Monthly Archives: April 2023

(JTA) Israels 75th anniversary was supposed to be a blowout birthday party for its supporters, but that was before the country was convulsed by street protests over the right-wing governments proposal to overhaul its judiciary. Critics call it an unprecedented threat to Israels democracy, and supporters of Israel found themselves conflicted. In synagogues across North America, rabbis found themselves giving yes, but sermons: Yes, Israels existence is a miracle, but its democracy is fragile and in danger.

One of those sermons was given a week ago Saturday by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of Manhattans Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, expressing his dismay over the governments actions. Hirsch is the former head of ARZA, the Reform movements Zionist organization, and the founder of a new program at his synagogue, Amplify Israel, meant to promote Zionism among Reform Jews. He is often quoted as an example of a mainstream non-Orthodox rabbi who not only criticizes anti-Zionism on the far left but who insists that his liberal colleagues are not doing enough to defend the Jewish state from its critics.

Many on the Jewish left, meanwhile, say Jewish establishment figures, even liberals like Hirsch, have been too reluctant to call out Israel on, for example, its treatment of the Palestinians thereby enabling the countrys extremists.

In March, however, he warned that the Israeli government is tearing Israeli society apart and bringing world Jewry along for the dangerous ride. That is uncharacteristically strong language from a rabbi whose forthcoming book, The Lilac Tree: A Rabbis Reflections on Love, Courage, and History, includes a number of essays on the limits of criticizing Israel.When does such criticism give comfort to left-wing hatred of Israel, as he writes in his book, and when does failure to criticize Israel appear to condone extremism?

Although the book includes essays on God, Torah, history and antisemitism, in a recent interview we focused on the Israel-Diaspora divide, the role of Israel in the lives of Diaspora Jews and why the synagogue remains the central Jewish institution.

The interview was edited for length and clarity.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You gave a sermon earlier this month about the 75th anniversary of Israels founding, which is usually a time of celebration in American synagogues, but you also said you were dismayed by the political extremism and religious fundamentalism of the current government. Was that difficult as a pulpit rabbi?

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch: The approach is more difficult now with the election of the new government than it has been in all the years of the past. Because we cant sanitize supremacism, elitism, extremism, fundamentalism, and were not going to. Israel is in whats probably the most serious domestic crisis in the 75-year history of the state. And what happens in Israel affects American Jewry directly. Its Israeli citizens who elect their representatives, but thats not the end of the discussion neither for Israelis or for American Jews. At the insistence of both parties, both parties say the relationship is fundamental and critical and it not only entitles but requires Israelis and world Jews to be involved in each others affairs.

For American Jewry, in its relationship with Israel, our broadest objective is to sustain that relationship, deepen that relationship, and encourage people to be involved in the affairs in Israel and to go to Israel, spend time in Israel and so forth, and thats a difficult thing to do and at the same time be critical.

American Jews have been demonstrating here in solidarity with the Israelis who have been protesting the recent judicial overhaul proposals in Israel. Is that a place for liberal American Jews to make their voices heard on what happens in Israel?

I would like to believe that if I were living in Israel, I would be at every single one of those demonstrations on Saturday night, but I dont participate in demonstrations here because the context of our world and how we operate is different from in Israel when an Israeli citizen goes out and marches on Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv. Its presumed that theyre Zionists and theyre speaking to their own government. Im not critical of other people who reach a different perspective in the United States, but for me, our context is different. Even if we say the identical words in Tel Aviv or on West 68th Street, theyre perceived in a different way and they operate in a different context.

What then is the appropriate way for American Jews to express themselves if they are critical of an action by the Israeli government?

My strongest guidance is dont disengage, dont turn your back, double down, be more supportive of those who support your worldview and are fighting for it in Israel. Polls seem to suggest that the large majority of Israelis are opposed to these reforms being proposed. Double down on those who are supportive of our worldview.

You lament in your book that the connections to Israel are weakening among world Jewry, especially among Jewish liberals.

The liberal part of the Jewish world is where I am and where the people I serve are by and large, and where at least 80% of American Jewry resides. Its a difficult process because were operating here in a context of weakening relationship: a rapidly increasing emphasis on universal values, what we sometimes call tikkun olam [social justice], and not as a reflection of Jewish particularism, but often at the expense of Jewish particularism.

There is a counter-argument, however, which you describe in your book: some left-wing Jewish activists contend that alienation from Israel, especially among the younger generations, is a result of the failures of the American Jewish establishment that is, by not doing more to express their concerns about the dangers of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, for example, the establishment alienated young liberal Jews. Youre skeptical of that argument. Tell me why.

Fundamentally I believe that identification with Israel is a reflection of identity. If you have a strong Jewish identity, the tendency is to have a strong connection with the state of Israel and to believe that the Jewish state is an important component of your Jewish identity. I think that surveys bear that out. No doubt the Palestinian question will have an impact on the relationship between American Jews in Israel as long as its not resolved, it will be an outstanding irritant because it raises moral dilemmas that should disturb every thinking and caring Jew. And Ive been active in trying to oppose ultra-Orthodox coercion in Israel. But fundamentally, while these certainly are components putting pressure on the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry, in particular among the elites of the American Jewish leadership, for the majority of American Jews, the relationship with Israel is a reflection of their relationship with Judaism. And if that relationship is weak and weakening, as day follows night, the relationship with Israel will weaken as well.

But what about the criticism that has come from, lets say, deep within the tent? I am thinking of the American rabbinical students who in 2021 issued a public letter accusing Israel of apartheid and calling on American Jewish communities to hold Israel accountable for the violent suppression of human rights. They were certainly engaged Jews, and they might say that they were warning the establishment about the kinds of right-wing tendencies in Israel that you and others in the establishment are criticizing now.

Almost every time I speak about Israel and those who are critical of Israel, I hold that the concept of criticism is central to Jewish tradition. Judaism unfolds through an ongoing process of disputation, disagreement, argumentation, and debate. Im a pluralist, both politically as well as intellectually.

In response to your question, I would say two things. First of all, I distinguish between those who are Zionist, pro-Israel, active Jews with a strong Jewish identity who criticize this or that policy of the Israeli government, and between those who are anti-Zionists, because anti-Zionism asserts that the Jewish people has no right to a Jewish state, at least in that part of the world. And that inevitably leads to anti-Jewish feelings and very often to antisemitism.

When it came to the students, I didnt respond at all because I was a student once too, and there are views that I hold today that I didnt hold when I was a student. Their original article was published in the Forward, if Im not mistaken, and it generated some debate in all the liberal seminaries. I didnt respond at all until it became a huge, multi-thousand word piece in The New York Times. Once it left the internal Jewish scene, it seemed to me that I had an obligation to respond. Not that I believe that theyre anti-Zionist I do not. I didnt put them in the BDS camp [of those who support the boycott of Israel]. I just simply criticized them.

Hundreds of Jews protest the proposed Israeli court reform outside the Israeli consulate in New York City on Feb. 21, 2023. (Gili Getz)

You signed a letter with other rabbis noting that the students petition came during Israels war with Hamas that May, writing that those who aspire to be future leaders of the Jewish people must possess and model empathy for their brothers and sisters in Israel, especially when they are attacked by a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish State.

My main point was that the essence of the Jewish condition is that all Jews feel responsible one for the another Kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh. And that relationship starts with emotions. It starts with a feeling of belongingness to the Jewish people, and a feeling of concern for our people who are attacked in the Jewish state. My criticism was based, in the middle of a war, on expressing compassion, support for our people who are under indiscriminate and terrorist assault. I uphold that and even especially in retrospect two years later, why anyone would consider that to be offensive in any way is still beyond me.

You were executive director of ARZA, the Reform Zionist organization, and you write in your book that Israel is the primary source of our peoples collective energy the engine for the recreation and restoration of the national home and the national spirit of the Jewish people. A number of your essays put Israel at the center of the present-day Jewish story. You are a rabbi in New York City. So whats the role or function of the Diaspora?

Our existence in the Diaspora needs no justification. For practically all of the last 2,000 years, Jewish life has existed in the Diaspora. Its only for the last 75 years and if you count the beginning of the Zionist movement, the last 125 years or so that Jews have begun en masse to live in the land of Israel. Much of the values of what we call now Judaism was developed in the Diaspora. Moreover, the American Jewish community is the strongest, most influential, most glorious of all the Jewish Diasporas in Jewish history.

And yet, the only place in the Jewish world where the Jewish community is growing is in Israel. More Jewish children now live in Israel than all the other places in the world combined. The central value that powers the sustainability, viability and continuity of the Jewish people is peoplehood. Its not the values that have sustained the Jewish people in the Diaspora and over the last 2,000 years, which was Torah or God, what we would call religion. Im a rabbi. I believe in the centrality of God, Torah and religion to sustain Jewish identity. But in the 21st century, Israel is the most eloquent concept of the value of Jewish peoplehood. And therefore, I do not believe that there is enough energy, enough power, enough sustainability in the classical concept of Judaism to sustain continuity in the Diaspora. The concept of Jewish peoplehood is the most powerful way that we can sustain Jewish continuity in the 21st century.

But doesnt that negate the importance of American Jewry?

In my view, it augments the sustainability of American Jewry. If American Jews disengage from Israel, and from the concept of Jewish peoplehood, and also dont consider religion to be at the center of their existence, then whats left? Now theres a lot of activity, for example, on tikkun olam, which is a part of Jewish tradition. But tikkun olam in Judaism always was a blend between Jewish particularism and universalism concern for humanity at large but rooted in the concept of Jewish peoplehood. But very often now, tikkun olam in the Diaspora is practiced not as a part of the concept of Jewish particularism but, as I said before, at the expense of Jewish particularism. That will not be enough to sustain Jewish communities going into the 21st century.

I want to ask about the health of the American synagogue as an institution. Considering your concern about the waning centrality of Torah and God in peoples lives especially among the non-Orthodox do you feel optimistic about it as an institution? Does it have to change?

Ive believed since the beginning of my career that theres no substitute in the Diaspora for the synagogue as the central Jewish institution. We harm ourselves when we underemphasize the central role of the synagogue. Any issue that is being done by one of the hundreds of Jewish agencies that weve created rests on our ability as a community to produce Jews into the next generation. And what are those institutions that produce that are most responsible for the production of Jewish continuity? Synagogues, day schools and summer camps, and of the three synagogues are by far the most important for the following reasons: First, were the only institution that defines ourselves as and whose purpose is what we call cradle to grave. Second, for most American Jews, if they end up in any institution at all it will be a synagogue. Far fewer American Jews will receive a day school education and or go to Jewish summer camps. That should have ramifications across the board for American Jewish policy, including how we budget Jewish institutions. We should be focusing many, many more resources on these three institutions, and at the core of that is the institution of the synagogue.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

Originally posted here:

Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isnt taking to the streets over Israels ... - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

The liberal Biden administration is, apparently, dropping the other shoe for the Montana federal grazing district ranchers.The first shoe dropped in 2014 when the federal solicitors argued in front of the Montana Water Courts Water Master that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had built the reservoirs and pits on the federal allotments therefore they owned the water and our cows were their beneficial use.Why the Montana Water Master agreed with them when he had to know they were totally wrong on all counts is anyones guess.Six of the Montana Supreme Court justices also bought the BLMs faulty argument in upholding the Water Courts decision.They cant claim ignorance because Justice McKinnon wrote a scholarly dissent that totally destroyed the majoritys decision (Case No. 15-0533, MT Supreme Court, 2016, MT 348).These actions have effectively deprived the Montana ranchers of a vested property right (their water rights) on their federal allotments.

The other shoe to drop is the BLMs recently released proposed rule, Strengthening the Stewardship of Americas Public Lands.This innocent sounding document has three key elements.The first is to prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), the second is to elevate conservation to one of the multiple uses in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the last is to designate range health assessments and how those standards are applied across the landscape.The details will come out as opponents argue against the rule but it is probably safe to say these three components have the potential to destroy all livestock grazing on federal grazing district allotments.

It is sad that the most successful public/private cooperative program ever undertaken in America, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA), has continually been under attack by hatefilled individuals and organizations that want to remove ranching from the federal rangelands and destroy this very successful symbiotic relationship.Unfortunately, when the liberal democrats got the upper hand in Washington D.C. in 2020 it was only a matter of time before the domestic livestock grazers of the federal domain would come under intense bureaucratic pressure.

These people seem to forget why the TGA was enacted in the first place.Try to picture what this country looked like in the early 1930s.Homesteading of the available public lands was coming to a close as all the habitable land had been taken.Vast tracts of land were not claimed because they did not contain dependable water and the poor soils and topography were not amenable to farming.The market for draft horse teams was high during the 1920s so many adjacent homesteaders maintained large herds on the open federal range.In addition, anyone could graze livestock on these public lands and, as a result, they were severely overgrazed.Then the drought hit.

The resulting dust bowl of the 30s forced Washington to act and in 1934 President Roosevelt removed all unclaimed federal land from the public domain, effectively ending the homestead era.Congress also passed the TGA which gave the adjacent resident ranchers livestock access to the forage on sufficient federal land to help put together an economical ranching unit.The Department of the Interior hired a very capable rancher, Ferry Carpenter, to carry out this mandate.He did an amazing job!

The stated goals of the TGA were; to stop the extensive overgrazing, stop the erosion, help make the agricultural operations economically viable, help the economy of adjacent communities, and improve the habitats for wildlife.The federal Grazing Service, which morphed into the BLM, was charged with helping to fulfill these goals.In spite of the roadblocks Mother Nature has thrown at the ranchers over the last 90 years, the TGA goals have been met and most range experts would agree that livestock grazing has improved the federal range.You would think the BLM would be broadcasting that fact instead of trying to destroy this very successful collaboration.Over the years the ranchers and BLM Range Personnel have learned that these less productive soils are very susceptible to misuse and grazing must be managed.The results definitely suggest the administrators in the 1930s were right that these lands were, chiefly valuable for grazing.

What would the result be of removing the humans and their livestock from the land?The vegetation on the land would change and the communities dependent on the ranch families for economic viability would decline.The vegetation changes would depend on soils, topography, elevation, fires, climate, etc.Some changes would probably be slow and imperceptible like the encroachment of pine or juniper trees.After a few years the previous condition would be forgotten and the new vegetation communities would be accepted as the norm.The adjacent towns would change from catering to the agricultural industry to servicing recreationists and tourists.

There is a move to replace humans and their livestock with free-ranging bison in some areas.However, unmanaged grazing of any ungulate will devastate this rangeland the same as it is doing in Yellowstone National Park.Also read the journals of the 1804 Lewis and Clark expedition up the Missouri River through eastern Montana to get an idea of what unmanaged bison grazing will do to the range.Apparently, the hope is that a large free-ranging bison herd will bring lots of tourists (and their money) to this bleak landscape that they generally drive rapidly past.

It is a shame that we will lose this productive historic way of life that is maintaining and improving the ecological integrity and sequestration of carbon of this comparatively poor rangeland to an idealized destructive scheme to produce a nonexistent utopia.It would be refreshing if the proponents of this program would truthfully tell us what their plans really are so the general public could decide if this is the future they want.

Ron Stoneberg

Box 37, Hinsdale, MT 59241

(406) 367-9314

Here is the original post:

Stoneberg: The BLM's proposed rule to end ranching on federal ... - Tri-State Livestock News

Uzbekistan votes on constitutional amendments Sunday that promise its citizens greater social protections in exchange for resetting President Shavkat Mirziyoyev's term count to zero, which could allow him to run for two more seven-year terms.

Mirziyoyev, 65, has been praised at home and abroad as a liberal reformer for abandoning the previous leadership's isolationist policies and police state approach.

And while Tashkent's Western partners are unlikely to approve of the attempt to extend presidential powers, Uzbekistan risks little given the West is seeking support from all ex-Soviet nations in its efforts to isolate Russia over its war in Ukraine.

Although the current and the proposed new version of the constitution limit successive presidential terms to two, officials have said that if the revised constitution is adopted, Mirziyoyev's term count would be reset to zero.

The reform also extends the presidential term to seven years from five, which could in theory allow Mirziyoyev to remain in charge of the country of 35 million people until 2040. His current term ends in 2026.

At the same time, the package of amendments proclaims Uzbekistan a "social state" with increased welfare obligations and allows non-farming land ownership.

It also abolishes the death penalty and establishes greater personal legal protection, for instance to a person's rights when they are detained by police, and the concept of habeas corpus, or protection against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment.

"Our lives have been improving, and under this president it will continue, I hope," said 62-year-old voter Nazira who declined to give her last name. "I dont mind and approve (presidential) terms being extended. I thank the president for what he is doing for us."

Some Uzbek commentators have called for more democratic principles to be included in the bill, and in stronger wording, but the general idea of reform and extending presidential powers in particular has met no opposition.

"What I see is that the new changes will boost our rights and the openness (of the state)," said another voter, Abdurashid Kadirov, 65.

Mirziyoyev cast his ballot at one of the polling stations in Tashkent, stopping to greet other voters on his way in and out.

"Every person should have a belief in tomorrow in their heart and support reforms. We are doing our best to ensure that, and God willing, your trust in reforms will be remain strong," he said.

Patriotic music was played at many polling stations Sunday, some decorated with flowers and some handing out baseball caps and T-shirts with the referendum logo to first-time voters.

The Central Election Commission declared the referendum valid after turnout surpassed 50%; it reached 81.4% by 1700 local time. Preliminary vote results are expected Monday.

Read more here:

Uzbeks Vote on Allowing President to Extend Time in Power - Voice of America - VOA News

The Ontario government is under the microscope after allowing the sale of public land to a private buyer without assurances of affordable housing components.

On March 8, Metrolinx finalized the sale of their property on 8 Dawes Rd., south of Danforth Avenue, to development company Marlin Spring. With discussions dating back as far as October 2022 according to the Citys of Torontos Application Information Centre, many in the community are wondering why affordable units werent made a more significant part of the negotiation process in the sale of the land at the northeast end of the Danforth GO station, which had been owned by the provincial transit authority Metrolinx.

Local politicians are now asking Ontarios government to revisit legislation which allows developers to acquire land without keeping Torontos affordability crisis at the forefront of the discussions.

Beaches-East York MPP Mary-Margaret McMahon told Beach Metro Community News that the province has the power to mandate a certain amount of affordable housing in new developments but chooses not to do so.

On April 24 at Queens Park, McMahon highlighted this issue to her colleagues as she inquired about why the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Doug Ford did not require Metrolinx, a crown agency, to include minimum affordable housing requirements in their property sales to private housing developers.

The Beaches-East York Liberal MPP also asked why Ontario is seemingly ignoring the recommendations by the provinces Housing Affordability Task Force to require all future government land sales, whether commercial or residential, to reserve at least 20 percent of their development for affordable housing.

According to its official website, the Housing Affordability Task Force is comprised of industry leaders and experts who consulted with stakeholders including municipalities and advocacy groups to develop their report. The Task Force report was put in place to help the government identify and implement measures to address the housing supply crisis by getting feedback through avenues such as municipal and public consultations.

Story continues

What is the point of creating this report if you do not take the sound advice of experts, asked McMahon during the April 24 session of the provincial legislature at Queens Park.

Kinga Surma, Ontarios Minister of Infrastructure, responded by saying Ontarios Progressive Conservatives are doing a very thorough analysis of all of our GO Stations within the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area to see where other opportunities (for affordable housing) exist.

However, that wasnt a sufficient response for those wondering why a piece of public land in an essential, high transit area was sold off without guarantees for members of the community who need affordable housing, said McMahon. She said she now intends to submit her inquiries as Order Paper questions which gives the government 24 days to respond in writing.

We need to have these mandates for affordable housing otherwise people are going to keep moving out of the city, said McMahon. We have these major urban centres with entire generations of young people and essential workers who are unable to find rental housing that they can afford.

McMahon isnt the only East Toronto politician that has publicly voiced concerns about Ontarios failure to fight for housing affordability.

Earlier this month, Toronto-Danforth Councillor Paula Fletcher had similar complaints about a proposal at 425-471 Carlaw Ave. (just northeast of Gerrard Street East and north of the railway tracks) which includes a mixed-use podium building with three tower elements at 30, 35 and 40 storeys. The land is an area identified as a transit priority zone given is proximity to the GO Train tracks and the proposed future Ontario Line subway.

On April 12, Fletcher submitted motions at Toronto City Hall that proposed Toronto Council requests the rovince to require a minimum of 20 percent affordable housing on the Provincial Transit Oriented Community (TOC) site at Gerrard/Carlaw for a minimum of 50 years.

Why is the province not requiring affordable housing at the Transit Oriented Community at Gerrard/Carlaw? she asked on Twitter.

Toronto Council had approved an Inclusionary Zoning framework which required up to 22 per cent of units in new condominium developments in growing areas to meet affordability standards and remain affordable for 99 years. However, the provincial governments Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) last year made changes that directly contradicted this by reducing affordable component requirements to five per cent. Bill 23 also shrunk the affordability period from 99 to 25 years while simultaneously changing the definition of affordability to one that is no longer tied to household income.

Currently, Official Plan Amendments in Toronto needed to implement any new affordable housing framework are still awaiting provincial approval as the city does not have any Inclusionary Zoning powers at this time.

McMahon said the chance to put affordable housing requirements into the land sale for 8 Dawes Rd. is a missed opportunity given the ideal transit links it has to both the Danforth GO Station and the TTC Main Street Subway Station.

We definitely want density along subway corridors in mobility hubs, said McMahon. Main Street is a huge mobility hub.

The area between Main Street and Dawes Road north of the GO Train tracks is already the subject of numerous high-density buildings being proposed by developers, none of which at this time appear to have mandated affordable housing units included.

McMahon believes the provincial government has failed to recognize that affordable housing in such an accessible area is essential to building a successful city.

Marlin Springs building proposal is still going through the citys application process. Although showing no current signs of having affordable components, representatives for the developer reminded residents during a March 8 public consultation that Marlin Spring is known to have affordable units in other projects.

The application for 8 Dawes Rd. proposes a 38-storey mixed-use building. This development will contain 399 dwelling units 39 three-bedroom, 109 two-bedroom, and 251 one-bedroom units.

Beach Metro Community News reached out to Metrolinx for comments regarding the sale of the land at 8 Dawes Rd., but has yet to receive a response.

Amarachi Amadike, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Beach Metro Community News

Go here to see the original:

Local MPP questions lack of affordable housing mandate in Metrolinx sale of land near Danforth GO Station - Yahoo News Canada

ARE THE LIBERALS DOOMED?

We live in a land

Where the Liberal brand

Is now toxic beyond all redemption.

But they might stand a chance

If they'd just cast a glance

At the option of group introspection.

For no leadership change

Or attempts to exchange

Their image for something electable,

Will turn voters' minds

From their multiple crimes;

Thousands dead at their hands deemed detestable.

And there is no way back

For the Liberal hacks

Who would lurch further Right,

Far away from the light to where demons give fright

That will only result in more failure.

'cause that GOP schtick

With attached MAGA hicks

Is not gonna work in Australia.

Are the Liberals doomed?

We can only assume

That there's no moral change

Coming anytime soon,

While they cling to collective delirium.

We can only but hope

They'll take Barney the dope

On their slide down the slope to oblivion.

Ann Meharg loves the English language (which is just as well because she can speak no other), loves to make people laugh and loves writing verse when inspired.

Support independent journalism Subscribeto IA.

See the original post here:

POEM: Are the Liberals doomed? - Independent Australia

Dave Pasinski, of Fayetteville, has graduate degrees in moral theology and divinity.

Some may wonder about the fuss over 500-year-old documents comprising the so-called Doctrine of Discovery and why the Vaticans repudiation warrants such attention. I believe it does because of the contemporary relevance similar to the ongoing effects that slavery and Jim Crow discrimination has had.

Your excellent editorial sets the right tone: praising Bishop Douglas Lucia and the Vatican for the repudiation of the insidious doctrine but also challenging repentance for other actions (Popes rejection of Doctrine of Discovery opens path to reconciliation, April 23, 2023).

To put this in context, this Doctrine of (Christian) Discovery was a product of the papal bulls issued from a late medieval mindset grappling with populations new to them, rooted in a rapidly changing Christendom on the cusp of Renaissance and its dissolution.

This so-called doctrine was exploited by emerging nation-states. While a complex topic, there are three points: the role of papal bulls in historical context, aspects of what is doctrine, and the misappropriation of this history in our jurisprudence. Fundamentally, it was an insidious union of a political presupposition with a myopic and immoral religious premise of Christian superiority promoted by the Catholic Church.

First, there are many types of ecclesiastical teachings decrees, conciliar statements, apostolic constitutions, encyclicals, proclamations from various dicasteries (departments), bulls and others. Bulls called that because they bore a papal bulla (seal) were a common form of proclamation from the 11th century through the 19th century. Some 300 were issued, although only about eight in the last 100 years. They range from mundane and obscure to destructive and grandiose. Some were contradicted and repudiated, and many were conflated to have greater influence than they deserved.

During the so-called Age of Discovery, western Christendom most feared violent Islamic expansion toward Constantinople and in coping with the Portuguese exploitation of the African coast. Pope Nicholas V issued the infamous Dum Diversas in 1452 giving Portugal the supposed right to territories not ruled by Christians and the ability to enslave inhabitants. This perversion was his trade-off for King Afonso V agreeing to mount a crusade one that never happened against Sultan Mehmet IIs designs on Constantinople and Muslim domination of African slave trade. (Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453, a pivotal event in world history.)

Subsequent bulls expanded that notion and a later Spanish Pope, Alexander VII, issued Inter Cetera (1493) after the voyage of Columbus which now included Spain on the deal. Such were the political machinations of the papacy.

Although Pope Paul III in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537) repudiated this exploitation, the damage was done and conquistadors and others largely disregarded it. Luthers reformation (c. 1517) and later reform by Henry VIII (c. 1535) and John Calvin (c. 1536) rejected papal teachings and a new theological atmosphere emerged for how Europeans would treat the Americas.

Ironically, these infamous documents were later cited by all of the exploiting nations especially England, whose jurisprudence eventually prevailed as part of a Doctrine of Discovery even though it issued from a papal source the Church of England no longer recognized.

Secondly, the bulls were not doctrinal in the traditional creedal sense of the word, but rather political statements based on the now well-recognized, unjust and dehumanizing Eurocentric views about Indigenous peoples. That is, they were not beliefs that had to be affirmed, but rather arrogant presumptions of power by the largest international institution of the era, the pre-Reformation Church, reflecting the common worldview of most European Christians. Two examples may help explain this.

Many Catholics believe in the claimed apparitions of the Blessed Mother. Although common beliefs that some may call doctrine, they are not an essential element within the Creed and one may be a faithful Catholic without accepting their credibility.

Perhaps a better contextualization is in the spirit of the Monroe doctrine or the Truman doctrine or Reagan doctrine. American presidents and citizens need not adhere to any of these although they have not been formally repudiated. In short, doctrine is being used in this broad sense to describe those papal bulls that tragically formed the marriage of theological bias and political policy. This does not justify them but only attempts to put them in context.

Finally, in United States law, people like Onondaga Nation lawyer Joe Heath have provided a tremendous context and history of how this influenced our jurisprudence. The consequential Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Johnson v. MIntosh (1823) essentially denied the rights of aboriginal land claims and became the national basis for exploitation. The liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited it in the 2005 case denying the Oneida Nations land claims based on this prior precedent.

It is impossible to overstate the suffering that resulted from the dehumanization of Indigenous peoples through the principles of the Doctrine of Discovery. It formed the basis for European then American persecution, the cultural degradation through religious schools and continued exploitation. Although there were some notable personal exceptions, these papal documents were foundational in church history and are rightfully repudiated.

Now it seems necessary for our legal system to redress the power of exploiters and to demand justice for Indigenous peoples that is long overdue.

Read more here:

Time to unwind Doctrine of Discovery in our jurisprudence (Guest Opinion by David Pasinski) - syracuse.com

Part of the SeriesStruggle and Solidarity: Writing Toward Palestinian Liberation

Why are liberal Israeli protesters working with Israeli police to rip down Palestinian flags whenever anti-occupation activists attempt to raise them in the context of the widespread anti-government protests in Israel?

Theres a structural reason why the occupation of Palestine is absent from the mainstream liberal agenda of the protests, says Israeli academic and left-wing activist Idan Landau: The leading figures and speakers in these protests are routinely members of the legal, economic and military elites, all of whom were and are intimately implicated in maintaining the occupation.

The anti-government protests, which will likely reignite this week in the lead-up to Israels 75th Independence Day, have been led by Israeli liberals upset with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus far right nationalist coalition and its attempt to curb the powers of Israels judiciary.

Israeli democracy, which has always excluded Palestinians under military occupation, has been in accelerated decline over the last couple of decades. Israels far right has grown to extremely worrisome levels, with todays government of Benjamin Netanyahu being nothing short of a band of religious and racist zealots; in fact, some of them have even openly supported pogroms against Palestinian people.

Indeed, as Israeli academic and left-wing activist Idan Landau stresses in this exclusive interview for Truthout, racism and extremism have spread to a wide range of the population, especially among the youth.

Biden promised Israel $3.8 billion in annual military aid to maintain the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.

Landau is a professor of linguistics at Ben-Gurion University and writes a political blog (in Hebrew) on Israeli affairs. He has been imprisoned on several occasions for his refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces reserves.

C.J. Polychroniou: Israel has been moving further and further to the right over the last couple of decades to the point that todays government is beyond extreme. It is indeed a government pushing a hard-right agenda unlike anything that Israel has seen before. How do you explain Israels far right shift, and especially the fact that the overwhelming majority of young Jewish Israelis identify as right-wing?

Idan Landau: A combination of factors, none of which is new, but all increasing in impact over the years. The major current shift is the sheer disregard to civilized rules of conduct; the liberal masks are falling off, like the ceremonial respect to the supreme court, or the ritualistic reference to the two-state solution. These were hollow rhetorical practices for a long while now, but up until the recent government, there were forces in the leadership (like Yair Lapid and even Naftali Bennett) who adhered to them. [Finance Minister and head of the Religious Zionism Party] Bezalel Smotrich and his kin simply dismiss such niceties, and the world, mostly exposed to Israeli politicians rather than to a deeper cross-section of the Israeli public, is shocked to learn of the deep-seated racism and rising populism within the larger Jewish population.

Public education in Israel has rapidly sunk into a nationalistic propaganda mire. Historical events and narratives inconsistent with official Zionist ideology have been gradually expunged from textbooks.

So, what are these factors? First, increasing religiosity, which in Israel translates to a particular xenophobic, all-the-world-is-against-us, Holocaust-driven self-righteous version of Judaism. One reason has to do with demographic trends: 35 percent of the Jews in Israel define themselves as religious; over a third of them (13.3 percent) are Orthodox Jews. This last group boasts the fastest growth in size in developed countries, 4 percent a year (due to their preference for larger families), and they alone are expected to comprise a third of the entire population of Israel by 2065. This shift is more dramatic in younger ages: By 2050, a third of the pupils in Israel will be educated in Orthodox schools. Polls repeatedly and consistently find that the most racist and nationalistic portion of the Jewish population is exactly those Orthodox Jews.

Second, public education in Israel has rapidly sunk into a nationalistic propaganda mire. Historical events and narratives inconsistent with official Zionist ideology have been gradually expunged from textbooks, often to absurd degrees. For example, Israeli pupils have no idea about the green line Israels only internationally recognized border because all the geographical maps approved for schools by the ministry of education have purposefully been purged of the green line. So they grow up without knowing of the distinction between Israel and the occupied territories, they know nothing about the fact that nearly 3 million Palestinians are subject to military law, nothing about land grabs (by the state or by settler outlaws), nothing about the fact that most of the military roadblocks are not placed on Israels border (the green line) but deep inside Palestinian territory, etc. Add to that the compulsory military service, which is the most effective agent of indoctrination in Israel, driving Jewish youth to see Palestinians as an undifferentiated mass of enemies, to be controlled, confined, checked, punished and subdued and the product you get by the end of this assembly line is a perfectly loyal devotee of Jewish superiority. With all that baggage they go to the ballot, and thats how you end up with extreme right-wing parties in power.

Of course, racism and political systems engage in a feedback loop. Not only does racism promote systems of injustice and inequality, but the need to maintain and expand these systems cultivates racism in its turn, because one must dehumanize ones victims in order to go on functioning within and in the service of such systems.

Like elsewhere, the Israeli left is not a unified movement. Is this the reason why the Israeli left is marginalized?

I dont think so. Even if you manage to pull together all the leftist forces in Israel (by which I dont mean anti-Netanyahu, but people truly committed to justice for Jews and Arabs), you will still end up with a negligible minority. All those human rights groups that have some international visibility BTselem, Breaking the Silence, etc. employ no more than 500 people altogether.

The left is inclined to periodic fits of self-flagellation, or finger-pointing toward internal elements declared guilty of its impotence. I find these practices a boring nuisance.

The sad truth is that the bedrock of the left the simple principles of justice, equality, freedom, the sacred value of human life are in themselves unpopular amongst Israelis. Unpopular in the sense that they are all deemed inferior to grander principles, deriving from the privileged rights of Jews in the land of Israel. Whatever the organizational faults of the fragments of the left are, they are overshadowed by the powerful opposition they all face from the Israeli consensus.

Without the cloak of a functioning, independent legal system that can investigate war criminals and put them on trial, Israeli military officials will be exposed to prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

This opposition operates in various ways. The public legitimacy of human rights organizations is gradually eroded by relentless campaigns of defamation, all of which originate in the government itself. So-called GONGOs (government-operated NGOs), such as Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor, are entirely dedicated to persecuting leftist activists, academics, artists, etc. Municipalities constantly bar their institutions from hosting events or lectures by political dissidents. The Israeli counterpart of Fox News, Channel 14, now ranks second in ratings. This is Netanyahus home base, an outlet that spews out naked propaganda and fake news every single day. Large chunks of the programming are aimed at demonizing human rights groups, Arab members of the Knesset, or generally, any critic of Israeli policies. A frequent sight these days (which was not so common a few years ago) is street gangs using Leftist! calls as an abominable insult, chasing and beating demonstrators that simply stand in solidarity with Palestinians.

In addition, mainstream liberal Israelis that dormant mass of people who just want to go on with their convenient lives with no disturbances would go out of their way to condemn the radical left, to dissociate themselves from any struggle that dares to include the Palestinian perspective, and would insist on fighting for democracy with no representatives of the most immediate victims of this democracy, namely Arabs (inside Israel or in the territories). I believe that it is this mainstream hostility toward the vision of the radical left that is chiefly responsible for its marginality; it becomes more and more difficult to just get these messages through, to win precious prime time on TV and even report daily atrocities occurring in the territories, let alone express nonconsensual views.

Of course, one has to remember permanent anomalies of the Israeli left, that go years back. A major one is the extreme weakness of labor unions, a reflection of a hyper-capitalist market based on short-term jobs. Unions normally provide the infrastructure necessary for long-term protests, but they are completely absent from major struggles for human rights in Israel, and in fact, the biggest union (the Histadrut) is dominated by the right-wing Likud party. That is, it sides with government.

Massive protests forced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to suspend his divisive judicial reform plan. Do you think his plan to undermine judicial independence by controlling the composition of the countrys Supreme Court is really finished?

Not at all. The upcoming weeks will be quite critical. Netanyahus coalition will not survive retraction of the reform; and his only chance of avoiding conviction (and jail) depends on keeping this coalition together and passing the reform. So its all or nothing for him. Meanwhile (and this is obviously not a coincidence), the borders are heating up with military clashes, invasions to Palestinian cities are intensified, terrorist attacks too. All this chaotic ecosystem, with a populace under a growing sense of insecurity and stress, surely plays in Netanyahus favor. Drastic changes in the regime are more easily implemented in such times, as we know very well from the historical record. I will not venture any guesses here, whether were stepping into a constitutional or a military crisis, but the game is far from over, in my opinion.

How do liberal and left groups relate to the occupation in their protests and opposition to the far right?

As I mentioned, the occupation is entirely absent from the mainstream liberal agenda of the protests. This is to be expected, given that the leading figures and speakers in these protests are routinely members of the legal, economic and military elites, all of whom were and are intimately implicated in maintaining the occupation. So most Israelis felt not the slightest dissonance to see in these demonstrations Moshe Yaalon, former chief of staff and defense minister, who was in charge of major war crimes during the invasion of Gaza [in] the summer of 2014, warn against the risks to democracy implied by the recent legal reform.

The occupation and the rights of Palestinians hardly make it to the front line in these developments. So even if the protest succeeds in toppling down Netanyahus coalition, the emerging political order in the aftermath is not likely to address these fundamental issues.

Notably, legal experts (including former judges of the supreme court) constantly focus on the pragmatic harm of the reform: Without the cloak of a functioning, independent legal system that can investigate war criminals and put them on trial, Israeli military officials will be exposed to prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In short, their plans to travel abroad are at risk. The issue of whether or not they are war criminals that should have been indicted in Israel is not even discussed. Other absurdities involve ex-Shabak officials (Shabak is the Israeli Security Agency, its domestic secret service), whose careers were founded on secrecy, extortion and sometimes torture, expressing concern over the anti-democratic nature of the reform. All of that takes place within the liberal camp in the protest, which is by far the dominant one.

So for the most part, the occupation does not concern the protest. Yet there is a consistent representation of anti-occupation groups within the protests, which I think is quite important. They insist on raising Palestinian flags, which is considered a provocation, so both liberal demonstrators and cops would often approach them and violently tear down the flags. Yet they raise them again and again, together with signs like There is no democracy with occupation, and these are gradually being tolerated; the liberals learn (its always a painful process for them) that the mere visibility of Palestinian people or symbols in the struggle for democracy is, perhaps, somehow relevant. The pragmatic pretext (You weaken the protest, you drive away potential supporters) was seen to be false. As it often happens, the radical left has to turn its efforts from calling for justice and equality to fighting for the legitimacy of expressing such calls in the public arena.

Some activists report that their spontaneous encounters with liberal demonstrators on the street, their solidarity against the police (whose violence does not distinguish radicals from liberals), do make the liberals rethink Zionist dogmas, understand what state violence looks like, and gradually broaden their concept of democracy to include non-Jews. That may be true, but its hard to tell what the long-term consequences will be. In point of fact, Israeli Arabs are almost entirely absent from these protests; being second-class citizens in their own country, they recognize well enough that this protest does not challenge the inherent ethnocratic nature of the Jewish state, but is rather an internal conflict between Jewish elites over the distribution of power amongst themselves.

By that I dont mean to underestimate the dramatic and even historic significance of such an unprecedented mass protest against a ruling government in Israel. I just want to point out that the occupation and the rights of Palestinians hardly make it to the front line in these developments. So even if the protest succeeds in toppling down Netanyahus coalition, the emerging political order in the aftermath is not likely to address these fundamental issues.

One argument that the left has not been able to communicate vividly enough, Im afraid, is that the legal reform has two prongs: One is to undermine the independence of the judicial branch; but no less important is the creeping annexation of area C in the occupied territories, as evidenced by the appointment of Smotrich a far right extremist who openly advocates the dispossession and transfer of Palestinians to be in charge of the COGAT, the administrative agency regulating the lives of all Palestinians under Israeli control. Smotrich plans, and has already started, to execute far-reaching changes in area C, which were previously hindered by appeals to the Supreme Court and by intricate legal proceedings, sometimes lasting years.

A politically biased supreme court, controlled by a right-wing coalition and incapable of overriding parliamentary bills in violation of international law, will no longer impede these very grave crimes (it never really prevented them, but the Israeli fascists are both greedy and impatient). To my mind, the reform is just as much about insulating prospective war crimes from internal judicial inspection as it is about saving Netanyahus political career. The big challenge of the left is to make the greater Israeli public see and understand these links (and others) in this unfolding regime change.

Is it possible to see what the future holds for Israel?

It is hard to make out details in the darkness, you know.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

As the world changes at an unprecedented pace, we need ethical, independent news more than ever before. We need journalists who can investigate, report, and analyze complex issues with honesty and integrity. We need journalists who can hold those in power accountable, shine a light on injustices, and give voice to the voiceless.

Truthout relies on reader donations to maintain this sanctuary for honest, justice-driven journalism. We have just hours left to raise $5,000 we need all our friends to help us reach this goal. It takes less than 30 seconds to give, so if you value a free and independent press, please make a tax-deductible donation today!

See more here:

Even as They Protest, Israeli Liberals Reject Solidarity With ... - Truthout

The party, which currently holds no seats on the council, and which has not held a single seat since 2011, is hoping its manifesto pledges will get its foot back in the door.

Some 30 candidates will run as candidates across all but two ofBrightonand Hoves 23 wards - more than ever before.

Ahead of the election on May 4, here are some of the key points the Lib Dems are promising.

Return of the trams

The city could see the return of its trams under the Lib Dems.

The party said it will research the introduction of a tram system along the seafront in a bid to tackle congestion.

Trams were in operation in Brighton and Hove between 1901 and 1939.

A Brighton tram and trolley bus from 1939 (Image: The Argus)

Seafront parking ban

Another scheme to refresh Brightons transport system would see an investigation into the creation of a new cheap car park under Brunswick lawns and Hove lawns.

A parking ban would then be imposed on the A259.

Crack down on crime

The Lib Dems say Brightons crime rate is 41 per cent higher than the rest of East Sussex and 24 per cent higher than the rest of England.

To tackle this the party wants to introduce regular surgeries with police and residents, as well as allowing residents to raise concerns at council committees.

Provide safe spaces for drug users

Proposals would see the introduction of a local safe space for drug users.

The Lib Dems also want to work with community groups, schools and the police to tackle the root causes of crime and drug abuse.

Building affordable homes

The Lib Dems would review all council owned land and exclusively build affordable housing on such land subject to planning conditions.

Limiting short-let accommodation

Licenses on all short-let accommodation such as Airbnbs would be introduced and a limit on the number of licences within each ward of the city (except for individuals renting out rooms in their own house), with the proviso that the licence will be withdrawn in the event of antisocial behaviour.

Brighton and Hove Liberal Democrats with party leader Ed Davey (Image: The Liberal Democrats)

LOCAL ELECTIONS 2023:

Supporting small businesses

A small business forum will be created to support small businesses.

The Lib Dems would also freeze business rates for businesses employing fewer than ten people.

Owners of vacant properties would be approached to make them available for business start ups and pop-up shops.

And business rates would be reduced for NHS dentists operating from council owned buildings.

Childrens health

More support would be made available to parents returning to the workplace as well as free school meal provision being expanded to cover all children whose parents receive Universal Credit.

To tackle air pollution around schools the party would pedestrianise areas around schools and fine motorists who do not turn off engines.

Selling off under-subscribed schools

The Lib Dems say more discussion needs to be had on the academisation of schools and said many are under-subscribed.

Are schools considering academisation to avoid closure? Would any party be brave enough to close schools? the party asked.

It suggests selling school sites and using the money raised from sales to improve other schools.

Improving waste management

The Lib Dems have hit out at the Greens for leaving the citys pavements unkempt, overgrown and filthy and said there is rubbish strewn all over the streets.

Proposals would see recycling collections increased, introduce food waste collections, increase litter patrols and remove weeds which are trip hazards.

Originally posted here:

The Liberal Democrats in Brighton and Hove reveal manifesto - The Argus

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

Go here to see the original:

EU law to restore nature stokes debate that jobs will 'go to China' - Financial Times