Daily Archives: March 21, 2021

Resurrecting the Reneged Deal – Modern Diplomacy

Posted: March 21, 2021 at 5:05 pm

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary.

Rabbi Hillel, Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Introduction: Trump and Talmud

Israels largely enthusiastic support for Donald J. Trump represented a distressing irony of post-Holocaust Jewish history. Lest we forget, this former president was an American leader who made openly common cause with multiple hate groups; reversed a once-proud US national tradition of welcoming the refugee;[1]replaced elementary human compassion with indifferent family separations and beautiful barbed wire;[2] turned an unforgivably blind eye to genocide-like crimes in Syria[3] and made the United States glaringly complicit with Vladimir Putins crimes against humanity.[4]

Since 1945, an aptly proud Jewish mantra has been Never Again. From an authoritative Talmudic standpoint, this unambiguous stance must be applied to all peoples, and not just the Jewish People. Prima facie, to do otherwise would mean to disregard Judaisms immutably core commitment to higher law,[5] species universality and human oneness. As we may also learn from Talmud, The dust from which the first man was made was gathered in all four corners of the earth.

There is still more for Israelis to consider. During his continuously sordid presidency, Donald Trump actively celebrated the rancor of an everyone for himself national and international philosophy; that is, a conspicuously murderous posture intrinsically alien to everything Jewish. In Judaism, after all, whatever the particular sources, dignified human relations must always be founded upon cooperation and collaboration, not gratuitous belligerence or zero-sum conflict.[6]

Always.

But how did this defiling Israeli association with mendacious American leadership actually come to pass? Was it merely the result of a misguided Realpolitik or power politics orientation in Israel? To be sure, from the start of his anti-scientific[7] and anti-intellectual administration,[8] Donald Trump openly presented himself as a friend of Israel.

But why the reciprocal? Why would a nation founded upon human dignity and moral principle declare itself a witting friend of Trump? Because he sent his Jewish son-in-law to move Americas embassy tile from a building in Tel Aviv to another building in Jerusalem?

Oddly, because Israel is generally a country of smart and well-educated people,[9] this degrading reciprocity was widely accepted among otherwise thoughtful public citizens. Now, however, going forward in moral, legal[10] and pragmatic survival terms, there will be a continuously high price to pay for such shortsighted acceptance, for the Jewish States demeaning and corrosive complicity with Donald Trumps inexcusable cruelty.[11]

Origins of the Defilement

None of this was ever complicated. Looking back, the Trump administration actively sought to replicate some of the worst features of authoritarian governance. While such a normally grievous charge might once have seemed unreasonable or perhaps even outrageous, this could no longer be the case after January 6, 2021. On that lamentable day of fevered insurrection, this bitterly injurious president, with his unashamedly open support of white supremacy[12]and by his repeated subordinations of binding law to personal whim, focused more on dominating his nations streets[13] than on maintaining even the thinnest veneers of national justice.[14]

When, in the closing days of his still-aspiring dictatorship, Trump spawned violent uprising against his own government, a rebellion at the US Capitol replete with tee-shirts commending Camp Auschwitz, he exhibited the most egregiously fundamental tenet of Joseph Goebbels.[15] This was the supremely ironic message that once a lie becomes sufficiently monstrous[16] and preposterous, it can, if properly fashioned, become more credible.Intellect rots the mind, declared Nazi Minister of Propaganda Goebbels at a Nuremberg rally in 1934.I love the poorly educated, said then candidate Donald Trump to an American rally audience in 2016.

Nonetheless, in law and morality, truth is exculpatory.

Moral and intellectual judgment ought never have been so easily cast aside in Jerusalem as it was in Washington. From the start, Israel ought to have known much better than to openly align its core interests with unprecedented Trump crimes[17] and derangements. Stingingly ironic, too, is that a principal surviving remnant of the Jewish People that is, the legitimate Jewish State born directly from the ashes of genocidal murder[18] could have chosen to identify its interests and ideals with such a sorely manipulative American leader.

Never again. Makes sense, of course, but not just for us. Judicially and Judaically, any such suggested Jewish exclusivity is indefensible. Patently, it is an oxymoron.

There is more. Certain concrete or tangible wrongs must be re-considered and taken into full account. Proudly, Donald Trump stood cheerfully by assorted hate groups that vilify both universal human rights[19] and the particular Jewish ideals of Higher Law[20] and justice. When this former president adopted barbarous and illegal positions on immigration (i.e., positions that undermine various peremptory[21] legal obligations concerning the legitimate rights of refugees), and willfully separated thousands of young and infant children from their families at US borders, the pertinent American offenses were more serious than merely illegal. Simultaneously, they represented a slap in the face to a people that had long-suffered from a frightful history of forced expulsions and international exclusions The Jewish People.

Stephen Miller, Trumps favored personal architect of immigrant exclusions, is himself the grandson of Jewish refugees from anti-Semitic pogroms. A key tenet of his grim standard for refugee admission to the United States had been merit. Like Trump, Miller pompously stipulated that only the good ones ought to be admitted.[22]

What Happened to the Words of Emma Lazarus?

There is more. In once unimaginable cases, Trump-created immigration offenses[23] and his corollary criteria of selection reeked of earlier harms perpetrated against defenseless European Jews.[24] The ironies are unspeakable, but they still remain worth noting.

Now, for those Israelis who were willing to cultivate US presidential support at all costs and whatever the concessions, relevant details should appear painful to recount. To the end, under the starkly indifferent aegis of Donald J. Trump and his coterie of dedicated sycophants, an official US pattern of illegality included forced deportations of minor children and forcible expulsions of the most severely disadvantaged. It is not a pattern that ought ever to have been overlooked or embraced by a Jewish State.The contradictions are simply too plain to see, too monstrous and too defiling.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.. say the words on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, words from never-to-be-forgotten Jewish author Emma Lazarus.

Other serious issues were involved in Israels willingness to betray its most sacred ideals in realistic exchange for Trump patronage. Most perplexing and worrisome of all were those matters that centered on the always-key realms of war avoidance and peacemaking. In all these essential matters, this US presidents complete lack of any informed and coherent vision of foreign affairs was consequential and obvious. How could these irremediable debilities ever have been so totally ignored in Jerusalem?

By preferring visceral seat-of-the-pants planning (attitude, not preparation, said Trump) to any focused forms of policy creation,[25] the former president sought to reward Israel with a series of marginal victories e.g., moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a demonstrably Faustian agreement to arm the UAE with US F35s as quid pro quo for diplomatic recognition by Abu Dhabi, and the so-called Abraham Accords.[26] At best, all of these alleged gifts to Israel will represent more-or-less Pyrrhic victories.[27]

Trump, Palestine and Iran

All presumed Trumpian benefits to Israel either ignore or exacerbate the more authentically critical security problems still at issue in Israels volatile regional neighborhood. Most obvious and enduringly problematic here are the expectedly continuous antipathies of the Palestinians, and also the still-accelerating nuclearization of Iran. In this regard, Trumps unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA pact with Iran and his subsequent enhancement of selected Sunni Arab states only made matters worse.

Further marginalizing Iran could hardly signal a propitious security outcome for Jerusalem.

Also, going forward, the several Palestinian elements seeking sovereignty with a determined prise de conscience, with an aroused consciousness, will not only remain fixed on achieving their overriding national goal. Plausibly, they will further prepare for the next hideous rounds of intercommunal violence. All this suggests, most urgently and with de facto compliments of Donald J. Trump, yet another intifada.[28]

What about the Trump-vaunted Abraham Accords? At every level of assessment, these agreements, negotiated via the American presidents good offices and also the kindred deals with Morocco and Sudan are devoid of any meaningfully gainful substance. In essence, to praise the Accords for enhancing Israels security is a bit like commending US President Ronald Reagans October 1983 invasion of Grenada on the grounds that Americans have not since had to face any catastrophic aggressions from Grenada.

When Israel-Palestinian relations and Israel-Iranian relations are taken into joint account, the whole of negative outcomes for Israel could prove vastly more injurious than the simple sum of the respective parts. Here, as authentic synergies, the net costs of pertinent Trump-brokered agreements would significantly exceed Israels net gains. By definition, this means that at least as long as we can assume an Israeli capacity to estimate the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action, Jerusalems participation in these concocted agreements was effectively irrational.

Self-evidently irrational.[29]

Even in the best of times, no one could reasonably describe the Middle East as a region of impending stability or collective security. In the worst of times, this endlessly-volatile region could very quickly descend into a substantially more far-reaching condition of chaos.[30]Such a potentially lethal descent could have its precipitating origins in an impending nuclear confrontation with Iran[31] a confrontation made more likely by Trumps earlier withdrawal from the Obama-era Iran pact (JCPOA) and by his mid-November 2020 queries about launching an American military first strike or in the still-expanding interstices of microbial assault (i.e., Covid19 pandemic).. In a credibly worst case scenario, these causes, augmented by similarly incoherent Trump withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq, would intersect synergistically.[32]

Again, by definition, the calculable whole of tangible injurious effects suffered by Israel[33] would be greater than the simple sum of its component parts.[34]

Reason and Anti-Reason

There is more. From its visibly disjointed beginnings, the posturing Trump presidency was detached from absolutely any identifiable considerations of history, law[35] or diplomacy.[36] Till the end, saddled with such overwhelming and self-inflicted debilities, the former American president advanced unashamedly toward ever-more conspicuous postures of anti-reason. These flagrantly non-analytic postures included conspiracy theories so morbidly vacuous and outrageous that they would make even the most witting fools blush with a well-deserved embarrassment. If this were not enough humiliation to worry about, all this critique ignores Donald Trumps unhidden disrespect for elementary logic, most distressingly his false correlation of Covid19 testing with increasing illness and his corresponding medical recommendation that citizens consider taking household disinfectants by injection.

There is little here that is actually subject to dispute. Former President Trumps disjointed Corona Virus policy continues to result in the needless deaths of a great many trusting Americans. Though lacking the intent or mens rea that is integral to the codified crime of genocide,[37] the presidents Covid19 policys effect upon US civilian populations had been effectively genocidal.[38]

From the standpoint of the victims and their families, the juridical fine point here is immaterial. Its a bit like the parable of frogs being killed by the playful rock-throwing of young children. The boys may not have intended any such harms, but the frogs remain dead nonetheless.

From the start of the Trump Era, Israel had been forewarned. In all complex matters of world politics and foreign policy, this American president had always been operating ad hoc, without any considered plan or doctrine, lurching fitfully from one inane whim to another, always without sturdy analytic moorings.[39] Whatever the subject, Trump navigated precipitously, jumping wildly from crisis to crisis, always without even an elementary grounding in theory, ideology or science. Like his appointed and uniformly obsequious subordinates, Trump read nothing, nothing at all. To the everlasting delight of his American followers, there were three places the former president would absolutely never choose to visit: a museum, the theatre or a library.

Is this an American president from whom Israel should ever have reasonably expected palpable wisdom or informed guidance?

Ever?

The question is silly, on its face.

For Jerusalem, though very late in the game, the cumulative security consequences of any Trump-induced regional disorder (Trump said on several occasions, I love chaos) are apt to be far-reaching and at least partially irremediable. By assuming, without verifiable reason, that this US President had ever had Israels best interests in mind, or that he could conceivably have figured out what those national interests might actually have been, Israel must soon find itself dealing with otherwise once-avoidable regional crises.

Among several examples of relevant Trump errors and deceptions, the American Presidents April 2018 attack against Syrian chemical warfare facilities should be brought to mind. This spasmodic or seat-of-the-pants US action had little tangible impact upon Bashar al-Assads genocidal dictatorship.[40] Even worse, this photo-op generated attack emboldened various anti-Damascus regime insurgents holding jihadist orientations.

What actually happened? These hapless insurgents were quickly crushed by al-Assads armed forces, hardly a victory for democratic rule in Syria or for any society allegedly bound to the peremptory Biblical principle, Justice, justice shall you pursue.[41] Also worth noting: Because of Trumps conspicuous disregard for scientific and theoretical underpinnings,[42] matters could just as easily have gone the other way, effectively strengthening what was then a pro-ISIS adversary.

Other basic questions should now arise in US policymaking circles. Whatever the specific issue at hand, Donald Trump remained steeply beholden to Vladimir Putin; he would never have considered doing anything that did not first comport with the Russian dictators presumptive personal preferences.[43] Why?

Its not a silly question.

It finally deserves a proper answer.

Donald J. Trump could have cared less about Israels national well-being or even its physical security. Always, his cynical outreach to Israelis and American Jews had only on self-serving objective. This goal was to re-elect Donald Trump, and to extract ebullient homage for Americas reigning emperor.[44]

Remembering History/Awaiting Chaos

Now, more than ever, history deserves appropriate pride of place. Since the seventeenth-century, the structure of world politics has been consistently anarchic or Westphalian.[45] But anarchy means only the absence of authoritative central government. To fully unravel still-meaningful effects of the destabilizing Trump presidency, Israel would need to prepare more systematically for various centrifugal foreign policy developments. The object of such rampant geo-strategic disorder would be identifiable as chaos.

Quo Vadis? For Israel, a true condition of chaos could prove far more threatening than mere anarchy. In virtually any still-expressible form, this bewildering condition could play havoc with even the nations best laid plans. From the particular standpoint of Israels military readiness, chaos represents a constantly unpredictable, deeply frightful and ever-changing correlation of forces.[46] Suddenly or incrementally, this correlation could impair all normal (and potentially indispensable) national security preparations.

There is more. This impairment could arrive suddenly, as a dissembling bolt-from-the-blue enemy attack, or less discernibly and less dramatically, in variously tangible but unforeseeable increments.

Whatever its mode of arrival, such results, for Israel, could be intolerable.

In large part, these results will have been generated by misconceived and manipulative US presidential thinking.

A new chaos is impending. For strategists and scholars, it must be differentiated from the more normaldisorder associated with Carl von Clausewitzs (the nineteenth-century Prussian military strategist) friction and correlative fog of war.[47] At its core, this Trump-boosted chaos describes a deep and systemic level of uncertainty, one that could create unprecedented and residually primal forms of international conflict. It follows, for Israel, that regional chaos could quickly and conclusively smother any still-simmering hopes for some cumulatively gainful Trump Effect.

In essence, there was never any defensible legal or strategic reason for Israel to make sordid deals with a clinically-deranged American president; that is, to betray its national interests and ideals at the same time.

At best, the US embassy move and the Abraham Accords will prove of very limited consolation to Israel. At worst, these rewards (designed only for Trumps domestic political benefit) will be responsible for accelerating anti-Israel passions and policies, including new waves of Palestinian terror in Judea. Samaria (West Bank) and Israel proper. Any such revived instances of Sunni-Arab terror[48] could hasten rather than hinder the creation of a Palestinian state,[49] a portentous outcome for Palestine that could generate certain ominous synergies with Iranian nuclear weapons development.

Once such creation had become a fait accompli, moreover, Israel would likely experience new incentives to initiate anticipatory self-defense options.[50]

Wittingly, many states in world politics, not just Israel, must soon acknowledge steadily increasing risks from assorted forms of nuclear conflict.[51] In this connection, Donald Trumps sorely evident incapacity to suitably manage a nuclear crisis and/or control any more-or-less related military escalations is difficult to dispute. Should this US President have failed to prevent a single escalation from an ongoing crisis to overt nuclear warfare, the corollary effects could have impacted several other parts of the world. These effects would have arrived in the form of prompt, immediate or latent physical casualties, and less dramatically, as the probable cause of unique social and economic misfortunes.[52]

Intersections and Synergies

World politics is not geometry. In these complex spheres of interaction, ones where complex synergies are often involved, the whole can become greater than the sum of its parts. For Israel, going forward, the most obvious chaos-generated perils could concern (1) escalating violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya and/or Syria; and (2) near-simultaneous deteriorations in a still-ongoing Iranian nuclearization effort and/or in the many-sided Palestinian insurgency.

Facing these prospectively intersecting perils, Jerusalem is already well aware that the Hashemite monarchy in neighboring Jordan remains vulnerable to assorted new forms of Islamic radicalism. Also apparent to decision-makers in Jerusalem is that a continuously authoritarian el-Sisi military regime in Cairo might not be able to control the re-aspiring Muslim Brotherhood indefinitely. Nothing done by the Trump administration had addressed any of these key problems.

In principle, at least, the Brotherhood or its kindred organizations could sometime seek to get its hands on weaponized pathogens or even nuclear explosives.[53] Regarding the germ warfare components, there would be great uncertainties about plausible effects of use during an already ongoing viral pandemic. What then?

There is more. Apropos of any derivative Trump effects upon Israels national security, Pakistan exhibits another critical site of wider-area disintegration, one that could suddenly transform a merely volatile Middle East from basic Westphalian anarchy to a genuinely unfathomable chaos. To wit, if the already-nuclear regime in Islamabad should sometime fall toJihadists, all other regional sources of chaotic disintegration could promptly pale into comparative insignificance. In this regard, there is absolutely no evidence that the Trump administration had accomplished even a modicum of appropriate planning.

In an expectedly worst case scenario for Israel, assorted Jihadists, emboldened by multiple expressions of Trump administration confusion and indecisiveness, would take singular or hybrid control in one or several of the more plainly unstable Sunni Arab and/or North African governments. Ultimately, these martyrdom-driven leaders could acquire certain game-changing weapons of mass destruction. This worrisome prospect, even if all acquired weapons were to remain non-nuclear, bring to mind the fearsomely correlative scenario of a suicide-bomber in macrocosm.[54]

A Jihadist hybrid could be a terror-group amalgam (that is, no direct state component) or reflect an asymmetrical alignment between particular terror-groups and a kindred state or states.

With the still-expected advance of Trump-enhanced chaos in the Middle East, Israel could sometime have to face certain nuclear and ideologically Islamist enemies on both the Iranian (Shiite) and Arab (Sunni) fronts. Even in the absence of old enemies with new atomic arms, nuclear and biological materials could find their way to Hezbollahin Lebanonand/or Hamas in Gaza. Along the way, Jerusalem perhaps still following former President Trumps predictably uncertain and disjointed policies could find itself having to take sides with one or another set of mortal enemies.

Political Philosophy and the State of Nature

Back in the seventeenth-century, the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, already recognized that although international relations exist indefinitely in a state of nature, a condition of anarchy (not one of genuine chaos), these decentralized relations are nonetheless more tolerable than the condition of individual human beings living in similarly everyone-for-himself circumstances. This is the case, argued Hobbes, because nations, unlike individuals, lack the capacity to destroy one another.

But today, this once reassuring distinction is no longer meaningful.[55] Thomas Hobbes was plainly unable to conceptualize a world with nuclear weapons. Now, proliferation of these weapons, especially in the Middle East, could quickly reduce the orthodox and relatively tolerable Westphalian anarchy of international relations to an authentically Hobbesianchaos, a stateof nature, one that could normally exist only between individuals.

Here, as more and more nations came to share what Hobbes had cleverly called dreadful equality, a more-or-less symmetrical capacity to inflict mortal destruction, the portent of regional nuclear calamity could become correspondingly more likely.

In his modern classic, The Second Coming, William Butler Yeats wrote of a time in which the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned. Succinctly, the celebrated Irish poet then revealed what continues to elude historians, diplomats, statesmen and scholars:In the not-too-distant future, there could arrive a moment wherein there would be no safety in numbers, treaties, or armaments; no help from civilizations; no counsel from public authority; and no last-minute rescue from science. Such an apocalyptic moment, one made more likely by the residual effects of Americas ill-prepared and steeply corrupted former president, might rage for a long while, perhaps even until every flower of human culture had been trampled and once-intact human communities had been ground insidiously into dust.

From this seemingly resurrected medieval darkness, from this foreseeably Trump-facilitated chaos, there would be neither escape nor sanctuary. Rather like the America First or know nothing illiteracy that Mr. Trump had championed in the United States, such darkness could envelop entire regions of our long-suffering planet in a suffocating pall. What then? What will Americans have learned from the still-enduring horrors of Trump era declensions?

For Israel, the prime inheritor of Genesis, Trumpian chaos augured severe and paradoxical kinds of national fragility. As a continuously beleaguered microstate, Israel could still become (depending upon the precise extent to which it would have allowed itself to be manipulated and misguided by Trump rewards) the principal victim of an even more-rampant regional disorder. In view of the far-reaching interrelatedness of all world politics always, everything is system this victimization could arise even if the conspicuously precipitating events of war and terror[56]were to occur elsewhere.

Oddly enough, a hideously triumphant global chaoscould reveal both sense and form. Generated by mutually reinforcing explosions of mega-war and mega-terror, any further Trump-induced disintegrations of world authority could assume a revealing shape. But how should such a unique shape, such a sobering geometry of chaos, be suitably deciphered and purposefully understood in Jerusalem? As a related and similarly vital question, Israels leaders would then need to inquire:

How should we deal with potentially irrational nuclear adversaries, dedicated foes operating within both state and terrorist groups?[57]

Israel as System

There is more. Among other things, the whole world, like the individual nation-states that comprise it, is best understood as a system. By definition, therefore, what happens in any one part of this world always affects what happens in some or all other parts. When, for example, global deterioration is marked, and begins to spread from one country to another, these effects could undermine international stability in general. When deterioration is sudden and catastrophic, as it would be following the onset of any unconventional war and/or act of unconventional terrorism, the unraveling effects could become more immediate and more overwhelming.

The State of Israel, a system of interdependent and interpenetrating parts like every other state, exists precariously in our larger world system. Aware that any Trump-inspired collapse of regional authority structures (most plausibly, in increments) had, in one way or another, impacted its few friends as well as its many enemies, leaders of the Jewish State should now advance variously informed expectations or scenarios of collapse. This would be done in order to best prepare suitable forms of response. Ultimately, recognizing that any rapid and far-reaching global collapse could spawn a more or less complete return to everyone for himself in world politics, or what philosopher Thomas Hobbeshad called in Leviathan a bellum omnium contra omnes, a war of all against all, Israels leaders must consider just how they should respond to any future national life in a global state of nature.

These considerations would not present encouraging or pleasing forms of analytic effort. Still, they would represent prudential national policy steps, and must therefore be undertaken. Such eleventh-hour considerations could be critical to the extent that the triggering mechanism of collapse would originate within the Middle East itself, from massive chemical, biological and, in the future, nuclear attacks against Israel. In these uncertain times of biological plague, the specific actions of any microbial assault would be largely unpredictable but nonetheless highly consequential.

Any chaotic disintegration of the regional or wider-world system, whether slow and incremental or sudden and catastrophic, would impact the Israeli system. Accordingly, following the intellectually and morally deficient Trump presidency, Israel will have to orient its military planning doctrines more expressly toward worst-case possibilities. Already, Trump-initiated US troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, opposed internally by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are accelerating regional instabilities in ways that are foreseeable and unforeseeable.

Will one predictable result of these ill-considered withdrawals be increasing pressure upon Israel to carry out assassinations/targeted killings[58] on behalf of Washington?[59] If so, what would this suggest about the true cumulative costs to Israel of the Trump-brokered peace agreements? This is a question well worth answering.

Looking to a Less Damaging Foreign Policy Future

In the final analysis, it will be apparent that the overall security costs of these pacts to Jerusalem will exceed the overall benefits. And this is to say nothing about any corresponding Israeli violations of international law mandated by American largesse, or about indiscriminate Israeli submission to misconceived US presidential authority. Though every sham can have a patina, this moral and intellectual Trump Era surrender could haunt Israels national integrity and self-respect for a painfully long time.

There is one last time-urgent observation to make about Israels witting subordination to Donald J. Trumps incoherent plans and expectations. In mid-November 2020, Israel felt obligated to strike out at selected Iranian military targets in Syria. Simultaneously, in large part because of Trumps earlier (and counter-productive) withdrawal from the Iran nuclear pact, Tehran had already been accelerating its preparations to go nuclear. On both conventional and unconventional weapon fronts, this former American presidents errors and incapacities had encouraged Iranian belligerence and strategic threats toward Israel.

In the end, Israelis, not just Americans, will have to extricate themselves from grievous Trump-engineered misfortunes.[60]

To avoid similar judgments or mistakes in the future, Israeli leaders ought never calculate that the flamboyant wishes of an American president are ipso facto coincident with their own nations best interests. President Donald Trump inflicted deeply corrosive harms upon the United States, but he also set the stage for continuously creating corollary or corresponding harms to Israel. Now, these significant harms, left unresolved, could not only imperil the Jewish States physical security, but also its still-residual convictions concerning international justice and human rights.[61]

A small nation that earlier chose to follow a dissembling and dishonest American patron must expect a future of significant lamentations and potential despair.[62]

For Israel, from the start, any deal made by US President Donald J. Trump on its behalf was essentially a bad deal.[63] Proof of this once-preventable result is already evident in moral and legal realms; it will soon become similarly clear in pertinent matters of strategy and self-defense. These matters will involve, inter alia, adversarial actions issuing forth from various sectors of the Sunni Arab world (including some that have been beneficiaries of Trump deal making); Shiite Iran (including various cooperating elements of both Sunni al-Qaeda and Shiite Hezbollah); and Afghanistan (mainly once-dormant Taliban foes resurrected by Trumps seat-of-the-pants US troop withdrawals).

In this last example, the negative consequences of Donald Trumps misconceived foreign policy (terrorist training and terrorist safe havens) will not stem directly from any US actions undertaken on behalf of Israel. Rather, these unwanted results will stem indirectly from a policy intended originally by the former American president solely for presumed benefit of the United States. Some or all of these discrete consequences could sometime combine in more-or-less unforeseen ways, creating strongly synergistic outcomes that are far worse than the calculable sum of their component parts. Incrementally, in such once-avoidable cases, the tangible costs to Israel of having wittingly acceded to Donald Trumps lawless Realpolitik[64]will become more apparent and less remediable.

For Israel, the Jewish State, it doesnt have to be this way. Recalling Rabbi Hillel, the relevant standard of correct behavior is longstanding, clear and compelling: That which is hateful to you, instructs Talmud, do not do to your neighbor.

Its not complicated. For Israel and its American ally, the policy obligations are reciprocal, plain to see and altogether overriding.

[1]Prima facie, when President Trumps executive orders directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand his coercive program of expedited removal, he was in flagrant violation of the legal principle known as non-refoulement. This principle is prominently codified at Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Owing to the prior incorporation of international human rights law into US law, these always-serious violations extend authoritatively to the immigration laws of the United States.

[2] See https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-barbed-wire-montana-rally-beautiful_n_5bde3b9fe4b04367a87d2495

[3] See, by this author, Louis Ren Beres, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2018/04/louis-beres-trump-syria/

[4]See, by this author, Louis Ren Beres, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2018/03/trump-putin-benes/ For definition of crimes against humanity, See AGREEMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS OF THE EUROPEAN AXIS POWERS AND CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL. Done at London, August 8, 1945. Entered into force, August 8, 1945. For the United States, Sept. 10, 1945. 59 Stat. 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279. The principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal were affirmed by the U.N. General Assembly as AFFIRMATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY THE CHARTER OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL. Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, Dec. 11, 1946. U.N.G.A. Res. 95 (I), U.N. Doc. A/236 (1946), at 1144. This AFFIRMATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY THE CHARTER OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL (1946) was followed by General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), adopted November 21, 1947, directing the U.N. International Law Commission to (a) Formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal, and (b) Prepare a draft code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind. (See U.N. Doc. A/519, p. 112). The principles formulated are known as the PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED IN THE CHARTER AND JUDGMENT OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL. Report of the International Law Commission, 2nd session, 1950, U.N. G.A.O.R. 5th session, Supp. No. 12, A/1316, p. 11.

[5]See by this author, Louis Ren Beres, https://jewishwebsite.com/opinion/presidential-crimes-and-pardons-donald-j-trump-and-americas-higher-law/64169/

[6]The core origins of such belligerence and conflict in world politics are best explained by German historian Heinrich von Treitschke in his posthumously published Lecture on Politics (1896): Individual man sees in his own country the realization of his earthly immortality. Earlier, German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel opined, in Philosophy of Right (1820), that the state represents the march of God in the world. The deification of Realpolitik, a transformation from mere principle of action to a sacred and sacrilizing end in itself, drew its originating strength from the doctrine of sovereignty advanced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Initially conceived as a principle of internal order, this doctrine underwent a specific metamorphosis, whence it became the formal or justifying rationale for international anarchy that is, for the global state of nature. First established by Jean Bodin as a juristic concept in De Republica (1576), sovereignty came to be regarded as a power absolute and above the law. Understood in terms of modern international relations, this doctrine encouraged the notion that states lie above and beyond any form of legal regulation in their interactions with each other.

[7]Could anything have been more markedly anti-science than Trumps utterly incoherent Covid19 advice? How could anyone take seriously his counsel to combat the pandemic with individual human injections of household bleach or disinfectant?

[8]During his presidency, too little attention was directed toward Trumps open loathing of science and intellect and his corresponding unwillingness to read. Ironically, the Founding Fathers of the United States were intellectuals. As explained by American historian Richard Hofstadter: The Founding Fathers were sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide reading in history, politics and law to solve the exigent problems of their time. See Hofstadters Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), p. 145. A conclusion ought to surface: How far we Americans have fallen.

The rest is here:

Resurrecting the Reneged Deal - Modern Diplomacy

Posted in Talmud | Comments Off on Resurrecting the Reneged Deal – Modern Diplomacy

COVID-19 in Quebec: What you need to know Thursday – CBC.ca

Posted: at 5:05 pm

Quebec has now surpassed 300,000 recorded cases of COVID-19 a little over a year into the pandemic.

A day earlier, Dr. Mylne Drouin, Montreal's public health director, urged the public to remain vigilant in order to delay an inevitablethird wave of infections.

In an effort to deal with the growing spread of COVID-19 variants in the city'swest end, public health is putting together a pilot project to give priority vaccinations to some parents of school children.

According to a letter sent to parents at JPPS-Bialik,theUnited Talmud Torahand Herzliya, the campaign is "in responseto the urgency presented by the presence of the variant in our region."

Meanwhile, Quebec Health MinsterChristian Dubwas administered a dose ofAstraZenecaThursday afternoon. Holding a news briefing afterward, he was visibly emotional as he expressed his joy to finally have been inoculated after a long year.

"I am very happy to have received it," saidDub.

Dubinsisted, as he has in the past, that AstraZeneca is a safe, effective vaccine.

If you have been feelingisolated, we'vecompiledsome ways to help copeas part ofa special CBC Quebec project calledOut of the Dark: Real Talk on Mental Health.

If you think you may have COVID-19, the government asks that you call18776444545to schedule an appointment at a screening clinic.

To reserve an appointment for a COVID-19 vaccine, you can go on the online portal quebec.ca/covidvaccine. You can also call 1-877-644-4545.

Quebec government reminders for preventing the spread of COVID-19:

You can find information on COVID-19 in the provincehereand information on the situation in Montrealhere.

See the rest here:

COVID-19 in Quebec: What you need to know Thursday - CBC.ca

Posted in Talmud | Comments Off on COVID-19 in Quebec: What you need to know Thursday – CBC.ca

Welcome to the land that no country wants | Middle East …

Posted: at 5:05 pm

Bir Tawil is the last truly unclaimed land on earth: a tiny sliver of Africa ruled by no state, inhabited by no permanent residents and governed by no laws. To get there, you have two choices.

The first is to fly to the Sudanese capital Khartoum, charter a jeep, and follow the Shendi road hundreds of miles up to Abu Hamed, a settlement that dates back to the ancient kingdom of Kush. Today it serves as the regions final permanent human outpost before the vast Nubian desert, twice the size of mainland Britain and almost completely barren, begins unfolding to the north.

There are some artisanal gold miners in the desert, conjuring specks of hope out of the ground, a few armed gangs, which often prey upon the prospectors, and a small number of military units who carry out patrols in the area and attempt, with limited success, to keep the peace. You need to drive past all of them, out to the point where the occasional scattered shrub or palm tree has long since disappeared and given way to a seemingly endless, flat horizon of sand and rock out to the point where there are no longer any landmarks by which to measure the passing of your journey.

Out here, dry winds often blow in from the Arabian peninsula, whipping up sheets of dust that plunge visibility down to near-zero. After a day like this, then a night, and then another day, you will finally cross into Bir Tawil, an 800-square-mile cartographical oddity nestled within the border that separates Egypt and Sudan. Both nations have renounced any claim to it, and no other government has any jurisdiction over it.

The second option is to approach from Egypt, setting off from the countrys southernmost city of Aswan, down through the arid expanse that lies between Lake Nasser to the west and the Red Sea to the east. Much of it has been declared a restricted zone by the Egyptian army, and no one can get near the border without first obtaining their permission.

In June 2014, a 38-year-old farmer from Virginia named Jeremiah Heaton did exactly that. After obtaining the necessary paperwork from the Egyptian military authorities, he started out on a treacherous 14-hour expedition through remote canyons and jagged mountains, eventually wending his way into the no mans land of Bir Tawil and triumphantly planting a flag.

Heatons six-year-old daughter, Emily, had once asked her father if she could ever be a real princess; after discovering the existence of Bir Tawil on the internet, his birthday present to her that year was to trek there and turn her wish into a reality. So be it proclaimed, Heaton wrote on his Facebook page, that Bir Tawil shall be forever known as the Kingdom of North Sudan. The Kingdom is established as a sovereign monarchy with myself as the head of state; with Emily becoming an actual princess.

Heatons social media posts were picked up by a local paper in Virginia, the Bristol Herald-Courier, and quickly became the stuff of feel-good clickbait around the world. CNN, Time, Newsweek and hundreds of other global media outlets pounced on the story. Heaton responded by launching a global crowdfunding appeal aimed at securing $250,000 in an effort at getting his new state up and running.

Heaton knew his actions would provoke awe, mirth and confusion, and that many would question his sanity. But what he was not prepared for was an angry backlash by observers who regarded him not as a devoted father or a heroic pioneer but rather as a 21st-century imperialist. After all, the portrayal of land as unclaimed or undeveloped was central to centuries of ruthless conquest. The same callous, dehumanising logic that has been used to legitimise European colonialism not just in Africa but in the Americas, Australia, and elsewhere is on full display here, noted one commentator. Are white people still allowed to do this kind of stuff? asked another.

Any new idea thats this big and bold always meets with some sort of ridicule, or is questioned in terms of its legitimacy, Heaton told me last year over the telephone. In his version of the story, Heatons conquest of Bir Tawil was not about colonialism, but rather familial love and ambitious dreams: apart from making Emily royalty, he hopes to turn his newly founded nation which lies within one of the most inhospitable regions on the planet and contains no fixed population, no coastline, no surface water and no arable soil into a cutting-edge agriculture and technology research hub that will ultimately benefit all humanity.

After all, Heaton reasoned, no country wanted this forgotten corner of the world, and no individual before him had ever laid claim to it. What harm was to be caused by some wellintentioned, starry-eyed eccentric completing such a challenge, and why should it not be him?

There were two problems with Heatons argument. First, territories and borders can be delicate and volatile things, and tampering with them is rarely without unforeseen consequences. As Heaton learned from the public response to his self-declared kingdom, there is no neutral or harmless way to claim a state, no matter how far away from anywhere else it appears to be. Second, Heaton was not the first well-intentioned, starry-eyed eccentric to travel all the way to Bir Tawil and plant a flag. Someone else got there first, and that someone was me.

Like all great adventure stories, this one began with lukewarm beer and the internet. It was the summer of 2010, and the days in Cairo where I was living and working as a journalist were long and hot. My friend Omars balcony provided a shaded refuge filled with wicker chairs and reliably stable wireless broadband. It was up there, midway through a muggy evenings web pottering, that we first encountered Bir Tawil.

Omar was an Egyptian-British filmmaker armed with a battery of finely tuned Werner Herzog impressions and a crisp black beard that I was secretly quite jealous of. The pair of us knew nothing beyond a single fact, gleaned from a blog devoted to arcane maps: barely 500 miles away from where we sat, there apparently existed a patch of land over which no country on earth asserted any sovereignty. Within five minutes I had booked the flights. Omar opened two more beers.

Places beyond the scope of everyday authority have always fired the imagination. They appear to offer us an escape when all you can see of somewhere is its outlines, it is easy to start fantasising about the void within. No mans lands are our El Dorados, says Noam Leshem, a Durham University geographer who recently travelled 6,000 miles through a series of so-called dead spaces, from the former frontlines of the Balkans war to the UN buffer zone in Cyprus, along with his colleague Alasdair Pinkerton of Royal Holloway. The pair intended to conclude their journey at Bir Tawil, but never made it. There is something alluring about a place beyond the control of the state, Leshem adds, and also something highly deceptive. In reality, nowhere is unplugged from the complex political and historical dynamics of the world around it, and as Omar and I were to discover no visitors can hope to short-circuit them.

Six months later, in January 2011, we touched down at Khartoum International airport with a pair of sleeping bags, five energy bars, and an embarrassingly small stock of knowledge about our final destination. To an extent, the ignorance was deliberate. For one thing, we planned to shoot a film about our travels, and Omar had persuaded me the secret to good film-making was to begin work utterly unprepared. Omar according to Omar was a cinematic auteur; the kind of maverick who could breeze into a desolate wasteland with no vehicle, no route, and no contacts and produce an award-winning documentary from the mayhem. One does not lumber an auteur, he explained, with printed itineraries, booked accommodation or emergency phone numbers. Mindful of my own aspirations to auteurism, this reasoning struck me as convincing.

There was something else, too, that made us refrain from proper planning. As the date of our departure for Sudan drew closer, Omar and I had taken to discussing our plans for Bir Tawil in increasingly grandiose terms. Deep down, I think, we both knew that the notion of claiming the territory and harnessing it for some grand ideological cause was preposterous. But what if it wasnt? What if our own little tabula rasa could be the start of something bigger, transforming a forgotten relic of colonial map-making into a progressive force that would defeat contemporary injustices across the world?

The mechanics of how this might actually work remained a little hazy. Yet just occasionally, at more contemplative junctures, it did occur to us that in the process of planting a flag in Bir Tawil as part of some ill-defined critique of arbitrary borders and imperial violence, there was a risk we could appear to the untrained eye very similar to the imperialists who had perpetrated such violence in the first place. It was a resemblance we were keen to avoid. Undertaking this journey in a state of deep ignorance, we told ourselves, would help mitigate pomposity. Without any basic knowledge, we would be forced to travel as humble innocents, relying solely on guidance from the communities we passed through.

As the two of us cleared customs, we broke into smiles and congratulated each other. The auteurs had landed, and what is more they had Important Things To Say about borders and states and sovereignty and empires. We set off in search of some local currency, and warmed to our theme. By the time we found an ATM, we were referring to Bir Tawil as so much more than a conceptual exposition. Under our benevolent stewardship, we assured each other, it could surely become some sort of launchpad for radical new ideas, a haven for subversives all over the planet.

It was at that point that the auteurs realised their bank cards did not work in Sudan, and that there were no international money transfer services they could use to wire themselves some cash.

This setback represented the first consequence of our failure to do any preparatory research. The nagging sense that our maverick approach to reaching Bir Tawil may not have been the wisest way forward gained momentum with consequence number two, which was that to solve the money problem we had to persuade a friend of a friend of a friend of an Egyptian business acquaintance to do an illicit currency trade for us on the outskirts of Khartoum. Consequence number three namely that, given our lack of knowledge about where we could and could not legally film in the capital, after a few days we inadvertently attracted the attention of an undercover state security agent while carrying around $2,000 worth of used Sudanese banknotes in an old rucksack, and were arrested transformed suspicion into certainty.

On the date Omar and I were incarcerated, millions of citizens in South Sudan were heading to the polls to decide between continued unity with the north or secession and a new, independent state of their own. We sat silently in a nondescript office block just off Gamaa Avenue the citys main diplomatic thoroughfare while a group of men in black suits and dark sunglasses scrolled through files on Omars video camera. Armed soldiers, unsmiling, stood guard at the door. Through the rooms single window, open but barred, the sound of nearby traffic could be heard. The images on the screen depicted me and Omar gadding about town on the days following our arrival; me and Omar unfurling huge rolls of yellowing paper at the governments survey department; me and Omar scrawling indecipherable patterns on sheets of paper in an effort to design the new Bir Tawili flag; me and Omar squabbling over fabric colours at the Omdurman market where we had gone to stitch together the aforementioned flag. With each new picture, a man who appeared to be the senior officer raised his eyes to meet ours, shook his head, and sighed.

In an attempt to lighten the mood, I pointed out to Omar how apposite it was that at the very moment in which votes were being cast in the south, possibly redrawing the regions borders for ever, we had been placed under lock and key in a military intelligence unit almost a thousand miles to the north for attempting to do the same. Omar, concerned about the fate of both his camera and the contents of the rucksack, declined to respond. I predicted that in the not too distant future, when we had made it to Bir Tawil, we would look back on this moment and laugh. Omar glared.

In the end, our captivity lasted under an hour. The senior officer concluded, perceptively, that, whatever we were attempting to do, we were far too incompetent to do it properly, or to cause too much trouble along the way. Upon our release, we set about obtaining a jeep that could take us to Bir Tawil. Every reputable travel agent we approached turned us down point-blank, citing the prevalence of bandit attacks in the desert. Thankfully, we were able to locate a disreputable travel agent, a large man with a taste for loud polo shirts who went by the name of Obai. Obai was actually not a travel agent at all, but rather a big-game hunter with a lucrative sideline in ambiguously licensed pick-up trucks. In exchange for most of our used banknotes, he offered to provide us with a jeep, a satellite phone, two tanks of water, and his nephew Gedo, who happened to be looking for work as a driver. In the absence of any alternative offers, we gratefully accepted.

Unlike Obai, who was a font of swashbuckling anecdotes and improbable tales of derring-do, Gedo turned out to be a more taciturn soul. He was a civil engineer who had previously done construction work on the colossal Merowe dam in northern Sudan, Africas largest hydropower project. On the day of our departure, he turned up wearing a baseball cap with Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics emblazoned across the front, and carrying a loaded gun. As we waved goodbye to Obai and began weaving our way through the capitals rush hour traffic, Omar and I set about explaining to Gedo the intricacies of our plan to transform Bir Tawil into an open-source state that would disrupt existing patterns of global power and privilege no mean feat, given that we didnt understand any of the intricacies ourselves. Gedo responded to this as he responded to everything: with a sage nod and a deliberate stroke of his stubble.

Im here to protect you, he told us solemnly, as we swung north on to the highway and left Khartoum behind us. Also, Ive never been on a holiday before, and this one sounds fun.

Bir Tawils unusual status wedged between the borders of two countries and yet claimed by neither is a byproduct of colonial machinations in north-east Africa, during an era of British control over Egypt and Egyptian influence on Sudan.

In 1899, government representatives from London and Cairo the latter nominally independent, but in reality the servants of a British protectorate put pen to paper on an agreement which established the shared dominion of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. The treaty specified that, following 18 years of intense fighting between Egyptian and British forces on the one side and Mahdist rebels in Sudan on the other, Sudan would now become a British colony in all but name. Its northern border with Egypt was to run along the 22nd parallel, cutting a straight line through the Nubian desert right out to the ocean.

Three years later, however, another document was drawn up by the British. This one noted that a mountain named Bartazuga, just south of the 22nd parallel, was home to the nomadic Ababda tribe, which was considered to have stronger links with Egypt than Sudan. The document stipulated that henceforth this area should be administered by Egypt. Meanwhile, a much-larger triangle of land north of the 22nd parallel, named Halaib, abutting the Red Sea, was assigned to other tribes from the Beja people who are largely based in Sudan for grazing, and thus now came under Sudans jurisdiction. And that was that, for the next few decades at least. World wars came and went, regimes rose and fell, and those imaginary lines in the sand gathered dust in bureaucratic archives, of little concern to anyone on the ground.

Disputes only started in earnest when Sudan finally achieved independence in 1956. The new postcolonial government in Khartoum immediately declared that its national borders matched the tweaked boundaries stipulated in the second proclamation, making the Halaib triangle Sudanese. Egypt demurred, insisting that the latter document was concerned only with areas of temporary administrative jurisdiction and that sovereignty had been established in the earlier treaty. Under this logic, the real border stayed straight and the Halaib triangle remained Egyptian.

By the early 1990s, when a Canadian oil firm signalled its intention to begin exploration in Halaib and the prospect of substantial mineral wealth being found in the region gained momentum, the disagreement was no longer academic. Egypt sent military forces to reclaim Halaib from Sudan, and despite fierce protests from Khartoum which still considers Halaib to be Sudanese and even tried to organise voting there during the 2010 Sudanese general election it has remained under Cairos control ever since.

Our world is littered with contested borders. The geographers Alexander Diener and Joshua Hagen refer to the dashed lines on atlases as the scars of history. Compared with other divisions between countries that seem so solid and timeless when scored on a map, these squiggles enclaves, misshapen lumps and odd protrusions are a reminder of how messy and malleable the process of drawing up borders has always been.

What makes this particular border conflict unique, though, is not the tussle over the Halaib triangle itself, but rather the impact it has had on the smaller patch of land just south of the 22nd parallel around Bartazuga mountain, the area known as Bir Tawil.

Egypt and Sudans rival claims on Halaib both rest on documents that appear to assign responsibility for Bir Tawil to the other country. As a result, neither wants to assert any sovereignty over Bir Tawil, for to do so would be to renounce their rights to the larger and more lucrative territory. On Egyptian maps, Bir Tawil is shown as belonging to Sudan. On Sudanese maps, it appears as part of Egypt. In practice, Bir Tawil is widely believed to have the legal status of terra nullius nobodys land and there is nothing else quite like it on the planet.

Omar and I were not, it must be acknowledged, the first to discover this anomaly. If the internet is to be believed, Bir Tawil has in fact been claimed many times over by keyboard emperors whose virtual principalities and warring microstates exist only online. The Kingdom of the State of Bir Tawil boasts a national anthem by the late British jazz musician Acker Bilk. The Emirate of Bir Tawil traces its claim over the territory to, among other sources, the Quran, the British monarchy, the 1933 Montevideo Convention and the 1856 US Guano Islands Act. There is a Grand Dukedom of Bir Tawil, an Empire of Bir Tawil, a United Arab Republic of Bir Tawil and a United Lunar Emirate of Bir Tawil. The last of these has a homepage featuring a citizen application form, several self-help mantras, and stock photos of people doing yoga in a park.

From our rarefied vantage point at the back of Obais Toyota Hilux, it was easy to look down with disdain upon these cyber-squatting chancers. None of them had ever actually set foot in Bir Tawil, rendering their claims to sovereignty worthless. Few had truly grappled with Bir Tawils complex backstory, or of the bloodshed it was built upon (tens of thousands of Sudanese fighters and civilians died as a result of the Egyptian and British military assaults that ended in the establishment of Sudans northern borders and thus, ultimately, the creation of Bir Tawil). Granted, Omar and I knew little of the backstory either, but at least we had actually got to Sudan and were making, by our own estimation, a decent fist of finding out. We ate our energy bars, listened attentively to tales of Gedos love life, and scanned the road for clues. The first arrived nearly 200 miles north-east of Khartoum, about a third of the way up towards Bir Tawil, when we came across a city of iron and fire oozing kerosene into the desert. This was Atbara: home of Sudans railway system, and the engine room of its modern-day creation story.

Until very recently, the long history of Sudan has not been one of a single country or people: many different tribes, religions and political factions have competed for power and resources, across territories and borders that bear no relation to those marking out the states limits today. A lack of rigid, recognisable boundaries was used to help justify Europes violent scramble to occupy and annex land throughout Africa in the 19th century. Often, the first step taken by western colonisers was to map and border the territory they were seizing. Charting of land was usually a prelude to military invasion and resource extraction; during the British conquest of Sudan, Atbara was crucial to both.

Sudans contemporary railway system began life as a battering ram for the British to attack Khartoum. Trains carried not only weapons and troops but everyday provisions too, specified by Winston Churchill as the letters, newspapers, sausages, jam, whisky, soda water, and cigarettes which enable the Briton to conquer the world without discomfort. Atbara was the site where key rail lines intersected, and its importance grew rapidly after Londons grip on Sudan had been formalised in the 1899 Anglo-Egyptian treaty.

Everything that mattered, from cotton to gum, came through here, as did all the rolling stock needed to move and export it, Mohamed Ederes, a local railway storekeeper, told us. He walked us through his warehouse, down corridors stacked high with box after box of metal train parts and past giant leather-bound catalogues stuffed with handwritten notes. From here, he declared proudly, you reached the world.

Atbaras colonial origins are still etched into its modern-day layout. One half of the town, originally the preserve of expatriates, is low-rise and leafy; on the other side of the tracks, where native workers were made to live, accommodation is denser and taller. But just as Atbara was a vehicle for colonialism, so too was it the place in which a distinct sense of Sudanese nationhood began to develop.

As Sudans economy grew in the early 20th century, so did the railway industry, bringing thousands of migrant workers from disparate social and ethnic groups to the city. By the second world war, Atbara was famous not only for its carriage depots and loading sidings, but also for the nationalist literature and labour militancy of those who worked within them. Poets as well as workers leaders emerged out of the nascent trade union movement in the late 1940s, which held devastating strikes and helped shake the foundations of British rule. The same train lines that had once borne Churchills sausages and soda water were now deployed to deliver workers solidarity packages all over the country, during industrial action that ultimately brought the colonial economy to a halt. Within a decade, Sudan secured independence.

The next morning, as we drove on, Gedo grew quieter and the signs of human habitation became sparser. At Karima, a small town 150 miles further north, we came across a fleet of abandoned Nile steamers stranded on the river bank; below stairs there were metal plaques bearing the name of shipwrights from Portsmouth, Southampton and Glasgow, each companys handiwork now succumbing slowly to the elements. We clambered through cobwebbed cabins and across rotting sun decks, and then decided to scale the nearby Jebel Barkal Holy Mountain in Arabic where eagles tracked us warily from the sky. Omar maintained a running commentary on our progress, delivered as a flawless Herzog parody, and it proved so painful for all in earshot that the eagles began to dive-bomb us. We set off running, taking refuge among the mountains scattered ruins.

Jebel Barkal was once believed to be the home of Amun, king of gods and god of wind. Fragments of Amuns temple are still visible at the base of the cliffs. Over the past few millennia, Jebel Barkal has been the outermost limit of Egypts Pharaonic kingdoms, the centre of an autonomous Nubian region, and a vassal province of an empire headquartered thousands of miles away in Constantinople. In the modern era of defined borders and seemingly stable nation states, Bir Tawil seems an impossible anomaly. But standing over the jagged crevices of Jebel Barkal, looking out across a region that had been passed between so many different rulers, and formed part of so many different arrangements of power over land, our endpoint started to feel more familiar.

The following evening we camped at Abu Hamed, on the very edge of the desert. Beyond the ramshackle cafeterias that have sprung up to serve the artisanal gold-mining community sending shisha smoke and the noise of Egyptian soap operas spiralling up into the night Omar and I saw the outlines of large agricultural reclamation projects, silhouetted in the distance against a starry sky. Since 2008, when global food prices spiked, there has been a boom in what critics call land-grabbing: international investors and sovereign wealth funds snapping up leases on massive tracts of African territory in order to intensify the production of crops for export, and bringing such territory under the control of European, Asian and Gulf nations in the process. Arable land was the first to be targeted, but increasingly desert areas are also being fenced off and sold. Near Abu Hamed, Saudi Arabian companies have been greening the sand blanketing it in soil and water in an effort to make it fertile with worrying consequences for both the environment and local communities, some of whom have long asserted customary rights over the area.

It was not so long ago that the prophets of globalisation proclaimed the impending decline of the nation-state and the rise of a borderless world one modelled on the frictionless transactions of international finance, which pay no heed to state boundaries.

A resurgent populist nationalism and the refugee crisis that has stoked its flames has exposed such claims as premature, and investors depend more than ever on national governments to open up new terrains for speculation and accumulation, and to discipline citizens who dare to stand in the way. But there is no doubt that we now live in a world where the power of capital has profoundly disrupted old ideas about political authority inside national boundaries. All over the planet, the institutions that impact our lives most directly banks, buses, hospitals, schools, farms can now be sold off to the highest bidder and governed by the whims of a transnational financial elite. Where national borders once enclosed populations capable of practising collective sovereignty over their own resources, in the 21st century they look more and more like containers for an inventory of private assets, each waiting to be spliced, diced and traded around the world.

It was at Abu Hamed, while lying awake at night in a sleeping bag, nestled into a shallow depression in the sand, that I realised the closer we were getting to our destination, the more I understood what was so beguiling about it. Now that Bir Tawil was in sight, it had started to appear less like an aberration and more like a question: is there anything natural about how borders and power function in the world today?

In the end, there was no fanfare. On a hazy Tuesday afternoon, 40 hours since we left the road at Abu Hamed, 13 days since we touched down in Khartoum, and six months since the dotted lines of Bir Tawil first appeared before our eyes, Omar gave a shout from the back of the jeep. I checked our GPS coordinates on the satellite phone, and cross-referenced them with the map. Gedo, on being informed that we were now in Bir Tawil and outside of any countrys dominion, promptly took out his gun and fired off a volley of shots. We traipsed up a small hillock and wedged our somewhat forlorn flag into the rocks a yellow desert fox, set against a black circle and bordered by triangles of green and red then sat and gazed out at the horizon, tracing the rise and fall of distant mountains and following the curves of sunken valleys as they criss-crossed each other like veins through the sand. The sky and the ground both looked massive, and unending, and the warm stones around us crumbled in our hands. After a couple of hours, Gedo said that it was getting late, so we climbed back into the jeep and began the long journey home.

Well before our journey had ever begun, we had hoped albeit not particularly fervently that we could do something with it, something that mattered; that by striking out for a place this nebulous we could find a shortcut to social justice, two days drive from the nearest tap or telephone. In 800 square miles of desert, we thought that we could exploit the outlines of the bordered world in order to subvert it.

Jeremiah Heaton, beyond the kingdom for a princess schmaltz and the forthcoming Disney adaptation (he has sold film rights to his story for an undisclosed fee) seems albeit from an almost diametrically opposite philosophical outlook to be convinced of something similar. For him, the fantasy is a libertarian one, offering freedom not from the iniquities of capitalism but from the government interference that inhibits it. Just as we did, he wants to take advantage of a quirk in the system to defy it. When I spoke to Heaton, he told me with genuine enthusiasm that his country (not yet recognised by any other state or international body) would offer the worlds great innovators a place to develop their products unencumbered by taxes and regulation, a place where private enterprise faces no socially prescribed borders of its own. Big companies, he assured me, were scrambling to join his vision.

You would be surprised at the outreach that has occurred from the corporate level to me directly, Heaton insisted during our conversation. Its not been an issue of me having to go out and sell myself on this idea. A lot of these large corporations, they see market opportunities in what Im doing. He painted a picture of Bir Tawil one day playing host to daring scientific research, ground-breaking food-production facilities and alternative banking systems that work for the benefit of customers rather than CEOs. I asked him if he understood why some people found his plans, and the assumptions they rested on, highly dubious.

Theres that saying: if you were king for a day, what would you do differently? he replied. Think about that question yourself and apply it to your own country. Thats what Im doing, but on a much bigger scale. This is not colonialism; Im an individual, not a country, I havent taken land that belongs to any other country, and Im not extracting resources other than sunshine and sand. I am just one human being, trying to improve the condition of other human beings. I have the purest intentions in the world to make this planet a better place, and to try and criticise that just because Im a white person sitting on land in the middle of the Nubian desert He trailed off, and was silent for a moment. Well, he concluded, its really juvenile.

But if, by some miracle, Heaton ever did gain global recognition as the legitimate leader of an independent Bir Tawili state, would his pitch to corporations base yourself here to avoid paying taxes and escape the manacles of democratic oversight actually do anything to improve the condition of other human beings? Part of the allure of unclaimed spaces is their radical potential to offer a blank canvas but as Omar and I belatedly realised, nothing, and nowhere, starts from scratch. Any utopia founded on the basis of a concept terra nullius that has wreaked immense historical destruction, is built on rotten foundations.

In truth, no place is a dead zone, stopped in time and ripe for private capture least of all Bir Tawil, which translates as long well in Arabic and was clearly the site of considerable human activity in the past. Although it lacks any permanent dwellings today, this section of desert is still used by members of the Ababda and Bisharin tribes who carry goods, graze crops and make camp within the sands. (Not the least of our failures was that we did not manage to speak to any of the peoples who had passed through Bir Tawil before we arrived.) Their ties to the area may be based on traditional rather than written claims but Bir Tawil is not any more a no mans land than the territory once known as British East Africa, where terra nullius was repeatedly invoked in the early 20th century by both chartered companies and the British government that supported them to justify the appropriation of territory from indigenous people. I cannot admit that wandering tribes have a right to keep other and superior races out of large tracts, exclaimed the British commissioner, Sir Charles Eliot, at the time, merely because they have acquired the habit of straggling over far more land than they can utilise.

Bir Tawil is no terra nullius. But no mans lands or at least ambiguous spaces, where boundaries take odd turns and sovereignty gets scrambled are real and exist among us every day. Some endure at airports, and inside immigration detention centres, and in the pockets of economic deprivation where states have abandoned any responsibility for their citizens. Other no mans lands are carried around by refugees who are yet to be granted asylum, regardless of where they may be having fled failed states or countries which would deny them the rights of citizenship, they occupy a world of legal confusion at best, and outright exclusion at worst.

Perhaps that is why, as we switched off the camera and left Bir Tawil behind us, Omar and I felt a little let down. Or perhaps we shared a sense of anticlimax because we were faintly aware of something rumbling back home in Cairo, where millions of people were about to launch an epic fight against political and economic exclusion not by withdrawing to a no mans land but by confronting state authority head-on, in the streets. A week after our return to Egypt, the country erupted in revolution.

Borders are fluid things; they help define our identities, and yet so often we use our identities to push up against borders and redraw them. For now the boundaries that divide nation states remain, but their purpose is changing and the relationship they have to our own lives, and our own rights, is growing increasingly unstable. If Bir Tawil the preeminent ambiguous space is anything to those who live far from it, it is perhaps a reminder that no particular configuration of power and governance is immutable. As we drove silently, and semi-contentedly, back past the gold-foragers, and the ramshackle cafeteria, and the heavy machinery of the Saudi farm installations Gedo at the wheel, Omar asleep and me staring out at nothing I grasped what I had failed to grasp on that lazy night of beer drinking on Omars balcony. The last truly unclaimed land on earth is really an injunction: not for us to seek out the mythical territory where we can hide from the things that anger us, but to channel that anger instead towards reclaiming territory we already call our own.

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.

Original post:

Welcome to the land that no country wants | Middle East ...

Comments Off on Welcome to the land that no country wants | Middle East …

Which Countries Border Egypt? – WorldAtlas

Posted: at 5:05 pm

Egypt consists of two main regions, the mainland and the Sinai Peninsula. The mainland region of Egypt is located in the northern part of Africa, while the Sinai Peninsula is considered part of the southwestern region of Asia. This peninsula is situated between the Red Sea to its south and the Mediterranean Sea to its north. The entire country of Egypt covers a total of 390,121 square miles. Of this area, less than 1% is made up of a body of water. Additionally, this country has a population size of just over 96.99 million.

Egypt shares international borders with a number of territories and countries, including: Sudan, Libya, Israel, and the Gaza Strip. This article takes a closer look at each of these borders.

The border between Egypt and Sudan makes up the entire southern edge of Egypt. This border begins on the coast of the Red Sea at its easternmost point, although a current border dispute prevents this exact location from being identified. From this disputed area, this border moves in a straight line headed in a western direction until it reaches the tripoint border between Libya, Sudan, and Egypt.

The disputed border region between Egypt and Sudan is made up of two distinct areas: the Halaib Triangle and the Bir Tawil. Both of these areas exist as the result of a difference between two official boundaries. The first of these official boundaries was formalized in 1899 as a political boundary, while the second was identified in 1902 as an administrative boundary. The 1899 border runs in a straight line from the coast. The 1902 border, however, begins further north and runs in a southwest direction, thus creating the Halaib Triangle, and then dips south into Sudan before turning north and meeting the straight, 1899 boundary. This dip creates the Bir Tawil.

The government of Sudan chooses to recognize the 1902 border, which would give this country authority of the Halaib Triangle, but not the Bir Tawil. The government of Egypt recognizes the 1899 boundary, which gives it authority over the Halaib Triangle, but not the Bir Tawil. This dispute means that Bir Tawil is not claimed by any sovereign authority, making it the only area in the world that can sustain human life but does not belong to one particular political entity.

The border between Egypt and Libya makes up the entire western edge of Egypt. At its northernmost point, this border begins along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. From here, it moves in a slightly zig-zagged line toward the south until it passes the city of Al Jaghbub in Libya and the city of Siwa in Egypt. After passing between these two cities, the border runs in a straight line to the south until reaching the tripoint border with Sudan and Egypt.

These two countries were involved in a war against each other in 1977, which led to an unfriendly political relationship for a little over a decade. Since the late 1980s, however, the relationship between Egypt and Libya has been improving and trade across their shared border has been increasing as well. Although the trade and political relationships between these two countries is on friendly terms, the border area is still considered a major security issue for Egypt.

In 2017, officials in Egypt compared this international border to the border with Israel, claiming that the region around Libya has become more dangerous in recent years. One of the primary security threats here is that of armed militant groups crossing the border into Egypt. Additionally, it has become a prime location for smuggling illegal goods, particularly weapons. In response to this threat, the government of Egypt has deployed increased numbers of troops and border security to the boundary between these two countries.

The border between Egypt and Israel begins at the tripoint point border between the Gaza Strip, Israel, and Egypt, which is just south of the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This definition of the border between these two countries, does not include the Gaza Strip as part of the territory of Israel. That territory (which is occupied by Israeli forces, but claimed by the State of Palestine) is instead discussed below. From this tripoint, the border between Egypt and Israel runs in a southeastern direction, making up nearly the entire eastern border of the peninsula. This border ends when it reaches the Gulf of Aqaba along the eastern coast of the Sinai Peninsula. This gulf opens into the Red Sea.

The government of Israel has built an approximately 152-mile long barrier fence along this international boundary, claiming that this move was an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from entering Israel from African countries. In some sections, this barrier resembles a tall fence with barbed wire running along the top and in other sections, it is made of steel walls complete with radar and security cameras.

The border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip runs for 7.45 miles south, from the Mediterranean Sea coast to the tripoint border shared with Egypt and Israel. Despite sharing a border, these two territories do not maintain a trade relationship due to conflict around the zone. In fact, this border is surrounded by a buffer zone and has only one border crossing that is accessible by foot. In order to reinforce this buffer zone, the government of Egypt worked with the government of the US to begin building a steel barrier wall here in 2009. The finished barrier will measure at least 60 feet underground. Its presence affectively cuts the city of Rafah in half. The government has justified this project by citing the need to prevent the transport of illegal goods, materials, and armed militants across the border. As this project has continued, the Egyptian government has discovered a larger number of tunnels from Gaza Strip into Egypt than previously believed to exist. In response, the Egyptian government has planned to increase the area of the buffer zone to .62 miles (1 kilometer) in width.

Here is the original post:

Which Countries Border Egypt? - WorldAtlas

Comments Off on Which Countries Border Egypt? – WorldAtlas

No Mans Land: 3 territories that are still unclaimed …

Posted: at 5:05 pm

When it comes to dividing up the planet, politicians have pretty much thought of everything. Leaders around the world have dutifully divvied up continental shelves, found and claimedislandsvia satellite andestablished laws for future referenceon who gets what including the moon. But there are a few pieces of Earth that still need an owner, and they are up for grabs.

More from GlobalPost: The 7 Kingdoms in Game of Thrones are actually these 5 real-world places

Bir Tawil

Mountains in Egypt. Andrew Griffith/Flickr Creative Commons.

If youre looking for sun and sand, Bir Tawil could be the perfect place for that summer home. Bordering Egypt and Sudan, its a trapezoid-shaped piece of land that neither want to claim. Bir Tawil is made up of desert and mountains and is lacking any valuable natural resources, rendering it rather useless. The reason behind the two countries generosity? Both want the prettier, more useful older sister of Bir Tawil Halaib, a piece of land that is much larger and comprised of rich soil. Under the border treaty from 1899, Halaib belongs to Egypt. Under the 1902 treaty, that land belongs to Sudan and Bir Tawil belongs to Egypt. Both recognize the treaty that gives them Halaib, as its the better end of the deal, leaving Bir Tawil owner-less.

Marie Byrd Land

View from Marie Byrd Land. Anderson Mancini/Flickr Creative Commons.

If you prefer a cold-weather climate, Marie Byrd Land would be a better fit. Its a massive bit of land (620,000 square miles) in Antarctica that again no one wants. Its an expansive frozen tundra with apparently nothing to offer except hostility and volcanoes. All nations with stakes in Antarctica have opted out of claiming it because its so remote. The territory has a long coastline and has been the site of several expeditions and experiments. The base Byrd Station, owned by the US Navy, is located here. If the desert isnt your scene, give Marie Byrd Land a go. Its a frosty 14 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer.

International Waters/Ocean Floor

Anderson Mancini/Flickr Creative Commons.

If you want to be near the water, youve got options. Most of the Earth is covered in ocean and most of the ocean and ocean floor remain unclaimed. According to the Law of the Sea, established in 1982 by the United Nations, every country gets the first 12 miles off of its coast (including the floor and its resources) and 200 miles for an economic zone. Within those 200 miles, countries have sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources and with regard to the production of energy from the water, currents and winds. As for the rest of the ocean? It all falls under international waters, meaning it belongs to no one and everyone. But if you find an island out there that no one has claimed, its yours for the taking, although with satellite technology, the chance of happening across uncharted land is exceedingly unlikely.

BONUS: celestial objects

Via Moir/Flickr Creative Commons.

If youre a more adventurous vacationer, consider the moon. No country owns the moon (and other outer space objects) because no country is allowed, according to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The treaty says exploration has to be done for the good of all nations, nothing in outer space can be claimed by sovereignty, no one can put nuclear weapons or other WMDs in space, and astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind. However, theres some debate because the treaty says nothing about whether individuals can own the moon, leading a man named Dennis Hope to sell off about 600 million acres. He wrote the United Nations saying he claimed the moon, and he never heard back. Thus, he has been selling acres of land for $19.95 since the 1960s quite a bargain.

See more here:

No Mans Land: 3 territories that are still unclaimed ...

Comments Off on No Mans Land: 3 territories that are still unclaimed …

Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a ‘Second Amendment County’ in favor of gun rights – TribLIVE

Posted: at 5:04 pm

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Westmoreland County commissioners will approve a resolution to support gun rights this week.

Republican commissioners Sean Kertes and Doug Chew, along with Democrat Gina Cerilli Thrasher, said they will declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County, a move they concede has no teeth but shows support for gun owners.

There are bills seeking to take away our Second Amendment rights in the Legislature, and we want to work with our local law enforcement agencies, our sheriff, to protect our Second Amendment rights, Kertes said We want to protect our ability to own rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Commissioners did not disclose the text of the resolution they will consider at their meeting Thursday but said it is based on a similar resolution approved this month in Washington County. That resolution, according to Washington County commissioners, would enable nonenforcement of gun control laws prohibiting ownership of certain weapons if officials believe the law to be unconstitutional.

Kertes said Westmorelands proposed resolution will carry no specific policy directives.

Our powers are limited, but we want the public to know we are standing with them, Kertes said.

Thrasher called the resolution silly but said she will vote for its passage.

I am pro-Second Amendment, but I dont really understand the purpose of this resolution. We dont have any jurisdiction over the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment, Thrasher said.

In addition to Washington, commissioners in Greene and Fayette counties approved similar resolutions, and Westmorelands leaders said Thursdays vote is part of an effort to unify the region in support of gun rights.

Josh Fleitman, the Western Pennsylvania manager for the gun-control advocacy group Ceasefire PA, said resolutions such as the one under consideration in Westmoreland are unenforceable.

It does nothing to make the county safer and, in fact, makes counties less safe and creates confusion about how and when gun laws will be enforced, Fleitman said. Its kind a solution in search of a problem.

Chew said he will support the Second Amendment resolution, which he described as no different than other proclamations on key issues.

We are limited in jurisdiction, but governments all over pass resolutions in favor of key issues, Chew said. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania sends out resolutions they suggest we adopt annually. This isnt one sent by CCAP, but its the same: our support for the full Second Amendment rights granted in both the commonwealth and federal constitutions.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, rcholodofsky@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories:Local | Top Stories | Westmoreland

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Westmoreland Stories

See original here:
Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a 'Second Amendment County' in favor of gun rights - TribLIVE

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a ‘Second Amendment County’ in favor of gun rights – TribLIVE

Ellsworth rejects bid to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary – Bangor Daily News

Posted: at 5:04 pm

The Ellsworth City Council voted 6-1 Monday night against a resolution that would have declared the city a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The rejection in Ellsworth follows the recent approval of similar resolutions in a handful of small Maine towns taking stances against federal gun control measures that have yet to pass Congress.

The councils vote against the measure, submitted by Councilor Michelle Kaplan, came after Glenn Moshier, the city manager and police chief, expressed concern for how the resolution might create ambiguity or confusion for the citys police officers, who take an oath to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions.

Kaplan argued in favor of the resolution, though she ended up voting not to support it. Gene Lyons was the only councilor who voted in favor of the resolution.

Kaplan, who described herself as a law-abiding gun owner, said residents asked her to propose the resolution, which would help send a message to Congress to not enact additional restrictions on gun ownership that she claimed would be a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Among the possible restrictions would be expanded background checks, limits on ammunition, increased taxes on gun sales and other barriers to entry, Kaplan said.

City Council Chair Dale Hamilton, who described himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment, said he had concerns about any city declaring itself a sanctuary from federal law, whether the law pertains to immigration or the right to carry firearms.

It sets a dangerous precedent, Hamilton said. You cant decide when you want to be a sanctuary city and when you dont.

Other municipalities in Maine that have considered and approved similar resolutions against proposals that they say would violate the Second Amendment include Paris, Fort Fairfield and Van Buren.

Approximately 40 people weighed in on the debate during Monday nights meeting, either in person or by emailing comments to Hamilton that he read aloud, with sentiment on the resolution more or less evenly split.

John Linnehan told members of the council that each of them swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, while Gwen Clark said she wouldnt feel safe living in a city that didnt support the Second Amendment.

Todd Little-Siebold countered that drafting the city budget and managing the citys handling of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are two far greater priorities for the council than trying to intervene in federal politics.

It is unnecessary and purely symbolic, Little-Siebold said. Keep your focus on local issues. Dont play into the gun lobby scare tactics.

Councilor Heather Grindle said she shares many of the concerns of people who do not want additional restrictions on gun ownership, but that she is hesitant to pick and choose which federal laws Ellsworth should single out for support. She also said she wanted to learn more about how the resolution might affect local law enforcement.

Im listening and I share your frustration, but Im not quite there yet, Grindle said.

Members of the council agreed that, whatever their vote was Monday on Kaplans proposal, they would be able to consider a similar declaration of support for gun ownership rights at a future meeting, if another proposal were submitted.

Read more here:
Ellsworth rejects bid to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary - Bangor Daily News

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Ellsworth rejects bid to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary – Bangor Daily News

Letter to the editor: Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution – TribLIVE

Posted: at 5:04 pm

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

I have spent a lot of my lawyering years practicing and teaching civil rights. The Second Amendment is something I know a great deal about. That the Westmoreland County commissioners, or any county commissioners, should pass a resolution in support of the Second Amendment strikes me as a rather meretricious vote-fishing endeavor (Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County in favor of gun rights, March 16, TribLIVE).

No government entity wants to take away anyones rights under the Second Amendment. What is at issue is the Second Amendments true and intended scope and reach. Its language is not absolute and never has been. Like all other amendments, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, and even Justice Antonin Scalia, considered by many to be the patron saint of gun lovers, acknowledged that such weapons as assault rifles could be lawfully banned.

Such silly resolutions as proposed by the county commissioners only serve to embolden the misguided who think that no one can constitutionally take away any of their beloved killing machines. Perhaps the commissioners would do well to think of how such meaningless resolutions only lather up the gun lovers mistaken Second Amendment notions rather than promote respect for the law and its real meanings.

David Millstein

Naples, Fla.

The writer is a Greensburg native.

Categories:Letters to the Editor | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Letters to the Editor Stories

More:
Letter to the editor: Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution - TribLIVE

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Letter to the editor: Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution – TribLIVE

Second Amendment Preservation Act proposal advanced by legislative committee – Wyoming Tribune

Posted: at 5:04 pm

CHEYENNE A Senate committee gave unanimous approval Wednesday to a bill aiming to protect Wyoming residents against potential federal overreach on gun regulations, despite some concerns from law enforcement officials regarding potential unintended effects of the legislation.

Titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, Senate File 81 would deem invalid any federal laws or orders, including any gun taxes, confiscations, transfers or other regulations, that infringe on Wyoming residents ability to bear arms.

The bills primary sponsor, Sen. Anthony Bouchard, R-Cheyenne, explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee during its meeting Wednesday that his proposal was, in part, a response to the Biden administration taking over the countrys executive branch.

What were looking at here is the whole idea that we have a shift in Washington, and they actually want to use everything they can to go after our guns, Bouchard said.

The bill would also hold any law enforcement officer who knowingly deprives a Wyoming resident of their Second Amendment rights legally liable for such a violation, and it would remove qualified immunity, or protections that shield police and other government officials from lawsuits, under such violations included in the bill. That aspect of the bill drew significant concern from several law enforcement officials during the meeting Wednesday.

Law enforcement officials opposing the bill repeatedly emphasized their support for the Second Amendment and gun freedoms, but specific aspects of the bill gave them pause. Prior to the meeting, all 23 of Wyomings sheriffs had signed onto a letter raising concerns about the bill stripping qualified immunity under specific circumstances.

Sweetwater County Sheriff John Grossnickle told lawmakers that the qualified immunity portion of the bill would put Wyoming down the same path as those states of Washington and Oregon, in reference to states that have adopted tighter restrictions on law enforcement. The sheriff added that former President Donald Trump, who he described as one of the greatest supporters of law enforcement, would be opposed to such a measure.

The second half of this bill, which addresses law enforcement, contradicts everything that the former president stood for in regard to law enforcement, Grossnickle said. With that, I see that the hypocrisy of this bill actually knows no bounds, and, quite frankly, its a sad, sad day for law enforcement in the state of Wyoming if this bill proceeds the way it is.

Sheridan County Sheriff Allen Thompson recounted a recent case in a neighboring county in which some firearms were seized from fugitives, and the case was then turned over to federal entities for prosecution. Those instances are often beneficial to local law enforcement officials, Thompson said, as federal officials can take on cases that otherwise might be cost-prohibitive for local officials on their own.

What this bill does is really give a chilling effect to local law enforcement working at all with federal law enforcement, and, frankly, (it) would scare most officers and deputies into not seizing a firearm for any reason whatsoever, and sure as heck not talking to federal law enforcement about investigations, Thompson said.

Others questioned whether SF 81, which is similar to proposals enacted or being mulled in several other states, would be constitutional if enacted into law. Wyoming resident and attorney Linda Burt, who was a previous executive director of the ACLU of Wyoming, said the bill was absolutely unconstitutional, with substantial case law reaffirming that federal law takes precedence over state laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

During the meeting, Bouchard said he was opposed to broader efforts to repeal qualified immunity for law enforcement officials, calls that have grown among progressives following the wave of protests against police brutality that occurred last summer in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.

The Laramie County senator said he plans to introduce amendments to the bill that would shift the liability burden from individual officers to agencies for violations included in his bill, adding he would like to work with law enforcement officials to address their concerns. Bill co-sponsor Rep. Dan Laursen, R-Powell, said it was frustrating that the bill sponsors had reached out to sheriffs asking for amendments and received no response.

The bill was then advanced by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-0 vote. Senate File 81 will now head to the Senate floor for further consideration and debate.

Tom Coulter is the Wyoming Tribune Eagles state government reporter. He can be reached at tcoulter@wyomingnews.com or 307-633-3124. Follow him on Twitter at @tomcoulter_.

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment Preservation Act proposal advanced by legislative committee - Wyoming Tribune

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment Preservation Act proposal advanced by legislative committee – Wyoming Tribune

Brands like Suitsupply are ready for the pandemic to end, but the ads might be coming too early – Vox.com

Posted: at 5:03 pm

In early March, a viral campaign from the menswear company Suitsupply provided a brief, harrowing glimpse into our post-pandemic future and the advertisements that might usher us into it. The featured models were entangled in a web of tanned limbs, touching aggressively and tongue-kissing sloppily. Everyone was scantily clad except for the campaigns lead man, dressed in a tailored suit. The new normal, the Suitsupply advertisement teased, would be sexy, sweaty, and sensual.

The raunchy images set off a frenzy of reactions online, but the campaigns success at generating discourse led to suggestions that horniness and hedonism might be embraced as brand marketing tactics with the new new normal in sight. Some experts think few companies will be as brash, and instead integrate slow and steady changes in tone when it comes to ads and social media campaigns. Dont be fooled, though. The summer of 2021 could possibly be the horniest of our lifetimes: Weve missed the anonymous comfort of dark, crowded spaces and the adrenaline-fueled messiness of a night out among strangers.

According to Sean Cassidy, president of the public relations firm DKC, a CEO of a major media company had told him that by September, some places will feel like a cross between the Roaring 20s and the Summer of Love. Most of us have lived the past year operating under an abundance of caution: Just last March, brands (even those we barely have relationships with) were flooding our inboxes with updates about the novel coronavirus, detailing all sorts of safety measures and contingency plans. They emphasized ideas of community and health, and explained how they were monitoring the developing situation. Voxs Rebecca Jennings pointed out how even the fashion brand Reformation, known for sending ridiculously random email subject lines, briefly tamped down its over-eager tone.

As the pandemic became less novel, so did brand messaging. Reformation and the thousands of brands we have parasocial relationships with have returned to their usual antics. This week, I received an email from nuuly, Urban Outfitters subscription clothing service, with an all-caps subject line: IN CASE OF FAMILY EVENTS. In case of which family events? My mom isnt even vaccinated yet! (In an earnings call on March 2, Urban Outfitters said it has seen increased interest in going-out clothes.)

The emails and messages we receive might only become more zealous or carefree. The tone of paid content will be increasingly optimistic with higher than normal doses of temptation sprinkled in, Cassidy said. The return to true normalcy is expected to be a slow burn, which leaves more room for error from a public relations standpoint. The timeline for the US to achieve herd immunity is still in flux, despite President Joe Bidens call to open vaccinations to all adults by May 1. There is no global end date to the pandemic. Plus, economic recovery isnt a guarantee: Economists dont expect unemployment rates to bounce back to pre-pandemic levels within 2021. Consumer spending is still being propped up artificially through the federal governments stimulus program, according to Ted Rossman, a senior industry analyst at Bankrate.

The fractured nature of Americas recovery makes it incredibly difficult for brands to shape their messaging. Many might hesitate to emulate Suitsupplys unabashed horniness, especially since consumers have become more consciously critical, even derisive, toward brandspeak. In lockdown, we spent more time online, and encountered an oversaturation of ad content. And the various corporate solidarity statements and initiatives in the wake of the summers Black Lives Matter protests werent immune to public scrutiny.

I dont think were going to see a sudden switch from brands. Itll likely be more subtle and slow when it comes to brands adapting to some sort of opening in the future, said Jenny Gyllander, founder of Thingtesting, a review website for emerging direct-to-consumer brands. Its interesting to see the tone of voice changing. I think were seeing more optimism, humor, and bold visuals.

The sensuality of the Suitsupply ad, she added, doesnt hold universal appeal for everyones experiences in the wake of the pandemic. Some emerging brands have fully leaned into the domestic cozy aspect of quarantine, while emphasizing self-care and the importance of home. While Suitsupplys campaign went viral, its uncertain whether the uptick in online attention translated into significant sales, or communicated loyalty or care to customers.

Brand activity during the last year has been overwhelming, and its time for companies to shift their outreach, Gyllander said: In the coming months, I think many will lean towards a hybrid sort of messaging because our lives are not going to quickly return to normal. Most of us will still work from home. Restaurants will still do takeout.

Gyllander predicted certain themes like connection and hope might be more appealing for a wider segment of consumers. We can safely assume, however, that a subset of quirky brands will capitalize on the tempting thrills of vaccination season. Quarantine has led us social media managers of brands included to embrace being horny on main.

Consumers have generally been responsive to ads that showcase intimacy and socialization in a post-pandemic future, Business Insider reported. There has been a giant spike in the utilization of people in intimate photos in advertising, according to Pattern89, an artificial intelligence ad company. Still, advertisers are struggling to determine which messages are appropriate to lean into, given the many inequities heightened by the pandemic. Theres the added emotional toll and trauma of the coronavirus that cant be waved away, and itll take time for some to enjoy a renewed world where we are free to touch and talk with strangers.

It has been a horrible year, Cassidy said. A lot of consumers want permission to feel a little good, but optimism doesnt mean recklessness. I tell our clients to avoid any event, stunt, or message that remotely implies any condoning of unsafe, insensitive, or unethical activity under the guise of optimism.

Its possible the advertising industry could experience a boom, as it did in the aftermath of World War II. Brands then were selling the American future, one that encouraged people to overcome repressed desires and encourage enjoyment in consumption on a mass scale, according to Joseph Malherek, a historian of capitalism and American consumer culture.

Its tempting to draw historical parallels with the post-war period: Most Americans had sacrificed years of comfort and luxury to contribute to the war effort, and it was the job of advertisers to lure consumers to spend with the vision of a prosperous, automated future. Today, though, we can collectively roll our eyes at the performative sexuality and hedonism encouraged by the wildest ads, since we no longer need them to tell us how to live. We already are familiar with excess. Its only a matter of time before we can indulge again.

See the article here:

Brands like Suitsupply are ready for the pandemic to end, but the ads might be coming too early - Vox.com

Posted in Hedonism | Comments Off on Brands like Suitsupply are ready for the pandemic to end, but the ads might be coming too early – Vox.com