Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Elena Kagan we don't know about: Alan Dershowitz!

by shergald Wed Jun 30th, 2010 at 05:57:19 PM EST

Ambition and orthodoxy (Kagan's hero is also Dershowitz's) was just posted by Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss:


Elena Kagan, the nominee to the US Supreme Court, was dean of Harvard Law School in 2006 when she introduced Aharon Barak, chief judge of Israel's High Court of Justice, during an award ceremony as "my judicial hero." She explained (per the New York Times):

He is the judge or justice in my lifetime whom, I think, best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law and of justice.

Turns out that Kagan (who testified today that "Israel means a lot to me") is not alone. In The Case for Israel (2003), Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz writes:

This book is respectfully dedicated to my dear friend of nearly forty years, Professor Aharon Barak, the president of Israel's Supreme Court, whose judicial decisions make a better case for Israel and for the rule of law than any book could possibly do.

Who is Barak? In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein says that Aharon Barak was "a leading proponent" of guidelines allowing torture-- making Israel the "only country in the world where torture was legally sanctioned," according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. He also gave a green light to administrative detentions, even as the judge conceded, "there is probably no State in the Western world that permits an administrative detention of someone who does not himself pose any danger to State security."

And he approved the barrier wall that crosses through occupied territory, of which Finkelstein says:

If all branches of Israeli government and society bear responsibility for this impending catastrophe [the end of the two-state solution], the share of the HCJ and especially its liberal chief justice, Aharon Barak, is relatively larger. Due to its moral authority the HCJ was in a unique position to sensitize the Israeli public. Beyond helping fend off external criticism of Israel's annexationist policies, the HCJ chose to mute the collective Israeli conscience.

Of course Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul not long after he published that book.

Finding Elena Kagan paired up philosophically with Alan Dershowitz may be too much for most US liberals to bear. Is she just another exceptionalist that regards lawlessness in Israel a necessary fact of life, while portraying herself as an honest to god liberal American judge.

There's not a goddamned liberal bone in Dershowtiz's body. So who is it that the US Senate is about to confirm as a Supreme Court justice?

Display:
Compliments of Oui: More on Justice Barak:

The Legacy of Justice Aharon Barak: A Critical Review

http://www.harvardilj.org/onli...

(Harvard Int'l L.J. Online) - Under the all-seeing eye of the judicial review exercised by the ISC and promoted and led by Aharon Barak, a sophisticated system of oppression has developed in the OPT. Confiscation of land and colonization (allowing the population of the occupier to settle in the occupied territory); two different systems of law applying to two populations within the same territory (the Palestinians on the one hand and the privileged Israeli settlers on the other hand); a military court system virtually immune from the ISC's intervention; a widespread and long-standing policy of house demolition; extrajudicial executions; a hostile family unification policy; arbitrary manned and unmanned checkpoints and roadblocks preventing ordinary life; the separation wall; detention - including administrative detention - of large numbers of Palestinians and inhumane conditions of incarceration and torture; expulsion and deportation; curfews and closures; and killings with impunity are the highlights of this system that Barak justified and, hence, advanced.

Justice Barak has employed a manifold of interconnected legal and rhetorical strategies within his judicial review to allow the evolution of this oppressive system. As I explain and demonstrate below, these strategies include oppression-blind jurisprudence, concealment of the general context, fragmentation of reality, the practice of non-intervention and submission to dubious "security" considerations disguised rhetorically by "balancing" and "proportionality" tests, and declining to provide meaningful and timely legal remedies.

The legal reasoning of Justice Barak and his Court, according to David Kretzmer, exemplifies the attitude of a "benevolent occupation," within which the "belligerent occupier" transforms rhetorically his interests into the interests of the local population (or the "protected persons") while ignoring the broader political context.

The Judge in a Democracy: Barak's Judicial philosphy" [pdf]

http://www.law.ucalgary.ca/sys...

by shergald on Wed Jun 30th, 2010 at 08:36:13 PM EST
There's two ways this might be a less than an honest shot at Kagan. First of all, we don't really know how familiar she was with Barak's torture-approving decision-making: even though the quote pretends to great familiarity, that could just be ass-kissing bullshit. Overall, and most important, the quote is just the same old same old blather law Deans spout all the time when they hand out awards to foreign judges visiting their school. Nobody believes any of it.

If she'd done something more substantive, like hire him to teach a course on human rights or something . . .

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 12:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Barak headed the Israeli High Court at a time when it was upholding Arab segregation laws, and essentially turning Israel into a Jim Crow society. But is nothing even close to his decisions in relation to the occupation and colonization of the Palestinian territories.

And I believe that his reputation was well known by Kagan, just as it was by Dershowitz.

by shergald on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 07:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This seems slightly related. Part of the anti-nomination argument is pretty damn blind and scary: 'Kagan shouldn't be nominated cuz, the way things are going, our wonderful right-wing Christian allies will soon start to come after us Jews' . . .

850 Orthodox Rabbis: Kagan Not Kosher for Any Court, Threatens Jewish Security
June 24
Christian News Wire

Speaking on behalf of over 850 members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, Rabbi Yehuda Levin issued the following statement of opposition to the confirmation of Elena Kagan as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court:

While any number of our co-religionists would represent the undeniable, historic Torah values shared by Orthodox and traditional Jews, we are devastated and broken-hearted by the choice of Elena Kagan.  According to the Torah perspective adhered to by our 850-plus member Rabbis, as well as hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and traditional Jews, MS. KAGAN IS NON-KOSHER - NOT FIT TO SERVE - ON THE SUPREME COURT, OR ANY OTHER COURT.

It is clear from Ms. Kagan's record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, Partial-Birth-Abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, [yada yada] . . .

We are puzzled as to why President Obama would not honor a different minority with this nomination.  We fear a backlash, fed by pent up grass-roots resentment over extremist decisions Ms. Kagan is bound to issue.

In these socially and economically trying times, we are most concerned about being scapegoated and targeted by even a tiny subset of the tens of millions of citizens simply fed up with an imperial anti-family, anti-Biblical Judiciary.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7870214218.html

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 01:16:52 PM EST
I never said that she was not on the liberal side of jurisprudence. I only wished to bring out the fact that Kagan is capable of doing a reversal under certain circumstances.

by shergald on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 07:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, that she handed some sort of law school prize to Barak is just standard 'elite law school' (or any educational institution dependent on endowments and so on) crap that all deans know they have to do AND WITH A SMILE ON THEIR FACE, regardless what they may think personally of the recipients.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 01:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are two sides to Barak historically; his latest views are also contradictory, but somewhat progressive. Perhaps through the years he learned a thing or two.

Barak used the term "occupied territories" consistently throughout his address, and once even corrected himself when he started by referring to the territories as the "West Bank." Hebrew University law professor Michael Krayani, who participated in a panel discussion after Barak's speech, pointed out that in all his 28 years on the bench, Barak had always referred to the territories as "Judea and Samaria," except for in one or two rulings at the very beginning of his judicial career.

Krayani said that had Barak and other like-minded Supreme Court justices referred to the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied territory" in their rulings down through the years, the Israeli government might have felt constrained from pursuing a policy of Jewish settlement in these areas.

Regarding the Israeli Arab community, Barak said there was no contradiction between Israel as a Jewish state and Israel as a state for all its citizens. "I do see Israel as a Jewish state and a state whose values are Jewish and democratic. On the other hand, I am a great believer that this is the country of all its citizens. And I do think that the Arabs, like every other citizen, should have equality.

"We still have not worked out properly the inter-relationship between the Jewishness of the state and the fact that it is a state of all its citizens. There is a lot yet to be done, and I believe that it can be done."

Barak added that Israel had to find a way to live in peace with its Arab neighbors and the Israeli Arab population. "If we don't," he concluded, "we will not find a way to live in peace with ourselves."

http://www.americantaskforce.org/daily_news_article/2009/06/25/1245902400_8



by shergald on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 07:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Notice the reference, "If we don't," which does imply even at the judicial level a difference between Israeli Jews (us) and Israeli Arabs (them, Palestinian citizens).

by shergald on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 07:24:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The switch from Judea & Samaria is revealing enough about what a moral sleazebag he is. But, about this:

We still have not worked out properly the inter-relationship between the Jewishness of the state and the fact that it is a state of all its citizens. There is a lot yet to be done, and I believe that it can be done. . . . If we don't, we will not find a way to live in peace with ourselves.

On the other hand, I wouldn't take offense at the final sentence quoted, because Barak may simply be speaking of himself as either as an 'Israeli in general' (which lines up with his role as a judge) or, personally, as in fact a 'Jewish Israeli'. And, it seems to me the two "we" and the one "ourselves" of the final may all refer exclusively to either identity, and certainly grammatically the last 'we' and 'ourselves' must refer to the same thing; I don't see how you 'get' that they don't all refer to same identity, but even if they didn't I don't see what would be offensive about any of the following:

  1. If we Israelis in general don't, [then] we Israelis in general will not find a way to live in peace with ourselves, i.e., Israelis in general.

  2. If we Jewish Israelis don't, [then] we Jewish Israelis will not find a way to live in peace with ourselves, i.e., Jewish Israelis.

  3. If we Jewish Israelis don't, [then] we Israelis in general will not find a way to live in peace with , i.e., Israelis in general.

  4. If we Israelis in general don't, [then] we Jewish Israelis will not find a way to live in peace with ourselves, i.e., Jewish Israelis.

I don't see how any of the above indicates 'us' vs 'them'/'other' thinking.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Sat Jul 3rd, 2010 at 05:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Confused man, I would have to say. At least Lieberman makes no bones about Israel as a democratic and Jewish state, a state for jews alone, and he has proposed plans to get rid of Arab Israeli citizens but transfering them into bantustans inside Israel or just herding them into the diminuative state of Palestine to be, which would likewise conform to an Apartheid state.

When it comes to principles, you just can't have it both ways.

by shergald on Sun Jul 4th, 2010 at 05:13:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]