To the Editor:

Re More Heroes, Fewer Traitors (editorial, July 12):

By presenting a sample of true American heroes as suggestions for new names for Army bases now bearing the names of Confederates, you showed the breadth of our countrys people who have served us with skill and honor.

Any of them would be inspirations for todays soldiers as well as yesterdays stationed at any of those bases. Renaming bases is just one small step toward a more perfect union that we can take together.

Jim EngelkingGolden, Colo.

To the Editor:

I and nearly all of my friends agree that the base names should be changed. But your editorial shows little understanding of Southerners and empathy with those who so often feel the condescension of people in the Northeast and in the liberal media.

That is epitomized by your recommendation of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who is best remembered by most in the South not for setting aside land for settlement by former slaves but for his scorched-earth policies.

Changing the names is an opportunity for reconciliation, not further division.

Pete CornishLittle Rock, Ark.

To the Editor:

Re How Mandatory Minimums Are Weaponized, by Sandeep Dhaliwal (Op-Ed, July 6):

The enactment of mandatory minimum sentences has been a nightmare of unfairness. It has resulted in a substantial reduction of trials. The prosecutor threatens to charge a crime that requires a minimum mandatory sentence unless the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime. This places the power to determine the sentence in those cases in the hands of the prosecutor, where it does not belong.

A mandatory minimum sentence means that the judge must impose that sentence, no matter what the judge thinks of the fairness of that sentence. Unlike the legislators who mandated the sentence, the judge knows the actual facts of the case and the background of the defendant. The judge knows these facts from the trial she presided over or the plea she took, from the probation departments sentencing reports and from the submissions of the prosecutor and the defense.

There is simply no valid reason for the existence of mandatory minimum sentences. There is no reason to doubt and every reason to trust sentencing judges to do the right thing because only they and not the legislators who enacted the mandatory minimum sentences have all the facts in each case necessary to make the fairest sentencing decision.

Irwin RochmanWater Mill, N.Y.The writer is a criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor.

Here is the original post:

Renaming the Army Bases - The New York Times

Peter Beinart, an influential liberal commentator on Israel and Zionism, poked a very large stick into a hornets nest this month by admitting he had finally abandoned his long-cherished commitment to a two-state solution.

Variously described as the pope of liberal Zionism and a bellwether for the American Jewish community, Beinart broke ranks in two essays. Writing in the New York Times and in Jewish Currents magazine, he embraced the idea of equality for all - Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognition of the structural racism towards these 1.8 million Palestinian citizens... was a clear sign that he had begun poking into the dark recesses of Zionism

Beinart concluded: The painful truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decades - a state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jews - has failed It is time for liberal Zionists to abandon the goal of Jewish-Palestinian separation and embrace the goal of Jewish-Palestinian equality.

Similarly, the NYT article was headlined: I no longer believe in a Jewish state. Beinarts main point - that a commitment to Israel is now entirely incompatible with a commitment to equality for the regions inhabitants - is a potential hammer blow to the delusions of liberal Jews in the United States.

His declaration is the apparent culmination of a long intellectual and emotional journey Beinart has conducted in the public eye. It's a journey many American liberal Jews have taken with him.

Once the darling of the war-mongering liberal establishment in Washington, he supported the illegal attack on Iraq in 2003. Three years later, he wrote a largely unrepentant book titled The Good Fight: Why Liberals - and Only Liberals - Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.

There is no heavyweight publication in the US that has not hosted his thoughts. Foreign Policy magazine ranked him in the top 100 global thinkers in 2012.

Why Peter Beinart's call for a one-state solution misses the mark

But his infatuation with Israel and Zionism has been souring for years. A decade ago, he published a seminal essay on how young American Jews were increasingly alienated from their main leadership organisations, which he criticised for worshipping at the altar of Israel even as Israeli governments lurched ever further rightwards. His argument later formed the basis of a book, The Crisis of Zionism.

The tensions he articulated finally exploded into physical confrontation in 2018, when he was detained at Israels main airport and nearly denied entry based on his political views.

Beinart has not only written caustically about the occupation - a fairly comfortable deflection for most liberal Zionists - but has also increasingly turned his attention to Israels behaviour towards its large Palestinian minority, one in five of the population.

Recognition of the structural racism towards these 1.8 million Palestinian citizens, a group whose identity is usually glossed over as Israeli Arabs, was a clear sign that he had begun poking into the dark recesses of Zionism, areas from which most of his colleagues shied away.

Beinarts two essays have been greeted with hesitancy by some of those who might be considered natural allies.

Understandably, some Palestinians find reason to distrust Beinarts continuing description of himself as a Zionist, even if now a cultural rather than political one. They also resent a continuing western colonial mentality that very belatedly takes an interest in equality for Palestinians only because a prominent liberal Jew adopts the cause.

Beinarts language is problematic for many Palestinians too. Not least, he frames the issue as between Palestinians and Jews, implying that Jews everywhere still have a colonial claim on the historic lands of Palestine, rather than those who live there today as Israelis.

Similarly, among many anti-Zionists, there is disappointment that Beinart did not go further and explicitly prescribe a single democratic state of the kind currently being advanced in the region by small but growing numbers of Israelis and Palestinians.

But the importance of Beinarts intervention lies elsewhere. The American is not the first prominent Jewish figure to publicly turn his back on the idea of a Jewish state. Notably, the late historian Tony Judt did the same - to much uproar - in a 2003 essay published by the New York Review of Books. He called Israel an anachronism.

The most fundamental tenet of liberal Zionism - that a Jewish state is necessary, verging on sacred - is already being tested to the breaking point

But Judt had been chiefly associated with his contributions to understanding European history, not Zionism or Israel. And his essay arrived at a very different historical moment, when Israelis and Jews overseas were growing more entrenched in their Zionism. The Oslo Accords had fizzled into irrelevance at the height of a Palestinian uprising.

Beinarts articles have landed at a problematic time for his main audience. The most fundamental tenet of liberal Zionism - that a Jewish state is necessary, verging on sacred - is already being tested to the breaking point.

The trigger for the articles is the very tangible threat from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus government, backed by the Trump White House, to annex swaths of the West Bank.

The significance of Netanyahus position on annexation, as Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard has noted, depends not simply on whether annexation is realised on the ground, now or later. The declaration itself crosses a Rubicon.

Netanyahu and the right-wing faction who now control Israel unchallenged have made it explicit that they do not consider the occupation to be a temporary arrangement that will eventually be resolved in peace talks.

Why are Israel's allies suddenly concerned about its latest annexation?

The intent to annex, whether or not the US allows such a move, now taints everything Israel does in the occupied territories. It proves beyond any doubt - even to liberal Jews who have been living in deep denial - that Israels goal is to permanently seize the occupied territories.

That, in turn, means that Israel has only two possible approaches to the Palestinian populations living in those territories as long as it denies them equality: It can either carry out ethnic cleansing operations to expel them, or rule over them in a formal, explicit arrangement of apartheid. That may not constitute much of a tangible difference on the ground, but it marks a legal sea change.

Occupation, however ugly, is not in breach of international law, though actions related to it, such as settlement-building, may be. This allowed many liberal Jews, such as Beinart, a small comfort blanket that they have clung to tightly for decades.

When challenged about Israels behaviour, they could always claim that the occupation would one day end, that peace talks were around the corner, that partition was possible if only Palestinians were willing to compromise a little more.

But with his annexation plan, Netanyhu ripped that comfort blanket out of their clutches and tore it to shreds. Ethnic cleansing and apartheid are both crimes against humanity. No ifs, no buts. As Sfard points out: Once Israel began officially striving for annexation - that is, for perpetuating its rule by force - it lost this meagrealibi.

Sfard makes a further important legal observation in a report written for the human rights group Yesh Din. If Israel chooses to institute an apartheid regime in parts of the occupied West Bank - either formally or through creeping legal annexation, as it is doing now - that regime does not end at the West Banks borders. It would mean that the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime. That Israel is an Apartheid state.

Of course, one would have to be blind not to have understood that this was where political Zionism was always heading - even more so after the 1967 war, when Israels actions disclosed that it had no intention of returning the Palestinian territories it had seized.

But the liberal Zionist condition was precisely one of willful blindness. It shut its eyes tight and saw no evil, even as Israel debased Palestinian life there for more than half a century. Looking back, Beinart recognises his own self-inflicted credulousness. In practice, Israel annexed the West Bank long ago, he writes in the New York Times.

In his two articles, Beinart denies liberal Jews the one path still available to them to rationalise Palestinian oppression. He argues that those determined to support a Jewish state, whatever it does, are projecting their own unresolved, post-Holocaust fears onto Palestinians.

In the Zionist imagination, according to Beinart, Palestinians have been reinvented as heirs to the Nazis. As a result, most Jews have been manipulated into framing Israels settler-colonialism in zero-sum terms - as a life-or-death battle. In that way, they have been able to excuse Israels perpetual abuse of Palestinians.

Or as Beinart puts it: Through a historical sleight of hand that turns Palestinians into Nazis, fear of annihilation has come to define what it means to be an authentic Jew. He adds that Jewish trauma, not Palestinian behaviour, has ended in the depiction of Palestinians as compulsive Jew-haters.

Annexation has forced Beinart to confront that trauma and move beyond it. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of Israels supporters have been reluctant to follow suit or discard their comforting illusions. Some are throwing tantrums, others sulking in the corner.

The Zionist right and mainstream have described Beinart as a traitor, a self-hating Jew, and a collaborator with Palestinian terrorism. David Weinberg of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security called Beinart a shill for Israels enemies who secretes poison.

The view of Israeli Jews will change, just as white South Africans' did, when they suffer a harsher international environment and the resulting cost-benefit calculus has to be adjusted

Dan Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel, described Beinarts advocacy of equality as a disaster in the making, while Dani Dayan, Israels consul general in New York, accused Beinart of wanting Israel to drop dead.

The liberal Zionist establishment has been no less discomfited. Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East envoy, warned that Beinarts prescription was an illusion tethered to a fantasy wrapped in an impossibility.

And Beinarts friend, Jeremy Ben Ami, head of the two-state lobby group J Street, snatched back the ragged remains of the comfort blanket, arguing that peace talks would be revived eventually. In a standard Zionist deflection, Ben Ami added that Israel was no different from the US in being far from perfect.

But to understand how quickly liberal Zionist reasoning may crumble, it is worth focusing on a critique of Beinarts articles by the Israeli newspaper Haaretzs in-house liberal Zionist, Anshel Pfeffer.

Pfeffer makes two highly unconvincing arguments to evade Beinarts logic. Firstly, he claims that a one-state solution - of any variety - is impossible because there is no support for it among Palestinians and Israelis. It is, he argues, a conceit Beinart has absorbed from Jews and Palestinians in the US.

Lets overlook Pfeffers obvious mistake in ignoring the fact that a single state already exists - a Greater Israel in which Palestinians have been living for decades under a highly belligerent system of apartheid, laced with creeping ethnic cleansing. Still, his claims about where Israeli and Palestinian public opinion currently lies are entirely misleading, as is his assumption about how Beinarts attack on liberal Zionism may impact regional possibilities.

Israel's annexation plan is the Nakba revisited

The views of Palestinians in the occupied territories (Pfeffer, of course, ignores the views of refugees) have been undergoing radical and rapid change. Support for the two-state solution has collapsed. This is far from surprising, given the current political context.

Among Palestinians, there are signs of exasperation and a mirroring of Israeli Jewish intransigence. In one recent poll, a majority of Palestinian respondents demanded a return of all of historic Palestine. What can be inferred from this result is probably not much more than the human tendency to put on a brave show when faced with a highly acquisitive bully.

In fact, increasingly Palestinians understand that, if they want to end the occupation and apartheid, they will need to overthrow their compromised leaders in the Palestinian Authority (PA), effectively Israels local security contractor. It is an uprising against the PA, not polls, that will seal the fate of the two-state solution. What may inspire Palestinians to take on the risk of a major confrontation with their leaders?

A part will be played, however small, by Palestinians understanding of how a shift from a struggle for statehood to a struggle for equal rights in one state will be received abroad. Liberal Jewish opinion in the US will be critical in changing such perceptions - and Beinart has just placed himself at the heart of that debate.

Meanwhile, a majority of Israeli Jews support either Greater Israel or an end-of-the-rainbow two-state solution, one in which Palestinians are denied any meaningful sovereignty.They do so for good reason, because either option perpetuates the status quo of a single state in which they prosper at a heavy cost to Palestinians. The bogus two-state solution privileges them, just as bantustans once did white South Africans.

The view of Israeli Jews will change, just as white South Africans did, when they suffer a harsher international environment and the resulting cost-benefit calculus has to be adjusted.

In that sense, the issue isnt what Israeli Jews think now, when they are endlessly indulged, but what Israels sponsors - chiefly the US - eventually demand. That is why Beinarts influence on the thinking of liberal American Jews cannot be discounted. Long term, what they insist on may prove critically important.

That was why Beinarts harshest critics, in attacking his two essays, also warned of the current direction of travel.

Jonathan Tobin, editor of the Jewish News Syndicate, argued that Beinarts views were indicative of the crisis of faith within much of American Jewry. Weinberg described the two essays as frightening because they charted liberal Jews intellectual journey towards anti-Zionism and self-immolation.

Both understand that, if liberal Jews abandon Zionism, one leg of the Israeli stool will be gone.

The other problem Pfeffer inadvertently highlights with liberal Zionism is contained in his mocking dismissal of Beinarts claim that the justification for a Jewish home needs to be rooted in morality.

Pfeffer laughs this off as utopianism, arguing instead that Israels existence has always depended on what he vaguely terms pragmatism. What he means, once the euphemism is stripped out, is that Israel has always pursued a policy of might is right.

Beinart is doubtless ahead of most liberal Jews in the US in rejecting Israel as a Jewish state. But it would be foolish indeed to imagine that there are not many others already contemplating following in his footsteps

But Pfeffers suggestion that Israel does not also need to shape a moral narrative about its actions - even if that narrative bears no relation to reality - is patently implausible.

Israel has not relied solely on its own might. It has needed the patronage of western states to help it diplomatically, financially and militarily. And their enthusiastic support has depended on domestic perceptions of Israel as a moral agent.

Israel understands this only too well. It has presented itself as a light unto the nations, a state that redeemed a barren land, and one that has the most moral army in the world. Those are all moral claims on western support.

Beinart has demonstrated that the moral discourse for Israel is a lost cause. And for that reason, Israels chief allies now are states led by covert, and sometimes overt, antisemites and proud authoritarians.

Beinart is doubtless ahead of most liberal Jews in the US in rejecting Israel as a Jewish state. But it would be foolish indeed to imagine that there are not many others already contemplating following in his footsteps.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

See more here:

Liberal Zionism begins to make the journey towards a one-state solution - Middle East Eye

So far, 2020 has been quite the year.

President Donald Trump continually attracts news coverage, until even he was upstaged by the novel coronavirus departure from China. Black Lives Matter rose up, protestors burned police precincts, and defund the police became a politically-viable policy position.

Confederate monuments have been (rightly) removed. But how were murder hornets only a thing for a week? And, not to be outdone, police in Tennessee have warned about meth-gators. That latter one may be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but Japanese bears have undisputedly learned to use nunchucks.

Eventful is probably an understatement.

With all that and more going on, you may have not seen what happened in Washington with Native Americans. No, Im not talking about the football team formerly known as the Redskins.

Im talking about McGirt v. Oklahoma.

Plenty of popular ink has been spilled surrounding some of the Supreme Courts other cases this past term. Subpoenas over Trumps records created rancor, even though they had seven justices including Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority. Abortion cases garnered their fair share of political attention.

But McGirt v. Oklahoma is a pretty compelling story. Jimcy McGirt was a convicted sex offender in Oklahoma. However, he is a member of the Seminole Nation, so he claimed the state could not legally prosecute him. In 1885, Congress passed a law known as the Major Crimes Act that said any Indians committing certain crimes within the Indian country must be tried in federal court.

Compelling background, right?

The wrinkle for McGirt concerned the definition of Indian country. Our nations history with Native Americans is complex, to say the least.

Going back to 1832, Congress made a treaty with the Creek Nation. The United States received the land of the Creeks east of the Mississippi while guaranteeing them their lands to the west. Those lands are now in Oklahoma.

Ill jump to the punchline. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court of the United States held that 19 million acres essentially the entire eastern half of Oklahoma remained Indian country for the Creek Nation. So McGirt could not legally be tried by the state of Oklahoma; federal authorities would now need to charge him.

Gorsuch wrote, essentially, that Congress had legally ratified the treaty and would be held to it. If they wish to change it or the underlying statute, that is their prerogative, but they must actively do so. A valid treaty, however old, deserves enforcement.

It is also telling that Gorsuch was the author of the LGBT cases this term. Again, he wrote that Congress duly-enacted statutory text should be applied. Which led to the liberal result.

This is great perspective to keep as we head towards what seems as if it will be the worst part of 2020: the general election. Even with the primary over, the onslaught of ads attacking Susan Collins and bolstering Sara Gideon has not abated. And outside groups will undoubtedly try to make the Supreme Court painfully political in their attempt to win a Senate seat.

But it is the legislative branch of government which makes law. Gorsuch confirmed by Sen. Collins, attacked by Gideon recognized that. If Congress passes a bad law, so be it; that is their prerogative. Yet it is not for the courts to override the foolishness of legislators, but rather incumbent on legislatures to go to work and attempt to make better laws.

Although this process may be slow, Gorsuch reminds us unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law.

The same should hold true as we approach November. Political acts, performed vigorously through the remainder of election season, will hopefully not turn the Supreme Court into a mere political battleground. If they do, that will be the worst outcome of this crazy year.

Michael Cianchette is a Navy reservist who served in Afghanistan and in-house counsel to a number of businesses in southern Maine. He was a chief counsel to former Gov. Paul LePage.

Follow this link:

Murder hornets, unexpected court rulings and nasty politics: 2020 has it all - Bangor Daily News