This July, Ashgate will publish Divine Service? Judaism and Israel’s Armed Forces by Stuart A. Cohen (Ashkelon Academic College, Israel). The publisher’s description follows.
Religion now plays an increasingly prominent role in the discourse on international security. Within that context, attention largely focuses on the impact exerted by teachings rooted in Christianity and Islam. By comparison, the linkages between Judaism and the resort to armed force are invariably overlooked. This book offers a corrective. Comprising a series of essays written over the past two decades by one of Israel’s most distinguished military sociologists, its point of departure is that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, quite apart from revolutionizing Jewish political activity, also triggered a transformation in Jewish military perceptions and conduct. Soldiering, which for almost two millennia was almost entirely foreign to Jewish thought and practice, has by virtue of universal conscription (for women as well as men) become a rite of passage to citizenship in the Jewish state. For practicing orthodox Jews in Israel that change generates dilemmas that are intellectual as well as behavioural, and has necessitated both doctrinal and institutional adaptations. At the same time, the responses thus evoked are forcing Israel’s decision-makers to reconsider the traditional role of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) as their country’s most evocative symbol of national unity.






Jews on the Jury
A federal judge in New York this week denied a defense attorney’s request to exclude Jews from a jury that will hear the case of alleged terrorist Abdel Hameed Shehadeh, on trial for lying to the FBI about plans to kill Americans. Shehadeh’s lawyer, Frederick Cohn, told the judge that the jury was going to hear incendiary testimony about Jews and Zionism and that Jewish jurors could not be trusted to remain objective.
Many reports of this week’s ruling state that the law forbids excluding jurors on account of religion. Those statements are a bit misleading. The Supreme Court has held that the constitution forbids attorneys from striking jurors on account of race or sex, but has never ruled on whether attorneys may strike jurors on account of religion.
According to my colleague Larry Cunningham, an expert in criminal procedure, lower courts are split on that question. There’s learning for the proposition that attorneys may not strike jurors on the basis of religious affiliation itself, but may strike jurors on the basis of religious intensity. For example, in one federal trial in New Jersey, a prosecutor struck two jurors who were active in their churches on the ground that the jurors’ religious convictions would make it hard for them to vote to convict the defendant. An appellate court ruled that the exclusion was proper. As Robert Miller quipped at the time, “You may thus be struck from a jury not for being a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, but only for being a rather devout Christian, Jew, or Muslim.”
So, Shehadeh’s lawyer really should have been more subtle. Perhaps he will revise revise his request to cover only Jews who keep kosher.
→ 2 Comments
Posted in Commentary, Mark L. Movsesian, Scholarship Roundup
Tagged Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Judaism