Everyone's talking about Elena Kagan's remarks about Jewishness and Israel yesterday during the Senate hearing. My two cents.
First, the woman is charming. You don't get so far in life without having interpersonal gifts, and she has 'em. I admired the way she took Lindsey Graham's scary question about what she does on Christmas and spoke with sincerity about being Jewish. Speaking for myself, I would been deer-in-headlights.
That said, her construction of Jewish identity is predictable, unreflective and old school: her joke that "all Jews" go to Chinese restaurants on Christmas is really dated. More than half of young Jews marry out now, and I bet many are doing what I do: I go to a Christmas dinner, thanks to my marriage to a woman who was raised Christian but has less active connection to that tradition than I do to my Jewish one.
Also, the Israel romance in Kagan's comments upset me. I asked if she's a "sleeper Zionist" the other day, she is. Israel faced many "existential" threats, she says, and being Jewish she cares deeply about Israel. Israel has meant a lot to me and my family, she says.
Notice that she places herself in a familial social framework in that thinking in a way that I bet she doesn't explicitly when it comes to gun rights or freedom of speech. Books have meant a lot to my family? No. But when it comes to Israel, clan nakedly asserts itself. My feeling is that unwed Kagan is wed to her parents' values. Very traditional, unexamined. We're progressives because we loved Thurgood Marshall (who died 17 years ago).
Can we break these rusty manacles? Can young Jews take Thurgood Marshall forward and form a more universal identification, which includes concern for the hundreds of thousands of people dispossessed, and now oppressed, by Israel?
Christopher Hayes had the best take on this, on twitter yesterday:
Gotta say, I think POTUS over-stepped by nominating an Israeli justice to the SCOTUS. Oh wait...
P.S. When will Chris Matthews address the Kagan nomination in Jewish terms? He keeps bringing up the Upper West Side cultural markers that the Republicans are talking about, and asks Schumer and Specter what it means. He's afraid to say Jewish, wants a Jew to say the word first. Seems like only Kagan can open the door, and her colleague Noah Feldman in the NYT. So the discourse wants to talk about Kagan's Jewishness, knows that it's important, but all we get is affirmative complacency from Jews who think it's cool that there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court anymore, but three Jews. Does Matthews share that feeling? Can the man who thinks in ethnic political terms even discuss this significant shift in the character of the elite?
Phil,
I found your first iteration of this to be petty, and your elaboration equally so.
You think that a case on Israel will reach the Supreme Court?
How else could the question be relevant to her position?
She apparently thought so; what she said about it makes me share Phil’s angst. The question won’t come up as directly if it ever gets to the Supreme Ct.
“You think that a case on Israel will reach the Supreme Court?”
Let’s see: Registering AIPAC as an agent of a foreign government; Whistleblower protection; DOD corruption; Dealing with Israeli spies…
There could be many cases having implications for Israel, especially for its lobby effort.
But all of this is trivial. Ms. Kagan should simply be asked: “We understand you love your family there. But whom do you feel loyalty to, your fellow Americans or the Israelis, if there should be a difference of interest between the two nations?”
If she would hesitate to pronounce her loyalty with the US, she should be unfit for any public office. No one would condemn her or regard her as a traitor, just unfit to serve the US citizenry. Just like a Mexican who couldn’t decide whether to support Mexico or the US should a hypothetical war start between the two countries.
Oh, another good question for Ms. Kagan:
“You are aware that the Israeli government just murdered an US citizen, Furkan Dogan, in international waters. If you were to prosecute the case, what would you do?”
If she answered anything other than “From what I gather happened during that attack, I would try to bring the Israeli government to justice”, she should also never get the nomination.
What’s “Christian” in this construct? For most of my childhood my family was more or less secular and nonreligious; occasional mass to make some Italian matriarchs happy notwithstanding, I was pretty much blisfully unaware of its religious significance for much of my childhood. I still think most Jewish and Muslim observers would have referred to them as “Christian,” despite their almost total rejection of orthodox Christianity. After all, they celebrated the secularized versions of Christmas and Easter. Insufficient to warrant the appellation in conservative Protestant and Catholic circles, but probably sufficient for the “cultural Christian” designation.
Still, not a single WASP on the Supreme Court. The most Anglo member is John Roberts, who is part Czech. The classification system Matthews is accustomed to has been eroded by decades of intermarriage and secularization. I didn’t even realize Breyer wasn’t a WASP until Kagan was nominated.
She making the case for a special relationship with China !
I just knew it! Atzmon was right. Chinese do serve better duck.
I guess I’m naive. It blows me away that her views on Israel are part of her confirmation hearing. It almost leads me to believe that if the notion of the constitutionality of foreign aid were to ever make it to the court this ensures a yes vote.
Have other supreme court nominees expressed views on Israel? Does this set new presidence? I know it’s required to run for congress and president.
You know, the irony of ironies remains that Jews make up 2% of the US population and yet somehow Israel and ‘Jewishness’, make up 99% of the national discourse on matters of government, elections, and foreign policy.
The Muslim US population is about the same. Can you even imagine if a third Muslim was elected to the bench? Jeff Sessions and Chuck Schumer could start the inquisition with the question, ‘do you support terrorism?’.
It must be our great connection of Judeo-Christian values that makes the relationship special. Kagan is just the blooming flower of this holy union!
Are the Christians who say that Jews killed Jesus, part of that same Judeo-Christian club? (rhetorical question).
“Jeff Sessions and Chuck Schumer could start the inquisition with the question, ‘do you support terrorism?’.”
Note how CNN treated Keith Ellison, the first muslim elected to Congress:
“I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’”
link to en.wikipedia.org
good catch, so true
She wasn’t being asked what her views about Israel are. She was being criticized by Republicans for her admiration for Aharon Barak, the former president of the Israeli Supreme Court, who conservatives see as overly activist. Her comment about Israel being important to her wasn’t meant to show her “Zionist cred” but to explain why she admires Judge Barak even if she doesn’t totally agree with his judicial philosophy.
Here’s an excerpt from “es1982″ blog:
“terrorist harboring nations” LOL
“Hamas-bound cargo”
“provocation artists”
You clowns invent your own language and your own logic to justify Zionism.
I wonder how many terrorists, Israel harbors? Last I checked, it elects terrorists. And what do you call a State which purposefully targets civilian infrastructure and civilians to compel the enemy population to change it’s politics? A Terrorist State.
What about that ‘aid’? Were there weapons? NO.
Zionists don’t give a damn about humanitarian causes. That’s why they impose these ridiculous standards on non-Zionists.
So basically, if someone is a peace activist that means they should lay down in the fetal position no matter what is happening to them. To resist Zionism, implies you’re a Islamist/terrorist/Jew-hating w/e.
Freak.
How does this have anything to do with what I wrote about Kagan?
“Enemy ships” from “terrorist-harboring nations” “manned solely by provocateurs”, when one of the two ships due to be sent from Lebanon is the Mariam, named after St. Mary the mother of Jesus, and is to be manned solely by 50 women, including 4 American nuns.
Just a general observation:
“First, the woman is charming. You don’t get so far in life without having interpersonal gifts, and she has ‘em.”
Most of these criminals are charming when they want to be or it is required. A co-worker once told me of meeting one of the big name Christian fundie blowhards at a party and said the man was “really cool” (read: charming). Even hitler was known for being able to turn on the charm when he wanted to – read an article last year about a maid of his who still couldn’t believe such a charming man did all those terrible things.
Even charlton heston could be charming.
I’ve learned to treat “charming” the same way I do loud ties on a car lot.
What would you say her crime is Hayate, being Jewish?
Maybe you should find her and throw a penny in front of a car so she runs in front of it. (anti-semite)
“Maybe you should find her and throw a penny in front of a car so she runs in front of it. “
No, if the scene was witnessed, or if Kagan survived the impact and testified, wouldn’t throwing that penny be considered a form of entrapment or ensnarement? I bet any jury would see through hayates excuse: “Judge, I didn’t know they had to do that!”
Don’t do it hayate, you’ll end up in jail!
Schwartzman, I’m still shocked by this! What kind of person would turn our financial talents against us in this manner? Disgusting! What’s hayate going to say, the penny rolled out of his pocket by accident? He’ll never get away with it!
But look, Schwartzman, do a landsmenn a favor, huh? Ix-nay on the penny thing, okay? Mum’s the word! There are few enough of us as it is, why would you advertise an easy, sure-fire way to get rid of us? So keep it on the down-low, okay?
I admit, there has never been a time where I haven’t gone after a penny.
Minor point Mooser, hayate is a female name.
Sumud June 30, 2010 at 7:51 pm
“Minor point Mooser, hayate is a female name.”
I didn’t know that.
?!
My friend in the Maghreb has a sister named Hayate. I’ve never heard it used for a male. Am I wrong..?
Yes Hayat is an Arabic name (female). It means life. But Hayate is a Japanese cartoon character (male).
“Characters: Hayate The Combat Butler”
link to tvtropes.org
Thanks TGIA ~ I was baffled by hayate’s comment.
Here you go:
link to answers.yahoo.com
:D
Are we Otaku?
“Are we Otaku?”
Who is “we”?
You & TGIA? Definately me. I think there may be a couple more.
Schwartzman
The “crime” is blind unquestioning loyalty to another country that is every day further outside the norms of basic decency. I knew (a long time ago) one of the men who has now become one of the UK’s neo-Nazi MEPs. Charm, affability, warmth personified. That kind of politics (fascism of any kind) and that kind of character are in my opinion incredibly dangerous. Kagan seems to show that she conflates Judaism with Zionism, thus beyond private religious practice, thus potentially a conflict of loyalty. From previous comments, I think you might be on the same page as she is, but obviously not in the same sort of position.
Bumblebee
People such as kagan are mafia lawyer types. They don’t bloody their own hands, but protect and facilitate those that do.
In her case of apparent lack of courtroom experience, hero-worship of one with bloody hands, running his Harvard fan club. One imagines bedroom walls bedecked with posters of his judgements, interspersed with maps of Israel (State of, Land of, etc), maybe a few of the “great man’s” face. Re previous post implying slightly juvenile attitude.
(anti-semite)
A whole world of blatant injustice is out there to raise any decent human being concerns. Implacable occupation, ethnic cleansing (see the news of Jerusalemites to be expelled from their own city) not to talk about the continuous unrelenting land grab (see the news of the new housing units to be built on stolen lands) and yet… you sit there, petty, small and mendacious trying to work out who said what that could be anti-Semitic less anti-Semitic or more anti-Semitic! Have you any sense of relevance let alone decency?
The comment above is directed at the small Shawarmaman.
Has Matthews ever discussed the fact that there are now six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court? Did he mention the number of Catholics on the court when Sotomayor’s confirmation was under consideration?
There are over 72 million Catholics in the USA, nearly 25% of the population. Protestants are double that.
So is religion the test? Dual loyalty to another country? Gender? Legal positions? What?
To be impartial, shouldn’t they all be atheists? ;D I was reading a while back about the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the early presidents. Many, if not most were atheists and agnostics. They were not a very religious lot. Much less so than the devoutly superstitious current rubbish running (well, the ones voted on, I mean) the usa.
Precisely because I’m Catholic myself, I find the idea of six Catholic justices most disturbing. Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned because five (or six?) Catholic justices vote to overturn it. That isn’t likely to make people well disposed towards Catholics.
“So the discourse wants to talk about Kagan’s Jewishness, knows that it’s important, but all we get is affirmative complacency from Jews who think it’s cool that there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court anymore, but three Jews. Does Matthews share that feeling? Can the man who thinks in ethnic political terms even discuss this significant shift in the character of the elite?”
No Phil. Only you say it’s important. Most people don’t give a shit.
Most people, Jews included, don’t think it’s cool that there are no Protestants on the Court. Most people don’t think it’s not cool. Most people DON’T NOTICE and DON’T CARE because most people do not fall into either the bigot category or the self-hatred category.
This is such a banal waste of time. Kagan’s views on Israel have nothing to do with her profile as a Supreme Court justice. The makeup of the Court, which has nine members, has little to do with who is in the elite. If Barack Obama nominates a second black person with his next pick, will you start telling us how African-Americans are in the elite because their representation on the Court is twice their percentage of the population? And yet again, I ask, do you have anything to say about the fact that the court is 2/3 Catholic, several times the percentage of Catholics in the population?
if its so unimportant, why dont you go berate someone else, someone who matters?
I second that motion. Hophmi’s relentless, intellectually dishonest hasbara has caused a precipitous drop in the IQ level of the normally well-informed and rational participants in the Mondoweiss comments section.
We already know from his single Twitter posting that he has contempt for this site (www.Twitter.com/hophmi) and has dismissed the entire community as a bunch of haters. So why does he burn his calories here?
Good post Oscar.
He’s a troll. I believe he said the King David Hotel bombing was not a terrorist act and that attacking the Palestinian civilian infrastructure could be acceptable.
So basically Zionists can kill innocent people, destroy their homes, their shops, steal their lands – and get away with it (they do).
That’s one dimension to his trolling. The other is that, the IDF would be disqualified from being called terrorists since they’re an army. Non-State actors can be terrorists only.
So basically, there is an entirely different standard to judge Israel’s enemies (the entire Palestinian people – since Israel is STEALING THEIR LAND and occupying them to pacify them while the crimes are committed).
This is a colonial conflict. The violence exists within that framework.
Only the mentally unstable hysterical Zionists want to frame this conflict as ‘Jews’ versus ‘Jew-haters’.
That’s why this clown dismissed every single person on the blog as a Jew hater on his twitter account that has no meaningful following.
Get a life.
Sorry, but I thought we were discussing American politics here, so I have no idea how you see what I say as “hasbara.”
This community does have more than its fair share of haters. I believe people need to be challenged. That is why I am here.
“This community does have more than its fair share of haters.”
I think there are a handful of people here who have views that are anti-semitic or border on it, but I wonder if you could find a community with a high percentage of people who are anti-Arab racists. It’s an unscientific survey, but every time the NYT has an article or column even slightly critical of Israel the next day there are people responding in the letters whose views of Arabs are at the very best patronizing and often worse. I’m on a fair number of mailing lists for Jewish organizations (this began when I subscribed to Tikkun) and while yesterday I had a pleasant surprise (some group called the New Israel something or other seems to care about civil rights for everyone in Israel–I might give them money), most of the fundraising letters I receive that touch on the I/P conflict offer up a sickeningly one-sided view of who is being victimized. Who are David Harris and Abe Foxman trying to fool? They must think they have a sympathetic audience who will give them money for the garbage they spew out.
Anyway, your notion of “challenging” people here seems to consist of condemning Palestinian atrocities while downplaying or dismissing the crimes of Israelis. I have met honest Zionists who don’t play this kind of game–they may think that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and I disagree (what right did they have to force 700,000 Palestinians out and keep them out?), but they don’t deny Israel’s atrocities or downplay them and they don’t deny Palestinian crimes either. These folks would receive a harsh reception here from some, but many of us would argue respectfully with them. I think the pretense that you are here to challenge “haters” slides over the fact that there are people here who condemn violence against civilians no matter who is responsible. You are an apologist, not someone with a principled stance against terror aimed at civilians.
Do you not hate injustice? Do you not hate cruelty? Do you not hate racism?
There are times when hate is a moral imperative.
You’d like that, wouldn’t you, Phil? Maybe that’s why you didn’t keep your promise to remove me from moderation. Well, at least you’re being honest that this blog is not about having an open discussion, but about creating (yet another) community where left-wing activists can pat each other on the back.
How about you answer my question, which is why the number of Jews on the Court is so important, and why the number of Catholics on the Court is not?
Or perhaps you can talk about why you’re so worked up about her opinions on Israel, when the fact is that it has nothing to do with what she will be like as a judge. I mean, Israel’s the Jewish state. If she were Greek, maybe she’d say something about being Greek. Clarence Thomas talked at length in his book about how he was shaped by the Church. Scalia was a Catholic school boy.
If you just provided some basis for these outlandish remarks that you make, like calling Kagan a “sleeper Zionist” and whatnot, perhaps I wouldn’t be so relentless. Sleeper Zionist? What does that mean? What are you so upset about? Were you subject to one ass-kicking too many as a child? These are the questions I have. What is your problem, exactly? What do you want from the American Jewish community?
You want us to take Thurgood Marshall’s values and apply them more universally. I think we do apply them universally. Marshall was a gradualist when it came to change. But do you require this of anyone else, Phil? Do you want us to simply be elitists of a different sort?
You say that Jews think it’s cool that there are no Protestants on the Court now. Which Jews? Is Noah Feldman the entire Jewish community? Does this matter? Isn’t it fair to say that a country that is majority Protestant is doing something right when SCOTUS happens not to have any Protestants on it, and nobody really cares? That’s a good thing. It means people are not counting heads. It is Martin Luther King’s vision.
Sorry, Phil. I find your obsessions disturbing and your views fairly abhorrent. And I think, unfortunately, that a considerable number of people read your site, and I don’t want them to think that your view goes unchallenged.
You’re wrong. Kagan’s views on Israel are of crucial importance to her future role on the Supremes, because they will be asked to rule on many civil liberties issues relative to dissent from and protest of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its warmongering against Iran, among other crimes. A Zionist justice is too likely to identify opposition to Israel as “terrorism” and uphold draconian penalties meant to stifle and suppress dissent.
Robert G. Sugarman, National Chair of ADL and a lawyer who is a partner at Weil Gotshal, was in a debate on RT television yesterday about the Supreme Court’s material support for terrorist organizations decision. He was the one participant in the debate who defended the decision, and it was clear from his comments that he had Hamas (not directly involved in the Supreme Court case) in mind in defending the decision.
By the way, the two allegedly terrorist organizations material support to whom was involved in the case were the PKK Kurdish rebels in Turkey and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. There is strong circumstantial evidence suggesting that the recent PKK attack on the Turkish naval base at Iskenderun was coordinated with Israel, and I have also read allegations on the Web that Israel provided support to both sides in the civil war in Sri Lanka, including the Tamil Tigers.
Besides looking like Dick Morris in drag, what’s charming about Kagan? How is a lame and predictible joke charming? Imagine if Lindsey Graham were up for confirmation and was asked what he does on Hannukah, and his reply was that like most Christians, he goes out for a burger and waits for it to be over. My guess is that charming is the last thing he would be called.
My guess is that many Americans are paying attention to who Kagan’s heroes are, and where they come from. I hope there is a nasty backlash coming. Who could say it isn’t deserved?
Not in the US:
“Five(British) pro-Palestinian activists have been acquitted of causing £200,000 worth of damage to a Brighton arms factory, after arguing they were seeking to prevent Israeli “war crimes”.”
Israeli ambassador not khappy khappy!