| Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement. Love Yehuda Lave Join my blog by sending me an email to YehudaLave@gmail.com | | | | | | Click here to view online
UKLFI Charitable Trust and CAEF invite you to a webinar on
League of Nations Mandate Centenary
With Professor Steven Zipperstein
Special Introduction by the President of the State of Israel, H.E. Isaac Herzog
Chaired by Jonathan Turner
On Thursday 21 July, 2022 at 5pm UK time
(7pm Israel, 6pm Europe, 12 noon USA East Coast, 9am USA West Coast) The Mandate for Palestine was adopted by the Council of the League of Nations (the forerunner of today's United Nations) in London on 24 July 1922. It mandated the British Government to put into effect the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917. The Mandate explicitly recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that territory. It transformed the unilateral declaration of the British government into an instrument of international law and provided the legal basis for Britain's administration of Western Palestine until 1948. Its impact on the development of the Jewish national home into the modern State of Israel cannot be denied, and the rights and obligations set out in its provisions arguably remain relevant today. The main speaker at our special webinar marking this important centenary is Professor Steven Zipperstein, a leading expert on the legal history of the British Mandate. His previous webinars for UKLFI Charitable Trust have received outstanding reviews from our audience. We are honoured that the President of the State of Israel will introduce the webinar. More about the speakers | H. E. Isaac "Bougie" Herzog is the 11th President of Israel, elected in 2021. He qualified as a lawyer and worked at leading Israeli law firm, Herzog, Fox and Neeman. He served as the Government Secretary under Prime Minister Ehud Barak from 1999 to 2001. He was a member of the Knesset from 2003 to 2018. He held several ministerial posts between 2005 and 2011, including Minister of Welfare and Social Services from 2007 to 2011 under Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu. He was Leader of the Opposition from 2013 to 2018 and the Labor Party candidate for Prime Minister in the 2015 election. From 2018 to 2021 he chaired the Jewish Agency, an institution constituted by the Mandate. |
| Professor Steven E. Zipperstein is an Adjunct Professor in the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the UCLA Center for Middle East Development. He also lectures at UC Santa Barbara's Department of History and is a Visiting Professor at Tel Aviv University Law School. Zipperstein is the author of Zionism, Palestinian Nationalism and the Law: 1939-1948 (Routledge, 2022) and Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Trials of Palestine (Routledge 2020). He is a former U.S. federal prosecutor, and the former Chief Legal Officer of Verizon Wireless and BlackBerry Ltd. |
| Jonathan Turner is the Executive Director of UKLFI Charitable Trust and Chief Executive of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), which he co-founded in 2011. In 2020 he led a submission to the International Criminal Court by UKLFI and other NGOs which analysed the meaning and legal effects of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. He studied law at Cambridge University and European Law at Brussels University before qualifying as a barrister in England, specialising in intellectual property and competition law. | | | | | | | | The Three Musketeers at the Kotel | | | | | | The Three are Rabbi Yehuda Glick, famous temple mount activist, and former Israel Mk, and then Robert Weinger, the world's greatest shofar blower and seller of Shofars, and myself after we had gone to the 12 gates of the Temple Mount in 2020 to blow the shofar to ask G-d to heal the world from the Pandemic. It was a highlight to my experience in living in Israel and I put it on my blog each day to remember. The articles that I include each day are those that I find interesting, so I feel you will find them interesting as well. I don't always agree with all the points of each article but found them interesting or important to share with you, my readers, and friends. It is cathartic for me to share my thoughts and frustrations with you about life in general and in Israel. As a Rabbi, I try to teach and share the Torah of the G-d of Israel as a modern Orthodox Rabbi. I never intend to offend anyone but sometimes people are offended and I apologize in advance for any mistakes. The most important psychological principle I have learned is that once someone's mind is made up, they don't want to be bothered with the facts, so, like Rabbi Akiva, I drip water (Torah is compared to water) on their made-up minds and hope that some of what I have share sinks in. Love Rabbi Yehuda Lave. | | | | | | | The Torah supports me in an argument with my wife that I will never win ANDREW SILOW-CARROLL | | | | | For years I worked in an office where, in order to make an outside phone call, you had to dial 9 plus 1 plus your number. At least once a week, the police would show up in the lobby because someone had accidentally dialed 9-1-1. The head of HR would scold us for not being more careful, and I would think, just change the system! In Jewish law there is a name for rules or actions that would tempt even the innocent to make a mistake — or worse, a sin: "lifnei iver." It comes from Leviticus 19:14: "You shall not … place a stumbling block before the blind." Beyond its literal meaning, the verse has been used to establish the principle that you should remove temptation from the path of those who may be morally weak. This became a thing in my house recently, when my wife asked if I could be more careful when opening our kitchen cabinets. The cabinets are off-white, and I was leaving smudges. I replied — with admirable honesty, I thought — that I couldn't break a lifetime habit of the way I reach for a cabinet handle, and if I said I would try I would probably be lying. Smudges, I said, are the price we pay for beige cabinets and dainty handles. Blame the design, not me. What ensued was what diplomats call a frank and honest discussion. Convinced I was right, I sought an outside voice: "Judge" John Hodgman, the comedian who writes a satiric ethical advice column for The New York Times Magazine. I explained our impasse in an email, and Hodgman replied in the May 20 issue: Seen from 10,000 feet, I would agree that your wife's request is unreasonable. That said, from 10,000 feet, I can't see your disgusting hands. I can't see what kind of muck you get into, or what kind of smears you're leaving as you blindly paw at the cabinet face until you hit the handle. (Maybe you can't, either. Spouses often see cleanliness differently depending on how they grew up, and some are just dirt-blind.) Even if your hands are clean of all sin, don't meet one marital crime with another. Don't lie and promise to try. Just promise to try, and tell the truth. The comments that followed were not friendly to my cause, to put it mildly. One reader compared me to Tarzan. Another urged me to be a "grown-up." But my favorite response came from a self-described architect and former interior designer, who I felt got closest to my original point, writing, "if your home's aesthetic is so fragile that it's ruined by normal daily use it's a serious design flaw. Everyone living in a home should feel at ease interacting with their environment, and everyone has different sensitivities and habits. The design should support them all." In other words, home design shouldn't be a stumbling block before a guy with Tarzan hands. The urban planner Jane Jacobsadvocated this sort of user-first architecture, writing, "There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them … that we must fit our plans." For example, if you want to keep mail from piling up on the dining room table, you need another little table closer to the front door (another recurring argument from what is, astoundingly, my first and still extant marriage). Probaby the best-known demonstration of user-first design comes from so-called "desire lines": the footpaths created by people who ignore the actual sidewalks around a building or park and create their own routes of least resistance. The smart planner pays attention to the routes people actually want to take, and then pours the concrete. A close cousin of this approach is behavioral design, which tries to influence the way people use spaces and objects. Good behavioral design might, for instance, put a hand sanitizer right near the place where you are likely to pick up or spread germs. Or, in the case of my kitchen cabinets, it would make the handles big enough or inviting enough that my chances of smudging the doors is minimized. I obsess about this topic not only because I want to win the argument with my wife, but because I think "lifnei iver" has important public policy implications. As Jacobs understood, good, intuitive design can turn private and public spaces into friendlier, safer places by putting users first. For decades public housing was a disaster in part because designers ignored the ways people actually congregated, relaxed and kept an eye on each other. My son the engineer helps design hospital equipment intended to keep tired, overworked doctors and nurses from pushing the wrong buttons or forgetting a crucial step. On the flip side, sinister behavioral design might coerce someone into, say, racking up debts on an addictive gambling app, or hooking kids on vaping, as the Food and Drug Administration argued in ordering Juul to remove its e-cigarettes from the U.S. marketplace. The latter is exactly the scenario that "lifnei iver" proscribes: setting a vulnerable person up for failure. In an article for Chabad.org, Yehuda Shurpin discusses the possibilities – and dilemmas — of applying lifnei iver to the current debate over gun safety. On the one hand, he writes, "The Talmud tells us that one is forbidden to sell dangerous items — including weapons, or anything commonly used to manufacture weapons, as well as their accessories — to any person who may have the intent to use them to cause harm or perpetrate a crime." On the other hand, the law is understandably complex when it comes to determining how to anticipate that "intent" — and under what circumstances the seller is culpable. And yet, the tradition understands that the idea that "guns don't kill, people do" is specious: "We do not want people getting hurt or dying," writes Shurpin. "And restricting evil-doers' access to materials that make this possible is an obvious course of action." Whether we are talking about gun control, office phones or kitchen design, the principle is the same: People are inherently clumsy and fallible, and relying on their best intentions to solve a problem is a recipe for failure. Sometimes you have to ban the dangerous tool — or change the number from 9 to, well, any. other. number. Ultimately, I didn't consult a rabbi to solve my kitchen dilemma. But I did answer to a higher authority: It's now my job to clean the cabinets. ANDREW SILOW-CARROLLis editor in chief of the New York Jewish Week and senior editor of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He previously served as JTA's editor in chief and as editor in chief and CEO of the New Jersey Jewish News. @SilowCarroll | | | | US Supreme Court decision on prayer throws doubt on 1992 victory for Jewish family Jewish groups say 6-3 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton could roll back church-state separations that have protected schoolchildren from religious coercion for decades WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Seattle-area football coach who lost his job after leading prayers on the field following his team's victories, in a decision that could have ramifications for Jews in public schools and the military. A number of Jewish groups say the 6-3 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton, issued Monday, could roll back church-state separations that have protected schoolchildren from religious coercion for decades. "This is a significant change in how we approach prayer in public schools, and one that will have a negative impact in particular on students of marginalized faiths and non-religious students," said Rachel Robbins, the chairwoman of the Anti-Defamation League's Civil Rights Committee. The ADL, which joined a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the school district, said it was "deeply disturbed" by the decision. The expressions of concern came despite reassurances by Justice Neil Gorsuch that the ruling was in line with a famous 1992 Supreme Court decision in favor of a Rhode Island Jewish family who objected to clergy leading prayer at their children's public school. Writing for the court's conservative majority, Gorsuch quoted from that decision, Lee v. Weisman, in which the court held "that religious belief and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State." The ruling Monday in favor of Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach in the Bremerton, Washington, school district, Gorsuch wrote, similarly protects First Amendment religious freedoms. Jewish groups were not buying it. "The Court's see-no-evil approach to the coach's prayer will encourage those who seek to proselytize within the public schools to do so with the Court's blessing," said Marc Stern, the chief legal officer of the American Jewish Committee, which had joined a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of the school district. "That is no advance for religious liberty," Stern added. The Bremerton case centered on the activities of Kennedy, who started out by praying alone at the 50-yard line and did not call on others to join him. But soon after, students and others started joining Kennedy in prayer, alarming the school district. It proposed alternatives, including allowing him to pray after the game, but he declined and continued to pray, to increased media attention. The school district decided not to renew his contract. The court concluded, essentially, that by preventing a Christian high school coach from praying, the school district had violated his civil rights no less than had it forced other children to pray. "Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance," Gorsuch said, emphasizing that Kennedy had not explicitly urged students to join him in prayer. "It seems clear to us that Mr. Kennedy has demonstrated that his speech was private speech, not government speech," Gorsuch wrote. "This case looks very different from those in which this Court has found prayer involving public school students to be problematically coercive," he said, specifically citing Lee v. Weisman. Lee v. Weisman involved a Baptist clergyman who said at a 1986 middle school graduation ceremony in Providence, "Please rise and praise Jesus for the accomplishments of these children today." Merith Weisman's parents, Vivian, the assistant executive director at the local Jewish Community Center, and Daniel, a social work professor, were unnerved, and the prayer triggered a series of events and lawsuits that culminated in the landmark 1992 case. That decision was 5-4. Antonin Scalia, the late conservative justice whom Gorsuch replaced, said for years it was wrongly decided, and the religious right agreed. President Donald Trump named three conservative justices, and with the new balance of power, the Supreme Court has in recent weeks ticked off a wish list for religious conservatives, from school choice to overturning abortion rights. The AJC's Stern said Gorsuch was cherry-picking quotes from the earlier decision to make his own opinion sound less far-reaching than it was. "There's a tendency to sanitize a practice, rip it out of its historical roots and look at it in splendid isolation, and so it [appears] not so terrible," Stern said in an interview. Kennedy, as an assistant coach, may not have the same power as the principal in the Rhode Island case who invited clergy, Stern said, but the coach still had coercive power over students, and it was disingenuous to suggest otherwise. "Kids will do anything to get on a coach's good side and get playing time," Stern said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal minority in the dissent, made a similar point, illustrating it with a photo of students surrounding Kennedy in prayer. "Several parents reached out to the District saying that their children had participated in Kennedy's prayers solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team," Sotomayor wrote. "No [Bremerton High School] students appeared to pray on the field after Kennedy's suspension." The National Council of Jewish Women, also a signatory to a friend-of-the-court brief, said the latest decision was one in a series that eroded church-state separations, citing among others the recent decision directing the state of Maine to pay for religious schooling for students for whom reaching public schools is arduous. "No student should have to choose between their religious freedom and being part of school activities," Jody Rabhan, the group's chief policy officer, said in a statement. "But today's ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton could force children enrolled in public schools to do just that." Mikey Weinstein, the Jewish veteran who leads the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates for religion-state separations in the military, said the ruling will undercut his years-long efforts to remove Christian prayers from military academy athletic events. The decision "will serve to utterly and expeditiously destroy the precious wall separating church and state in our country and especially the US military," he said. | | | | Norwegian Jews seek changes to the national calendar that ignores most of their holidays BY CNAAN LIPHSHIZ (JTA) — Norway's Jewish community said it will petition the country's Supreme Court unless observant Jews get more of their holidays recognized in the national calendar system. The current law on national holidays, which was updated last year, guarantees all employees 12 days off, many of them in connection with Christian holidays. In addition to those, non-Christians are entitled to paid leave on two additional days of their choosing. Under this system, Jews, Muslims and members of other recognized faiths working in the public sector, from government employees to school teachers, are forced to work on some of their holidays. The issue is less acute in the private sector, as private companies tend to accommodate the religious needs of their employees. Jews are commanded to not work on their Sabbath, which falls on Saturdays, and around a dozen additional dates throughout the year, some of which typically fall on weekends. Last month, the youth movement of the Liberal Party of Norway published a position paper calling for a revision of the current law. The proposal would give employees 12 days off at a date of their choosing instead of making some dates in the Christian calendar bank holidays. This proposal would solve the problem posed to some Jews by the holiday situation, wrote Ervin Kohn, a former leader of The Jewish Community in Oslo and a trustee on its board, in an op-ed published earlier this month in the utrop-no website. But Kohn nonetheless has reservations about the proposal because, "it is important that we as a society have common public holidays," he wrote. Instead, Kohn continued, Jews and other non-Christians should be afforded six or seven additional holidays to avoid a situation that "authorizes employers to force Jewish employees to break Jewish holiday rules." This is a problem when examined against "international human rights, the European human rights and Article 16 of the Norwegian Constitution, which ensures all people in Norway free religious practice," he added. "The law means that observant Norwegian Jews are expected to choose whether to violate their religion on Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah or Passover," Kohn, whose wife is a longtime public school teacher, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Unless the law is amended, the Jewish Community in Oslo will petition the Supreme Court of Norway, possibly with additional partners from different faith groups, on the grounds that the law on national holidays contradicts religious freedoms guaranteed in the constitution, Kohn told JTA. The current debate is one of several disputes between Jewish communal leaders and authorities in the predominantly secular societies of Scandinavia and Northern Europe, where customs such as circumcision and kosher slaughter have come under attack as barbaric. In the United States, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compels organizations with 15 or more employees to make reasonable accommodations for workers wishing to observe a religious holiday. State laws may also apply to employers not covered by Title VII. But employers may be exempted if they can demonstrate that accommodating workers' wishes in this context causes them serious harm. In several European countries, Jewish holidays are recognized as such only for Jewish employees. Norway has about 1,400 Jews, and most are not strictly observant. Overall, Norway is one of Europe's most secular nations. In a Pew Research Center study from 2018, only 51% percent of respondents identified as Christians, the second-lowest rate among 15 European countries sampled (the least Christian was the Netherlands, at only 43%). Only about 2% of the population attend church regularly, according to some estimates. Circumcision, which is required both in Judaism and Islam, has also been an issue for Jews in Norway. Multiple Norwegian officials, including the ombudsman for children's rights, have called the act child abuse, demanding it be stopped. But a 2015 law that allows non-medical personnel to circumcise boys enshrined the right for Jews to hold brit milah circumcision ceremonies, amid calls to ban them, Kohn noted. "This makes Norway a light among the nations in Europe. On the other hand, we still have the ban on shechitah," Kohn said, using the Hebrew word for kosher slaughter. Kosher and halal meat production, which requires animals to be killed while conscious, without being stunned first, is also illegal in Norway. Laws have required stunning in Norway since the 1930s and were believed to have been aimed at making Norway inhospitable to Jews. "Norway is a good country for minorities," Kohn said, adding that Norwegian Jews "do flourish." But, he added, "there are a few blind spots." | | | | | See you tomorrow bli neder We need Moshiach now! Love Yehuda Lave | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment