Tag Archive | Najwiekszy blog emigracji marca’68

Jewish uproar as ‘antisemitic’ Irish president announced as guest of honour at Holocaust event

Jewish uproar as ‘antisemitic’ Irish president announced as guest of honour at Holocaust event

Jane Prinsley


Michael Higgins has been accused of spreading lies about Israel

,
President Higgins spoke at Dublin’s 2024 Holocaust Memorial Day event (YouTube)

Irish President Michael D Higgins has been criticised by the leader of the country’s Jewish representative body and the chief rabbi for agreeing to deliver the keynote address at the National Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration.

The president, who Israel’s foreign minister accused of being an “antisemitic liar” in December, is set to speak at the national memorial event in Dublin on January 26 which will mark the 80 year anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Maurice Cohen, chair of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, said: “It would be inappropriate for President Higgins to deliver the keynote speech at Holocaust Memorial Day. This solemn occasion demands respect, sensitivity, and a commitment to honouring the memory of victims.

“His participation risks offending many in the audience, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who expect dignity and unity on such a significant day.”

Ireland’s Chief Rabbi Yoni Wieder added: “President Higgins has neglected even to acknowledge the scourge of contemporary antisemitism in Ireland, let alone do anything to address it. He has failed to take seriously the concerns put to him by representatives of the Jewish community, and back in May he described talk of antisemitism in Ireland as ‘a PR exercise’. With that attitude, I fear his address marking Holocaust Memorial Day will inevitably ring hollow for many Irish Jews.

“It is so important that Irish politicians and public figures come together to honour the memory of victims of the Holocaust. Yet the awful irony is that many of them are turning a blind eye to a troubling increase in anti-Jewish hatred in Ireland today.”

Last year, Higgins used his HMD address to call for a ceasefire and “realising the rights of the Palestinian people.”

Since Hamas’s attack in southern Israel on October 7 2023 and Israel’s war in Gaza, Higgins has come under fire from some members of Ireland’s Jewish community.

In May 2024 Ireland’s Chief Rabbi Yoni Wieder said that Jewish families who had lived in Ireland for “six, seven, eight generations” had never felt such a “tension” or “their viewpoint as Jewish people so delegitimised”.

President Higgins had “fail[ed] to realise” this viewpoint, Wieder went on.

“Not a week has passed since October 7 that I haven’t had people who tell me they feel they’re not able to express their Jewish identity, to express their support [for] Israel.

“Young children, teenagers in university, tell me they have no safe space to express their views, their Judaism, let alone their support for Israel,” Wider said.

The chief rabbi said the climate in Ireland now was “one in which many members of the Jewish community here feel deeply isolated and hurt”.

In December, Higgins was accused of spreading lies after alleging that Israel would like “to have a settlement in Egypt”.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called Higgins an “antisemitic liar” days after Israel announced the shuttering of its embassy in Dublin, citing “anti-Israel” policy.

Sa’ar said of Higgins: “Once an antisemitic liar — always an antisemitic liar”.

Regarding Higgin’s claims about Israel settling Egypt, Sa’ar added: “Higgins invented the claim that Israel seeks to form settlements there. In the context of our peace agreement with Egypt, Israel withdrew from a huge area — all of the Sinai desert, and uprooted all of its communities there. This peace agreement has been maintained since 1979.”

The event is organised by Holocaust Education Ireland, and “cherishes the memory of all of the people who perished in the Holocaust”. According to HEI, the ceremony is “Attended by people from all walks of Irish life and is a very moving, dignified and impressive ceremony.”

Maurice Cohen, chair of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, said: “Over the past number of months, President Higgins has made wholly unsubstantiated remarks that raise serious concerns. Firstly, at the United Nations, he addressed the Israeli Embassy’s release of a fawning letter he wrote to the new President of Iran. He appeared to double down on this by suggesting that the embassy should be questioned on how they obtained the letter, despite the fact that it had been publicly posted on an official Iranian website.

“Furthermore, the President has accused Israel, without any evidence, of harbouring intentions to ‘resettle Egypt.’ These remarks, coupled with his comments to various ambassadors regarding Israel, leave no doubt that he seems to prefer criticism of Israel and Israelis over advocating for a lasting and peaceful solution to the ongoing issues in the Middle East. If President Higgins truly wished to help both Palestinians and Israelis, he would focus on calling for the immediate release of all hostages and a cessation of violence, rather than engaging in unfounded conspiracy theories about Israel.

“With this mindset, it would be inappropriate for President Higgins to deliver the keynote speech at Holocaust Memorial Day. This solemn occasion demands respect, sensitivity, and a commitment to honouring the memory of victims. His participation risks offending many in the audience, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who expect dignity and unity on such a significant day.”

A spokesperson for the President told the JC, “This year will be the sixth occasion on which President Higgins will have delivered the keynote address at the Commemoration over the course of his terms of office.

“President Higgins also travelled to Poland in January 2020 to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.”


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Moments with Marek – Episode 4: Paternal

Moments with Marek – Episode 4: Paternal


Raphael Web



The evolution of my father’s paternal instinct as he was afflicted with Alzheimer’s Disease, as seen through my children’s memories as well as through my own.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Back in the USSA

Back in the USSA

Will Tanner


In America as in postapartheid South Africa, an obsession with ‘racial justice’ can be a harbinger of social and economic collapse.

People gather after the murder of farmer Brendin Horner in Senekal, South Africa, 2020 / Mlungisi Louw/Volksblad/Gallo Images via Getty Images

When Nelson Mandela ascended to power in 1994, with his African National Congress (ANC) winning South Africa’s first multiracial election, the world was full of hope. South Africans hoped that the “rainbow nation” would turn out differently than the Congo, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Angola, among other decolonized lands where mass violence between ethnic groups and tribes filled the vacuum of postcolonial defeat and withdrawal. To this day, South Africa has seen no Gukurahundi between its native groups nor mass slaughter between natives and Europeans.

Though it has avoided the worst outcomes, South Africa is hardly a multiracial paradise. Instead, it has trended toward chaos and internal disaster; its economy is in shambles, its once-budding space and nuclear programs are long gone. Crime rules in place of law and order. South Africa’s internal issues are manifold but can be distilled down to two categories: economic tyranny stemming from an unyielding top-down emphasis on racial spoils programs in the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mode, and anarcho-tyranny in which the government is both unable and unwilling to protect the Afrikaner, Anglo, and Indian populations from vicious criminals.

The economic aspect of South Africa’s decline is primarily a result of its postapartheid obsession with extending the country’s cursed racial logic, this time in the name of justice and equity. Though it didn’t see the outright expropriations inflicted upon white farmers in Zimbabwe by Mugabe’s government, it has seen softer forms of expropriation and reparations. For example, as of 2024, more than 24 million South Africans, the vast majority of them Black, received welfare grants from just 7.1 million taxpayers. That 3.38-to-1 grant-to-taxpayer ratio is plainly unsustainable. However, with the leftist ANC in charge, it is part of the system now and seen as an important social justice achievement. South Africa also has an outright reparations program for victims of apartheid, another expensive tax money transfer program.

The affirmative action situation in hiring is even worse. The state enforces its agenda through the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) laws. B-BBEE aims to “redress the inequalities of the past in every sphere: political, social and economic” and “promote economic transformation and enable meaningful participation of black people in the South African economy, through increased participation in ownership and management structures, increasing the involvement of communities and employees in economic activities and skills training.” It does so, as consulting firm Baker McKenzie notes, by requiring that “every organ of state and public entity must apply any relevant code of good practice issued in terms of the B-BBEE Act when, amongst other things, determining the qualification criteria for the issuing of licenses, permits or other authorizations, when determining their procurement policies and when developing criteria for entering into partnerships with the private sector.”

Post-Mandela South Africa is in a state of disaster that seems likely to get worse. In public life, tyranny reigns as the government enforces race-based mandates.

In short, B-BBEE requires racial preferences in hiring and promotion and handing shares of ownership to Blacks. The state measures compliance with B-BBEE via a scoring system that tracks compliance based on how companies hire Black workers under the B-BBEE racial preferences requirements; promote Black workers to management positions; and give ownership stakes to Blacks. Though the B-BBEE laws don’t directly burden the private sector, they require that the state only engage private companies in procurement contracts and issue licenses and authorizations if they comply with B-BBEE requirements.

As a result, most companies have played along with B-BBEE. That is particularly true of highly regulated entities like Eskom, South Africa’s electric utility, which prides itself on its B-BBEE compliance and recently planned to cut thousands of white engineers and other employees, though it backtracked on those cuts and instead promised to focus on hiring and promoting Black employees. Eskom’s ability to provide electrical power has meanwhile devolved to the point of frequent blackouts and legitimate fears of a total grid collapse.

Eskom is far from the only company to degenerate in the face of South Africa’s race laws. The country’s economy is shrinking while unemployment is crushingly high. South African universities struggle to produce qualified graduates while being known for overt racial discrimination. Corrupt politicians and party-linked, gangsterlike entities use the country’s racial laws to skim profits off the struggling economy. Basic infrastructure like the hospital system has crumbled. Meanwhile, what’s left is being pillaged or frittered away in bribery schemes by some of the most corrupt politicians and civil servants on the planet.

B-BBEE, though an albatross on the neck of South Africa’s economy, isn’t the country’s only pressing issue, however. In April 2023, President Ramaphosa signed the Employment Equity Amendment Act into law requiring “equity,” meaning racial-ratio-based representation of staff members in all companies employing 50 people or more, threatening to bring what remains of private enterprise inside the country’s racial spoils system.

The result of South Africa’s policies, racial and otherwise, is, as the Center for International Development described in “Growth Through Inclusion in South Africa,” that its vast postapartheid promise has been frittered away, and economic stagnation has taken hold, impoverishing everyone, regardless of race. As the South African economy has lost critical capabilities, the disadvantaged suffer the most.

Economic woes are just part of South Africa’s problems. It also suffers under a significant and ongoing crime wave that the state is both unable and unwilling to handle. As of 2023, South Africa was the most crime-ridden country on the African continent, beating out even Somalia for that dubious distinction. Most of its once-sparkling cities are uninhabitable due to crime that the state refuses to stop. The resulting state of lawlessness can rightly be called anarcho-tyranny.

Armed, illegal miners called zama zamas run extensive operations in full view. Copper cable thieves are rampant and exacerbate Eskom’s B-BBEE woes. Private security forces are now a necessity for those who want to stay safe, as the police can’t or won’t keep citizens safe from robbers, burglars, rapists, kidnappers, and murderers.

The worst of the crimes under which South Africans suffer are the farm murders, in which African criminals use equipment, including signal jammers and automatic weapons, to break into isolated farmsteads and torture, kill, rape, and rob the predominantly Boer inhabitants. These attacks are known for their brutality, with atrocities like drowning children in boiling water and gang-raping female victims being close to the norm rather than radically atypical. Similar atrocities are inflicted on other South Africans, including children.

The horrific murder of 79-year-old farmer Theo Bekker and the assault on his wife serve as a telling example of what happens in these stomach-churning attacks. In Mr. Bekker’s case, at least four thugs broke into his farmstead and demanded guns and money. They then bludgeoned Mr. Bekker on the head with an iron bar and slit his throat with a knife, killing him. They tied up his wife, suffocated her with a plastic bag they put over her head, and then assaulted her numerous times. Fortunately, she survived.

Another example of the brutality of farm attacks comes from a survivor who wrote in 2001, “The first time I was attacked was in August 1998. I came back home and parked my van. My boy said there were three people looking for work. I said I only want one, and I went out to meet them in the garage. They said they wanted work, but then one with a revolver signed to the other one, who grabbed my boy; the first one pulled out his gun, but it jammed. I grabbed a broom and hit him, and then the other one, and then I ran inside to get my gun. But they knocked me down and fractured my skull, so I was unconscious. They chased my boy, but the dogs went after them, and they ran out. The fellows from the farmwatch picked them up on the road. They shot one, arrested another, and the third one later gave himself up. But all three later escaped from the police cells.”

Sadly, America has flirted with following the same dark path as South Africa. The outcome has been the rise of sectarian grievance politics.

The scale of these farm attacks is extreme, with attackers, according to data from 2023, committing about one farm murder a week and nearly one attack a day. At the very least, the problem is “large scale,” as former President Donald Trump posted on X, then-Twitter, that his administration would study “the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers.” Describing the attacks in even more extreme language, the South African artist Steve Hofmeyr, said that the attacks are a genocide. As he put it, “If you think that the slaughter of South African farmers is not genocide enough, ask them about their land, language, religion, education, universities, heritage, monuments, safety, dignity, and the race-based regulations imposed upon them and their children.”

Though farm attacks are less frequent than other crimes that plague South Africa, such as cash-in-transit heists, they are renowned for their extreme brutality. Jack Loggenberg of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, describing that aspect of the crime and what makes them worse than other crimes, said, “We say it is not only crime but something else; the way the people are handled, not only killed, but also tortured brutally, and sometimes nothing is stolen. And not doing anything about it gives the impression that this is acceptable. It could be organized, but we don’t have the facts. We find that in farm murders a lot of research is done, in 100 percent of cases there is prior reconnaissance and then there is extreme violence used.”

Observers, such as Ernst Roets in his book Kill the Boer: Government Complicity in South Africa’s Brutal Farm Murders, make the case that agents of the South African government, such as law enforcement officers, are either not willing to stop the farm attackers or actively assisting the brutal murderers. Some farmers and Boers, for example, hold the “belief that the government is training former members of MK or APLA to assassinate white farm owners.” Others argue that even if the government is not actively assisting the farm murderers, it is doing little to investigate them and bring the perpetrators to justice. At the very least, 95% of the farm murders go unsolved, and the government allows, despite prohibiting other “hate speech,” chants like “Kill the Boer” that encourage the horrific farm murders. Additionally, the government refuses to set up specialized task forces to investigate and stop farm murders, despite doing so to investigate crimes like the illegal mining of the zama zamas and cash-in-transit robberies.

Jacques Broodryk, AfriForum’s chief spokesperson for community safety, said that the South African government and police force see farm murders as less important than other murders and that it is shocking it will not develop unique police resources to handle the problem. “However, there are questions as to why the South African government refuses to follow the same approach with farm attacks and murders. In certain cases, the occurrence of farm attacks and murders is much higher, more violent, and requires a much more specialized approach than some of the crimes that were prioritized,” Broodryk said.

On the same note, Mike de Lange, formerly head of the KwaZulu-Natal Agricultural Union, argued that the government is intentionally ignoring the sickening attacks for ideological reasons. He said, “I don’t believe that there is an organized plan to drive farmers off the land; but I do believe that the government knows what is happening and is doing nothing about it.” Adding credence to the claims of Broodryk and de Lange about South African indifference toward the fate of farmers is that when former President Trump posted about the frequent attacks, the South African government responded not by pledging to solve the murders but by accusing him of spreading “false information” and holding a “narrow perception which only seeks to divide our nation and reminds us of our colonial past.”

In addition to common crime, there are terrible riots that the government is unable and often unwilling to stop. For example, chaos broke out in 2021 and caused billions of dollars in damage, quite a significant amount for the small South African economy. Those rioters ran wild for days and were only stopped from committing more crimes by heavily armed militias, and it was in the wake of the militias stopping the riots that the government returned.

What makes the situation all the worse is that crime and economic issues frequently intersect. For example, the Eskom blackouts can lead to more crime, as the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade warned its citizens visiting South Africa. It said, in part, “traffic jams due to power outages provide opportunities for smash-and-grab crime,” and “Residences can be targeted when lights are out and security systems are not functioning. Ongoing conditions have led to increased protests and demonstrations, and in some cases, civil unrest, throughout the country.” In short, South Africa is at war with itself.

It seems clear that post-Mandela South Africa is in a state of disaster that seems likely to get worse. In public life, tyranny reigns as the government enforces race-based mandates on companies that are suffering mightily under the burden. In private life, the government levies taxes to pay for welfare programs, but otherwise, it is largely absent as criminals cause an immense amount of suffering and are rarely stopped by the police. Meanwhile, politicians like those in the EFF encourage criminals to engage in more crime as a form of punishment or reparations for apartheid. All of these localized disasters stem from the decision to continue putting race at the center of postapartheid South African life and thereby producing a photo-negative version of the past, rather than trying to build a new and better society.

Sadly, America has flirted with following the same dark path as South Africa. America suffered months of riots in 2020, much as riots racked South Africa in 2021. In America, as in South Africa, armed civilians had to defend their property when the police couldn’t or wouldn’t do so, while leftist politicians encouraged the rioters. Just as farm attacks go unsolved because of police incompetence and unwillingness in South Africa, murders are now only solved at about a 50% rate in America, the worst in the Occident. Some cities, such as Kansas City, have plummeted to under 40% clearance rates for homicides. Additionally, as robbers and farm attackers in South Africa, gangs in America are now using signal jammers to assist in burglaries.

Comparisons between America and South Africa aren’t limited to criminality, though. Some on the American left see South Africa’s reparations program as a model for an American reparations program. There is also the issue of affirmative action in higher education admissions and hiring. Although the American system now must be less open about racial preferences in admissions, the general effect is the same: Colleges ignore worse scores and admit favored groups. Though outright affirmative action is now illegal and quotas banned, unlike in South Africa, schools have found ways to discriminate regardless. Similarly, in the job market, proponents of affirmative action policies admit that they “shape the U.S. labor market” and argue that further affirmative action, or racial preference, policies are needed to achieve “equity” in the workplace. Bloomberg, reporting on diversity in the workplace, noted that “the biggest public companies added over 300,000 jobs—and 94% of them went to people of color.” When Bloomberg included replacements for old jobs rather than just new ones, the number remained around 80%. With white Americans making up around 62% of the American population, the only way to achieve such a DEI success was though racial preferences, as companies pledged to “hire and promote more Black people and others from underrepresented groups.” Of course that also means discriminating against white Americans in the process, much as South African companies like Eskom discriminate. Even companies engaged in hazardous activities, such as airlines, for which merit ought to be the sole qualification, have pledged to prioritize diversity.

Though America is not at South Africa’s disastrous level, it may be trending that way. Blackouts are growing more common as political agendas, such as “clean” energy, are prioritized supplying cheap and reliable electricity. Additionally, as Johannesburg is now uninhabitable for law-abiding people, Americans are fleeing their once-great coastal cities for safer and greener pastures in the Southwest and Southeast. As South African business and political leaders use their B-BBEE policies to skim off the top, America’s DEI-demanded struggle sessions are an opportunity for grift that is as massive as it is frequently abused. As a result of the various forms of indirect bribery and insider profiting, most Americans see their politicians as highly corrupt, an opinion with which many taxpayers in South Africa certainly agree. Meanwhile, much as South Africa’s nuclear and space programs are long gone, ours are mere shadows of their former selves.

Finally, there is the fact that America’s drift away from merit and toward South Africa-style CRT and affirmative action came after segregation had ended, much as South Africa’s Marxist change for the worse came after apartheid had voluntarily ended de jure long after it had ended in fact. As Ronald Reagan noted in 1986, “Black workers have been permitted to unionize, to bargain collectively and build the strongest free trade union movement in all of Africa. The infamous pass laws have been ended, as have many of the laws denying blacks the right to live, work and own property in South Africa’s cities. Citizenship wrongly stripped away has been restored to nearly 6 million blacks. Segregation in universities and public facilities is being set aside.”

The indignities inflicted upon people by segregation and apartheid are indefensible. But in both cases, one outcome of dismantling those systems has been the rise of sectarian grievance politics. Segregation, as Reagan said, was being set aside; now it’s coming back. New generations changed the rules to benefit the dispossessed; as a result, they are now disenfranchised. Let’s hope that America’s story has a happier ending.


Will Tanner is a graduate of Washington and Lee University and the Wake Forest School of Law. He now writes about the world before the Guns of August and the horrors of decolonization. Find him on X @will_tanner_1.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Playing Defense

Playing Defense

ALLAN LEVINE


Before acclaimed criminal attorney Samuel Leibowitz earned a national reputation defending everyone from Al Capone to the Scottsboro Boys, he represented small-time crooks like ‘Izzy the Goniff’ and used his knowledge of gefilte fish to win a client’s acquittal

.
Samuel Leibowitz, seated at left, speaks with Haywood Patterson, one of nine men charged with the rape of two prostitutes on a train. The other defendants are standing behind Leibowitz and Patterson. The subsequent trial would be known as the Scottsboro Boys case. / GETTY IMAGES

I have been accused of making murder safe in New York. It has been said that I take up the cudgels for the guilty, and defend menaces to society. That is not accurately put. My clients do not tell me they are guilty, nor are they, before the law, until their guilt is established. I have never defended a man who told me he was guilty as charged. When a man tells me he is not guilty, I may believe him to be guilty, and I have tried some cases of that kind. But what I think personally is beside the point.
―Samuel Leibowitz, 1933

Near the end of the 1940 screwball romantic comedy His Girl Friday, when newspaper editor Walter Burns, played by Cary Grant, is arrested by the police for allegedly aiding a fugitive, he grabs an old-style long-neck telephone and shouts to his assistant, “Duffy, get Leibowitz!” Grant presumably ad-libbed the line—it was not in the original script—and director Howard Hawks decided to keep it in the film. It attested to the renowned status and high profile of Samuel Leibowitz, then one of the top defense attorneys in the United States; Hawks knew that the acclaimed criminal lawyer was so well-known that movie audiences across North America would “get” the reference immediately. And they did.

At the time, Leibowitz was front-page news in New York City, where he was based, and across the country. He was a real life “Atticus Finch”—the protagonist lawyer in Harper Lee’s bestselling 1960 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, about the injustice meted out to an African American in an Alabama courtroom. Starting in 1933 and for the next several years, Leibowitz really did combat racism and hatred in a small Alabama town in the notorious “Scottsboro Boys” case. In defending nine young African American men who had been falsely accused of raping two white girls, he epitomized Finch’s skill, courage, and fortitude.

His career, however, started out differently. Leibowitz built up his criminal law practice defending petty crooks and mobsters. Over a period of 14 years, from 1919 to 1933, he boasted a track record of 77 acquittals in 78 murder trials, with one hung jury and no convictions. At that point, he was charging $10,000 per trial (worth about $150,000 to $230,000 today). By the time his law practice ended in 1940 when he was elected a county court judge—in 1962, he became a justice of the New York state Supreme Court—that trial record had increased to 140 men and women whom he had successfully defended on murder charges; only one of his clients, Salvatore Gati, had been executed, in January 1939 for killing a police officer during a robbery at a precious metals processing plant. Gati’s fingerprint had been identified on the gun that had killed the officer. Leibowitz had tried to extricate himself from the case when this became known, but the judge refused his request.

Leibowitz and his parents, Isaac and Bina (Jacobina), fled persecution and poverty in Romania, where he was born, and sought refuge in New York City in 1897. Samuel was then 4 years old. The family’s surname was Lebeau, but within a few years of coming to the United States, Isaac “Americanized” it to Leibowitz. They settled in the Lower East Side in a tenement on Essex Street among the multitude of Eastern European Jewish immigrants. At first, Isaac struggled to make a living as a peddler. But his perseverance paid off. Eventually, he was able to open his own dry goods shop in Harlem and then by 1906, a new store on Fulton Street in Brooklyn, where he was also able to purchase a house. Samuel’s early education and the skills he acquired during grade school in oratory and theater later were to serve him well as a lawyer.

As Diana Klebanow and Franklin L. Jonas note in their 2003 survey of Leibowitz’s career in People’s Lawyers: Crusaders for Justice in American History, his legal education began in 1911 at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Like other children of immigrants, he was diligent, studious, and achieved high grades. He had to work at a part-time job washing dishes in a school kitchen to make extra money. He was a member of the debate team and excelled as an actor; he was also the first Jewish student permitted to join the university’s dramatic society. His decision to seek a career in criminal law was based on his love of courtroom drama as well as his realistic assessment that no Manhattan corporate law firm would have hired a Jewish law graduate. The elitist dean of the law school, who regarded criminal law practice as insufficiently prestigious for his graduates, was not pleased with Leibowitz’s plan. “Not criminal law, Sam,” he exclaimed when Leibowitz informed him, “anything but that.”

Leibowitz’s career path was set, however. Starting out in 1916, he started working with several small firms, including one headed by Brooklyn attorney Michael McGoldrick, who had a lot of Irish Catholic clients. They liked Leibowitz, whom they referred to as “our Roman Jew.” Under McGoldrick’s tutelage, Leibowitz honed his research and brief-writing skills. In 1919, the year Leibowitz opened his own law office in Brooklyn—one of his first clients was a skilled pickpocket named “Izzy the Goniff” (or thief), who was acquitted—he married Belle Munves, the daughter of a Bronx pharmacist. Two years later, Belle gave birth to twin boys, Robert and Lawrence. A daughter, Marjorie, was born in 1926. By then, the family was living in a large home in the Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn.

The family’s surname was Lebeau, but within a few years of coming to the United States, Isaac ‘Americanized’ it to Leibowitz.

As Leibowitz once explained it: “My job as a criminal lawyer was to sell my client’s cause to the jury.” He did that superbly. He later said that he did not knowingly defend a guilty client, but he firmly believed that even crooked mobsters—“vultures of our society,” as he labeled them—were entitled to the best defense he could give them. He used, he said, “every ounce of ability” he possessed to achieve this. He and his assistant interviewed potential witnesses in each case they worked on, checking and rechecking facts. Before scientific jury selection (or trial science) was openly practiced during the 1970s, Leibowitz was a pioneering practitioner. He diligently studied each member of a particular jury pool and strategically used peremptory challenges to control as much as was possible the makeup of the jury under consideration.

Success in court was thus the result of hard work and meticulous research. In one of his most notable cases, he brilliantly convinced the jury of the innocence of Harry Hoffman, a young Jewish resident of Staten Island. In Hoffman’s first trial—in 1924, before Leibowitz was involved—he was convicted in the sexual murder of a 25-year-old housewife named Maude Bauer. Hoffman escaped the electric chair, but he was sentenced to life imprisonment. While he had not helped himself by initially lying to the police about his whereabouts as well as the fact that he owned a .25 caliber gun, the same type used in the crime, Hoffman claimed he was innocent.

Following an appeal three years later that led to two failed attempts at a retrial, Leibowitz agreed to become Hoffman’s lawyer. By that point, Hoffman had spent five years in jail. He had written to Leibowitz urging the lawyer to assist him, and Leibowitz answered his call. To prove Hoffman innocent, Leibowitz immersed himself in the intricacies of ballistics to refute the testimony of the prosecution’s gun experts that Hoffman’s revolver was the murder weapon. The murder of Maude Bauer was never officially solved. In other murder trials, Leibowitz pored over medical and psychology books in order to also cross-examine opposing expert witnesses and raise sufficient doubts about their testimonies.

Leibowitz innately grasped that he was part counsel and part showman; that winning over juries in high-stakes cases required him to not only poke holes in prosecutors’ arguments and expose weakness and flaws in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses—one of his favorite questions to trip up an opposing witness was: “Did you ever tell a lie in your life?”—but also to maintain the jury members’ undivided attention in cases that were often complicated and sometimes tedious. He achieved this by impressing them with his knowledge and expertise and by keeping them focused and entertained. “A criminal lawyer,” Leibowitz once conceded, “has to be a combination of a Belasco [David Belasco, a celebrated theatrical producer], a Barrymore, an Einstein, and an Al Smith [the outspoken governor of New York from 1919-20 and 1923-28].”

His voice was animated, gestures dramatic, and he did not hesitate to go after and even mock prosecutors and their witnesses; his quick wit always evident. “He laughs so heartily, so uncontrollably, that the jury usually joins him,” wrote Alva Johnston in a June 1932 New Yorker profile of Leibowitz. “He shakes, chokes, gasps, is speechless … A humorous sally at the wrong time may freeze up a courtroom and appal the jurors, but Sam has the instinct of an artist in timing his gags and guffaws.” It was not as if Leibowitz studied great defense lawyers of the past: He developed these essential skills innately, the result of his personality, intelligence, and instinctive understanding of human nature.

In late June 1928, Patrolman Thomas Fitzgerald was ordered to deal with a domestic disturbance at a home in Brooklyn. Once there, he allegedly confronted Vincenzo Santangelo, who had been accused of threatening his wife and her brother and mother who lived in a suite on the upper floor of the house. According to Charles Fauci, the wife’s brother, Santangelo had shot Fitzgerald, who was wounded. He then fled the scene.

The patrolman survived and Santangelo eventually turned himself in and was charged with first-degree assault. Leibowitz was hired to defend him at his trial held in April 1930. Santangelo’s alibi was that at the time of the shooting, he claimed he was working at a Manhattan fish market and not living with his family in Brooklyn. To prove Santangelo was lying, the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case brought into court a basket of freshly caught fish and asked Santangelo to identify them. He showed Santangelo the first piece and Santangelo said it was flounder. The next one, he said was butterfish; the one after that, bass. In fact, Santangelo could not correctly identify one of the half-dozen pieces of fish.

Leibowitz had a problem, yet he quickly recovered. Santangelo, he pointed out, worked at a fish market at 114th Street and Lexington that was known to serve Jewish customers. Of the fish that the prosecutor showed his client, argued Leibowitz, none of them was the type utilized in preparing gefilte fish. “My client is an Italian that works in a Jewish fish market,” Leibowitz declared in his summation to the jury, “and they try him on Christian fish.” The judge smirked and the jury members howled. A short while later, Santangelo was acquitted.

What Leibowitz understood and used to his advantage more than most defense attorneys during his heyday as a lawyer in the 1920s and ’30s was that members of the New York Police Department were ruthless and frequently corrupt, and had been for decades. There was near certainty that an uncooperative suspect in a murder investigation—or any felony, for that matter—in the custody of the NYPD without a lawyer present was given what was commonly referred to as the “third degree.” Suspects were routinely abused and even tortured until they confessed.

Leibowitz countered this “ends justified the means” distorted rationale with what he termed his “frameup defense.” All he had to hear was for a prosecutor to relate to a jury that the accused had “made a confession at police headquarters” and he instantly knew he had won the case. Merely insinuating that the police had crossed the line in interrogating the accused was usually sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.

In the spring of 1929, Leibowitz was defending three men arrested for robbing a Brooklyn theater. They had allegedly confessed their guilt to the police. The prosecutor believed his case against the men was solid. Then, in his closing remarks to the jury, Leibowitz declared that the men had been “night-sticked” into telling the police what they wanted to hear. It took a few hours and three ballots, but Leibowitz had got the men a verdict of “not guilty.”

Sometimes, Leibowitz wisely took preemptive actions in his dealings with the police. In 1925, in the midst of Prohibition, Al Capone, only 26 years old, was already in his prime as the country’s most notorious gangster, raking in millions of dollars from speak-easies, gambling, and brothels. On Christmas Day, Capone, who was based in Chicago, was visiting his mother in Brooklyn. Late that night, accompanied by a small group of local Italian mobsters, he attended what was supposed to be a friendly gathering with several members of the Irish White Hand gang. Yet when a White Hand tough insulted Capone, a shootout ensued in which three of the Irish mobsters were killed and one was severely wounded.

Soon after, the police issued arrest warrants for Capone and several of the Italian American gangsters. The next day there was a knock on the door of Leibowitz’s home and 4-year-old Robert ran to open it. Standing on the stoop was Capone and his henchman Frank Nitti, who told the boy that they were there to meet with his father. They wanted Leibowitz to represent them. He agreed to do so. Anticipating that the gangsters would be beaten into confessing their crime—the police also referred to this treatment as “massaging” a suspect—if they surrendered to the authorities, Leibowitz had each man photographed naked, back and front, and had the photographer sign an affidavit attesting that he had taken the pictures that day. He then made a deal with a Brooklyn police captain to turn over Capone and the other men, but only if they were immediately arraigned.

“I am handing over these men in good shape,” Leibowitz told the captain. “They have been examined by a witness and there are no marks upon their persons. You don’t dare ‘massage’ them.” That strategy worked; Capone and the other gangsters were not roughed up. And, they beat the murder charges. Leibowitz secured a statement from the Irish gangster, who had been wounded and was recovering in the hospital, that he had been shot by strangers and not by Capone and his men. A dinner was held to celebrate their release at which Leibowitz was toasted with cries of “Viva Leibowitz.” For years after Leibowitz received holiday fruitcakes from Capone signed “Your pal, Al.”

Though Leibowitz believed that Capone and the other mobsters he represented over the years were entitled to a competent defense like anyone else charged with a crime, he was never entirely comfortable with his publicized association with them. “I never consorted with them in the first place,” he once remarked about his former clients. “They never slapped me on the back and called me ‘Sam.’ I looked upon them as a doctor would a case.” Later, he refused a $250,000 retainer, an exorbitant sum in the 1930s, to serve as counsel for Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, one of the heads of Murder, Inc., an organized mob hit squad. Buchalter was executed at Sing Sing prison on March 4, 1944.

‘Show them,’ he told the all-white jury members, ‘that Alabama justice cannot be bought and sold with Jew money from New York.’

The most important case of Leibowitz’s career, and one that solidified his stature as a champion of the underdog and human rights and enhanced his reputation far beyond New York City, began for him in Alabama in 1933. Two years earlier, in a miscarriage of justice that was all too typical in the segregated South, nine young African American men, who ranged in ages from 12 to 19, were convicted in trials held in the town of Scottsboro, Alabama (about 100 miles north of Birmingham) for allegedly raping two white girls, Victoria Price, 21, and Ruby Bates, 17, aboard a freight train traveling through Alabama on its way to Memphis. The “Scottsboro Boys,” as they became known (only four of them knew each other) also had fought with several young white men who had been on the train. The white teenagers, who had lost the fight, then reported this altercation to the police after they hopped off the train—the start of the Scottsboro Boys’ legal nightmare. The nine claimed they were innocent of raping the two girls, and they were. But all of them—except 12-year-old Roy Wright, who was granted a mistrial—were sentenced to death. (Considering that 299 African Americans were lynched in Alabama from 1882 to 1968, “the fact that the [young men in Scottsboro] were not immediately lynched,” lawyer Alan Dershowitz has written, “demonstrated some degree of progress …”)

The two girls had concocted the story about the rape to avoid getting in trouble for vagrancy and having illegal sexual relations. Early in 1932, a letter from Ruby Bates to a boyfriend was made public in which she denied having been raped. Nonetheless, a few months later the Alabama Supreme Court in a 6-to-1 vote upheld the convictions of seven of the defendants (the conviction of 13-year-old Eugene Williams was reversed because he was a juvenile in 1931). In November 1932, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling and deemed that the defendants were denied their right to counsel, which violated their right to due process under the 14th Amendment. The cases were remanded to the lower court, which meant new trials had to be held. In January 1933, the International Labor Defense, an organization with ties to the Communist Party, recruited Leibowitz to take charge of the defense in the new trials.

“I shall remain active in this cause as long as there is a breath of life in me,” Leibowitz told a writer from the Jewish Daily Bulletin. “It is not the cause of the Negro alone, it is the cause of my own people!” He added, “What a glorious opportunity it was for the lot to fall to a Jew to strike a blow for the emancipation of the colored race! … Believe me, I’ll do all in my power to reflect credit on my people in the fight we’re waging.” He also no doubt recognized that participating in such widely covered legal proceedings and championing African Americans’ legal rights would “add to the realm of his renown,” as his son Robert later wrote.

It was a protracted fight. For more than five years, Leibowitz battled witnesses who openly lied. While Ruby Bates eventually recanted her testimony, Victoria Price refused to do so for the rest of her life. Leibowitz’s cross-examination of Price was especially harsh, but he felt it necessary to expose her lies. He faced racist judges and prosecutors, confronted illegal court procedure rulings, and regularly received death threats. During the first of several trials, speakers at rallies near the Jackson County courthouse inflamed the crowd who called for the young men to be lynched and Leibowitz and other lawyers assisting him to be tarred and feathered. A pamphlet circulated with the title “Kill the Jew From New York.” In his summation to the jury, assistant prosecutor County Solicitor Wade Wright made no attempt to hide his antisemitism. “Show them,” he told the all-white jury members, “that Alabama justice cannot be bought and sold with Jew money from New York.”

In the end, it was a bittersweet legal victory for Leibowitz, who eventually had had enough. Not one to lose his temper in front of a jury, he declared during one of the final trials that he was “sick and tired of the sanctimony and hypocrisy of the state and people of Alabama.” Back in New York, he was hailed for standing up to Southern bigotry.

In February 1935, Leibowitz appeared before the Supreme Court; it was the first and single time he ever did so. He ultimately won a ruling when the court found that the exclusion of African Americans on Alabama jury rolls—despite assertions to the contrary by Jackson County officials—deprived Black defendants of their rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. Though in subsequent trials in Scottsboro and throughout the South, unscrupulous legal officials attempted to get around the law, they were unable to prevent African Americans from serving on juries, especially in cases with African American defendants. That ruling was rightly part of Leibowitz’s legacy. At the same time, and notwithstanding the ruling in his favor by the U.S. Supreme Court and Leibowitz’s best efforts, several of the Scottsboro Boys were convicted and served prison time until Alabama state officials were prepared to concede that they had indeed incarcerated innocent men. The lives of each were changed forever by hate and false testimony. It took more than eight decades, until November 2013, for Alabama’s parole board to grant posthumous pardons for the three remaining “Scottsboro Boys” who still had not had their convictions rescinded.

Seeking other professional opportunities, Leibowitz, a loyal Democratic Party member, accepted the nomination in 1940 for judge of the Kings County Court, a criminal court that always had more cases than it could process. He comfortably won the election and began a 14-year term. Though toying with the idea of running for mayor of New York City, he was reelected as a judge in 1954 for a second term. Then, following a restructuring of the courts in New York City in 1962, he was named a justice of the New York State Supreme Court, where he served until his retirement seven years later.

From the start of his deliberations, Judge Leibowitz was tough and unrelenting in his determination to ensure that the cause of justice was properly served—at least, as he interpreted it. “He used the same eloquence,” The Washington Post later noted, “with which he once had persuaded juries to return verdicts of ‘not guilty’ to berate prosecutors, defense attorneys, police officers, defendants, and, sometimes, other judges.” He had little sympathy for those found guilty of committing a crime, no matter their age or the circumstances. Punishment was meted out accordingly. Leibowitz had utilized a fair number of clever strategies as a defense lawyer, yet as a judge he roughly chided another defendant for refusing to answer his questions. “I’ll give you a thousand years, if necessary,” he warned the man.

He presided over more than 11,000 trials—of notorious gang members and organized crime assailants, ordinary men and women, as well as New York celebrities such as Leo “the Lip” Durocher, the famed and ornery baseball player and manager. In June 1945, Durocher, then the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, was arrested at Ebbets Field along with John Moore, a special policeman, for assaulting a fan named John Christian who had heckled Durocher throughout the game. In the fight, Christian’s jaw was fractured. In a trial held before Leibowitz the following April, the jury acquitted both defendants in 38 minutes.

Durocher was lucky. Earning the nickname “Sentencing Sam,” Leibowitz dispensed harsh—but in his view, fair and just—punishment to convicted felons, including the death penalty, which he long maintained acted as a deterrent. So it was that in mid-February 1941, the lawyer who had saved more than 100 clients from the electric chair imposed his first death sentence on George Zeitz, a 25-year-old laborer from Brooklyn who had been convicted of murdering a loan shark named Irving Moskowitz following a dispute about an unpaid loan. During Leibowitz’s almost-30-year career on the bench, he sent 40 defendants to the death house at Sing Sing and other institutions.

Still, the compassion that Leibowitz had shown as an attorney remained part of his psyche. He was an early prison reformer, supporting conjugal visits for inmates. He also pushed for programs to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents. And, early in January 1944, he appointed the first African American—not only in the state of New York but in the entire country—to serve as foreman of a grand jury.

In the early 1950s, Leibowitz was again on the front pages of New York newspapers with his supervision of a grand jury that issued indictments against 18 New York City policemen who were accused of taking bribes from bookmaker Harry Gross. In the subsequent trial, Gross refused to testify and Leibowitz cited him for contempt 60 times and sentenced him to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Soon after, Leibowitz testified in Washington, D.C., and shared his knowledge of bookmaking and gambling with members of the U.S. Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce—or Kefauver Committee—chaired by Sen. Estes Kefauver (the committee was immortalized in the film Godfather II).

Leibowitz became testier as he became older. He was accused by lawyers and judges of having a bad temper in court. Yet, he did not want to retire at the mandatory retirement age of 70 in 1963. He got a reprieve from a board of his fellow judges who certified him as fit for continued service, despite the fact that the Association of the Bar of the City of New York opposed his redesignation to the bench. He remained a judge for another six years, until 1969. In an emotional ceremony in his courtroom on his last day, with his wife, Belle, and his children present, Leibowitz, fighting tears, said, “They spoke of me as a tough judge. Well, [my wife] can tell you how nights went by when I tossed in bed until dawn trying to figure out what to do with the poor devil to be sentenced in the morning.”

Nine years later, on Jan. 11, 1978, the legendary Samuel Leibowitz died in a Brooklyn hospital following a stroke. He was 84 years old.


Historian and writer Allan Levine’s most recent book is Details Are Unprintable: Wayne Lonergan and the Sensational Café Society Murder.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Biden warns he will veto Israel funding bill proposed by House

Biden warns he will veto Israel funding bill proposed by House

i24 News


The Office of Management and Budget said the legislation was “bad for Israel, for the Middle East region and for our own national security.
.

The White House in Washington, D.C. Photo by Menachem Wecker.

Congressional Republicans’ efforts to decouple U.S. President Joe Biden’s proposed aid for Israel and Ukraine have met with opposition from the White House.

Proposed legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives for $14.3 billion for Israel would draw money from cutting the budget of the Internal Revenue Service. It would also remove proposed humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has insisted that “Israel is a separate matter” from Ukraine and that he seeks to bifurcate the two wars.

The proposal is “bad for Israel, for the Middle East region and for our own national security,” said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “The bill fails to meet the urgency of the moment by deepening our divides and severely eroding historic bipartisan support of Israel’s security.”

OMB added that the legislation “inserts partisanship into support for Israel, making our ally a pawn in our politics at a moment we must stand together.”

The Senate also opposes the House’s standalone Israel funding bill.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded by saying: “The bottom line is, it’s not a serious proposal.”


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com