zaterdag 19 september 2020

The tipping points at the heart of the climate crisis










The tipping points at the heart of the climate crisis

The Thwaites glacier in Antarctica, where ice is now melting on a massive scale.
The Thwaites glacier in Antarctica, where ice is now melting on a massive scale. Photograph: Nasa/OIB/Jeremy Harbeck/EPA

Many parts of the Earth’s climate system have been destabilised by warming, from ice sheets and ocean currents to the Amazon rainforest – and scientists believe that if one collapses others could follow


Sat 19 Sep 2020 17.00 BST

T

he warning signs are flashing red. The California wildfires were surely made worse by the impacts of global heating. A study published in July warned that the Arctic is undergoing “an abrupt climate change event” that will probably lead to dramatic changes. As if to underline the point, on 14 September it was reported that a huge ice shelf in northeast Greenland had torn itself apart, worn away by warm waters lapping in from beneath.

That same day, a study of satellite data revealed growing cracks and crevasses in the ice shelves protecting two of Antarctica’s largest glaciers – indicating that those shelves could also break apart, leaving the glaciers exposed and liable to melt, contributing to sea-level rise. The ice losses are already following our worst-case scenarios.

These developments show that the harmful impacts of global heating are mounting, and should be a prompt to urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But the case for emissions cuts is actually even stronger. That is because scientists are increasingly concerned that the global climate might lurch from its current state into something wholly new – which humans have no experience dealing with. Many parts of the Earth system are unstable. Once one falls, it could trigger a cascade like falling dominoes.

Tipping points

We have known for years that many parts of the climate have so-called tipping points. That means a gentle push, like a slow and steady warming, can cause them to change in a big way that is wholly disproportionate to the trigger. If we hit one of these tipping points, we may not have any practical way to stop the unfolding consequences.

The Greenland ice sheet is one example of a tipping point. It contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by seven metres, if it were all to melt. And it is prone to runaway melting.

This is because the top surface of the ice sheet is gradually getting lower as more of the ice melts, says Ricarda Winkelmann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. The result is familiar to anyone who has walked in mountains. “If we climb down the mountain, the temperature around us warms up,” she says. As the ice sheet gets lower, the temperatures at the surface get higher, leading to even more melting. “That’s one of these self-reinforcing or accelerating feedbacks.”

We don’t know exactly how much warming would cause Greenland to pass its tipping point and begin melting unstoppably. One study estimated that it would take just 1.6C of warming – and we have already warmed the planet 1.1C since the late 19th century.

The collapse would take centuries, which is some comfort, but such collapses are difficult to turn off. Perhaps we could swiftly cool the planet to below the 1.6C threshold, but that would not suffice, as Greenland would be melting uncontrollably. Instead, says Winkelmann, we would have to cool things down much more – it’s not clear by how much. Tipping points that behave like this are sometimes described as “irreversible”, which is confusing; in reality they can be reversed, but it takes a much bigger push than the one that set them off in the first place.

Satellite images of the disintegration of the Spalte glacier in northeast Greenland between 2013 and 2020.
Satellite images of the disintegration of the Spalte glacier in northeast Greenland between 2013 and 2020. Photograph: EU Copernicus and Geus/Reuters

In 2008, researchers led by Timothy Lenton, now at the University of Exeter, catalogued the climate’s main “tipping elements”. As well as the Greenland ice sheet, the Antarctic ice sheet is also prone to unstoppable collapse – as is the Amazon rainforest, which could die back and be replaced with grasslands.

A particularly important tipping element is the vast ocean current known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which carries warm equatorial water north to the Arctic, and cool Arctic water south to the equator. The AMOC has collapsed in the past and many scientists fear it is close to collapsing again – an event that was depicted (in ridiculously exaggerated and accelerated form) in the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow. If the AMOC collapses, it will transform weather patterns around the globe – leading to cooler climates in Europe, or at least less warming, and changing where and when monsoon rains fall in the tropics. For the UK, this could mean the end of most arable farming, according to a paper Lenton and others published in January.

Tumbling dominoes

In 2009, a second study took the idea further. What if the tipping elements are interconnected? That would mean that setting off one might set off another – or even unleash a cascade of dramatic changes, spreading around the globe and reshaping the world we live in.

For instance, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is releasing huge volumes of cold, fresh water into the north Atlantic. This weakens the AMOC – so it is distinctly possible that if Greenland passes its tipping point, the resulting melt will push the AMOC past its own threshold.

“It’s the same exact principles that we know happen at smaller scales,” says Katharine Suding of the University of Colorado, Boulder, who has studied similar shifts in ecosystems. The key point is that processes exist that can amplify a small initial change. This can be true on the scale of a single meadow or the whole planet.

However, the tipping point cascade is very difficult to simulate. In many cases the feedbacks go both ways – and sometimes one tipping point can make it less likely that another will be triggered, not more. For example, the AMOC brings warm water from equator up into the north Atlantic, contributing to the melting of Greenland. So if the AMOC were to collapse, that northward flow of warm water would cease – and Greenland’s ice would be less likely to start collapsing. Depending whether Greenland or the AMOC hit its tipping point first, the resulting cascade would be very different.

What’s more, dozens of such linkages are now known, and some of them span huge distances. “Melting the ice sheet on one pole raises sea level,” says Lenton, and the rise is greatest at the opposite pole. “Say you’re melting Greenland and you raise the sea level under the ice shelves of Antarctica,” he says. That would send ever more warm water lapping around Antarctica. “You’re going to weaken those ice shelves.”

“Even if the distance is quite far, a larger domino might still be able to cause the next one to tip over,” says Winkelmann.

In 2018, Juan Rocha of the Stockholm Resilience Centre in Sweden and his colleagues mapped out all the known links between tipping points. However, Rocha says the strengths of the interconnections are still largely unknown. This, combined with the sheer number of them, and the interactions between the climate and the biosphere, means predicting the Earth’s overall response to our greenhouse gas emissions is very tricky.

Into the hothouse

The most worrying possibility is that setting off one tipping point could unleash several of the others, pushing Earth’s climate into a new state that it has not experienced for millions of years.

Since before humans existed, Earth has had an “icehouse” climate, meaning there is permanent ice at both poles. But millions of years ago, the climate was in a “hothouse” state: there was no permanent polar ice, and the planet was many degrees warmer.

‘Hothouse’ conditions will make fires such as this one in the San Gabriel mountains above Azusa, California, in August more frequent.
‘Hothouse’ conditions will make fires such as this one in the San Gabriel mountains above Azusa, California, in August more frequent. Photograph: Apu Gomes/AFP/Getty Images

If it has happened before, could it happen again? In 2018, researchers including Lenton and Winkelmann explored the question in a much-discussed study. “The Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway toward much hotter conditions – Hothouse Earth,” they wrote. The danger threshold might be only decades away at current rates of warming.

Lenton says the jury is still out on whether this global threshold exists, let alone how close it is, but that it is not something that should be dismissed out of hand.

“For me, the strongest evidence base at the moment is for the idea that we could be committing to a ‘wethouse’, rather than a hothouse,” says Lenton. “We could see a cascade of ice sheet collapses.” This would lead to “a world that has no substantive ice in the northern hemisphere and a lot less over Antarctica, and the sea level is 10 to 20 metres higher”. Such a rise would be enough to swamp many coastal megacities, unless they were protected. The destruction of both the polar ice sheets would be mediated by the weakening or collapse of the AMOC, which would also weaken the Indian monsoon and disrupt the west African one.

Winkelmann’s team studied a similar scenario in a study published online in April, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. They simulated the interactions between the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, the AMOC, the Amazon rainforest and another major weather system called the El Niño southern oscillation. They found that the two ice sheets were the most likely to trigger cascades, and the AMOC then transmitted their effects around the globe.

What to do?

Everyone who studies tipping point cascades agrees on two key points. The first is that it is crucial not to become disheartened by the magnitude of the risks; it is still possible to avoid knocking over the dominoes. Second, we should not wait for precise knowledge of exactly where the tipping points lie – which has proved difficult to determine, and might not come until it’s too late.

Rocha compares it to smoking. “Smoking causes cancer,” he says, “but it’s very difficult for a doctor to nail down how many cigarettes you need to smoke to get cancer.” Some people are more susceptible than others, based on a range of factors from genetics to the level of air pollution where they live. But this does not mean it is a good idea to play chicken with your lungs by continuing to smoke. “Don’t smoke long-term, because you might be committing to something you don’t want to,” says Rocha. The same logic applies to the climate dominoes. “If it happens, it’s going to be really costly and hard to recover, therefore we should not disturb those thresholds.”

“I think a precautionary principle probably is the best step forward for us, especially when we’re dealing with a system that we know has a lot of feedbacks and interconnections,” agrees Suding.

“These are huge risks we’re playing with, in their potential impacts,” says Lenton. “This is yet another compulsion to get ourselves weaned off fossil fuels as fast as possible and on to clean energy, and sort out some other sources of greenhouse gases like diets and land use,” says Lenton. He emphasises that the tipping points for the two great ice sheets may well lie between 1C and 2C of warming.

“We actually do need the Paris climate accord,” says Winkelmann. The 2016 agreement committed most countries to limit warming to 1.5 to 2C, although the US president, Donald Trump, has since chosen to pull the US out of it. Winkelmann argues that 1.5C is the right target, because it takes into account the existence of the tipping points and gives the best chance of avoiding them. “For some of these tipping elements,” she says, “we’re already in that danger zone.”

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not a surprising or original solution. But it is our best chance to stop the warning signs flashing red.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/19/the-tipping-points-at-the-heart-of-the-climate-crisis

donderdag 17 september 2020

Ice hysterectomy allegations in line with US's long and racist history of eugenics

 

Ice hysterectomy allegations in line with US's long and racist history of eugenics

Forced sterlizations were endorsed by a supreme court ruling and have been repeatedly imposed on women of color

Dawn Wooten, left, a nurse at Irwin county detention center in Ocilla, Georgia, attends a news conference in Atlanta protesting conditions at the immigration jail. Photograph: Jeff Amy/AP

Thu 17 Sep 2020 

A

n Ice detention center in Georgia is reportedly the site of a mass involuntary sterilization project. A whistleblower report published by the non-profit Project South alleges that large numbers of migrant women held at the Irwin county detention center, a privately run facility that imprisons undocumented immigrants, received hysterectomies that they did not want and which were not medically necessary.

The allegations reported by Project South were first made in a formal complaint by a nurse working at the detention center, Dawn Wooten, who describes the conditions there and conversations she had with imprisoned women in detail. The hysterectomies were all allegedly performed by the same outside gynecologist, Mehendra Amin, of Douglas, Georgia. Wooten says that one migrant woman referred to Amin as the “uterus collector”. Amin told The Intercept that he had only done “one or two hysterectomies in the past two [or] three years.” Responding to the allegations, he said “Everything is wrong” and urged Intercept reporters to “talk to the hospital administrator” for more information.

The women say they were not told why they were having hysterectomies, with some saying that they were given conflicting reasons for the procedures or reprimanded when asked about them. Wooten’s account in the Project South report was corroborated by two lawyers, who told NBC News that four women in the facility whom they represent, had been sterilized without medical cause and without their consent. According to the Project South report, a detained woman at the Irwin county center said: “When I met all these women who had had surgeries, I thought this was like an experimental concentration camp. It was like they’re experimenting with our bodies.”

As horrific as the allegations are, it’s not likely that either the Irwin county officials or Dr Amin were experimenting. More likely, they knew exactly what they were doing. If true, the allegations of forced sterilizations would make the Irwin county detention center only the latest in America’s long history of eugenics, which has disproportionately targeted women of color.

In the early 20th century, white American intellectuals were pioneers of race science, advancing the idea that “undesirable” traits could and should be bred out of the population with government planning and selective, involuntary sterilization programs.

Everything the Nazis knew about eugenics, they learned from the United States.

The 1927 Buck v Bell supreme court case, in which the court ruled that the state of Virginia had the right to sterilize a 20-year-old named Carrie Buck against her will, led to an era of enthusiastically racist population engineering by state governments. Federally funded eugenics boards were established in 32 states, through which tax dollars were spent to sterilize approximately 70,000 people, mostly women. These programs were used to enforce via state law the racist fiction of America as a white country, and forced sterilization disproportionately targeted Black women.

A separate federal program in the 1960s and 1970s deputized doctors with the Indian Health Service to choose which Native American women they personally deemed fit to reproduce, and to make those women’s reproductive choices for them accordingly. They decided that approximately a quarter of Native American women were unfit to have children, and sterilized them. As with the migrant women at the Irwin county center, many of the Native women were lied to about the nature of their procedures, or were sterilized without their knowledge during other surgeries. Some Native women were told, incorrectly, that the sterilizations were reversible; others were told that they were being treated for appendicitis, or needed to have their tonsils removed. They discovered the truth when they woke up.

Nor was it only state actors who forced sterilization on women. Some gynecologists took it upon themselves to sterilize women they didn’t think should be having children. In her groundbreaking work on the reproductive oppression of Black women, Killing the Black Body, the legal scholar Dorothy Roberts details the case of Clovis Pierce, the only Medicaid-accepting obstetrician in Aiken county, South Carolina. Pierce allegedly demanded that his pregnant Medicaid patients consent to sterilization before he agreed to deliver their children. He reportedly threatened women who resisted with legal action; once, when a woman currently in labor objected to being sterilized, Pierce allegedly had her thrown out of the hospital. One of Pierce’s patients, Dorothy Waters, claims that Pierce explained his rationale for enforcing her sterilization in extremely blunt terms. “Listen here, young lady, this is my tax money paying for this baby and I’m tired of paying for illegitimate children,” he told her. “If you don’t want this sterilization, find another doctor.” Dr Pierce reportedly sterilized 18 women at Aiken county hospital in 1972 alone. Sixteen of them were Black.

None of this is distant history. North Carolina’s eugenics program, through which 7,600 people were sterilized, did not end until 1977. Dr Pierce moved his practice from Aiken to Greenville, South Carolina, and was still practicing as recently as 2012.

Few fictions are as violently defended as the one that posits that America is for white people, and few things make those who cherish this fiction so angry as the specter of non-white women choosing for themselves when to have children and how many children to have. Forced sterilizations like the ones that happened to women at the Irwin county center and to women throughout the nation during the 20th century are first and foremost human rights violations, cruel abridgements of those women’s dignity, autonomy and rights to self determination. But they are also statements of white supremacist hostility, an assertion by white racists of the thing they most hate and fear: new Americans of color.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/17/ice-hysterectomy-allegations-us-eugenics-history

AIPAC and US evangelicals under the spotlight

 Jewish Voice for Labour





AIPAC and US evangelicals under the spotlight

Binghampton Baptist Church - a screengrab from "'Til Kingdom Come."

JVL Introduction

Two films by Israeli filmmakers give us insights into the Israel Lobby in the US.

They reveals significant shifts in recent years.

Aipac (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, sometimes described as the US branch of Netanyahu’s Likud party) is losing influence as Jews become increasingly apprehensive about the direction Israel is taking.

In the meantime the influence of evangelical Christians, for whom Israel is a central piece of their agenda, continues to grow alarmingly.

This article was originally published by Haaretz on

Wed 9 Sep 2020. 

Read the original here.

Israeli Filmmakers Put AIPAC and U.S. Evangelicals Under the Spotlight – and Are Alarmed at What They Find

Two new documentaries, ‘Kings of Capitol Hill’ and ‘Til Kingdom Come,’ offer a fascinating snapshot of the past, present and future of pro-Israel lobby groups in Washington

Ada Horwich was once a proud member and supporter of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. She served as chair of AIPAC’s Southern California chapter and was also a member of the pro-Israel lobby’s national board from 2000-2016. In a new documentary, however, she explains why she decided to leave the organization: “I think we’re on the road to Israel being called an apartheid state. AIPAC won’t go there. They won’t discuss it. And that became more and more important to me.”

The interview with Horwich is one of several attention-grabbing moments in “Kings of Capitol Hill,” a new documentary by Israeli director Mor Loushy tracking the rise, and potential fall, of AIPAC’s influence in Washington. Loushy’s film just premiered at Docaviv, Tel Aviv’s international documentary festival, which became an online event this year due to COVID-19.

A second Israeli film that also just debuted there is “’Til Kingdom Come,” by Emmy Award-winning director Maya Zinshtein. Her film focuses on the growing influence of a very different pro-Israel lobby in America today: evangelicals.

Together, the two films tell a big story about the past, present and future of American attitudes toward Israel. As one lobby group, which cherishes bipartisanship and is mostly reliant on the Jewish community, is slowly losing influence, another hyper-partisan group, tied tightly to the Republican Party and the Trump presidency, is growing stronger and stronger.

Unprecedented crisis

Loushy’s film premiered at a time of unprecedented crisis for AIPAC. For the first time in decades, the organization’s annual Policy Conference – its ultimate demonstration of grassroots influence, which can attract as many as 18,000 supporters – won’t be happening in 2021. The cancellation was announced a few weeks after it became clear that this year’s Policy Conference, in early March, was responsible for multiple cases of COVID-19 in both the United States and Israel.

Netanyahu addressing an Aipac conference

All this at a time when the organization’s founding premise – unconditional bipartisan support for Israel – is being challenged from both sides: by pro-Trump Republicans and the ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party

AIPAC is also facing growing disaffection among many in the American-Jewish community over the policies of the Netanyahu government.

If the subject of Loushy’s film is a powerhouse coping with increasingly daunting challenges, the evangelical supporters of Israel portrayed in “’Til Kingdom Come” are experiencing a time of dizzying success.

Zinshtein’s previous film, “Forever Pure,” about far-right Israeli soccer fans, won an Emmy Award in 2018. Her latest takes a deep and unflinching look at what motivates this community, the Israelis who benefit from their financial largesse and political support, and how that dynamic became unexpectedly supercharged in the age of Donald Trump.

The pairing of the two films drives home in stark terms the radically different characters of these two vastly different pro-Israel communities. As Loushy’s film chronicles, AIPAC’s ethos was built on the principle of “shared democratic values,” formulated by American Jewish Zionists with deep personal and religious ties to Israel. The organization was positioned as a tool for American Jews who cared about Israel to do all they could to keep it safe.

For decades, the organization navigated the choppy waters of changing governments in Israel with the line that AIPAC needed to respect the policies of Israel’s democratically elected government, no matter who Israelis voted for. Loushy’s chronology shows how, over time, adhering to this line became more and more difficult for the organization, as Israel’s lurch to the right pushed away Democrats.

This became a full-blown crisis in 2015 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington in the midst of an Israeli election to give a speech before Congress against then-President Barack Obama’s Iran policy.

In the film, Loushy interviews several members of the organization’s founding generation, including former Executive Director Tom Dine, who was the face of the organization from 1980-1993, as well as former senior officials Steve Rosen, Keith Weissman and Douglas Bloomfield. 

She also focuses on the alienation of a group of young American Jews who once felt part of the AIPAC effort and the mainstream pro-Israel movement, but are increasingly concerned with Palestinian rights and are horrified by Netanyahu’s embrace of Trump.

“The American Jewish community and Israeli Jewish community are going in opposite directions right now. Israeli Jews see Donald Trump through the lens of their existential crisis. Israelis see Trump understanding their existential dread; American Jews see Trump as their existential dread,” New York Times Washington domestic policy editor Jonathan Weisman explains in the film.

Horwich shudders when she thinks of how her community could, in any way, support “this terrible man.” She remembers feeling: “I can’t be there at that table. I couldn’t imagine myself sitting there one second. So I told people I’m stepping down from the board. … I’m a changed person.”

It’s particularly striking to hear a prominent figure like Dine, who’s arguably one of the people most responsible for building AIPAC into the powerful institution it has become, express deep unease regarding the future of the U.S.-Israel alliance. “I feel it with my own daughters,” he says in the film. “I feel it with my friends. I feel it with senators I still talk to. People are worried that Israel is not going in the healthiest direction.”

‘Heartbroken’

In her previous films – “Censored Voices,” about the Six-Day War; and “Oslo Diaries,” about the peace negotiations of the early 1990s – Loushy focused on fundamentally Israeli stories. Her decision to make a film on American Jews came after she and her professional and life partner, Daniel Sivan, temporarily relocated to Los Angeles.

“I almost immediately knew when I got there that I wanted to make a film that dealt with the divide between the American Jewish community and Israel. The Jews I was meeting there were so Zionist, on the one hand, but on the other hand so very Democratic and liberal,” she told Haaretz in a phone interview.

She found AIPAC to be key to the American Jewish relationship with Israel in those conversations, and when she began speaking to the group’s former officials, she decided it was their story and emotional journey she wanted to tell.

“They were heartbroken,” she says. “These were people who were inside the organization, who have given their lives to Zionism. And you can see their pain looking at where Israel is today – and it’s a pain you see across the liberal Jewish community.”

The film includes no interviews with current AIPAC leaders, though not from lack of trying. Loushy made multiple attempts to interview its leaders on or off-camera, but was unsuccessful.

The impenetrability of AIPAC, well-known in Washington for its tough approach regarding any kind of media access, has come with a price. Until Loushy’s appreciatively critical look at the organization, nearly every documentary about AIPAC was aimed at exposing it as a highly malevolent force. Though her film presents deep criticism of the organization, Loushy emphasizes that she “came to listen” and not to delegitimize.

“I had no desire to try to bring in hidden cameras or anything like that. My film comes from a caring, loving, Zionist place,” she says. “So much of AIPAC’s power is the grassroots of the Jewish community. I wanted to ask: What do you do when those grassroots are asking more and more questions?”

While she hopes for a wide international audience, Loushy’s greatest wish is that Israeli viewers will watch it (the film will be screened in Israel on the Yes Docu channel) and understand “how important the American Jewish community is, and how much it matters to our daily life.”

It’s a message she feels personally: “If the young generation of American Jews disengage from Israel, my kids will be in a very difficult position. Israel cannot survive without the Jewish community in the United States – we need them.”

Religious bedrock

While being the kings of Capitol Hill is clearly a complicated affair, seeking to become part of God’s kingdom seems a much simpler matter. “’Til Kingdom Come,” which will be broadcast on Kan public television after the festival ends, examines a radically different U.S.-Israel partnership – one that isn’t built on the shifting sands of democracy but on the religious bedrock of biblical prophecies.

Like Loushy, what drove Zinshtein to her subject matter was the feeling that she needed to know more about people who were far from her Israeli “bubble,” yet were deeply affecting her life in ways of which she was unaware. She chose to tell the story of the growing philanthropic and political partnership between Israel and the evangelical community through the portrait of a small-town Kentucky congregation, with a church in which a shining Star of David hangs over a wooden cross.

Her protagonists, pastors William and Boyd Bingham – father and son preachers at Binghamtown Baptist Church – are both deeply connected to Israel through the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, an organization that was founded in the 1980s by the influential American Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein.

We meet young Rev. Boyd Bingham in the woods with his rifle at target practice, explaining to Zinshtein that under Obama, “it was tough for evangelicals,” but today “we’re the people who brought Donald Trump to power, and he pushes our agenda.”

We quickly learn that Israel is a central piece of that agenda. In the church, his father preaches an unambivalent message to the congregation – supporting Israel is a holy enterprise: “Every nation that has blessed Israel, God has blessed them. And every nation that has opposed Israel, God has been in opposition to them.”

Evangelicals like those in Binghamtown have little use for discussions on the occupation or Palestinian rights, the topics that are eroding support for Israel within America’s Jewish community. Their interpretation of gospel dictates that the entire Land of Israel belongs to the Jews by divine right, period. This stand has endeared them to the Israeli political right, particularly the settler movement.

This specific congregation is also dear to the heart of the Fellowship’s Yael Eckstein, daughter of the late Rabbi Eckstein. She travels across the American heartland to such communities, collecting more than $100 million annually, which the Fellowship uses to operate charity programs in Israel.

The Kentucky church is one small cog in a massive philanthropic machine, pouring millions from Christian communities into Israel.

And that’s just the philanthropic side of the relationship; evangelicals have an even larger impact when it comes to policy.

“One of the reasons I love documentaries is because reality often turns out to be crazier than any plot twist you can think of,” Zinshtein told Haaretz. “When I started my research, I was told by the leader of an evangelical organization in September 2017 that if I was patient, maybe in a few years the evangelicals would get Trump to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. And then – just a few months after that conversation – it happened.”

‘A more effective AIPAC’

While Loushy’s film chronicles the pinnacle of the AIPAC experience in the form of the Policy Conference in D.C., Zinshtein brought her cameras to the evangelical equivalent: the annual Washington summit of Christians United for Israel, which one participant jokes is a “more effective AIPAC.”

She recalls how, at the 2018 summit, participants prepared to go to Capitol Hill and lobby their members of Congress. They were given specific marching orders to demand that funding be cut to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which was described as hostile to Israel. A few months later, the funding was cut. “It’s amazing how the president knows his survival depends on them,” Zinshtein notes.

Yael Eckstein receiving a check from Pastor Boyd Bingham on her visit in Binghamtown Baptist Church, Middlesboro, in a scene from “‘Til Kingdom Come.”Credit: Abraham (Abie) Troen

The moments causing the most discomfort in Zinshtein’s film occur when she shows the poverty of the Kentucky community in which the church is located. Half of the children who put their coins in the charity box for Israel live below the poverty line. When Eckstein accepts their donations with a smile before jetting off to her next destination, isn’t that exploitative?

“They definitely don’t feel exploited,” Zinshtein says. “You can ask how they got to a place where they feel that way, but it’s true.”

Throughout “’Til Kingdom Come,” Zinshtein is unrelenting when it comes to addressing what she calls “the elephant in the room”: The fact that for at least some evangelicals, passionate support for Israel is impossible to detach from the apocalyptic End Times scenario prophesied in the book of Revelation – one that doesn’t bode well for Jews.

“The people in Kentucky were more hospitable than you can imagine. And they would say things that make you squirm – they were great people who have very difficult opinions,” Zinshtein says. “I know they look at me and think I’m going to hell. Even though they like me and they don’t want me to, it’s what they believe.”

While she says their love for the Jews in Israel is undeniable, it’s nonetheless “a strange love – they love me just because I’m Jewish. We Jews have a role in their story. We’re the key for their redemption. They’re lovely and charming, but you don’t really feel like they see you as a real person.”

The exterior of Binghamtown Baptist Church in Middlesboro, Kentucky, in “‘Til Kingdom Come.”Credit: Abraham (Abie) Troen

That duality is on display as Rev. William Bingham interrupts a sermon to affectionately address the filmmakers – “our wonderful Hebrew friends from Israel” – and with a smile encourages them to consider avoiding a dreadful fate by seeing the light and coming to Jesus.

Zinshtein repeatedly confronts both sides on the issue and records their attempts to avoid the issue, showing the “unspoken” tension at the heart of the love affair between Israel and the evangelicals. Jews in particular “just don’t want to talk about it,” Zinshtein explains, “but the fact that we don’t want to talk about it, and decide we want to close our eyes and not confront it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

In a final confrontation, Zinshtein pushes Rev. William Bingham to address the issue. With a smile, he tries to convince her that she doesn’t want to hear what he really thinks – but ultimately reveals his belief that the “arrogant” Jews are going to be “humbled” by God’s plan.

His full quote tells the whole story in two paragraphs: “You don’t want to come across and hear me say ‘You blind, stupid Jewish people: Can’t you see this evidently set forth before you, the historical biblical evidence is here.’

“Now you’re going to go through the tribulation and get your tail busted – and get humbled down there so you’ll say: ‘You know that little crazy wacky preacher over there in Kentucky? All those things he was saying – he’s right! And now we’re going through this whole big mess over here in Israel. It’s unbelievable. Why didn’t we see this before? Now we’ve been humbled. We’re not so arrogant now. Now we see it!’”

The themes of the two films intersect when, in “Kings of Capitol Hill,” former AIPAC legislative director Doug Bloomfield recalls an argument with an Israeli official over the Jewish state’s increasingly cozy relationship with evangelicals. How can Israel embrace the evangelicals, he asked his Israeli counterpart, “when we American Jews are so distrustful of them and everything they stand for?”

The answer was part explanation and part self-fulfilling prophecy. “When the going gets tough, they come here and they send money,” the Israeli official said. “You Jews stay home.”

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/aipac-and-us-evangelicals-under-the-spotlight/

woensdag 16 september 2020

Rechtsextreme Chat-Gruppen bei Polizei aufgedeckt

 


Nordrhein-Westfalen:Rechtsextreme Chat-Gruppen bei Polizei aufgedeckt

Symbolbild   (Foto: Foto Huebner/dpa)


29 Beamte stehen unter dem Verdacht, an mindestens fünf rechtsextremen Chat-Gruppen beteiligt gewesen zu sein. Unter anderem sollen Bilder von Hitler und eines fiktiven Flüchtlings in einer Gaskammer verschickt worden sein. NRW-Innenminister Reul spricht von einer "Schande für die Polizei".

Bei der Polizei in Nordrhein-Westfalen werden 29 Beamte verdächtigt, an mindestens fünf rechtsextremen Chat-Gruppen beteiligt gewesen zu sein. Das teilte Innenminister Herbert Reul (CDU) am Mittwoch in Düsseldorf mit.

Alle seien am Morgen suspendiert worden und gegen alle seien Disziplinarmaßnahmen eingeleitet worden. 14 Beamte sollen aus dem Dienst entfernt werden.

Bei 14 Verdächtigen habe es Durchsuchungen gegeben. Den übrigen 15 beschuldigten Beamten seien Disziplinarverfügungen zugestellt worden, sagte der Minister. Weil 25 Beamte dem Polizeipräsidium Essen angehören, kündigte Reul eine Sonderinspektion für das Präsidium an.

Unter den Verdächtigen gebe es sechs Frauen, erklärte eine Sprecherin des NRW-Innenministeriums auf Anfrage der Süddeutschen Zeitung. "Der Rest sind Männer." Ein Beamter tat bisher Dienst beim Landeskriminalamt, ein anderer war beim Landesamt für Ausbildung, Fortbildung und Personalangelegenheiten (LAFP) tätig, zwei weitere arbeiteten bislang im Landesamt für Zentrale Polizeiliche Dienste (LZPD).

34 Polizeidienststellen und Privatwohnungen in Essen, Duisburg, Moers sowie Mülheim und Oberhausen seien am Morgen durchsucht wurden, hieß es. Eine Sonderkommission namens "Parabel" sei gebildet worden, mehr als 200 Ermittler sind demnach im Einsatz.

Wie Reul erklärte, werde er einen Sonderbeauftragten für rechtsextremistische Tendenzen in der nordrhein-westfälischen Polizei berufen. Er werde alles in seiner Macht stehende dafür tun, "diese Menschen aus dem Dienst zu entfernen", sagte Reul über die betroffenen Beamten. Er sprach von einer "Schande für die Polizei".

In den fünf aufgedeckten rechtsextremen Chat-Gruppen wurden Reul zufolge mindestens 126 Bilddateien verteilt, darunter Fotos von Adolf Hitler, auch die fiktive Darstellung eines Flüchtlings in einer Gaskammer. Auch von Hakenkreuzen und Reichskriegsflaggen war die Rede. Reul zufolge ist auch in "verächtlichmachender Darstellung" zu sehen, wie Menschen mit schwarzer Hautfarbe erschossen würden. Der CDU-Politiker sprach von "übelster und widerwärtigster neonazistischer, rassistischer und flüchtlingsfeindlicher Hetze".

Eine der Chatgruppen sei wahrscheinlich bereits im Jahr 2013 gegründet worden, spätestens im Mai 2015. Die Kommunikation reicht bis in die Gegenwart: Die jüngste Nachricht auf dem bislang vorliegenden Handy stammt vom 27. August 2020.

Die Suche nach einem Leck zu Journalisten brachte Ermittler auf die Spur

Minister Reul geht von weiteren Fällen aus. Er habe lange gehofft, dass es sich bei solchen Vorfällen um Einzelfälle handle, "aber ich kann heute nicht mehr von Einzelfällen sprechen".

Man habe bisher nur ein Handy gehabt, über das man an die jetzt Beschuldigten herangekommen sei, sagte Reul. Es gehört nach Angaben der Ermittler einem 32-jährigen Beamten der Polizei Essen privat. Er wurde eigentlich verdächtigt, Dienstgeheimnisse an einen Journalisten weitergegeben zu haben. Bei der Auswertung seien dann die rechtsextremen Fotos gefunden worden. Bei den Razzien am Morgen seien weitere Handys beschlagnahmt worden.

Sollte sich der Verdacht bestätigen, hätten alle diese Personen in der Polizei nichts zu suchen, sagte Reul. Sie beschädigten das Ansehen der rund 50 000 Polizisten in Nordrhein-Westfalen. "Ich weiß, dass der weitaus größte Teil der Polizei anständige Menschen sind."


https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/polizei-nrw-rechtsextremismus-1.5033739