Why indeed does Mr. Obama not want to talk with Israeli leaders?

Why indeed does Mr. Obama not want to talk with Israeli leaders?

Op-Ed Contributor, NYTimes, July 28, 2009

Why Won’t Obama Talk to Israel?

Shout

• Sign in to Recommend
• Sign In to E-Mail
• Print
• ShareClose
  • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink
  • 
    

By ALUF BENN

Published: July 27, 2009

TEL AVIV

IN his global tours and TV appearances, President Obama has spoken to Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians and Africans. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere.

But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis.

And the effect? Six months into his presidency, Israelis find themselves increasingly suspicious of Mr. Obama. All they see is American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements, a request that’s been interpreted here as political arm-twisting meant to please the Arab street at Israel’s expense — or simply to express the president’s dislike for Mr. Netanyahu.

This would seem counterproductive, given the importance the president has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.

The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we got silence.

This policy of ignoring Israel carries a price. Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon.

As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze. Moreover, he has succeeded in portraying Mr. Obama as a shaky ally. In Mr. Netanyahu’s narrative, the president has fallen under the influence of top aides — in this case Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod — whom the prime minister has called “self-hating Jews.” Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure, someone who sticks to the first commandment of Israeli culture: thou shalt never be the freier (that is, the dupe).

So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. Less scientifically: Israeli rightists have — in columns, articles and public statements — taken to calling the president by his middle name, Hussein, as proof of his pro-Arab tendencies.

What went wrong? Several explanations come to mind.

First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness — something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this — to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor — was to place some distance between Israel and himself.

Second, Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naïveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. In Israeli eyes, he was humiliated by North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests. And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners and avoid confrontation with anyone who is not Mr. Netanyahu.

Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis. We are close emotionally and politically, but we are different. We speak Hebrew and not English, we live in the Middle East and have separate historical narratives. Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel. Here we are taught that Zionist determination and struggle — not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland. Mr. Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.

More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility — and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position.

Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy. Perhaps the settlement freeze is in Israel’s best interest. Perhaps the president is truly committed to Israel’s long-term security and well-being. Perhaps his popularity in the Arab street is the missing ingredient of peacemaking.

But until the president talks to us, we won’t know. Next time you’re in the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us directly. We will surely listen.

Aluf Benn is the editor at large of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The Morality Crisis in Orthodox Judaism

My own comment on the following story: With such friends as these, who needs enemies?

The Morality Crisis in Orthodox Judaism

27 Jul 2009 05:17 pm

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic Magazine

Last week saw another eruption of alleged immorality in the American Orthodox Jewish community. Five rabbis were arrested as part of an investigation into political corruption in New Jersey. Is it just a coincidence that Orthodox Jews keep showing up in handcuffs on the evening news? Is there an ethics crisis in the most religiously observant corner of American Jewry? I called my friend Erica Brown to ask these questions. Erica is one of the leading Jewish thinkers in America today. She runs the adult education branch of the Partnership Jewish Life and Learning in Washington, and she's wicked smart. So to speak.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Is there a crisis of morality in the Orthodox Jewish community today?

Erica Brown: I don't believe that there is a moral crisis specifically in the Orthodox community. I believe that there is a crisis in the Jewish community at large that reflects a larger moral vacuum in society. And here I would make a critical distinction. Judaism upholds certain ethical values grounded in the book of Deuteronomy -- "And you shall do what is just and good in the eyes of God" -- that some Jews choose to ignore. That's a human problem, not a faith problem. In other words, there are Jews and there is Judaism, and they are not the same thing.

The fact that observant Jews can turn away from the Talmudic dictum that the "law of the government is our law," namely, that we are bound by the jurisdiction of whatever country we are in, shows a moral failing on their part. As you know, Jeffrey, I grew up in Deal, New Jersey. I feel ulceritic at what I read and saw yesterday. As my daughter said loudly when she heard, "How can the paper report that they're Orthodox? There is nothing Orthodox about them."

JG: I'm not going to let you off that easily. Your daughter is right, of course -- there's nothing Orthodox about them (assuming, of course, that the charges are true). But what is the failure in Orthodox education, or in the Orthodox rabbinate, that lets this happen over and over again. From a non-Orthodox perspective, I would hazard a guess and say that insularity combined with a hyper-legalistic approach to life -- i.e. I eat kosher, and I observe the manifold laws of the Sabbath, so therefore I'm right with God -- might lead to these kinds of moral failures. I'm not arguing against legalism, but can observing the ritual so fastidiously blind someone to the fact that there are a whole set of other laws governing the way we're supposed toward our fellow man?

EB: Ideally, legal nuances make people more fastidious in their observance of the bigger moral picture. I think it has in my own life. For example, I would venture to say that traditional Jews are more scrupulous about returning a lost object than others may be because Jewish law demands diligence in this area. However, I think you're right that for some, strict adherence to law without an underlying spiritual compass can result in forgetting what the law is there to enforce. Maimonides had unkind words for such individuals. He called them scoundrels within the framework of the law.

JG: Is the problem we're seeing getting worse, or is it just that we remember, for obvious reasons, photographs on the front page of The New York Times of Orthodox Jews being led away in handcuffs. I mean, just in the last year, we've had the scandal of Agriprocessors, and the Madoff scandal (admittedly, he wasn't leading even the facsimile of an Orthodox life, but the scandal has involved some prominent Orthodox Jews and institutions) and now this. Not to mention the famous story of the Bar Mitzvah party held in a New York jail a couple of months ago. Is there a crisis?

EB: There is a crisis and the images of the black frock against the black newsprint have understandable staying power. The Orthodox community and the Jewish community in general -- remember, Bernie Madoff is not an Orthodox Jew -- have to do their own spiritual reckoning. There is a collective chest beating that must take place. The idea that many prisons have daily minyanim is not a statement of pride for us. It's a statement of shame. There must be more personal and collective accountability.

JG: What is about Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox culture that has convinced or that has led some people to have contempt for non-Jews? Or am I imagining that there is a lack of respect for the non-Jewish majority (or the non-Orthodox Jewish majority) among the Orthodox, or at the very least, the ultra-Orthodox?

EB: I think that's a loaded question, Jeffrey, and I suspect this has more to do with avarice than race or religion. I think every minority is suspect of the majority culture, largely because there is a history of marginalization and persecution that virtually every minority suffers to some extent in a majority culture. That is certainly true of Jews, and we don't have to look far back in time to appreciate that Jews may be suspect of non-Jewish motives and behaviors. A look at Jews in medieval Christendom is a real awakening if you've never studied that period of history. Even today, without persecution, victimization may consist largely of feeling ontologically unworthy in the eyes of the other. Look at the whole Gates debate.

JG: I often feel ontologically unworthy. Especially next to you. It's a bit of a loaded question, but not much. In my own experience writing about the Orthodox communities of New York, I noticed a tendency on the part of some people to treat the federal government, or their local governments, as variants of the Czar's government. Which is to say, they transferred their attitudes from Europe to here, never contemplating for a moment that government here is fundamentally different. In any case, tell me what's being done in Orthodox circles to address these sorts of moral and reputational catastrophes.

EB: Jeffrey, you are ontologically worthy, of course. Now enough about you. I think what you say is very true. In non-democratic countries, or at times that pre-date citizenship for Jews throughout Europe, Jews often had an unpredictable relationship with the monarchy or ruling power and sought both appeasement, on the one hand, and circuitous routes to achieve particular ends, on the other, especially in the financial arena. If you don't give people an easy route to be good or accepted, then they often look for loopholes, special dispensations, black market dealings, etc. This begs the question of why today, when we live with material ease and under the freedoms that we do, that we are all not more ethically upright and scrupulous in all of our dealings.

The incident in New Jersey shows a level of disrespect for the law, a posture of disdain, a certain condescension toward normative legal behaviors that's deeply troubling. It used to be that scholarship and piety were status symbols in the Jewish community. For centuries that was the case. In our society, prestige is determined largely by money, and we're seeing the ugly result of that change of orientation. Morality is not a natural and assumed set of values, and we make a mistake as leaders or parents if we think that our charges will know how to do right and why on their own. Isaiah, in the very first chapter of "his" book says: "Learn to do good. Devote yourselves to justice. Aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow." Isaiah makes no assumptions. He tells us straight-out - learn to do good. And so we must.

JG: So Erica, do you feel that you need to do something about this problem personally? What I mean to say is, if you feel that all of these controversies reflect poorly on Judaism, what can a Jew do to make it better?

EB: I feel an enormous responsible as an educator, writer and parent to speak to these issues directly. For a while, I thought one of the biggest challenges facing the Jewish community was boredom. So I tackled it last year and in a few weeks my book, Spiritual Boredom, will be out (Jewish Lights). But this year's series of crimes with Jews at their center has showed me that some of us may be bored and some of us have turned to transgressive behavior to relieve the boredom. I could use a little less excitement myself. I'm currently working on a new book -- When Jews Do Bad Things -- because we need to think about collective shame and strengthening our ethical base. I hope that will be some small contribution to facing these ethical challenges more authentically. As a group, I believe that the best way to combat the ethical morass that's landed on our doorstep as a minority is to go out of our way to articulate our own distance from this behavior and to go out of our way to do acts of kindness for others that show us to be a moral light in the world.

Permalink ::

Share This

Once again, opening the window on the destruction of Jewry from within.

Who Is a Convert?
Editorial, Jewish Daily Forward
Published July 22, 2009, issue of July 31, 2009.

The biblical Ruth is lucky she isn’t converting to Judaism in 2009. If she ever wants to live in Israel, that is.

Her moving, lyrical story of devotion to her mother-in-law and embrace of Jewish values has long stood as a potent symbol of the loving outsider who wishes to come in, and is lauded for doing so. She is the epitome of the ger tzedek, the righteous convert, so important to how we see ourselves as a welcoming community that her story is read year after year on Shavuot.

And today? If she were converted in the United States, Europe or anywhere outside Israel and then decided to make aliyah, she would have to prove that she lived in the same Jewish community for 18 months (nine months before the conversion, nine months after), studied with an approved rabbi for at least 350 hours and could produce a copy of the curriculum. Our contemporary Ruth also had better hope that she has no non-Jewish relatives living in Israel, because that would prompt an immediate veto of her application.

Those are the new protocols offered by the Interior Ministry in the latest chapter of the ugly, ongoing attempt by the ultra-Orthodox establishment in Israel to control who becomes a Jew, and how. An Interior Ministry official told a Knesset committee on July 20 that the new criteria have not yet been approved, leaving a small window of opportunity for Diaspora Jews everywhere to make their feelings known. And they should.

Every major denomination in America disapproves of these proposed standards, even the Orthodox. “We do not think a set number of hours of study — or months or years — before emigrating to Israel is appropriate,” said Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, representing Orthodox rabbis. The new rules “are imposing a terrible burden on genuine converts, who won’t have an 18-month residency in their pockets,” he told the Forward.

Herring declined to call for widespread protest, uncomfortable with dictating to the Israeli government. We respectfully disagree. By codifying this stringent code of conversion without any debate or compromise, the Israeli government is effectively dictating to Diaspora Jewry, usurping the authority of rabbis and communities to determine when a person is ready to become a Jew.

These new protocols also defy the spirit of several recent rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court that aimed to welcome converts, not turn them away. The court had already ordered that a previous residency requirement — that one, for a year — be eliminated, and in May told the government to fund non-Orthodox institutions training potential converts just as it supports Orthodox conversions. Even if the conversion authorities in Israel don’t want to listen to Diaspora Jews, they ought to obey their own law.

But they should listen to Diaspora Jews, especially today. Especially when Israel is vulnerable on so many fronts, and when the distance between American and Israeli Jews — politically, religiously, culturally, attitudinally — is widening to a dangerous degree. This is the time for Israel to act as the state of all Jews, not just those deemed acceptable by a few ultra-Orthodox rabbis.

There’s another irony here. Jewish philanthropies have spent millions of dollars in recent years trying to reverse the assimilation and reclaim the allegiance of American Jews. In light of those efforts, shouldn’t we do everything we can to remove the obstacles before those who want to become Jews, and want to take the profound step of living in the land of their new ancestors?

They're at it again

Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools

State's education board to consider adding Christianity's role in American history to curriculum
Chris McGreal in Washington guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 July 2009 18.28 BST

The Christian right is making a fresh push to force religion onto the school curriculum in Texas with the state's education board about to consider recommendations that children be taught that there would be no United States if it had not been for God.

Members of a panel of experts appointed by the board to revise the state's history curriculum, who include a Christian fundamentalist preacher who says he is fighting a war for America's moral soul, want lessons to emphasise the part played by Christianity in the founding of the US and that religion is a civic virtue.

Opponents have decried the move as an attempt to insert religious teachings in to the classroom by stealth, similar to the Christian right's partially successful attempt to limit the teaching of evolution in biology lessons in Texas.

One of the panel, David Barton, founder of a Christian heritage group called WallBuilders, argues that the curriculum should reflect the fact that the US Constitution was written with God in mind including that "there is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature", that "there is a creator" and "government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual".

Barton says children should be taught that Christianity is the key to "American exceptionalism" because the structure of its democratic system is a recognition that human beings are fallible, and that religion is at the heart of being a virtuous citizen.

Another of the experts is Reverend Peter Marshall, who heads his own Christian ministry and preaches that Hurricane Katrina and defeat in the Vietnam war were God's punishment for sexual promiscuity and tolerance of homosexuals. Marshall recommended that children be taught about the "motivational role" of the Bible and Christianity in establishing the original colonies that later became the US.

"In light of the overwhelming historical evidence of the influence of the Christian faith in the founding of America, it is simply not up to acceptable academic standards that throughout the social studies (curriculum standards) I could only find one reference to the role of religion in America's past," Marshall wrote in his submission.

Marshall later told the Wall Street Journal that the struggle over the history curriculum is part of a wider battle. "We're in an all-out moral and spiritual civil war for the soul of America, and the record of American history is right at the heart of it," he said.

Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, which describes itself as a "counter to the religious right", called the recommendations "troubling".

"I don't think anyone disputes that faith played a role in our history. But it's a stretch to say that it played the role described by David Barton and Peter Marshall. They're absurdly unqualified to be considered experts. It's a very deceptive and devious way to distort the curriculum in our public schools," he said.

Quinn says that the issue is likely to lead to a heated political battle similar to the one in which the religious right tried to force creationism onto the curriculum. While it wasn't able to inject religious theories in to the classroom, the Texas school board did make changes to teaching designed to undermine lessons on evolution such as introducing views that the eye is so complex an organ it must have involved "intelligent design".

"I think, as there was with science, there's going to be a big political battle," he said.
Social studies teachers will meet shortly to consider the panel's views and make their own recommendations to the board of education which has the final say. The board is dominated by conservatives who appointed Barton and Marshall to the panel.

Other states will be watching what happens in Texas carefully as the religious right campaign seeks new ways to insert God in to the classroom after the courts limited the extent to which creationist theories could intrude on the teaching of biology. But religion is not kept out of schools entirely. Many children recite the pledge of allegiance in class each morning which includes a reference to the US as "one nation under God".

The panel made other recommendations.

Barton, a former vice-chairman of the state's Republican party, said that Texas children should no longer be taught about democratic values but republican ones. "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands," he said.

And while God may be in, some of those he influenced are out.

According to a draft of guidelines for the new curriculum, Washington, Lincoln and Stephen Fuller Austin, known as the Father of Texas after helping to lead it to independence from Mexico, have been removed from history lessons for younger children.

There's no doubt that history education needs a boost in Texas.

According to test results, one-third of students think the Magna Carta was signed by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and 40% believe Lincoln's 1863 emancipation proclamation was made nearly 90 years earlier at the constitutional convention.

Hyphen Nation

Hyphen Nation
As Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings highlight America’s ongoing struggle with hyphenated identities, a brief history of a short punctuation mark

By Sarah Imhoff | 1:00 pm July 16, 2009 Print This Post

When Sonia Sotomayor suggested that she was a “wise Latina,” she sparked a controversy about the meaning of being a member of a minority community in American culture. Is having a “hyphenated identity” an asset or a liability? The question resonates far beyond the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Marco Greenberg, a blogger for Haaretz, has titled his blog “This Hyphenated Life” and explained its raison d’etre to be a celebration of hyphenated identity. “My posts will be a vessel to share ideas, insights, experiences and the sheer fun of leading multiple lives,” he wrote. “It’s for fellow hyphenates who want to examine their dual existence/s—to celebrate them, not just to dwell in the existential and neurotic angst. After all, in this assimilated world, aren’t we all hybrids to one degree or another?” The recent PBS series The Jewish Americans wondered, “Are we American Jews, Americans without a hyphenated identity, or simply Jewish?” Dozens of other cultural commentators refer to the state of being both American and Jewish as having a “hyphenated identity.” Despite its unmistakable postmodern ring, the idea of a hyphenated existence first became popular in a much earlier historical era. And in contrast to its current celebratory application to ethnic and religious difference, the hyphen has not always had a positive connotation.

The hyphen began to function as both a marker and a metonym for a person with two cultures in the late 19th century. In a period of mass immigration of both Jews and non-Jews, some Americans valued the assimilation of newcomers and wanted to accomplish it as quickly and completely as possible. Groups and individuals who were slow to shed old identities and values in favor of new American ones began to experience the judgmental gaze of those who considered themselves true Americans. In 1899, The Washington Post declared, “Hyphenated Hybrids Impossible,” which, it went on to explain, meant that those with two cultures were undesirable. During the 1904 elections, some politicians and voters wished for the day when hyphenated “factions” and “contingents” would no longer rear their ugly heads.

By the turn of the 20th century the term had become common parlance, and as World War I captured the nation’s interest, concern about “the hyphenated” grew. In 1915, Theodore Roosevelt said, “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.… A hyphenated American is not an American at all.” After a 1915 speech in which Woodrow Wilson announced, “You can’t be an American if you think of yourselves in groups,” the Los Angeles Times wrote: “No vigorous American should hesitate to rebuke any busybody of the hyphenated type who opens his lips to voice any spirit but the American spirit.” Both Wilson and the newspaper extended the criticism of “hyphenates” to become an appeal to all “real” Americans to put those hyphenates in their place. In some cases, a general plea to make sure one’s own community’s loyalties were sufficiently American became a call to police others.

Even American Jews actively denounced the term and those who embodied it. “Hyphenated Americans are among my pet aversions as Americans,” one Boston rabbi declared in 1910. He asserted that if Jews in America insisted on calling themselves something, their first choice should be simply “Americans,” and as a second choice “Jewish Americans,” but not “American Jews.” The emphasis, he explained, should always be the term “American.” In making a similar point at the dedication of a New York synagogue, a local official made a similar point using exactly the opposite terms: Jews were not hyphens, he explained, because they supported the United States. Therefore, “there is the American Jew, but not the Jewish American.” In 1915, a Washington, D.C. rabbi declared from the pulpit: “[T]his hyphen, whether it be in print or implied in thought, is a political and moral contradiction. It throws out a danger signal.” He went on to emphasize that the hyphen he objected to indicated a divided national allegiance, and that the differing “bloods, traditions, and habits of thought”—what we might call cultures—were no hindrance to American loyalty. In the same year, The New York Times ran an article under the headline, “Jews Shun the Hyphen.” B’nai B’rith had voted to support a national Jewish congress only if it could “be created along lines that will not render its members subject to stigma as hyphenated citizens.” Jewish communities, vigilant in a time of conspicuous anti-Semitism—Leo Frank was convicted and then lynched in 1915 for a crime he did not commit—went to significant lengths to make sure that other Americans thought of Jews as unhyphenated and loyal.

Although sentiment against “hyphenates” was rarely directed primarily at Jews, they remained on their guard for several reasons. All along, the term “hyphen” had carried with it not only the insinuation of two incompatible cultures or sets of values, but also the idea of “dual loyalty” to two different nations. Especially in the years leading up to and during World War I, this latter valence of the term loomed large. Many Jews were concerned about being portrayed as “hyphenated” not only because they were Jewish but also if they voiced any support for an independent Jewish nation. The B’nai B’rith members who “shunned the hyphen” were primarily concerned with others identifying them with Zionism, an ideology seen by many to be at odds with patriotism in America. Furthermore, the group that was probably the most frequent target of “hyphenate” diatribes were Americans of German heritage—even though many of them were the second or third generation of their families to live in the United States. Large portions of most Jewish communities in America could trace their lineage back to Germany, and although groups of German Jews were not specifically targeted for “hyphenism,” they remained vigilant about maintaining a public image that actively distanced them from anything that could be seen as dual loyalty.

After the war ended and the federal legislation severely curtailed immigration, the hyphen fell from its place in popular and political lingo. During World War II, the term did not make a resurgence; in fact, the few who did mention the term declared that it was no longer applicable. When Louis Adamic, a famous immigrant writer and World War I veteran, praised “foreign groups” for helping the war effort, he exclaimed: “No Hyphens This Time!” Nor did the label gain any traction during the McCarthy era. Despite accusations of disloyalty directed at Japanese Americans during World War II and both real and imagined communists in the McCarthy era, critics did not make use of the hyphen as a symbol.

The word resurfaced only during the various movements to embrace ethnicity and ethnic cultures that gained momentum in the late 1960s and 1970s. In these contexts, however, the minority groups themselves, rather than mainstream detractors, were the main users of the term. Members of these groups, especially African Americans, used the hyphen not as a sign of dual national loyalty but as a sign of participation in two cultures. Since then, American Jews have been able think of themselves using the hyphen as a metaphor for embracing both Judaism and America.

Sotomayor’s hearings, on the other hand, suggest that although the hyphen has acquired new life as a positive metonym, its earlier meaning hasn’t disappeared entirely.

Sarah Imhoff is a PhD candidate at the University of Chicago, where she works on gender and American Jewish history.

Would Sotomayor really be the first Supreme Court Latino?
Some say that Justice Benjamin Cardozo, reportedly of Portuguese descent, beat her to it in the 1930s. The debate renews old questions about the labels 'Latino' and 'Hispanic.'
By Antonio Olivo
May 31, 2009

The term was coined in Chicago, Puente said. Although initially used mainly on the East Coast, it gained enough traction elsewhere in the country during the 1990s to be included along with "Hispanic" in 2000 census questions.

But, because the Census Bureau does not confirm respondents' heritage, anyone can say they're Hispanic/Latino.
"It really depends on how you feel about yourself," said Angelo Falcon, president of the National Institute for Latino Policy in New York.

FOR THE RECORD First Hispanic justice: An article in Sunday's Section A about Sonia Sotomayor and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo incorrectly used, in the headline and the first three paragraphs, the term Latino. The article referred to a semantic debate over whether Sotomayor was the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court and not Cardozo.

The article should have said that advocacy groups praised Sotomayor, a New-York born Puerto Rican, as the first Hispanic, which prompted political opponents to argue that Cardozo's Portuguese heritage qualified him as the first Hispanic.

First Hispanic justice: An article in the May 31 Section A about Sonia Sotomayor and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo incorrectly used, in the headline and the first three paragraphs, the term Latino. The article referred to a semantic debate over whether Sotomayor was the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court and not Cardozo. The article should have said that advocacy groups praised Sotomayor, a New-York born Puerto Rican, as the first Hispanic, which prompted political opponents to argue that Cardozo's Portuguese heritage qualified him as the first Hispanic.
And that brings the issue back to Cardozo. When he was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1932, the New York-born justice was embraced by the Jewish community there as a son of Sephardic Jews, which is how his parents identified themselves.

Today, he might have recognized the political advantages of identifying himself with the nation's fastest-growing demographic group, Passel said.

"We don't know because he's not alive to tell us," he said.

Nelson de Castro, the Portuguese consul general in Chicago, said that "in the context of the United States," most descendants of Portuguese immigrants "see themselves as Hispanic."

But he said the Portuguese in general might see it differently. "First and foremost," he said, "the Portuguese identify themselves as European."

aolivo@tribune.com

In addition, from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Cardozo#The_question_of_Cardozo.27s_ethnicity, we have this: The question of Cardozo's ethnicity

Cardozo was the second Jew, after Louis Brandeis, to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Although Cardozo was a member of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish community, there has been recent discussion as to whether Cardozo should be considered the 'first Hispanic justice,' a notion which is disputed.[15][16][17] Among them, Cardozo-biographer Kaufman questioned the usage of the term "Hispanic" in the justice's lifetime, stating: "Well, I think he regarded himself as a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula.”[18]
It has also been asserted that Cardozo himself "confessed in 1937 that his family preserved neither the Spanish language nor Iberian cultural traditions".[19] Both the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association consider Sonia Sotomayor, if confirmed, will be the first unequivocally Hispanic justice. [15][18]
In Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings on July 14th 2009, she expressed her respect for Cardozo's jurisprudence.

Jewish identity

While I disagree with some of what is written below the article stands as a wake up call to all Jews who both love our ancient homeland and dery the continued attempts by Haredim to dis-enfranchise any Jew who does not follow the dictates of the "mullah like rabbinut" in Israel.

We can see what this can lead to by reading the morning news on a daily basis of the strife, the killings, the murders that take place in the name of Allah between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam.

Do we want Judaism to sink to that level?
Read on.

Judaism and racism

By Avirama Golan

Tags: israel news

For years it was hard to swallow the comparisons that some observers on the left made between Israel and South Africa, and especially their use of the word apartheid, which seemed exaggerated and even harmful when applied to a complicated conflict. But in recent years, it has become impossible to continue hiding our heads in the sand: Israel is rapidly losing the last vestiges of its humane posturing and is closing its heart and conscience not only to Palestinians in the territories, but to anyone who, quite simply, is not Jewish. The most blatant embodiment of this phenomenon is the policy adopted by a unit of the Interior Ministry's Population Administration that Yaakov Ganot set up and runs. The Interior Ministry is headed by a minister who does not even pretend to represent humanistic and universal values; rather, he sees himself as Judaism's gatekeeper. But this is a very particular kind of Judaism - ultra-Orthodox, separatist and closed off. Most of the world's Jews have nothing to do with this kind of Judaism, but successive Israeli governments have bound themselves to its doorposts. Now Ganot is promising that the new unit will soon start arresting and deporting even families with children. "The children do not extend protection to their parents," he told Haaretz reporter Nurit Wurgaft last month. That overturns a decision by two previous interior ministers, Avraham Poraz and Ophir Pines-Paz, who promised to grant citizenship to families whose children were born, raised and educated in Israel and have no citizenship or identity other than their Israeli one. (And therefore effectively have nowhere to "return" to, meaning they are being sentenced to perpetual migrant status.) We can rely on Ganot to keep his word. He is a talented, hardworking man. But he is not the one who set this policy; he is merely happy to implement it. The link between Shas' version of Judaism and the foreign workers goes far deeper and is far more significant than Ganot's plans. After all, it would be possible to argue, as the government does, that Israel is deporting foreign workers as part of its battle against unemployment to enable Israelis to earn an honorable living. But if so, why is the government allowing the importation of more than 20,000 foreign agricultural workers this year, just as it has in previous years? This cynical move proves just how deceptive the unemployment pretext is. At the start of the coalition negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon that the agriculture lobby would not be harmed, so this is a game whose rules were known in advance. And the key rule is this: The government seeks battalions of foreign workers who will come, work and leave, but it will violently persecute anyone who threatens population groups with strong lobbies. Some of these will be banished from the center of the country to the outskirts, but most will simply be sent to jail, and then to the planes. And this is where the link to Shas comes in. The Filipinas who bathe our elderly, the Chinese who build our luxury towers and the Thais who cultivate our fruits and vegetables for export often displace Israel's Arab citizens. These citizens have no lobby, and no one cares about them or their lack of employment. In contrast, the Africans, South Americans, Ukrainians and all the rest, who clean houses and do other household scut work, displace a different group - the Jewish lower class. This group includes both poor, uneducated women, for whom housecleaning and other household tasks are virtually the only jobs they can find, and poor, uneducated men, who earn their living by painting, plastering, doing minor repairs, cleaning stairwells and so forth. Israeli homeowners prefer the cheap, obedient foreigners, who are willing to do any job with no social benefits, to Israeli workers, whom they deem "pampered." But these Israelis, though lacking power, are Shas' target electorate, so in practice, they have a strong lobby. And this lobby is using Jewish purity as a means to keep out foreigners - and especially those with families  who dream of immigrating. The absurd situation whereby Israel persecutes some foreigners while inviting in other "legal" foreigners indeed stems from economic reasons, but these reasons are perverted and deceptive. The lie that conceals them wraps itself in a mantle of ethnocentrism and racism, which is even more embarrassing than the embarrassments it seeks to hide. Like other countries, Israel treats foreigners cruelly. But unlike most of these countries, it bases this cruelty on its ethnic and religious identity, in particular, Jewish identity.