fbpx

June 26, 2013

Israel’s new biometric database would be most expansive in Western world

Whisper the word “biometrics” in America, and you will set a White House petition churning and a Reddit thread frothing. For the new generation of Americans, unburdened with an immediate foreign enemy or fight for survival (“Our Great War's a spiritual war, our Great Depression is our lives,” wrote Chuck Palahniuk), privacy rights trump all. All a beloved U.S. president has to do is roundaboutly endorse wiretapping/cyberspying, and his approval rating among the 30-and-unders will automatically ” target=”_blank”>announced yesterday that in just two weeks, the government plans to begin building a biometric database of all Israeli residents — by upgrading citizen ID cards and other non-citizen identification documents to include fingerprints and facial-recognition data — this righteous young American waited expectantly for the collective rally cry.

Should have known that in Israel, great paranoid Jewish haven surrounded by haters, security trumps all.

“I think we know that all our phones/computers are already (and for a while) are being monitored for security reasons,” one Israeli friend told me over Facebook chat. Another explained that for Jewish citizens, the “Israeli government is just perceived as less frightening in those issues. People are not afraid here of the secret services like they are in the U.S.” (Not least of all because during mandatory army service, “you get to work with people from Mossad and Shabak a lot. And you can also be drafted to those.” Although one can imagine that Israeli-Arabs, most of whom do not serve in the army and don't exactly maintain a chummy relationship with Israel's secret services, aren't feeling so secure.)

There are, however, some Israeli rights groups and activists who have been fighting the biometric database — screaming about it to anyone who will listen, really — since it was first proposed in 2007.

Avner Pinchuk, an attorney for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, said yesterday that the database would be “catastrophic” in its reach — the only one of its kind in a democratic country. (He said that the Netherlands previously planned to store all residents' information in a central database, but that the plan was shut down in court.)

“The police could use this information in all kinds of ways to avoid their constitutional responsibilities of due process,” said Marc Grey, spokesman for the ACRI. “And then you have all the issues of security [breaches] by external entities.”

Israel's new ID program may not seem like such a big deal on its own, but combined with other technologies such as surveillance and GPS tracking, the nation's privacy settings could soon propel it clear out of the Western sphere. And all this talk of Israel being “” target=”_blank”>Electronic Frontier Foundation explores the possibilities of biometrics (can you imagine if ” target=”_blank”>a recent op-ed on the biometric database for Israel Hayom: “I'm going to go ahead and give a credit line to democratic regimes,” he wrote. “I prefer security over individual freedom.”

To sidestep what detractors the program does have, the Ministry of Interior will launch the database as a voluntary two-year “pilot program.” But considering that Israelis' current ID cards are flimsy pieces of paper with ghetto graphics that any terrorist could reproduce with his cave press, the government is basically forcing anyone who wants to graduate from the Stone Ages to enroll in the database.

Anyway, the real pilot has been in place for years now: Israel currently gathers biometric data from all Palestinians who cross between Israel and the territories, as well as any migrants who apply for visas. (Not unlike the FBI's own collection of biometric data through “Secure Communities,” its premiere immigrant deportation program, in order to build the groundwork for its nationwide “Next Generation Identification” plan. ” target=”_blank”>reportedly supplying technology and doing dirty work for the NSA as it wiretapped and data-mined millions of Americans. Considering these companies were born from elite units of the Israel Defense Forces, they're likely willing to go even further for their home country.

But again — wiretapping and other breaches of privacy around here are largely accepted as the cost of making a secure home in Jihad country. A prominent German journalist in Israel once told me that while working on a story about Iran, Israeli government officials (who he knew personally) pulled him aside at an event to ask why he was making so many calls to Iran. We laughed it off, as foreigners in Israel who fancy themselves rebellious and untouchable often do.

Israel’s new biometric database would be most expansive in Western world Read More »

Kerry: Israeli, Palestinian leaders serious on talks

Israeli and Palestinian leaders are both committed to reviving peace talks, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday, but he acknowledged that progress on the long-stalled negotiations would be difficult.

Israeli-Palestinian talks broke down in late 2010 in a dispute over construction of Jewish settlements in on West Bank land that Palestinians want as part of their future state.

Kerry, who held separate talks with both sides in May, said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wanted the peace process to move forward. This would be Kerry's fifth attempt to restart talks.

“I believe they believe the peace process is bigger than any one day or one moment, or certainly more important to their countries than some of their current political challenges,” he told a news conference in Kuwait with Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah Khaled al-Sabah.

“That is why both of them have indicated a seriousness of purpose. I would not be here now if I didn't have the belief this is possible,” he said.

Kerry said he did not want to set any deadlines for the peace process but added that there needed to be progress before the U.N. General Assembly in September.

Reporting by Lesley Wroughton and Sylvia Westall; Editing by Gareth Jones

Kerry: Israeli, Palestinian leaders serious on talks Read More »

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Defense Of Marriage Act in win for gays

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a central portion of a federal law that restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples in a major victory for the gay rights movement.

The ruling, on a 5-4 vote, means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits that are available to opposite-sex married couples.

The court was due to decide within minutes a second case concerning a California law that bans same-sex marriage in the state.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy, often the court's swing vote in close decisions, also said the law imposes “a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia both wrote dissenting opinions.

By striking down Section 3 of the law, the court clears the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.

As a result of Wednesday's ruling, Edith Windsor of New York, who was married to a woman and sued the government to get the federal estate tax deduction available to heterosexuals when their spouses die, will be able to claim a $363,000 tax refund. 

Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Will Dunham

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Defense Of Marriage Act in win for gays Read More »

Why Reform rabbis should marry other Jews

Current policy states that applicants who are married to or in committed relationships with non-Jews will not be considered for acceptance to this program.  – “Admission Requirements” page for the Rabbinical School at Hebrew Union College   

—–

If you want to become a rabbi, marry a Jew. That is the clear message – an unobjectionable message, one would think — that Hebrew Union College sends to its prospective and current rabbinical students. If someone wants to apply to HUC’s rabbinical school, he has to be either single or partnered with a Jew. This policy seems a no-brainer to this interested outsider, since a rule requiring a future rabbi’s partner to be Jewish communicates the same message that a rule requiring a future rabbi to be Jewish does: Being Jewish is important.

Given that only 12% of Mormons marry outside the faith, more than one Jewish commentator (including, most recently, ” target=”_blank”>Reform rabbi does) that Mormons who have married outside the faith might view a bishop who is married to a non-Mormon as more approachable. However, since most Mormons I know in this situation would give anything to have their spouses convert and then be sealed to them in a temple marriage, I think it helps to have someone to guide them during that process (if and when it happens) who has already done what they would like to do.
  
Another message that is transmitted by a bishop who is married in a temple is that it’s important to be a Mormon. There are wonderful people of all faiths (and none), and there are good Mormons who have married outside the faith. However, a bishop who has married his wife in an LDS temple shows his congregants by his actions how necessary it was for him to marry someone who could be “sealed” to him in a Mormon temple. Had he chosen to marry, say, a nice Jewish girl instead, it would then become a difficult case for him to make that being a Mormon is very important. In addition, it is important, especially for young Mormons, to see that the leader of their congregation could have dated and married a wonderful Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist girl, but chose not to.    

By way of contrast, it is difficult to find a compelling reason – besides making his mother happy — for a man who is Reform to limit his wife search to Jewish women, as long as the prospective spouse agrees to raise their children as Jews. After all, the Reform movement accepts patrilineal as well as matrilineal descent, so a child doesn’t need to have a Jewish mother in order to be considered a Jew. Religious practices that might turn off a Gentile spouse, like keeping a kosher home, are not normally a problem for Reform Jews, who can usually find a level of observance (and an accommodating synagogue) that is comfortable for them. As long as the children are raised as Jews, I’m unaware of any Jewish religious teaching that says that Jews who are married to non-Jews are entitled to fewer blessings in this life or in the olam ha-ba.

As someone who fervently believes that there should be more, not fewer, Jews in this world, I hope and pray that HUC retains its policy. It’s not too much to ask that someone who aspires to be a spiritual leader in the Reform Jewish community, one that is struggling to deal with a high intermarriage rate, should show his commitment to Judaism by marrying/partnering within the tribe.

Why Reform rabbis should marry other Jews Read More »

Supreme Court issues two major rulings expanding gay rights

The Supreme Court upheld the federal rights of same sex couples in states that allow same sex marriages.

The first of two rulings Wednesday struck down a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which mandated that federal laws abide by a definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman. The ruling, a 5-4 split along ideological lines, requires the federal government to abide by the laws of individual states in its dealings with couples from those states.

In a separate ruling, the court ruled that individuals who sought to reverse a California Supreme Court decision that had overturned a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage had no standing. A number of Jewish groups had filed friends of the court briefs on both sides.

The DOMA lawsuit had been brought by a Jewish woman, Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay federal taxes on the estate of her late wife, Thea Spyer, who was also Jewish, despite the fact that their Canadian marriage was recognized as legal by the state of New York, where they resided.

[From our archives: The queerness of love: A Jewish case for same-sex marriage]

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty,” Anthony Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by the four liberal judges, including the three Jewish justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. “It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper.”

Liberal Jewish groups were rallied by Wednesday’s decisions, which came a day after the Supreme Court gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which had mandated federal review of any changes in voting laws in areas and states where racial discrimination had been pervasive. Groups like the American Jewish Committee, the Reform movement, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Anti-Defamation League pledged to lobby Congress to reinstate the key language that would reinstate such review.

Supreme Court issues two major rulings expanding gay rights Read More »

Time to Celebrate, Then Press Forward

As you’ve most likely heard (many times) by now, this morning the Supreme Court announced its rulings on two key cases regarding marriage equality: DOMA, the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” was struck down, and the California court ruling overturning Proposition 8, which disallowed same-gender marriages, was allowed to stand.

What do these rulings mean for California? First, because the Supreme Court ruled that those who appealed the Proposition 8 court ruling did not have any standing with the court, the appeals court case stands, meaning Proposition 8 has been overturned, and same-gender couples may again be married in California. Look for further announcements from the State Attorney General regarding when, exactly, such marriages will resume.

That’s great news, but it’s only part of the success. Another layer of success was added by the overturn of DOMA. Although same-gender couples have been able to be married in several states, they were still denied various benefits enjoyed by opposite-gender couples. For instance, same-gender couples were not able to file joint tax returns, receive spousal survivor’s benefits, etc. All that will change now.

Most importantly, for many couples, when a lesbian or gay person marries, his or her spouse will now be treated the same as a heterosexual spouse in regard to immigration and citizenship. As a result, many same-gender spouses who have been forced to live overseas, apart from their America spouse, will now be allowed to come home. It is, indeed, a great victory.

What do these rulings mean for your synagogue or Jewish Day School? Essentially, nothing. Neither of these rulings will force your clergy or your synagogue to allow or conduct same-gender marriages if they do not wish to do so. The rulings will not force your Jewish Day School to treat its religious teachings about same-gender couples any differently than it does now. Despite the fear-mongering of some religious people, these rulings do not, in any way, harm your freedom of religion.

Does this mean it’s time for proponents of same-gender marriage to relax? No. Although the Proposition 8 ruling allows same-gender marriage to resume in California, there are still about three dozen states in which same-gender marriage is not allowed. We will not be able to rest until marriage equality is recognized in all states.

And, of course, the opponents of same-gender marriage will not rest, either. Whether they call heterosexual marriage “traditional” marriage, ignoring the centuries of polygamy that used to be the accepted as normal, or they call it “natural” marriage, implying there is something “unnatural” about people who God made lesbian or gay, they will continue to try to force their religious beliefs and definition of marriage onto others.

Now is the time to celebrate, but now is not the time to relax. Rather, it is the time to press forward in strength.

—————-
“Like” the “>follow me on Twitter.

Time to Celebrate, Then Press Forward Read More »

AJWS president Ruth Messinger applauds Supreme Court ruling on DOMA & Prop 8

American Jewish World Service President Ruth Messinger released the following statement today after the Supreme Court ruled in two cases related to marriage equality.

“We applaud today’s historic decisions by the Supreme Court to strike down discriminatory laws as a major victory for equal rights for LGBTI people in the United States,” said Messinger. “We believe that this is one of the necessary steps to ensure that the human rights of people of all sexual orientations are respected everywhere in the world.

“Too many people in too many countries are ostracized, threatened and assaulted just for living their lives and loving others of the same gender. In 76 countries, people can be arrested for having sex with someone of the same gender and in five countries the punishment is the death penalty.

“As the Jewish voice for LBGTI rights worldwide, we are proud to support LGBTI activists in Cambodia, El Salvador, Haiti, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Uganda and elsewhere. These defenders of human rights stand up for the dignity and rights of every person, and they put their lives on the line to defend the human rights of the LGBTI people,” said Messinger.

AJWS is the eighth largest funder of LGBTI rights worldwide. AJWS has granted nearly $5 million to support advocates for LGBTI rights and currently funds 50 organizations promoting the rights of LGBTI people in 18 countries.  


About American Jewish World Service:

American Jewish World Service (AJWS) is the leading Jewish organization working to promote human rights and end poverty in the developing world. We support more than 400 grassroots organizations in Africa, Asia and the Americas that promote the rights of women, girls and LGBT people; rebuild societies torn apart by war and natural disasters; and seek to secure access to food, land and water. In the United States, we mobilize our supporters to advocate for U.S. policies that help create a just and equitable world. We are inspired by Judaism’s commitment to pursue justice and repair the world, and we believe that Jewish history teaches us to respect and fight for the rights of others.

AJWS president Ruth Messinger applauds Supreme Court ruling on DOMA & Prop 8 Read More »

Rustic Whole Grain Cherry Tomato Bruschetta [Recipe]

Italians would never make bruschetta on whole grain bread. Believe it or not, it’s not even easy to find good whole grain bread in Italy. But come on, no matter how good a fresh, crusty, country loaf of ciabatta might be, white flour is just not that good for us. (Don’t tell my recipe for Heirloom Tomato Bruschetta that, it might get insulted.) The point is to eat like Italians, not look like a fat old one.

This bruschetta was created as a side dish for an egg frittata brunch. The point of brunch is not to make you want to go right back to sleep, but rather to give you a tasty pick-me-up reward for having gotten out of bed on a Sunday. Eggs are heavy (yes they are, don’t argue with me) and the last thing you need with them is white bread. It’s too tiring on your system. Whole grain will make you feel like your whole self and if you choose good bread, you might find that this little concoction here will not feel like a runner up to the original, but a winner all its own.

Plus it’s so easy, even a shlemazel could make it.

Ingredients:

Rustic Whole Grain Cherry Tomato Bruschetta [Recipe] Read More »

Jewish groups ride roller-coaster week of Supreme Court rulings

A slight bump up on affirmative action, a plunge on voting rights, and on gay marriage, the mountaintop: federal legitimacy.

It’s been a week of roller-coaster highs and lows at the Supreme Court for liberal Jewish groups. Their collective pledge: Stick it out.

“These are critical decisions and it’s going to be a fight” on voting rights, said Sammie Moshenberg, the director of the National Council of Jewish Women, one of several groups that had weighed in on the recent cases with friend-of-the-court briefs.

The same tone — vigilance on voting rights, gratitude on affirmative action and gay marriage — informed statements from other groups.

On Monday, the court ordered lower courts to more stringently scrutinize the University of Texas’ affirmative action practices but did not otherwise reverse its earlier decision upholding the right of universities to make race a factor in accepting students.

Jewish groups praised the decision, with the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center celebrating it for upholding “the use of affirmative action, the principle of diversity, and the understanding that race conscious remedies may be necessary to ensure diversity, even as we are aware that the decision’s wording indicates the Court may welcome future opportunities to review and potentially restrict affirmative action.”

Tuesday’s decision on voting rights, a 5-4 call that split the court along its conservative-liberal lines, shocked Jewish groups. The decision kept in place the shell of the 1965 Voting Rights Act but gutted its key provision, which had mandated federal review of any changes in voting laws in areas and states — mostly in the South — where racial discrimination had been pervasive.

All three Jewish justices dissented from the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, which found that the 1965 rules were outdated. In a withering dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that Congress had overwhelmingly reaffirmed the 1965 rules as recently as 2006 and said the court was overstepping its bounds.

The decision drew strong condemnation from Jewish groups and vows to bring the case to Congress, although the likelihood is that current political realities — a Republican House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate — will preclude a review of the 1965 law anytime soon.

On Wednesday morning, the court issued two rulings on gay rights. One overturned a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which mandated that federal laws abide by a definition of marriage as between a man and woman. In the second ruling, the court said that individuals who sought to overturn a California Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage had no standing to sue.

The first case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by a Jewish woman, Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay federal taxes on the estate of her late wife, Thea Spyer, who also was Jewish, although their Canadian marriage was recognized as legal by the State of New York, where they resided.

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty,” Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by the four liberal judges, including the three Jewish justices: Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, as well as Sonia Sotomayor. “It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper.”

The marriage equality cases had Jewish groups filing friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides, with liberal groups defending the rights of gay couples and Orthodox groups seeking to push back against the California Supreme Court decision.

“Society’s mores may shift and crumble but eternal verities exist,” the haredi Orthodox Agudath Israel of America said in a statement. “One is marriage, the union of a man and a woman. Its sanctity may have been grievously insulted by the High Court today, but that sanctity remains untouched.”

Liberal Jewish groups were elated.

“Having faced prejudice and bigotry throughout our history, the Jewish community does not tolerate unjust discrimination against others,” Alan van Capelle, the director of Bend the Arc, a Jewish group that advocates on social issues and that had joined friend-of-the-court briefs in both cases, said in a statement. “Personally, as a gay Jewish man who has long been fighting for LGBT rights, it means so much to see our highest court rule that my family has as much right to happiness and protection under the law as any other.”

Jewish groups ride roller-coaster week of Supreme Court rulings Read More »

Charedi Orthodox Agudath Israel of America on gay marriage

The first of what will likely be many Jewish responses to the Supreme Court’s decision today, the Charedi Orthodox Agudath Israel of America was brief and to the point:

Society’s mores may shift and crumble but eternal verities exist.  One is marriage, the union of a man and a woman.  Its sanctity may have been grievously insulted by the High Court today, but that sanctity remains untouched.

Charedi Orthodox Agudath Israel of America on gay marriage Read More »