Feed aggregator

Diese Veröffentlichung stellt eine von sechs Analysen sektorenübergreifender Herausforderungen für Wasser-Governance dar, die als Teil des STEER-Forschungsprojekts durchgeführt wurden und deren Resultate in separaten Analysen und Stellungnahmen vorliegen.
Das Ziel der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie (WRRL) der Europäischen Union (EU) ist es einen „guten Zustand“ aller Gewässer bis 2027 zu erreichen. Spanien steht in diesem Zusammenhang vor erheblichen Wasserquantitätsproblemen, weshalb die Einhaltung des ökologischen Mindestwasserbedarfs von Oberflächengewässer sowie die Reduzierung übermäßiger Grundwasserentnahmen eine der größten Herausforderungen ist. Die Behörden müssen daher zwischen konkurrierenden Wassernutzungen, wie Bewässerung, städtische Wasserversorgung, Tourismus oder Umwelt vermitteln. Trotz wiederholter Forderungen von Wissenschaftler*innen und Zusagen politischer Entscheidungsträger*innen, die sektor- und ebenenübergreifende Koordination zur Lösung dieser Zielkonflikte zu verstärken, bestehen weiterhin Koordinationsdefizite. Diese Veröffentlichung untersucht Koordinations- und Implementierungsherausforderungen zwischen dem Wasser- und dem Landwirtschaftssektor in Bezug auf Wasserquantität bei der WWRL-Umsetzung im Guadalquivir in Südspanien. Diese sind (i) ausbleibende Überprüfung der Wasserrechte nach der Einführung der Tröpfchenbewässerung, (ii) Schwächen beim Monitoring der Wassernutzung und bei der Schließung illegaler Brunnen und (iii) begrenzter sektorübergreifender Austausch im Rahmen partizipativer Prozesse.
Diese Herausforderungen sind mit der Schwierigkeit verbunden, unpopuläre Entscheidungen gegen den Willen mächtiger landwirtschaftlicher Akteur*innen durchzusetzen. Um den Herausforderungen zu begegnen, schlagen wir verschiedene Koordinationsinstrumente vor, die auf Anreizen, freiwilliger Zusammenarbeit, Überzeugungsarbeit und Informationsaustausch beruhen. Insbesondere empfehlen wir Folgendes:
• Erhöhung der finanziellen und personellen Ressourcen für die Neuregelung der Wasserrechte, für das Monitoring der Wassernutzung und die Schließung illegaler Brunnen.
• Förderung kooperativer Prozesse, um einen multisektoralen Konsens zu erreichen, wie und wo Wasserrechte eingeschränkt werden sollen.
• Schaffung von Anreizen für Bewässerungsgemeinschaften, um die Selbstkontrolle der Grundwassernutzung unter den Mitgliedern weiter zu stärken.
• Stärkung des sektorübergreifenden Austauschs unter den Stakeholdern durch partizipative Prozesse, insbesondere zwischen Umwelt- und landwirtschaftlichen Interessengruppen, und Verbesserung der Kommunikation mit den Bürger*innen.
• Nutzung integrativerer Möglichkeiten der Informationsvermittlung bei Planungsprozessen.
Da die identifizierten Herausforderungen jedoch systemischer Natur sind und grundlegende Verteilungsfragen berühren, sind den Koordinierungsinstrumenten Grenzen gesetzt. Daher ist auch ein klareres Bekenntnis des politischen Willens erforderlich.

Diese Veröffentlichung stellt eine von sechs Analysen sektorenübergreifender Herausforderungen für Wasser-Governance dar, die als Teil des STEER-Forschungsprojekts durchgeführt wurden und deren Resultate in separaten Analysen und Stellungnahmen vorliegen.
Der Abbau von Mineralien und Metallen geht mit einem großen Wasserfußabdruck einher, sowohl im Hinblick auf die Ressourcen, die für den Abbau selbst benötigt werden, als auch im Hinblick auf die Einleitung schadstoffbelasteter Abwässer in Flussläufe. Diverse politische Steuerungsinstrumente zielen darauf ab, die negative Auswirkungen des Bergbaus auf Wasserressourcen und Bevölkerungsgruppen zu mildern, welche von diesen Ressourcen abhängig sind. Hierzu gehören Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen (UVPs), die Einbindung von Stakeholdern in Planungsprozesse sowie ökonomische Anreize für Abwasserbehandlung noch auf dem Minengelände. Ob und wie diese Instrumente umgesetzt werden, hängt vom nationalen, regionalen und lokalen Kontext ab, da jedes Instrument auf einer Reihe von Voraussetzungen aufbaut. Um die Wirksamkeit dieser Instrumente zu beurteilen, bedarf es daher einer fundierten Analyse des Governance-Systems, in dem sie eingesetzt werden.
Die vorliegende Veröffentlichung untersucht diese Zusammenhänge für die Mongolei. Sie betrachtet die Einbeziehung von Stakeholdern und die Schaffung von Anreizen für die Abwasserbehandlung als Schlüsselstrategien zur Verbesserung der Koordination. Zudem richtet sie besonderes Augenmerk auf die personellen und finanziellen Kapazitäten der nachgeordneten Verwaltungseinheiten sowie auf die Verfügbarkeit wasserbezogener Informationen als wesentliche Voraussetzungen für wirksame Governance im Bereich der natürlichen Ressourcen.
Wir stellen fest, dass das mongolische Gesetz die Einbindung von Stakeholdern mehrfach vorsieht, vor allem durch Multi-Stakeholder-Plattformen (River Basin Multi-Stakeholder Platforms, RB-MSPs) und Anhörungen betroffener Bevölkerungsgruppen im Zuge der UVP-Verfahren. In der Praxis besteht die RB-MSP oft primär aus Mitarbeiter*innen unterer Verwaltungsebenen und Anhörungen betroffener Bevölkerungsgruppen finden selten statt. Bezüglich ökonomischer Anreize für Abwasserbehandlung, hat die Mongolei im Sommer 2019 Änderungen des Gesetzes über Wasserverschmutzungsgebühren verabschiedet und arbeitet an Umsetzungsrichtlinien. Hier liegen die Herausforderungen darin, Ausgangswerte in Bezug auf Wasserqualität zu bestimmen und eine unabhängige Probenahme und -analyse zu garantieren. Begrenzte personelle und finanzielle Kapazitäten der nachgeordneten Behörden erschweren dies.
Wir empfehlen
• die Beteiligung des Privatsektors und der Zivilgesellschaft in RB-MSPs zu erhöhen und hierbei Unterschiede im sozioökonomischen Status mitzudenken, um gleichberechtigte Diskussionen zu gewährleisten.
• die Durchführung öffentlicher Anhörungen als Teil von UVPs sicherzustellen und Verwaltungsverfahren (Lizensierung, UVP-Abnahmen) transparent zu gestalten.
• die öffentliche Verfügbarkeit von Wasserdaten zu verbessern
• das Gesetz über Wasserverschmutzungsgebühren zügig umzusetzen, um Anreize für die Behandlung von Bergbauabwässern vor Ort zu schaffen.
• die Mittel für nachgeordnete Verwaltungsorgane aufzustocken, ihre institutionellen Kapazitäten zu verbessern und Mittel für RB-MSPs bereitzustellen.

Diese Veröffentlichung stellt eine von sechs Analysen sektorenübergreifender Herausforderungen für Wasser-Governance dar, die als Teil des STEER-Forschungsprojekts durchgeführt wurden und deren Resultate in separaten Analysen und Stellungnahmen vorliegen.
Der Abbau von Mineralien und Metallen geht mit einem großen Wasserfußabdruck einher, sowohl im Hinblick auf die Ressourcen, die für den Abbau selbst benötigt werden, als auch im Hinblick auf die Einleitung schadstoffbelasteter Abwässer in Flussläufe. Diverse politische Steuerungsinstrumente zielen darauf ab, die negative Auswirkungen des Bergbaus auf Wasserressourcen und Bevölkerungsgruppen zu mildern, welche von diesen Ressourcen abhängig sind. Hierzu gehören Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen (UVPs), die Einbindung von Stakeholdern in Planungsprozesse sowie ökonomische Anreize für Abwasserbehandlung noch auf dem Minengelände. Ob und wie diese Instrumente umgesetzt werden, hängt vom nationalen, regionalen und lokalen Kontext ab, da jedes Instrument auf einer Reihe von Voraussetzungen aufbaut. Um die Wirksamkeit dieser Instrumente zu beurteilen, bedarf es daher einer fundierten Analyse des Governance-Systems, in dem sie eingesetzt werden.
Die vorliegende Veröffentlichung untersucht diese Zusammenhänge für die Mongolei. Sie betrachtet die Einbeziehung von Stakeholdern und die Schaffung von Anreizen für die Abwasserbehandlung als Schlüsselstrategien zur Verbesserung der Koordination. Zudem richtet sie besonderes Augenmerk auf die personellen und finanziellen Kapazitäten der nachgeordneten Verwaltungseinheiten sowie auf die Verfügbarkeit wasserbezogener Informationen als wesentliche Voraussetzungen für wirksame Governance im Bereich der natürlichen Ressourcen.
Wir stellen fest, dass das mongolische Gesetz die Einbindung von Stakeholdern mehrfach vorsieht, vor allem durch Multi-Stakeholder-Plattformen (River Basin Multi-Stakeholder Platforms, RB-MSPs) und Anhörungen betroffener Bevölkerungsgruppen im Zuge der UVP-Verfahren. In der Praxis besteht die RB-MSP oft primär aus Mitarbeiter*innen unterer Verwaltungsebenen und Anhörungen betroffener Bevölkerungsgruppen finden selten statt. Bezüglich ökonomischer Anreize für Abwasserbehandlung, hat die Mongolei im Sommer 2019 Änderungen des Gesetzes über Wasserverschmutzungsgebühren verabschiedet und arbeitet an Umsetzungsrichtlinien. Hier liegen die Herausforderungen darin, Ausgangswerte in Bezug auf Wasserqualität zu bestimmen und eine unabhängige Probenahme und -analyse zu garantieren. Begrenzte personelle und finanzielle Kapazitäten der nachgeordneten Behörden erschweren dies.
Wir empfehlen
• die Beteiligung des Privatsektors und der Zivilgesellschaft in RB-MSPs zu erhöhen und hierbei Unterschiede im sozioökonomischen Status mitzudenken, um gleichberechtigte Diskussionen zu gewährleisten.
• die Durchführung öffentlicher Anhörungen als Teil von UVPs sicherzustellen und Verwaltungsverfahren (Lizensierung, UVP-Abnahmen) transparent zu gestalten.
• die öffentliche Verfügbarkeit von Wasserdaten zu verbessern
• das Gesetz über Wasserverschmutzungsgebühren zügig umzusetzen, um Anreize für die Behandlung von Bergbauabwässern vor Ort zu schaffen.
• die Mittel für nachgeordnete Verwaltungsorgane aufzustocken, ihre institutionellen Kapazitäten zu verbessern und Mittel für RB-MSPs bereitzustellen.

Diese Veröffentlichung stellt eine von sechs Analysen sektorenübergreifender Herausforderungen für Wasser-Governance dar, die als Teil des STEER-Forschungsprojekts durchgeführt wurden und deren Resultate in separaten Analysen und Stellungnahmen vorliegen.
Der Abbau von Mineralien und Metallen geht mit einem großen Wasserfußabdruck einher, sowohl im Hinblick auf die Ressourcen, die für den Abbau selbst benötigt werden, als auch im Hinblick auf die Einleitung schadstoffbelasteter Abwässer in Flussläufe. Diverse politische Steuerungsinstrumente zielen darauf ab, die negative Auswirkungen des Bergbaus auf Wasserressourcen und Bevölkerungsgruppen zu mildern, welche von diesen Ressourcen abhängig sind. Hierzu gehören Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen (UVPs), die Einbindung von Stakeholdern in Planungsprozesse sowie ökonomische Anreize für Abwasserbehandlung noch auf dem Minengelände. Ob und wie diese Instrumente umgesetzt werden, hängt vom nationalen, regionalen und lokalen Kontext ab, da jedes Instrument auf einer Reihe von Voraussetzungen aufbaut. Um die Wirksamkeit dieser Instrumente zu beurteilen, bedarf es daher einer fundierten Analyse des Governance-Systems, in dem sie eingesetzt werden.
Die vorliegende Veröffentlichung untersucht diese Zusammenhänge für die Mongolei. Sie betrachtet die Einbeziehung von Stakeholdern und die Schaffung von Anreizen für die Abwasserbehandlung als Schlüsselstrategien zur Verbesserung der Koordination. Zudem richtet sie besonderes Augenmerk auf die personellen und finanziellen Kapazitäten der nachgeordneten Verwaltungseinheiten sowie auf die Verfügbarkeit wasserbezogener Informationen als wesentliche Voraussetzungen für wirksame Governance im Bereich der natürlichen Ressourcen.
Wir stellen fest, dass das mongolische Gesetz die Einbindung von Stakeholdern mehrfach vorsieht, vor allem durch Multi-Stakeholder-Plattformen (River Basin Multi-Stakeholder Platforms, RB-MSPs) und Anhörungen betroffener Bevölkerungsgruppen im Zuge der UVP-Verfahren. In der Praxis besteht die RB-MSP oft primär aus Mitarbeiter*innen unterer Verwaltungsebenen und Anhörungen betroffener Bevölkerungsgruppen finden selten statt. Bezüglich ökonomischer Anreize für Abwasserbehandlung, hat die Mongolei im Sommer 2019 Änderungen des Gesetzes über Wasserverschmutzungsgebühren verabschiedet und arbeitet an Umsetzungsrichtlinien. Hier liegen die Herausforderungen darin, Ausgangswerte in Bezug auf Wasserqualität zu bestimmen und eine unabhängige Probenahme und -analyse zu garantieren. Begrenzte personelle und finanzielle Kapazitäten der nachgeordneten Behörden erschweren dies.
Wir empfehlen
• die Beteiligung des Privatsektors und der Zivilgesellschaft in RB-MSPs zu erhöhen und hierbei Unterschiede im sozioökonomischen Status mitzudenken, um gleichberechtigte Diskussionen zu gewährleisten.
• die Durchführung öffentlicher Anhörungen als Teil von UVPs sicherzustellen und Verwaltungsverfahren (Lizensierung, UVP-Abnahmen) transparent zu gestalten.
• die öffentliche Verfügbarkeit von Wasserdaten zu verbessern
• das Gesetz über Wasserverschmutzungsgebühren zügig umzusetzen, um Anreize für die Behandlung von Bergbauabwässern vor Ort zu schaffen.
• die Mittel für nachgeordnete Verwaltungsorgane aufzustocken, ihre institutionellen Kapazitäten zu verbessern und Mittel für RB-MSPs bereitzustellen.

Hétfőn a kispesti Pannónia úti Általános Iskolában jártunk, ahol a Pannónia Hét alkalmából szervezetünk programokat a felsősök számára.

A suspect has been arrested in connection with the stabbing of 5 Orthodox Jews in Monsey.

But even though this attack happened in Monsey, it is part of a growing and increasingly alarming pattern inside New York City.

And no one expects these attacks to stop soon.

One reason for the pessimism is the failure by the media, elected officials and social media 'celebrities' to address the fact that, contrary to the accepted media narrative, these attacks on Orthodox Jews are being carried out by Blacks -- not by "White Supremacists."

Elder of Ziyon has posted about the reluctance among leftists to mention this common link among the majority of the attacks on Jews, either out of fear of being labeled racist or accused of inciting violence against the Black community:
Most blacks are not antisemitic, although the percentage is roughly double that of whites (in 2016, 23% compared to 10%.) No one is saying that all blacks should be blamed. But the fear of being labeled a racist is the major reason there has not been any effective outreach to the black community to help solve this problem. But this is not the first time that the fear of addressing Black antisemitism has manifested itself and prevented the media and community leaders from speaking out.

Remember the Crown Heights Riots?



In 2016, Seth Lipsky wrote for The New York Post, 25 years later, we still haven’t learned the lessons of the Crown Heights riot -- and in the 3 years since then, matters have only gotten worse:
Crown Heights erupted after a driver in the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s motorcade lost control and killed a black child, Gavin Cato. For three days, historian Edward Shapiro would write, “bands of young blacks” had “roamed” the neighborhood, assaulting Jews. [Emphasis added] At the time, Yankel Rosenbaum, a Jewish student visiting from the University of Melbourne, was stabbed to death -- and his killer, Lemrick Nelson, was acquitted of murder by a New York jury. Two federal civil rights prosecutions were required before Nelson would be sent to prison, and in the end, he did 10 years on civil rights charges.

What stands out most for Lipsky is that during the Crown Heights Riots, neither the political nor the private leaders in the city could bring themselves to admit that the attacks on Jews were antisemitic.

Ari Goldman, who reported on those riots for The New York Times at the time, later wrote about the experience, noting the insistence by journalists at the time to frame the attacks as a result of a "racial conflict."

In Telling It Like It Wasn't, Goldman quotes AM Rosenthal, a former executive editor at The New York Times who said what others would not:
“The press,” Rosenthal wrote, “treats it all as some kind of cultural clash between a poverty-ridden people fed up with life and a powerful, prosperous and unfortunately peculiar bunch of stuck-up neighbors — very sad of course, but certainly understandable. No — it is an anti-Semitic pogrom and the words should not be left unsaid.” [emphasis added] Indeed, one journalist tweeted about the Monsey attack something similar - and later deleted their tweet:
The situation in NY (and let's be clear we don't know who perpetrated the Monsey attack yet) is *massively complicated* and a growing division among two communities. What we need right now is a way to find solidarity with each other against our shared enemy of white supremacy. Other tweets, in response to steps proposed by Mayor de Blasio last week to increase police protection of the Jewish community, were worse:
This sends a pretty stark message to non-Jews living in these neighborhoods that their safety matters less to @NYCMayor than the safety of their Jewish neighbors. That's really really bad for literally everyone except our common enemies, who benefit when we're divided. and
Worst move. One that many of us have been warning against for many months now. de Blasio has caved to the pressure of racist demagogues like Dov Hikind and now many young black men will be at risk.

This isn't about ending hate, it's transferring the violence to acceptable targets. We are seeing the same blind eye and lack of decisive action now that we saw 28 years ago.

Two years after the riots, in 1993, an exhaustive state investigation into the handly of what happened sharply criticized Mayor Dinkins for his failure to understand and act upon the severity of the crisis.

The Jewish community now is growing increasingly concerned that the current mayor does not understand what is happening any better.
Lipsky concludes his 2016 article pointing to attempts at reconciliation within Crown Heights, yet notes: Liberal elites have made no such progress. They have never lifted a finger for the Orthodox Jews. The animus that erupted as “Heil Hitler” in Crown Heights has broken out on some of our city’s finest campuses, which echo with “Zionists out” and “Long live the Intifada.”

And liberals are unalarmed that Black Lives Matter has begun to make common cause with the BDS movement against Israel. So 25 years after Crown Heights, it’s anyone’s guess where the next attacks will break out against the Jews. [emphasis added] These days, there is no longer any need to guess.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Last week, Peter Beinart described Bernie Sanders as "the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in American history"


After all, it is a 'thing' now to talk up how 'Jewish' Bernie Sanders is.

I responded to Beinart's tweet:



There were a few responses to what I wrote, but they avoided the question of whether Bernie Sanders actually embraces his being Jewish. Instead, they attacked Lieberman -- totally missing the point.

Or avoiding it.

The fact is that Bernie Sanders, despite the best efforts of Beinart and others, has not registered as a Jew in the minds of voters.

Back in 2016, a Los Angeles Times article reported that Bernie Sanders fares poorly against Hillary Clinton with fellow Jews, polls indicate
Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone further than any other Jewish candidate in a presidential campaign, but he’s not garnering much support from Jewish voters, polls indicate...

Now that the campaign has moved to New York, however, which has the nation’s largest Jewish population, the numbers are in, and they’re not favorable.

That shouldn’t be terribly surprising. Both Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have long been popular among Jewish voters, and while American Jews tend to be liberal, they’re more often regular Democrats than the sorts of independents most drawn to Sanders.

On the other side, Sanders is not actively engaged in Jewish life. He has also been critical of Israel, although he lived briefly as a young man on a secular, socialist kibbutz. When asked about his faith, his responses have reflected a generalized commitment to liberal concepts of social justice as opposed to any specific link to Jewish ideals of equality. [emphasis added]The article is based on 2 polls: the Sienna College Poll, which found Clinton leading Sanders among Jewish voters by a 60%-38% margin and the NBC/Wall St. Journal/Marist poll,which found Clinton leading among Jews 65%-32%.

Putting aside where he stands on Israel, the fact remains that Sanders is not Jewishly involved and his inspiration is from socialism, not Judaism.

That is not a judgment on Sanders, just a recognition of where he stands.

In a presidential election pitting Sanders and Trump, Sanders would clearly get the majority of the Jewish vote, but that is because most Jews vote Democrat anyway and not because they think of him as a Jew.

Not only does he not embody Jewish pride, Sanders does not have a typical reaction to antisemitism either. At an event at the Apollo Theater in New York in April 2016, Sanders faced an antisemitic question:
“As you know,” opened the questioner, “the Zionist Jews–and I don’t mean to offend anybody–they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign.” As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”

“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders quickly replied, in a nod to the question’s underlying prejudice. “I am proud to be Jewish,” he declared, to cheers from the audience. But then Sanders did something odd. Rather than using the question as a teaching moment to address and rebuke its anti-Semitic underpinnings, Sanders instead immediately pivoted to his stump speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Talking about Zionism and Israel,” he said, “I am a strong defender of Israel, but I also believe that we have got to pay attention to the needs of the Palestinian people.” He never challenged the actual contents of the question, let alone labeled it anti-Semitic. [emphasis added]

It is tempting to compare Sanders' failure to address the clear antisemitism of the questioner with his making Linda Sarsour his surrogate. This is the same Linda Sarsour who in 2015 spoke at a Farrakhan rally. Then again, Sanders has met publicly with antisemite Al Sharpton.

Associations with Farrakhan and Sharpton don't seem to bother Bernie Sanders.


But that Sanders-Sarsour connection really is especially jarring.

And, as Ron Kampeas points out, that alliance of Sanders and Sarsour is self-contradictory as well.

Kampeas notes Sarsour's statement that:
Ask them this, how can you be against white supremacy in America and the idea of being in a state based on race and class, but then you support a state like Israel that is based on supremacy, that is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else?” [emphasis added]Kampeas then points out that:
[Sanders] notes the time he spent in Israel as a young man and says “It is true that some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews, or when it plays into conspiracy theories about outsized Jewish power. I will always call out antisemitism when I see it.” [emphasis added]This leads Kampeas to the point:
Is there wiggle room to reconcile Sarsour’s rejection of a “state like Israel that is based on [Jewish] supremacy” and Sanders’ label for those who deny “the right of self-determination to Jews” as antisemites?This is an issue that does not seem to bother Sanders.

So if he does not embrace his being a Jew and not does publicly react to defend his being a Jew -- why is there this attempt to emphasize that Bernie Sanders is a Jew?

It seems there is an attempt to not only redefine what is and is not antisemitism, but even to redefine what it means to be a Jew -- something that no other minority has to put up with.

Maybe it is an attempt to redefine the connection between Jews and Israel, in the way that small radical fringe groups like If Not Now try to do.

But whatever the reason, this attempt to sell Sanders as a symbol of Jewish pride is a symptom of the weakening of Jewish identity in general and the problematic connection of Jews in the US with Israel.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Two Black Hebrew Israelites deliberately attacked a kosher grocery in Jersey City this past Tuesday.

We can leave it to the media to report who the Black Hebrew Israelites are.
There will be articles about just how Jewish they are, about their history and about their community in Israel.

But while they are not considered Jewish by the Israeli government, Black Hebrew Israelites are Jewish enough for Palestinian terrorists.


According to an article in the Chicago Tribune in 2002, Death bridges gap for Black Hebrews:
Under a cool, clear sky and with a large crowd of mourners on hand, 32-year-old Aharon Ben-Yisrael Elis was buried Sunday in a new section of this town's cemetery.

He was the first of the Black Hebrews--a small group of African-Americans, most of whom came to Israel from Chicago more than three decades ago--to be born in Israel. He also was the first of the group to die from the terrorism that has haunted the Jews of Israel for years. Aharon Ben-Yisrael Elis. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Because the group had their own religion, combining Judaism with other beliefs, the Black Hebrews were not fully accepted into Israeli society and were not granted citizenship.

But those differences were set aside in the face of the terrorist attack:
Yet Elis' passing at the hands of a terrorist provoked an outpouring of Israeli mourners, including Dimona's mayor, a member of the Knesset and the two top rabbis from this town in the northern tip of the Negev desert. Elis was killed Thursday, one of six people slain by a Palestinian gunman who had stormed a banquet hall in a northern town where a bat mitzvah, or a coming-of-age ceremony, for a 12-year-old Israeli girl was under way.

...Dimona officials talked about how the Black Hebrews had found a home in their community and were welcomed. Av Shalom Vilan, a member of the Knesset from the left-of-center Meretz Party, said he hoped that the death of a Black Hebrew as a result of Arab violence would open the hearts and doors of Israel's society for citizenship for the group, which the Black Hebrews have long sought.

Rabbi Shalom Dayan, the chief Sephardic rabbi of Dimona, summed up in a few words what the others said Elis' death meant for the Black Hebrews' long-term quest to win full acceptance into Israeli society.

"You have just sealed one of the most difficult pacts with our Israeli society," Dayan said. More than that, the Israeli government took action too.

Israel destroyed the Palestinian broadcasting center and Israeli tanks came up to Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. Israeli troops entered Tulkarem, where they searched houses, detained a number of Palestinian Arabs and put the city under curfew.

But that was then.

And it makes this week's tragedy even more bitter.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Önkénteseink egyaránt érkeztek felnőttekhez és gyerekekhez, hogy egy kellemes délutánnal tegyük kicsit szebbé a téli napokat.

An interview with Alex Ryvchin, author of "Zionism: The Concise History"
(Originally posted on The Jewish Press)

Q: What do you see as the purpose of your new book, Zionism: The Concise History, and who is it for?

A: The whole concept of Zionism has been politically and strategically trashed by her enemies. The danger is that future generations will only know Zionism as an evil to be fought and the young people, whom we count on as the next advocates to tell the story of Zionism and defend it, today are generally apathetic or ignorant of this story. We hear people saying Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism or being Jewish, but I think Zionism is inextricably linked to Jewish history.

The story of Zionism is the story of the Jewish people. And if Jews don’t know that story and don’t take part in it, we will see greater rates of intermarriage and loss of identity.




For this reason, I’d like to see my book taught in schools and universities.



Q: One of the patterns in Jewish history is making questionable alliances with apparent enemies. You mention Herzl in this regard. Can you give an example, and do you think this is an unavoidable element of Zionism?

Herzl dealt with a lot of ardent antisemites like the Kaiser and the Russian Foreign Minister. He felt a cold synergy between the interests of Zionism and these rabid antisemites. Herzl thought that for the Jews to achieve the return to their ancestral land, these antisemites who are so keen to purge their countries of Jews would be accommodating. And indeed, many of them saw a benefit in a movement that could absorb a large number of Jews.

In any political campaign such as Zionism, there has to be a dose of realpolitik--to think not only about the idealism, but also how to practically achieve your goal. That means creating alliances with those you find unsavory. The danger is when you look at an alignment of interests as temporary and mistake that for good faith or long term alliances. To Herzl’s credit, he quickly realized he was not going to achieve the goals of Zionism through alliances with those who were fundamentally hostile to Jewish rights. That is why he shifted the Zionist movement from the European continent to Great Britain, where he found men who more driven by Christian ideals and a general passion for the idea of the Jews returning to their ancestral land.

Today, Israel has formed alliances with some nations that might really see a short term alignment of interests, but don’t harbor any great feeling of warmth towards the Jewish people. That is dangerous, but it is also the world that we live in. And as long as the Netanyahu government and the successive governments go into this with their eyes open, I think it is something that can and needs to be done. But at the same time, I think that Israel should act morally in this regard and call out antisemitism of far-right leaders around the world with whom they may have diplomatic relations. If those relations are genuine, they will withstand those criticisms.

Q: We know the Balfour Declaration favors the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine and that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” -- but it also says nothing should be done to prejudice “the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” What was that issue?

A: The concern was that Zionism was not the universal position of the Jewish World. There was still discussion in the Jewish World what was best way to alleviate the suffering of the Jews was through assimilation. Not everyone was on the side of Zionism, particularly those who lived in liberal Democratic countries like the UK, Australia and the US. They did not see the need for a national movement to return to Palestine. They favored assimilation.

In order to assuage those concerns, that wording was put in, to say that basically, those Jews who preferred to live outside of the Jewish State would continue to live in the Diaspora with nothing to impede their rights. There was a concern that once the Jewish State was formed, Jews living outside that state would be viewed as alien, foreigners. That language in the Balfour Declaration was to protect them.

I am keen that people should read this book and apply its lessons to contemporary times. I think that is very important.

Bernie Sanders is different from those Jews in the early 20th century who were driven mainly by self-preservation. They were men who, despite being Jewish, soared to the heights of public life in the UK and Australia. They looked at Zionism, dedicated to liberating the Jewish people and alleviating their antisemitism and thought: what do I need this for; it will only have a detrimental effect on my standing!
Sanders is not motivated by that sort of calculus. He is an American Jew, deeply committed to perfecting American society, making it as just and equitable as possible the way he sees it. I think he views Zionism as a foreign project and doesn’t identify with it. Also, he is associated with the hard left who are rabidly anti-Zionist and has to placate them.

Alex Ryvchin, author of Zionism: The Concise History. Source: Screen-cap

Q: Originally, Arab leaders like Hussein ibn Ali and his son Amir Faisal allied with Chaim Weizmann and favored the re-establishment of a Jewish state. Then along came Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti, who incited riots and tried to prevent it. Today, are we seeing a shift back in the other direction?

A: Today the Arab states see the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan. They see if you don’t threaten Israel, it won’t harm you back, will be good friends and share technology. Israel can become a dependable strategic ally in the face of much bigger threats like Iran.

But at the same time, one thing that Zionism teaches us is that alliances come and go, they rise and fall, and cannot really be depended on. They need to be used at that point in time. As long as Israel is economically, militarily, and diplomatically strong, that is the most important thing. Let Israel choose alliances at that point in time, but it cannot depend on anyone.

Q: In the last chapter of your book, you discuss anti-Zionism, which started off as Jewish opposition to Zionism. How is that different from today’s anti-Zionism on college campuses and expressed by politicians?

A: Early anti-Zionism is virtually unrecognizable from anti-Zionism today. The anti-Zionist Jews at the time were overwhelming loyal, proud Jews who cared deeply for the future of the Jewish people, but they had a different view on how to solve the problem of antisemitism in the streets. Their solution was the full immersion into the societies in which they lived. It was a legitimate point of view, but ultimately disproven.

The anti-Zionist Jews of today do not care about Jewish rights. Instead, they use their Jewishness to attack their own people. Rather than stand up against their oppressors, they side with them.

But once the state of Israel exists, anti-Zionism becomes not merely a different political position or philosophy, it now becomes the opposition to the existence of the state of Israel--a state that has now existed for over 70 years. Anti-Zionism is no longer a morally tenable position. That is why you will not find in the ranks of anti-Zionist Jews someone who cares about the future of the Jewish people. Instead, overwhelmingly you find selfish people of low character.

Q: You trace Great Britain’s change into an enemy of Zionism to its being a declining imperial power, stretched thin and wearied by Palestine. Some might see that as a description of the US. Do you think there is a danger of Zionist history repeating itself here too?

A: I think so. That description of Great Britain in the 1940s could apply to the US today. There is a growing trend, particularly under the current president, of isolationism and rethinking US foreign policy solely in terms of US interests. It is no longer fashionable to think the US should bring the values of democracy to the darkest places in the world and be a force for good.

There especially a risk with the progressive Democrats who don't have that instinctive warmth for the state of Israel as establishment Democrats have in the past.

Governments and allies come and go. Israel needs to remain strong and independent to preserve its interests. We have seen this already in the course of its existence.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Novemberben Kerepesen és Tatabányán is afrikai hangulatot varázsolt a Magyar Afrika Társaság önkéntes csapata.

Október 26-án, immár másodszor, még napsütéses időben találkozhattunk Pécelen a szűrőnap felnőtt és gyerek résztvevőivel.

Tegnap este megérkezett Kampalába Kiss Anna, s ma kora reggel már tovább is indult Flaviával és Geofryval együtt Manafwa irányába.

Holnap (10.17. pénteken) indul újabb malawi missziójára Dr. Bodnár Judit és Dr. Lendvai Domonkos.

Le premier tour des élection présidentielles sénégalaises s’est tenu dans un climat d’une grande qualité républicaine. Si on peut déplorer ici ou là des incidents de vote – en particulier les situations de mauvais adressage des électeurs à leur bureau … Lire la suite →

Dans leur ouvrage << Cyber, la guerre permanente >>, Leo-Isaac Dognin et Jean-Louis Gergorin proposent la creation d'une Agence internationale de la cybersecurite.

Grosse consommatrice de matheux et d'informaticiens, la DGSE soutient un concours specialise organise pour les collegiens. << Le Point >> y etait.

Pierre Vandier est amiral, mais pas que... Dans un livre qui tombe a pic, il decrit les nouvelles conditions de la dissuasion nucleaire. Bien vu !

EXCLUSIF. Le consultant de BFM TV et conseiller defense d'Emmanuel Macron durant la campagne est cite dans les affaires d'escroquerie de son epouse.

Written by Suzana Elena Anghel,

koya979 / Shutterstock.com

At three recent European Councils (December 2012, December 2013 and June 2015), the Heads of State or government have called for a deepening of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) namely by strengthening its crisis management dimension and further developing civilian and military capabilities. The June 2016 European Council reverted to security and defence policy with particular attention to the strengthening of the relationship with NATO, including on the development of complementary and interoperable defence capabilities.

But what are the achievements? Is there a way of measuring progress made over the past years? Is there a gap between intentions/declarations and deeds? What are the challenges and how to address them?

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) will address these questions at a roundtable discussion on ‘The European Council and CSDP: success or failure?’ on 27 September 2016, 13h30-15h00, in the European Parliament’s Library main reading room in Brussels. Participants at this roundtable debate are: Elmar Brok MEP, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, General Jean-Paul Perruche, Former Director-General of the European Union Military Staff, Professor Alexander Mattelaer, Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), and Elena Lazarou, Policy Analyst, EPRS.

Registration
If you do not have an access badge to the European Parliament and are interested in attending the event, it is essential to register by Friday 23 September, using this link.

At the event the EPRS study on ‘The European Council and CSDP: Orientation and Implementation in the field of Crisis Management’ will be presented and discussed. This study assesses the planning, command and control of civilian and military CSDP missions and operations, progress made in developing civilian and military capabilities, particularly rapid response capabilities in the form of the EU Battlegroups, as well as challenges encountered during the force generation process, areas in which the European Council repeatedly called for further progress to be made.