Wednesday, March 28, 2018

UN Ambassadors from Over 60 Countries Participate in ‘Model’ Passover Seder

Some 60 ambassadors from four continents attended an Israeli-hosted “model Seder” in the United Nations headquarters.
By: United with Israel Staff
Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon on Tuesday hosted ambassadors and senior diplomats from over 60 countries for a “model Seder” in the United Nations headquarters in New York.
The attendees participated in the rituals of the Passover holiday, including reading from the Hagaddah and tasting the traditional foods served at the meal.
The Seder, which was organized by Israel’s Mission to the UN in cooperation with the European Coalition for Israel, was attended by ambassadors from four continents, including representatives of the United Kingdom, Turkey, Argentina and Rwanda.

Just like the Nazis and Stalin, Democrats do want all the guns.



People Who Worry Activists Want To Take Guns Away Aren’t Paranoid; They’re Just Listening

Honesty on this front is the most admirable part of the post-Parkland gun-control debate. Don't gaslight us about it.

Mary Katharine Ham is a senior writer at The Federalist.
We hear it ad nauseum every gun-control debate: “No one is talking about taking away your guns. Stop being so paranoid!” But one of the more admirable traits of this post-Parkland round of gun-control debate is activists have been willing to be quite honest about their desire to take drastic measures to take guns away from their fellow Americans.
Just this week, a former Supreme Court justice wrote an op-ed in the pages of The New York Times suggesting we should repeal the Second Amendment as a “more effective and more lasting reform” to “minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.” Just to prevent any misunderstanding of his intent, the op-ed was headlined, “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment.”
Make no mistake about it. This op-ed, its author, and its placement are a very clear signal that this idea should be taken seriously. In fact, I can think of few clearer signals to and from liberal and elite culture that something should be taken seriously than a Times op-ed by a retired Supreme— the justice who wrote the dissent in the landmark Second-Amendment affirming Heller case, no less!
Yet today, engaging his followers on Twitter as he often does on this subject, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo responded to a follower concerned about repeal of the Second Amendment with this:

he is a retired justice who was talking about ways to get quick legal change on access to weapons. he is not an elected official or part of any effort to repeal 2A. it is a bogeyman to keep people scared and as such resistant to ways to stop the shootings. https://twitter.com/A_O_Andy/status/978960059291103232 

This is emblematic of an argument I hear all the time, but Stevens is not a bogeyman. He’s a prominent, respected advocate for a position who cannot be accused of naivete or careless misspeaking. His op-ed in the country’s most prominent publication is part of an effort to repeal the Second Amendment. This is the third op-ed the New York Times has run on this exact topic in the last year, the first two by conservative contributor Bret Stephens. In other words, it counts.
It is not the first of its kind, nor is The New York Times the only place from which such calls emanate. The message was pretty clear at times from the National Mall Saturday, from the March for Our Lives’ most prominent speakers— Parkland survivors, who were plenty frank about the rights of gun owners and their intentions.
“All for that assault weapons ban, to keep these weapons of war out of the hands of civilians who do not need them…All for the prohibition of high-capacity magazines because no hunter will ever need access to a magazine that can kill 17 in mere minutes,” said prominent survivor Delaney Tarr. “When they give us that inch, that bump-stock ban, we will take a mile,” she said (emphasis added).
Student activist Sarah Chadwick: “I say one life is worth more than all the guns in America…To the politicians that believe their right to own a gun comes before our lives, get ready to get voted out by us.”
This was not the only message at the march, but if we are to take the arguments of Parkland activists seriously, then they count. They can’t be brushed away as mere figments of our imaginations.
There was the raucous cheering from the crowd assembled at a CNN town hall mere days after the Parkland shooting when Sen. Marco Rubio pointed out some “assault weapons” bans would “literally ban every semi-automatic rifle that’s sold in America.”


Again, if the arguments of the Parkland community are to shape our policies—and much of the coverage suggests their moral authority makes their ideas not only an option, but an unassailable plan of action—this counts.
There are the legislative attempts banning some 100 types of semi-automatic weaponsin various states and federally. There are the calls on media for blanket bans of semi-automatic handguns and long guns, some of which I’ve personally encountered from my liberal counterparts on air. They count, too.
There are the 39 percent of Democrats polled who would support repealing the Second Amendment. To their credit, a majority of them do not, but this discouragingly high minority counts.
In the past, it’s been possible to say that calls for repeal of the Second Amendment or widespread gun bans and confiscation were crackpot calls outside the mainstream of American liberalism. But during the Parkland response, that has become progressively less plausible. Certainly, the combination of all of these things cannot be dismissed as mere right-wing paranoia.
How many Supreme Court justices have to publicly support repeal of the Second Amendment for gun owners to take them seriously without ridicule? For gun-control activists, the right number is probably about five of nine sitting justices. We won’t be waiting that long.

John Paul Stevens is wrong. Trying to repeal the Second Amendment would be a pointless mistake.

John Paul Stevens is wrong. Trying to repeal the Second Amendment would be a pointless mistake.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has just done the NRA and its allies a great favor: In an opinion piece in The New York Times, he proposed to repeal the Second Amendment.
“That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” argued Stevens, who dissented in the landmark cases recognizing an individual right to own firearms for self-defense.
ADVERTISING
He’s wrong on both substantive and political grounds. Pursuing this option would be a foolish waste of the energies generated by outrage at the Parkland shootings.
In the first place, it’s politically impossible. A constitutional amendment requires ratification by 38 states. Donald Trump carried 30. To repeal the Second Amendment, you’d have to get every state that voted for Hillary Clinton, plus 18 that didn’t, to agree. For the foreseeable future, that has zero chance of happening.
The second defect is any such effort would inflame the worst fears of gun owners and those sympathetic to gun rights. Many of them agree on the need for more regulation — or could be persuaded. Once the debate is about scrapping a constitutional right, though, many will assume that any seemingly reasonable new regulation is just a step toward total confiscation.
Most important, repeal is unnecessary. In those decisions that Stevens decries, the Supreme Court said the Constitution allows various types of regulation. The changes that are being seriously proposed today are not likely to be struck down for infringing on the Second Amendment.
Background checks have been required for purchases from licensed dealers for decades. The imposition of age requirements is not controversial. Four federal appeals courts have upheld state and local bans on assault weapons.
The federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines didn’t disappear because it was ruled unconstitutional. It disappeared because Congress didn’t renew it. The measures offered by President Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook massacre failed for lack of support in Congress, not because of any constitutional defects.
Most if not all of the permissive policies opposed by those advocating gun control came about because of decisions made by democratically elected bodies — and they can be changed the same way. The Second Amendment is a tempting target for some, but it’s not the problem.
Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Lapid says Israel should deport 40,000 Eritrean ‘economic migrants

ERITREANS LOOKING FOR A JOB? 'NOT OUR PROBLEM'

Lapid says Israel should deport 40,000 Eritrean ‘economic migrants’

At English-language town hall in Jerusalem, Yesh Atid head says his party may try to step up deportations, stresses Israeli obligation to harbor refugees from 'places like Darfur'

Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid speaks to the audience during a special town hall meeting in English, at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem on September 6, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid speaks to the audience during a special town hall meeting in English, at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem on September 6, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid on Wednesday said Israel should deport the majority of illegal migrants from Africa, while harboring the “small group of refugees” who fled persecution in their home countries.
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Jerusalem to a crowd of 500 English-speaking immigrants, the opposition MK lamented the “horrible” situation in south Tel Aviv, in neighborhoods that have seen a large influx of Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers.
He also signaled he may support government-backed legislation to step up deportation measures.
“What we need to do is we need to expel those who came here only to seek a job,” said Lapid. “There are two groups. There’s a small group of refugees, people who come from places like Darfur, where there was something that’s not a Holocaust because nothing is like the Holocaust, but it’s almost there,” he continued.
“And we as Jews have an obligation to shelter those” being persecuted, he said, and can’t be “indifferent to what happened in Darfur and other places.”
African illegal migrants walk out of the Holot detention center in the Negev desert in southern Israel, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov)
“But it’s not our problem to deal with forty or thirty-five thousand people who came here from Eritrea looking for a job. We need to expel them, whether they agree or not. And if laws should be changed, laws should be changed,” Lapid added.
He also said there was “no clear-cut solution,” and “none of those things are going to happen tomorrow, because it’s complicated.”
Calling for a national plan to rebuild the southern Tel Aviv neighborhoods, the opposition MK, who grew up in south Tel Aviv, described the situation in the residential area as “horrible.”
The crowd of some 500 immigrants from English-speaking countries, many of them religious, applauded when Lapid laid down his proposal on fighting corruption, and cheered his vows never to divide Jerusalem and to push for the draft of the ultra-Orthodox into the IDF.
The varied questions from participants ranged from the high cost of living in Israel, to neglect of Arab towns in the south and north, Jerusalem municipal affairs, Israel’s chief rabbinate and government bureaucracy, elder abuse, the Gaza power crisis, Hezbollah, and the peace process.
African migrants protesting outside the Holot detention facility in February 2014. (Flash90)
Lapid’s comments on the migrants were in line with the government stance, which has stated that most of the illegal migrants are economic migrants and should be deported.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday said the tens of thousands of Africans who are living in Israel illegally are not legitimate refugees or asylum seekers, but instead are economic migrants.
“They aren’t refugees,” Netanyahu told his ministers at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting. “Or at least most of them aren’t.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with residents of south Tel Aviv, during a tour in the neighborhood, August 31, 2017. (Miriam Alster/Flash90)
“Most of them are looking for jobs,” he asserted.
Netanyahu, who last week announced the establishment of a ministerial committee to deal with the influx of largely Sudanese and Eritrean migrants to Israel in recent years, vowed to “remove [the] illegal aliens who don’t belong here.”
The prime minister’s remarks come on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling that said the government could continue its controversial practice of deporting undocumented migrants to an unnamed third country, but also said it could no longer jail for more than 60 days those who refuse to leave.
Israel has for several years been pressuring migrants to relocate to Uganda and Rwanda, through incarceration in detention facilities and the promise of financial incentives. Following the ruling, Israeli officials said they would amend the law so that migrants could be deported without their consent as well.
According to the African Refugee Development Center, there are approximately 46,437 Africans in Israel who consider themselves asylum seekers. The majority, 73 percent, are from Eritrea, and approximately 19% are from Sudan. The refugees say they fled persecution and even genocide in their home countries.
The ruling — effectively hobbling the deportation program — was met with outrage by many lawmakers and residents of south Tel Aviv, an area that has seen a large influx of illegal African migrants in recent years.
Residents from south Tel Aviv, watch on as Israeli prime minister makes a visit in their neighborhood. August 31, 2017. (Miriam Alster/Flash90)
Many local residents have protested the asylum seekers, who they claim engage in crime and have overrun their neighborhood. On Saturday, hundreds of residents protested outside the home of Supreme Court President Miriam Naor, demanding “human rights for citizens too.”
During a solidarity visit to Tel Aviv last Thursday, Netanyahu, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Culture Minister Miri Regev toured south Tel Aviv and vowed that the government would “give back” the neighborhood to its Israeli residents.
Netanyahu has previously said the government would take a three-pronged approach to the issue: a security fence along the Egyptian border, which has already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of migrants who cross into Israel from African countries; increased enforcement against those employ illegal migrants and migrants who break the law; and the ministerial committee, which the prime minister said he will lead himself.