El País describes Maduro judge as impartial 'despite being Jewish'
Spain’s leading daily drew sharp criticism after suggesting a federal judge’s impartiality existed “despite” his Jewish identity, prompting accusations of antisemitism and correction to the article
A controversy erupted on Tuesday after Spain’s leading daily El País published an article describing U.S. federal judge Alvin Hellerstein in terms many readers and observers deemed antisemitic.
The article focused on Hellerstein, who has been appointed to oversee legal proceedings involving Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In its initial version, El País praised the judge’s professionalism and legal rigor but added that his impartiality stood “despite” his being a prominent member of the Jewish community, a phrasing that quickly drew sharp criticism.
Judge Hellerstein, 92, is an Orthodox Jew who has served on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for nearly 30 years, following his appointment by former president Bill Clinton.
Over the course of his career, he has issued numerous high-profile rulings and is widely regarded as an independent and even-handed jurist.
The wording in the article sparked an immediate backlash on social media and among journalists and Jewish organizations, who argued that linking judicial neutrality to religious identity reinforces harmful stereotypes. Critics said the implication that a Jewish judge’s faith might undermine impartiality crossed a clear line.
In response, El País amended the article, removing the reference to Hellerstein’s religious background from its English edition. The revised text now states that he is known for “well-reasoned judgments” and a reputation for impartiality, without mentioning his faith.
Public figures were quick to condemn the original phrasing.
Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Israel’s special envoy for trade and innovation and a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, labeled the passage “disgusting antisemitism.” The European Jewish Congress also weighed in, stressing that Jewish identity does not constitute a conflict of interest and warning that such language risks legitimizing prejudice.
While many welcomed the correction, critics emphasized that the incident underscores the media’s responsibility to choose language carefully, noting that even brief wording choices can shape public perceptions of religious and minority communities.