflammatory but I would admit fall within
the realm of free speech. However, as
the New York Times reported, CUAD expressly
backs “armed resistance” by Hamas.
And as covered by the National Review,
CUAD recently rescinded an apology it had offered after one of its members said
Columbia should be “grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering
Zionists.” CUAD has also promoted a “Resistance 101” panel that featured a
member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — a designated
foreign terrorist organization — who proceeded to laud his “friends and
brothers” from Hamas and yet another foreign terrorist organization,
Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Another panelist at the event: “There is nothing
wrong with being a member of Hamas, being a leader of Hamas, being a fighter in
Hamas… These are the people that are on the front lines defending Palestine.”
This is not to ascribe solely to Khalil these actions, but it is clear to
see here, and how much more to recall ourselves, the fear and danger that
Jewish students and staff felt at Columbia, in the immediate aftermath of the
October 7th attacks, on account of the actions of groups like CUAD.
Furthermore, when we consider that in 2019, Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act was clarified by executive order to include the understanding that,
“discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation,” are we
American Jews out of our minds to expect, to deserve, the consideration of the
authorities we Jews would demand for transgender, African-American, disabled,
or any other American? We should not
feel afraid to expect that when Jews’ lives are put at risk in the United
States as they have been since the October 7th attacks and the
subsequent protests on American campuses such as Khalil and others organized,
and that schools like Columbia acted incompetently to control and curtail, are
we not justified to at least want to see scrutinized by the courts these
unprecedented cases of hatred and violence that have recently occurred?
And that is precisely what has been happening. Perhaps not perfectly, perhaps even
incorrectly in some respects. But to
think that it is outside of the State Department’s role to challenge the
residency status of such individuals is simply incorrect. In 1952 it was established in a provision in
the Immigration and Nationality Act that the Secretary of State can make the
determination in cases such as this one, to remove non-citizens whose actions
undermine or jeopardize American policy.
In Khalil’s case, Secretary Marco Rubio has argued that his presence in
the United States, “undermines U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the
world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish
students from harassment and violence in the United States,” and that “condoning
anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would
severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective.”
Furthermore, earlier this month, Judge Jamee Comans ruled in Louisiana
last Friday that Khalil can be deported, saying that the U.S. government met
its burden of proof to remove him.
In addition, Khalil, and
other detained students can, according to reporting by Al Jazeera on the
matter, “file lawsuits in federal courts, assert violations of due process and
seek to restore their legal status. For instance, students at Michigan
universities have initiated legal actions against the Department of Homeland
Security, alleging that their F-1 statuses were terminated without sufficient
notice or explanation. In urgent situations students may request temporary
restraining orders (TROs) to prevent deportation and reinstate their status
while legal proceedings are ongoing. Federal judges in states like Montana have
granted such orders to protect students from immediate removal.”
I share all of this to note that regarding the unique situations at hand,
the rule of law is being applied.
Frustratingly, inconsistently, perhaps, but it is being applied to cases
without, so far as I am aware, much precedent – visa holders endangering others
because of those others’ protected categories of identity. That is unusual if not historic, and it
concerns me that due process should be followed, but it also does not surprise
me that the actions on all sides need to be adjudicated as that process unfolds
Most importantly, though, is the claim of a false dichotomy in the JCPA
letter. American Jews, and organizations
that represent them, should reject the claim that we cannot be, all at once,
concerned with the treatment of migrants in the United States, whether they
have entered legally or illegally. We
can and should be concerned that human beings are treated with dignity.
AND at the same time, we can be relieved and cautiously optimistic that
virulent forms of antisemitic behavior, unlike anything I have seen in my
career or lifetime, are being stopped.
And we can feel that way without believing that we are being used as
pawns. I for one, am not so convinced of
the philo-Semitism of either American political party, at least not so much
that I don’t suspect both of being okay with using Jews as pawns. Nor do I believe that only one party
sincerely wants to fight against Jew hatred.
I think both can be true of both parties at once.
Which brings me to my final point.
I would have admired the Rabbinical Assembly, had it made a choice to
champion such a nuanced, complex, position as I have attempted to outline. Yes, we are worried abuses of power are
taking place on the part of the administration.
Yes, we are thankful that inciters of violence against Jews are being
prosecuted by that same administration.
Yes, we are concerned that people are being unjustly deported for other
reasons altogether. Yes, we are made to
feel more secure that truly dangerous individuals are being removed from our
country if they truly should not be here.
We Jews are supposed to find God in the details. To have three opinions between two of
us. To acknowledge that perfection is
God’s alone and that we human beings have to settle for flawed mortality. Just as we should not be afraid to stand up
for ourselves and our own community, we should also bravely and courageously
declare that we refuse to worship at the altar of the idolatry of American
political back and forth designed for a news cycle or election cycle and
instead stay true to the eternal ideals that were ancient before America was a
though. That we must seek to protect
these values, for our benefit and for the benefit of the United States,
including the belief that to do what is right is complicated and never
easy.
