About a century ago, Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of treason in France based on good evidence. The affair was widely viewed as anti-Semitic. Similar cases against Jews were tried in Russia and the United States. After the scandals, the epoch of judicial Jew-baiting was thought to be over. Until it reemerged in the trial of Mordechai Rubashkin.
To be sure, Rubashkin’s judge developed an interesting and useful method of dealing with hordes of illegal aliens: threaten them with serious jail sentences, offer guilty pleas in fast-track hearings, and deport them after a short jail sentence. That approach is the only alternative to due process, which cannot and need not feasibly be applied to thousands, potentially millions of illegal immigrants. Why can a person who arrives in a country illegally claim a right to the same extensive due process accorded to citizens? The absence of gross human-rights violations during his trial is good enough. Israel can well apply a similar judicial tactic to the African illegals who already constitute 1% of our population: threaten them with infiltration charges and offer them deportation as an alternative to prosecution.
The judge was perhaps not overly anti-Semitic, just over-zealous in his prosecution. News media nevertheless overwhelmingly decried the judge’s handling of the case.
Yet, there is nothing new under the sun, and a Jew was denied bail because he is a Jew. His sentence to an unreasonably long prison term also has a smell of anti-Semitism.
Do you think that Polish-style pogroms are impossible in the United States?