Joachim Martillo has pointed out to me that a Chicago judge who dissented in the Feinberg intermarriage case made a covert reference to Theodor Herzl. Judge Alan Greiman thought dentist Max Feinberg's limitation on his will to descendants who married Jews was legal, and wrote: "Max and [wife] Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream."
Herzl said the same thing, If you will it it is no dream… Apparently the Chicago Trib reporter who quoted Greiman did not know this. (Certainly I missed it…)
That's weird and upsetting. That the case gets infused with Zionism. Although it demonstrates the principle that assimilation and Zionism are opposed. And raises the question of whether the judge is a Zionist and secret about it. And what does that mean to his rulings?
Couple other thoughts on the comments to my last post on this. Whether or not it was legal/a private matter for Max Feinberg to declare "dead" those of his five grandchildren who married non-Jews, it's an ugly, sad statement and evidence of bigotry. And it applies to 80 percent of Feinberg's grandchildren. Maybe they were fleeing that stuffy room of his prejudice. And applies to 62 percent of all Jewish grandchildren in America these days… Young Jews are marrying out. They are marrying out like Protestant kids are marrying out of their stuffy rooms, and for reasons just as honorable (love, attraction, dough-re-mi) as Jews who marry in. And in the age of Obama there will be more and more of 'em. So this truly is the State of the Jews (to quote Herzl, 112 years on): the kids are voting with their feet and gaily assimilating and it is causing emotional/political turmoil among the ethnocentric Zionistas. Thus Leon Wieseltier keening at AIPAC that the Jewish state cannot count on young Jews to support it, no we need Pastor Hagee. Another thing: I told my wife that Richard Witty said that she was fully accepted by my family when we got married, and so who dare accuse liberal educated Jews of ethnocentrism! Richard has certainly been great to my wife on the couple occasions they've met but he doesn't fully know her experience. I'm going to talk to her and see how much she wants me to say about her experience on my blog. By the way, she is the one who coined the expression, anti-anti-semitism.
Related posts:
{ 19 comments }
If I'm wrong about your parents accepting your wife, I'm surprised.
Are you accusing your parents of being bigots?
When I was a young adult, I got into prospective marriage relationships with two non-Jewish women. One my parents hated and more or less chased out of the house. The other, they urged me to bring her home again and again.
In subsequent relationships, one Jewish girl I lived with for 3 years, they really didn't like. And, the first time my daughter of holocaust survivors wife visited my parents, my mother ranted about how she would disown me if I married her.
I married her and my mother got over her objections.
Its obvious that you are angry about something, and that you bring your comparison of your unexpectedly accepting in-laws with your parents, here frequently.
Please don't use my words as a straw dog, Phil to draw a divide. I'm sorry if I presumed about your parents reactions, rather than ask you personally.
Again,
I'm sorry if I misread the very few interactions that I saw of your parents interracting with your wife.
Council for the National Interest are running this ad in the Denver Post during the convention:
"1.3 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure in 2007.
Meanwhile, billions of YOUR tax dollars continue to purchase beautiful new homes and subsidized mortgages … IN ISRAEL."
Something for the delegates to read in their hotel rooms.
http://cnifoundation.org
(Richard, shouldn't you be packing for your aliyah?)
Phil, you're are decent enough, strong enough to maybe help your country by speaking truth to power. Read this interview, then explain to us again how Obama is going to get our guys out of the neocons wars? I figure you'll see this as you'll look out of Witty's comments.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/rick_macarthur_you_cant_be_president
This is similar to the famous will of Samuel Montagu, 1st Lord Swaythling, who stipulated that his descendents could only inherit if they professed the Jewish religion and were not married to a person not professing the Jewish religion. Venetia Stanley was required to convert when she married Swaythling's son, Edwin Samuel Montagu, a cabinet minister. There was some controversy in early 20th century Britain about whether the provision could be justified and whether the will could be broken.
Curiously, Swaythling combined a rigid orthodoxy in religion and authoritarianism in family life with an advanced Liberalism in politics. Curiously, too, Edwin Samuel Montagu was strongly anti-Zionist and an opponent of the Balfour Declaration. This put him at odds with his first cousin, Herbert Samuel, who was also in the Cabinet and went on to serve as High Commissioner of Palestine.
Phil, why should anyone have the authority to invalidate this mans will?
he earned his money and ought to be able to will it in anyway he believed was proper for him.
maybe if the left takes over in america and some form of marxism gains favor the govt can look to you and appoint you as living will and living trust tsar.
whats wrong with the proponents of political correctness?
why do they want to impose their will on others rights?
who is intolerant in this case? is it the man who wants to distribute his hard earned wealth to whomever he sees fit based on his preferences for lifestyles?
or is it those who will not tolerate his right to endow his wealth to whomever he wishes?
what if he willed his wealth to catlovers of america and some doglovers of america group objected and brought a legal objection on the grounds that because he didnt leave any money to doglovers he ought to be labeled a doghater-criminal and sought to have his will invalidated?
what the heck is wrong with america?
D are you "just curious"?
So anonymous.
Surely, if you can leave your money to your dog, rather than your children, then there really should be no dispute in this case.
It is your money and your will, and you can choose to write anything you like in it. It is up to heirs to decide if they are going to comply. If they do not comply, then they do not get to keep the money.
I am not sure how the money were approportioned in the Feinberg case, but it is likely, that with some heirs eliminated, those who performed according to the old man's script were entitled to a larger pot of money.
Of course the ethnocentric aspect of the will feels distastefull for some in those days of equality of races. But if you are censoring this will, then what should we do about legacies to David Duke, or to leftist/anarchist/anti-war in Iran/"anti-semitic" think tanks? Do we really want to start overturning wills on the basis of our interpretation of what racism is?
As long as death duties were paid, the eccentricity of the rich should be allowed to stand.
Burke here are some wills that would easily be negated by the state.
Funds for a public park that excludes minorities.
A scholarship fund, but one that is available only to white people.
To future heirs except only those that marry white people.
We go through that list and the first one is obvious and so is the second. But the third is very close to the case under consideration.
And then this one is a no-brainer:
Charities run by Hamas or Hezbollah.
Would the courts support such a clause excluding gentiles who married Jews from receiving inheritance? Would Jews?
Would they support such a clause cutting out people who married a different race?
Some contracts are deemed against the public good and not enforceable. Most such clauses involve race.
LOTS of wills and deeds back in the days tried to restrict title from passing to Jews. Such clauses were struck down.
I am very surprised that such a case was not already litigated in the other direction.
here is a perfect example of govt meddling where no meddling is necessary.
"Burke here are some wills that would easily be negated by the state.
Funds for a public park that excludes minorities."
if by negating you mean that it chooses to not accept it, then i agree with the definition of negation.
shouldnt it be up to the govt of that municipality to simply choose either to accept or not accept this wills endowment?
would it be required that the wills acceptance be put up to a vote by the population of that municipality?
what does that govt do, does it choose to exume the bequeather of that will and have him/her flogged at the stake of political correctness?
or maybe the state chooses to excoriate that individuals family name, or maybe going so far as making all remaining family members racists by association.
is fascism or communism any better than racism or pillaging capitalism?
capitalism in america needs a new name..would debt capitalism for the masses be apropos?
pillaging capitalism for wallstreets bankers elite would certainly be a more correct appellation.
what was it that G.Washington said of goverment…a fearful master…
Mix marriage is the past, present and future.
All other views are conservative misconcepts.
I have never met Phil's wife, but I should appeal her to stop the silly uninformed search of Phil for every and each sin in Zionism.
There are a few ones, I know a few of them, but the genocidal leaders of the Palestinians and many Arab nations are killing not the Israelis but the very innocent citizens of their own countries.
All efforts should be raised to save the innocent lives in Iran, Palestine …. from the tyrants in colors of the Hamas, and Khomeiniism…
Mrs. Weiss help us!
It would be an interesting exercise to plant a fake story of the reverse situation, with gentiles excluding Jews from their will, and watch what kind of reaction the story gets from around the country and in the media.
The outrage would be just a tad more pronounced, methinks.
'Would the courts support such a clause excluding gentiles who married Jews from receiving inheritance? Would Jews?'
The whole thing, in a nutshell – thanks. Some people are more equal than others.
'Mix marriage is the past, present and future.
All other views are conservative misconcepts.'
You're not wearing another hat are you Rich? That mush sounds suspiciously like your usual dizzying prose. Was that you being Protest a while ago as well?
YesToReason is wittiesque, and the appeal to mrs. Weiss seems to be comming from someone who after being empowered by Phil just decided it was ok to fart loudly when reaching for his fingerbowl (to the amusement of the curious crowd.)
As for "protest," he used to be Steve. If there was any reference to ayatollahs, Khomeini, Iran, etc, then sure it was Steve.
Silly me! I have a habbit of skipping any wittiesque comment after the first three words, but just to be sure I went and read the thing to the end. There it was! "Khomeiniism…"
That's not Witty. That's Steve for sure! And he probably was doing "protest" too.
So, no, Glenn, YesToReason is not Witty.
How did I read "Mrs. Weiss help us!" on the first time then? I was scrolling down to the begining of the next comment when a "YesToReason" topped by a "Mrs. Weiss help us!" caught my eye.
is there a line over at intrade on whether philweiss will get sensored by the leaders within the jewsish community?
is it better not to bring attention to him or will he be negated his rights of free speech via an alternate route?
what will silence phil from speaking in such an insolent manner to the leaders of his people?
By the way, before you guys start asking why Steve is so relevant to Mondoweiss, I tell you if Steve posted as frequently as Witty and Pearlman then Mondoweiss would be the only blog on the web with its very own Three Stooges line-up.
Comments on this entry are closed.