“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment