Committees in Israeli Jewish towns can reject potential residents based on ‘social suitability’, essentially enforcing de facto housing segregation between Jewish and Arab citizens.
“Admissions committees” in dozens of Israeli Jewish communities across the country are operating in severe violation of the Admissions Committees Law and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel demands that the admissions committees in these communities stop their work and be prohibited from receiving state lands.
Admissions committees in communities of up to 400 households are authorized by Israeli law to reject applicants for residency residents based on the criteria of “social suitability” and the “social and cultural fabric” of the town.
This allows a de facto situation in which these committees reject interested residents who are Palestinian citizens of Israel – as well as other marginalized groups – solely on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, or other identity. The mechanism allows the effective implementation of housing segregation between Arab and Jewish citizens.
Kibbutz Ayelet Hashahar is one of at least 24 Israeli communities illegally operating admissions committees designed to block the residency of Palestinian citizens of Israel and other marginalized groups, essentially implementing de facto housing segregation between Arab and Jewish citizens. (Photo: Google Maps)
Research conducted by the Knesset Research and Information Center reveals serious violations of the Admissions Committees Law: at least 24 communities in the Galilee and Naqab (Negev) regions of the country continue to operate admissions committees despite having grown larger than 400 households.
On 14 June 2019, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel sent a letter to the Israeli attorney general, the Israel Land Authority, the Construction and Housing Ministry, the Finance Ministry’s Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Ministry for the Development of the Periphery, the Negev and the Galilee, and 24 communities, calling for an immediate end to these serious violations of the Admissions Committees Law.
The Knesset Research and Information Center report, published on 2 May 2019, revealed that admissions committees are operating illegally in at least 24 communities in the Negev and the Galilee because the number of households in those communities has exceeded 400, in violation of the provisions of Amendment 8 to the Cooperative Societies Ordinance, 5771-2011.
The Knesset’s data is only partial, since there are no official supervisory mechanisms to ensure compliance with the provisions of the law. Indeed none of the relevant authorities contacted by Knesset researchers actually had the relevant data. Further, seven regional councils did not even respond to official inquiries made by Knesset researchers.
In its letter, Adalah emphasized its principled and resolute opposition to the existence of admissions committees – in general – as a mechanism of discrimination and humiliation. Adalah also objected to the rationale that links the size of a community (up to 400 households) with the possibility of allowing discrimination and the exclusion of citizens from public resources.
However, as long as this discriminatory mechanism continues to operate, its terms must be guaranteed. The Knesset research clearly reveals that the authorities in these 24 communities are acting without authority and in violation of the rule of law. Further, there is no justification for operating admissions committees: the Tenders Law requires that land sales in these communities be open to all citizens.
Adalah demands that Israeli authorities:
- Order the 24 communities specified in the Knesset research to immediately shut down their admissions committees;
- Refrain from allocating any land in these communities until it is ensured that they are not operating admissions committees on an illegal basis;
- Order the cooperative societies in these communities to amend their regulations in a manner that will forbid them from operating an admissions committee in the future.
- Determine whether admissions committees are operating illegally in the regional councils that refused to provide data to Knesset researchers. If so, they must also be obligated to conform with the above requirements.
- The Israeli attorney general issue directives to all communities authorities clarifying their responsibility to abide by the law.
Attorney Myssana Morany, coordinator of Adalah’s Land and Planning Rights Unit, commented:
“The purported ‘social and cultural fabric’ of these 24 communities is nothing more than a fiction designed to blur the main purpose of the admissions committee: the legalized implementation of racist segregation. The creation of communities off limits to Arab citizens is part of a comprehensive policy aimed at reducing the living space of Arab citizens in general and Judaizing the Galilee and the Naqab (Negev) in particular. Even worse, it has now been revealed that Israeli authorities are actually operating these discriminatory committees in violation of Israeli law”.
The pastoral office is one of the most critical in Christianity. Historically, however, Christians have not been able to agree on the precise nature and limits of that office. A specific area of contention has been the role of women in pastoral leadership. In recent decades, three broad types of arguments have been raised against women’s ordination:
nontheological (primarily cultural or political), Protestant, and Catholic. Reflecting their divergent understandings of the purpose of ordination, Protestant opponents of women’s ordination tend to focus on issues of pastoral authority, while Catholic opponents highlight sacramental integrity. These positions are new developments and new theological stances, and thus no one in the current discussion can claim to be defending the church’s historic position.
Icons of Christ addresses these voices of opposition, making a biblical and theological case for the ordination of women to the ministerial office of Word and Sacrament. William Witt argues that not only those in favor of, but also those opposed to, women’s ordination embrace new theological positions in response to cultural changes of the modern era. Witt mounts a positive ecumenical argument for the ordination of women that touches on issues such as theological hermeneutics, relationships between men and women, Christology and discipleship, and the role of ordained clergy in leading the church in worship, among others.
Uniquely, Icons of Christ treats both Protestant and Catholic theological concerns at length, undertaking a robust engagement with biblical exegesis and biblical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theology. The book’s theological approach is critically orthodox, evangelical, and catholic. Witt offers the church an ecumenical vision of ordination to the presbyterate as an office of Word and Sacrament that justifiably is open to both men and women. Most critically Witt reminds us that, as all Christians are baptized into the image of the crucified and risen Christ, and bear witness to Christ through lives of cruciform discipleship, so men and women both are called to serve as icons of Christ in service of the gospel.
Witt is to be commended for his groundbreaking methodology that exposes how both Catholic and Protestant theologians support male leadership by interpreting key passages in ways that esteem women as inferior to men―a view at odds with the entire canon. In doing so, Witt also reveals how this longstanding, but failed interpretative path also promotes a distorted worldview that devalues women simply because they are born female.
— Mimi Haddad ― CBE International
Theologian, ethicist, and skilled reader of biblical texts, William Witt sets forth a refreshing, intentionally theological defense of the ordination of women. One might have thought this question settled. Indeed in many churches of the enclave of Protestant bodies it is, either yea or nay. But Witt steps back to examine the scene and delineates a number of positions, kinds of approaches, and types of arguments. Witt’s ecumenical examination into the subject of the ordination of women is respectful, learned, and convincing. A creative step forward.
— Kathryn Greene-McCreight, author of Feminist Reconstructions of Christian Doctrine
In 2018, the Israeli parliament approved the Jewish Nation-State Basic Law that enshrines Jewish supremacy over Palestinian citizens. The law has distinct apartheid characteristics and requires racist acts as a constitutional value.
The Israeli Knesset voted on 19 July 2018 by a margin of 62 to 55 to approve the Jewish Nation-State Basic Law, constitutionally enshrining Jewish supremacy and the identity of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
This law – which has distinct apartheid characteristics – guarantees the ethnic-religious character of Israel as exclusively Jewish and entrenches the privileges enjoyed by Jewish citizens, while simultaneously anchoring discrimination against Palestinian citizens and legitimizing exclusion, racism, and systemic inequality.
Despite the foundational nature and far-reaching scope of the Jewish Nation-State Law, however, it contains no commitment to democratic norms, or a guarantee of the right to equality, or a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, ethnicity or any other category for all people living under Israeli sovereignty.
This law denies the collective rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise 1.5 million people or 20 percent of the population Israel and constitute a homeland minority group under international human rights law.
Click below to read the full text of Israel’s Jewish Nation-State Law
Click below to read Adalah’s short summary of the law
State Department spokesperson Ned Price refuses to effectively engage with the press over the current Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks. Watch LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. http://youtube.com/tyt/live
Read more HERE: https://www.commondreams.org/news/202… “Pressed repeatedly by reporters during a briefing on Monday, U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price refused to condemn Israel’s killing of children with airstrikes on Gaza, offering evasive and mealy-mouthed responses that members of Congress slammed as unacceptable.”
Bitcoin is one of the most unequally distributed assets in the world, with just under half a percent of all bitcoin investors owning more than 80% of all bitcoins, and should they liquidate, the market could see a substantial sell-off, said Ryan Giannotto, director of Research at GraniteShares ETFs.
0:00 – Bitcoin is ‘cornered’
5:50 – Bitcoin’s volatility
8:17 – Bitcoin ETF coming soon?
11:44 – Economy, inflation, and gold
speaker pelosi with a big announcement
about her major commitment to fighting
inequality because that’s something she
definitely really really cares about
um here’s the announcement she’s
creating a committee
a select committee in fact on economic
you see there her official press release
on the website and this was actually
something that really jumped down as you
at you as like part of a normal
system that is employed here in
washington to make people
feel like things are happening and make
activists feel like they’re really
engaged in the process but really it’s a
way of sort of stiff-arming their
demands and concerns
yeah it’s all theater here in washington
but this one in particular is something
i call the hamster wheel
right it’s designed to put her most
activist members the members most likely
to cause her problems on this issue
she’s gonna put them on this commission
they are going to run on this hamster
wheel and feel like they’re doing
something really important
when in reality they’re just being kept
uh busy away from the house floor the
only place that actually matters for
actual change on anything
they’re gonna be running on the hamster
wheel of this commission which will
eventually put out a report that no one
will read and it will accomplish nothing
avoid these things like the plague if
you are someone who cares about change
and i say this to conservative activists
i say it out let me say here to
don’t do this yeah well i mean it
reminds me very much
of the biden sanders task forces
that you know was the only thing
that bernie managed to extract from joe
biden before exiting the race that you
knew from the jump like
it didn’t matter who you put on those
committees it didn’t matter how good the
recommendations were that were coming
out of them
like here we are days away from the
biden administration and i’m not hearing
anything about the recommendations that
came out of the task forces
whatsoever what pelosi says in this
press release she says we’re creating
the select committee
to be a resource to the congress to make
to economic fairness access to education
working with the committees of
jurisdiction the select committee will
study and recommend
proposals to make our economy work for
everyone powering american economic
while ensuring that no one is left out
or left behind in the 21st century
all fancy way of saying like like you
they’re gonna study it they’re gonna put
on a report and that’ll be the end of
that so basically your point is here
when you see these committees purporting
to be about
fighting inequality or fighting into
whatever it is left or right
what they’re really doing is putting up
a roadblock putting up like
a sort of obstacle course to jump
through rather than actually taking
issue on that issue
this commission has two goals the first
is to make pelosi look like she’s doing
something and the second
is to distract you know the act the
members who actually want to do
from taking any meaningful action and
this goes back to something we talked
about earlier in the week which is
look the only thing that matters in the
house is action on the house floor
progressive activists can learn a lot
from the freedom caucus who presented
themselves as a political power block
by really only focusing on action on the
house floor they could deliver a block
of votes or they could withhold them
and that is where their power came from
was hanging together on these issues
they didn’t get distracted
by commissions they didn’t get
distracted by other promises because
this is just one
tool political leaderships have to
distract you know their problem members
my favorite one is the and we’ll vote on
that at some point or hey
this bureaucrat will call you or hey can
we just talk about it on the house floor
the only thing that matters at the end
of the day is voting
and the more you can pressure and push
action on that front
the more effective you’re going to be
because as we’ve learned from this whole
2 000 check debacle the thing that they
hate most is going on the record for
anything because it’s a very
very powerful tool and can be used
against them or for them
uh in any number of ways and your point
is so well taken
that progressives really fall prey to
these types of tactics like they really
feel like when they get put on the task
because there’s this like idealism there
of like they’re really listening to my
concerns and they really mean it and
these are my friends how many times we
hear bernie sanders they’re like joe my
friend joe biden you’re like
ugh um so it reminds me of
you know the forced to vote debate
that’s have it happening on the left
right now because on the one hand you
have a faction of people who are saying
we need a vote on this key issue that is
important to us that’s important to the
country in the middle of pandemic
medicare for all like let’s take a vote
and put everybody on their record
and what you’re hearing from at least
some in the progressive wing of the
party here in dc is like
let’s not do the voting that voting
doesn’t really matter that much any
we’re working behind the scenes to get
leadership posts and committees etc etc
and all of that is ultimately just a way
to sort of
make them feel like they’re being heard
make them feel like they have some
sway and influence and power within the
system but ultimately to
crush them and keep them quiet and keep
them from causing trouble
everyone wants to feel like they’re a
cool kid right that’s how this town runs
and these positions you know these
acceptance on these commissions
everything always feels like oh i’m
getting invited to the table
you have to be comfortable not being
invited to the table because it’s the
only way you’re actually going to be
able to force
you know that kind of political action
on the floor which is the
again i’m going to be a broken record on
this but the only thing that matters at
the end of the day
is what you do on the floor it’s voting
so so true rachel
rachel thank you so much for being with
us all week it’s been phenomenal having
um always you have such incredible
insight so thank you so much for that
and happy new year to you my friend
happy new year to you as well
and to all of you risers thanks for
having me sagar will be back next week
to talk about aliens i know there’s a
lot to say
yeah there’s an alien update we missed
an epstein update this week as well
without sauger here so we have been
falling down on the job a little bit
but don’t worry friends because sagar
will be back next week with all of those
important stories and more
we’re going to kick off the new year
with friends of the show chuck rocha
kyle kalinski brown and joy gray and so
many more ben smith is going to join us
to talk about what biden can expect from
the media versus what trump got from the
remember to hit that subscribe button so
you don’t miss any of our videos also
don’t forget to like and share as well
happy new years guys appreciate you all
you made it you survived 2020 on to
Even with a new president and political party soon in charge of the White House, the nation’s economic standoff continues. Notwithstanding President-elect Joe Biden’s solid popular vote victory, last week’s election failed to deliver the kind of transformative reorientation of the nation’s political-economic map that Democrats (and some Republicans) had hoped for. The data confirms that the election sharpened the striking geographic divide between red and blue America, instead of dispelling it.
Most notably, the stark economic rift that Brookings Metro documented after Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 victory has grown even wider. In 2016, we wrote that the 2,584 counties that Trump won generated just 36% of the country’s economic output, whereas the 472 counties Hillary Clinton carried equated to almost two-thirds of the nation’s aggregate economy.
A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time, Biden’s winning base in 477 counties encompasses fully 70% of America’s economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,497 counties represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 110 mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data is reported.)
Table 1. Candidates’ counties won and share of GDP in 2016 and 2020
Year Candidate Counties won Total votes Aggregate share of US GDP 2016 Hillary Clinton 472 65,853,625 64% Donald Trump 2,584 62,985,106 36% 2020 Joe Biden 477 75,602,458 70% Donald Trump 2,497 71,216,709 29%
Note: 2020 figures reflect unofficial results from 96% of counties
Source: Brookings analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The New York Times, and Moody’s Analytics
So, while the election’s winner may have changed, the nation’s economic geography remains rigidly divided. Biden captured virtually all of the counties with the biggest economies in the country (depicted by the largest blue tiles in the nearby graphic), including flipping the few that Clinton did not win in 2016.
By contrast, Trump won thousands of counties in small-town and rural communities with correspondingly tiny economies (depicted by the red tiles). Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-educated shares of the economy running to 35% and 36%, respectively, compared to 16% and 25% in counties that voted for Trump.
In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more dependent on “traditional” industries.
With that said, it would be wrong to describe this as a completely static map. While the metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan dichotomy remained starkly persistent, 2020 election returns produced nontrivial movement, as Biden added modestly to the Democrats’ metropolitan base and significantly to its vote base. Most notably, Biden flipped seven of the nation’s 100 highest-output counties, strengthening the link between these core economic hubs and the Democratic Party. More specifically, Biden flipped half of the 10 most economically significant counties Trump won in 2016, including Phoenix’s Maricopa County; Dallas-Fort Worth’s Tarrant County; Jacksonville, Fla.’s Duval County; Morris County in New Jersey; and Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla.’s Pinellas County.
Altogether, those losses shaved about 3 percentage points’ worth of GDP off the economic base of Trump counties. That reduced the share of the nation’s GDP produced by Republican-voting counties to a new low in recent times.
Why does this matter? This economic rift that persists in dividing the nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation and misunderstandings.
To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.
By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.
At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement. Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country, but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.
If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places. In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.