Monthly Archives: May 2021

Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day) ended in tragedy as Hamas rockets struck the outskirts of the holy city and Israel responded with airstrikes in the Gaza Strip. This followed several days of violent clashes between Palestinians and police, as well as Jewish extremists.

One of the recent flashpoints in Jerusalem involves the impending eviction of Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood that Israel captured in the 1967 war.

Court cases and protests about possible Sheikh Jarrah evictions have been taking place almost weekly for the last 12 years, but the anticipation of a final ruling on the fate of the families has drawn unprecedented attention to the issue. Atop this elevated stage, Palestinian activists have sought to portray Sheikh Jarrah as a natural consequence of Zionism.

As a somewhat prominent liberal Zionist personality on social media who has strongly criticized Israeli actions in Sheikh Jarrah, I have been naturally confronted with this point by both Palestinians and their allies. Their message: One cannot both be a Zionist and a genuine ally of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah.

The controversy over Sheikh Jarrah is a painful and clarifying moment for liberal American Jews to reevaluate our commitment to Zionism, a term that may no longer simply denote support for a Jewish state, but an effort aimed at domination of Palestinians under Israeli control.

What does it mean to be a liberal or progressive Zionist in the era of Sheikh Jarrah?

As any number of pro-Israel activists and government spokespeople will tell you, the Sheikh Jarrah case is a complicated matter. But complexity does not necessarily give rise to moral ambiguity.

The Israeli laws that allow for the Jewish reclamation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem is a one-way street. While Jews can reclaim land based on pre-1948 deeds, Palestinians cannot make claims on land their families owned in West Jerusalem before Israels independence. On top of that, the property of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war was formally expropriated in 1950.

In brief, Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah are being targeted with an unjust and discriminatory legal regime that denies Palestinians the right to make the same claims as Jews. Jerusalem municipal officials, not tied down by unconvincing Foreign Ministry talking points about a simple real estate dispute, have said as much in remarkably candid statements to the international press.

There is an ineluctable connection between Zionism, a movement I identify with, and the injustice inherent in the eviction efforts in Sheikh Jarrah, which I find loathsome. For what can be a more basic credo of Zionism than Jews settling in the land of Israel, especially Jerusalem?

As much as it is desired by some, liberal and progressive Jews in America are not going to abandon Zionism en masse to join Palestinian solidarity movements like the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. The number of American Jews who lament the creation of the State of Israel are few.

But if being a Zionist is to be associated with nationalist excesses like the evictions of Sheikh Jarrah and the ever-expanding settlements in the West Bank a Zionism of conquest rather than safety, then it will be a term will lose its resonance for many of us.

What it means to be a liberal Zionist, to me, today is to resist dangerous excessive enthusiasm for expanding Zionism, whether it comes in the form of settlements, property reclamation, or marching through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City with Israeli flags, and instead insist upon a democratic framework that protects the rights of minorities in the Jewish state. This must include equal rights in launching legal claims on property; either both Jews and non-Jews can advance such claims, or neither can.

To be a progressive Zionist should mean to acknowledge that Zionism has already achieved its legitimate aims. Israel cannot continue to expand and go forth without committing another terrible injustice against people who have already suffered enough. The past cant be changed, but we are responsible for what Zionism does with its power today.

Abe Silberstein is a freelance commentator on Israeli politics and U.S.-Israel relations. His work has previously been published in The New York Times, Haaretz and +972 Magazine.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Read the rest here:

What does it mean to be a liberal Zionist in the era of Sheikh Jarrah? - Forward

Incited by an ultra-religious outfit, Pakistan is protesting Frances views on the freedom of speech and radical Islam

The difference in the governance impulses and compulsions between the Fifth Republic, ie France, and the ostensible land of the pure, ie Pakistan, could not be more glaring. Like all nations who have a mixed bag of heroes and villains to define its preferred narrative France chose intellectual liberals likes Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau, whereas Pakistan has seemingly come under the irrefutable grip of illiberal like Mumtaz Qadri, Saad Hussain Rizvi and the likes of Baitullah Mehsuds. Genealogically also, La France espoused Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) whereas Pakistan invoked Iman, Ittihad, Nazam (Faith, Unity, Discipline), and the religiosity in the latter has only increased over time. It was only a matter of time before the sovereign sensibilities clashed directly, as they recently did, with the ensuing protest by the ultra-religious Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) which is protesting Frances views on the freedom of speech, radical Islam and blasphemy and, therefore, seeking the expulsion of the French ambassador.

The history of the two unlike nations had been surprisingly robust, despite their foundational and fundamental anchorages though, in recent times, the crevices have sharply widened. The Pakistan Air Force had been Frances largest aerospace customer, having got Mirage fighter aircraft, Exocet missiles, reconnaissance and civil aircraft, whereas the Pakistani Navy had ordered the Daphne-class and Agosta-class submarines as also agreements to transfer civilian nuclear technology. But the recent strategic-bind in the Indo-French realm (including the much-bandied Rafale fighters) has led to a definitive shift in the French preferences. But it did not go unnoticed across the restive Line of Control (LoC), especially since France also took a particularly hard line on terror (owing to its own unrest with Islamist extremism and violence) and in openly siding with India at multilateral forums.

Beyond the visible optics, France was the only western power to support India after the latter conducted the nuclear tests in 1998 and was instrumental in facilitating Indias entry into the non-proliferation regimes of Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. In reciprocal bonhomie, Delhi took an unusually assertive stand to condemn Turkish President Recep Erdogans (Pakistans closest ally along with China) diatribe against French President Emmanuel Macron, after the French leader had openly called out Islamist separatism in the case of beheading a French school teacher. Indias Ministry of External Affairs explicitly stated: We strongly deplore the personal attacks in unacceptable language on President Emmanuel Macron in violation of the most basic standards of international discourse.

Meanwhile, Pakistans patented double standards on religious extremism, dangerous dalliances and co-option of the clerical lot allowed for the dangerous drift towards morphing the French beheading incident, into a uncompromisable ummah issue, triggering calls for the boycott of French products and expelling the French ambassador from Pakistan. Continuing to play to the electoral gallery simultaneously, Pakistans Prime Minister Imran Khan kept reiterating and reminding that no one had done more than him in internationalising the issue of blasphemy this whilst dealing with a supposedly terrorist organisation with a violent position and dubious track record on blasphemy in Pakistan. Despite Imrans postured moderation and claims of progressive outlook, he had willingly dropped renowned Princeton economist Atif Mian from his Economic Advisory Council under pressure from the likes of the TLP, owing to Atifs belonging to the Ahmadiyya faith.

France is moving in an exact opposite direction with counter-accusations of weaponising its famed policy of segregating the State and religion, a secular ideology known as Laicite. A new law called Strengthening Respect for Republican Principles has been introduced in the wake of recurring Islamist violence to free Islam in France from foreign influences! Many accuse the same for right-wing populism with an electoral intent that will further the divide, suspicion and marginalisation of the minority community and the French State. The fact is that the right-wing parties led by Le Pen have gained enough traction to threaten Macron and, therefore, his competitive right-wing stand have more to do with winning the next elections as opposed to concerns on dealing with extremism or personal conviction in free speech. It is this pandering, invocation and inflaming of the basest instinct of the masses that vitiates the popular emotions towards revisionism and othering, be it in Paris or in Islamabad. That the intrinsically liberal French sensibilities will militate culturally with the conservative moorings of a society like Pakistan is a given, yet it need not spiral to the violent extent that it has, only if the political leaderships didnt play emotions selectively, in both countries.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal.)

Read more:

Francophobic in 'land of the pure' - Daily Pioneer

The Legislative Assembly is back in session, with the first minority government elected by Yukoners in nearly 30 years.

Anglique Bernard, commissioner of Yukon, opened up the throne speech Tuesday by saying that Yukoners have sent a clear message "that we need to move forward together for the benefit of our territory."

With no clear winner after the territorial election, the Liberals and NDP struck an alliance, called a confidence and supply agreement.Bernard says it "embodies the spirit of collaboration."

The agreement will advance a range of legislative and policy initiatives, Bernard says,while addressing climate change and protecting the environment.

The agreement will also help the Liberals pass their budget, and Premier Sandy Silver says it will include new items to accommodate the NDP.

"I gotta give credit to Kate. Right from the beginning our conversation was, let's not write an agreement that sets either of us up to fail and I think the spirit and intent of this agreement really bodes well," he said.

Yukon Party Leader Currie Dixon saidthe sitting is only back for 11 days, which he considersunreasonably short.

Dixon saidthis hamstrings any attempt to bring a critical lens to issues introduced by the Liberal minority government.

"Now, with [Tuesday] concluded, that will mean 10 days for the legislature to consider the throne speech, a $1.8 billion budget and legislation, which we think is unbelieavably inadequate," he said in a scrum with reporters after the sitting.

NDP Leader Kate White saidsittings have tended to be shorter after elections in the past, and she's confident there's enough time to get everything squared away.

"The one thing I would say to Currie is he could look at the members on his side who have spoken for an entire 11 days before," said White.

The throne speech was primarily a re-iteration of promises from the Liberal's campaign, along with a few of the NDP's promises sprinkled throughout.

Here are some highlights:

Bernard says it was because of strong leadership thatYukoners were immunized long before the rest of Canada.

She said COVID-19-related supports will continue "for as long as they are needed," including the paid sick leave rebate, the Yukon Business Relief Programand tourism sector support.

As well, she said"the great Yukon summer" campaign will create incentives for Yukon tourism operators to offer "Yukoner rates" for tourism products and services and help the industry "rebound stronger than ever."

Bernard said the government will take "immediate action" to develop a safe drug supply program in the territory, along with the creation of a supervised consumption site.

"These innovative programs have been shown to significantly decrease substance related deaths across Canada and will help us reduce the harm caused by these dangerous drugs."

She also reiterated the Liberal campaign promise to fund a rural on the land mental health and substance treatment centre, in partnership with Yukon First Nations governments and the federal government.

Yukon was one of only two jurisdictions in Canada to experience GDP growth in 2020, Bernard said, adding that the government is committed to carrying that "economic momentum" forward.

The government will also continue to work with mining industry partners to ensure that the Yukon has a "flourishing mineral resource sector," she said.

It will also carefully analyze the recently released independent mineral development strategy, develop legislation and increase regulatory clarity in collaboration with partners.

Yukon's minimum wage will be increased to $15.20per hour this year, a promise made by the NDP in their campaign platform.

The new government is doubling down on its commitments to tackle climate change, including continuing to implement the Liberals' climate change strategy Our Clean Future and the ambitious promise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent.

Bernard spoke about how the government will permanently protect McIntyre Creek, and complete Yukon's wetland strategy in the coming year.

Bernard said with the implementation of the Putting People First report underway, Yukon is on track to become a healthcare leader in Canada.

She reiterated the Liberal campaign pledge of a new secure medical unit at Whitehorse General Hospital, along with more funding for the new universal early childhood education program.

It will also work to provide dental benefits to uninsured Yukoners, a promise that was a staple of the NDP's campaign.

Bernard said the government will address the urgent need for increased access to stable and affordable housing across the territory.

She said the government will build on the success of opening the first Housing First residence in the North, which provides safe and secure housing in Whitehorse, by opening up a new project in Watson Lake.

Bernard also said the 5th and Rogers land parcel will be developed for affordable units, and will release 1,000 new lots across Yukon "in coming years."

Mayo-Tatchun MLA Jeremy Harper, the party's one new face this time around, was elected as the 26th speaker of the assembly, with support from the official opposition and third party.

Harper, whois a member of Selkirk First Nation and worked in recreation with the First Nation for over two decades, said the role isan honour and privilege.

"It is the speaker's duty to be impartial and to treat all members equally,without favour. This high standard must be met in order to maintain the confidence and respect of the [Legislative] Assembly."

"I commit today to carry on this tradition," he said.

Bernard concluded by saying that Yukoners must move forward together on the path to recovery.

"The nation's eyes are on the Yukon as we forge our next steps," she said.

Read the original here:

'We need to move forward together': Yukon's 1st minority gov't in almost 30 years now in session - CBC.ca

Transport and Planning Minister Rita Saffioti will reintroduce legislation to State Parliament today to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme and rezone the Beeliar Wetlands.

During its first term of government, the McGowan Government listened to the community and stopped the Liberal Party's flawed Perth Freight Link from proceeding and destroying the wetlands.

In May 2020, the McGowan Government delivered its commitment to protect the wetlands, turning it into an A-Class conservation reserve - giving it the highest level of environmental protection.

Funding set aside for the flawed Perth Freight Link was diverted to other major job-creating, congestion busting road and rail projects - many of which are completed or underway.

The Metropolitan Region Scheme (Beeliar Wetlands) Bill 2021 will rezone approximately 34 hectares from a Primary Regional Roads reserve to a Parks and Recreation reserve.

Legislation is a mechanism reserved for planning matters of State or regional significance and will ensure this area is protected from development forever.

With a location for the new container port now confirmed for Kwinana, work is well underway for planning for a primary east-west freight corridor along Anketell and Thomas roads.

Legislation to change the zoning of the land was passed by the Legislative Assembly but was not supported by the Legislative Council during the last term of government.

Comments attributed to Transport and Planning Minister Rita Saffioti:

"We went to the 2017 election with a comprehensive plan for freight and trade for Western Australia.

"We are implementing this plan, including planning for a new port in Kwinana, moving more freight onto rail and not proceeding with the flawed Perth Freight Link Plan.

"As a result, we can move to preserve the Beeliar Wetlands for future generations.

"We introduced legislation in the last Parliament which passed the Legislative Assembly.

"Now we have been returned to Government, again with a mandate to pass this important legislation and we are getting on with the job.

"With this Bill, we are finishing the job and delivering on our commitment to protect the Beeliar Wetlands for future generations."

Comments attributed to Lands Minister Tony Buti:

"In recent times we have seen a renewed appreciation for accessible bushland for hiking, running and simply enjoying nature.

"Once again, we heard from the Western Australian community at the recent election how much they value these important wetlands and want them protected from future development.

"We have listened and are introducing legislation to rezone the land so it can no longer be used to construct a useless road, and must instead be retained for parks and recreation purposes."

Comments attributed to Environment Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson:

"The Beeliar Wetlands are a beautiful part of WA and we want to make sure they can be enjoyed by the community for many years to come.

"We've already granted the wetlands the highest level of environmental protection available by turning it into an A-Class conservation reserve. This Bill strengthens that protection and ensures this fragile ecosystem is safeguarded from future development.

"This builds on our key election commitment to contribute $3 million to deliver a new boardwalk, viewing platform and additional revegetation works at the wetlands."

Transport and Planning Minister's office - 6552 5500

Lands Minister's office - 6552 6400

Environment Minister's office - 6552 5900

See more here:

McGowan Government to permanently protect Beeliar Wetlands - Media Statements

DES MOINES, Iowa, May 11, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Cybint, a global cyber education training company, partners with Grand View University, a cyber education leader in Iowa, to offer the Cybint Cybersecurity Bootcamp in an effort to bring cybersecurity skills and jobs to the region.

The state of Iowa has over 3,400 unfilled jobs in cybersecuritymost of which don't require certification. Many of these positions are in Des Moines. The city, which is a hub for multiple industries, including finance, insurance, government, manufacturing, trade, and service, offers a higher concentration of cybersecurity jobs. Filling these roles call for community partnerships with local schools, nonprofits and governmental organizations. Such partnerships play a significant role in preparing students to be dynamic, culturally responsive leaders. The focus of these relationships quickly centers on creating accelerated hands-on skill as a first step in building a resilient and cyber-able workforce. Grand View University's partnership with Cybint is unique to this region, and results in the production of highly sought-after graduates in this emerging, professional field.

The Cybint Bootcamp is structured from the ground up to arm workers with cyber skills. Graduates will have the training needed to ensure they can protect themselves and their organizations from emerging cyber threats upon completing the Cybint Bootcamp. Through its collaboration with Grand View University, the Cybint Bootcamp will help the Des Moines, Iowa region's workforce gain the knowledge needed to land entry-level positions in cybersecurity, as well as upskill incumbent employees beginning Fall 2021.

Grand View University is renowned for its programs in analytics, computer science, management, and more than 40 other majors, pre-professional programs, and five masters degrees. With approximately 2,000 students, an average class size of 16, and a student-to-faculty ratio of 14 to 1, students of Grand View University receive specialized training to propel them to success.

"We're thrilled to play such a prominent role in the future of the cybersecurity industry in a thriving city such as Des Moines," says Roy Zur, Founder and CEO of Cybint. "We signed numerous higher education partnership deals in the first quarter of 2021. This partnership with Grand View University marks the beginning of great things to come as we begin a new quarter."

"We chose to partner with Cybint because they are in alignment with our goals," says Patty Williams, Vice-Provost, Graduate and Professional Studies of Grand View University. "Time is of the essence when it comes to filling the cyber gap, and it is an honor to be able to offer our students an added edge to land a position in this lucrative field."

For more information about Cybint's programs in Grand View University, please visit: https://www.grandview.edu/academics/other-programs/cybersecurity?preview=true

About CybintCybint is a global cyber education company with a commitment to reskilling the workforce and upskilling the industry in cybersecurity. With innovative and leading-edge education and training solutions, Cybint tackles cybersecurity's two greatest threats: the talent shortage and the skills gap. The Cybint team is comprised of military cyber experts, industry professionals, and educators united under the vision of creating a safer digital world through education, training, and collaboration. For more information, visit http://www.cybintsolutions.com

About Grand View UniversityFounded more than 100 years ago in 1896, Grand View offers a high-quality education to a diverse student body in a career-oriented, liberal arts-grounded curriculum in Des Moines, Iowa, a metropolitan area of more than half a million people. Grand View offers bachelor's and master's degrees and welcomes traditional students and adult learners representing a wide range of religious and cultural backgrounds. Learning is an interactive process at Grand Viewstudents engage in lively discussions, work on real-world projects, and participate in career-related work experiences. Grand View welcomes and supports students from all walks of life, geographies, religions and ethnicities.

SOURCE Cybint

http://www.cybintsolutions.com

Read the original:

Cybint Partners with Grand View University to Offer Cybersecurity Bootcamp in Iowa - PRNewswire

Sweeping reforms to planning laws were at the centre of todays Queens Speech as the government set out its agenda for what could be a watershed year for the construction industry.

The Planning Bill is now set to be brought before parliament this autumn and is expected to include proposals to scrap Section 106 agreements and replace it with a new Infrastructure Levy.

It will also introduce new design codes and force councils to zone land for growth, protection or renewal, with land labelled for growth getting automatic outline planning permission. Councils will be unable to reject applications which accord with local rules.

The Queens Speech said the government plans to press ahead with the reforms despite objections from environmental groups.

Ministers have been reported to believe the reforms are the best way to boost home ownership, which is seen as a factor in the Conservative partys electoral success in the red wall of former Labour seats over the past two years.

Assael Architecture managing director Pete Ladhams welcomed the proposals, saying that the current system was urgently in need of an overhaul.

He said automatic approval in areas zoned as growth will allow architects to respond to the urgent needs of towns and cities swiftly, adding that it will greatly increase the governments chances of hitting its target to build 300,000 homes a year.

London affordable housing developer Dolphin Living also backed the plans, with its chief executive Olivia Harris saying it was right that the government was reforming planning as part of the post-covid recovery.

And modular housing developers also gave their support, with TopHat managing director Andrew Shepherd saying it could act as a catalyst for innovation by driving the uptake of modern methods of construction.

Dave Sheridan, executive chairman of modular housebuilder Ilke Homes, said the Queens Speech was fantastic news for the housebuilding industry.

But Royal Town Planning Institute chief executive Victoria Hills suggested the zoning proposals needed further nuance to differentiate between areas needing radical masterplanning from suburbs and industrial areas primed for redevelopment.

And Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey blasted the plans, saying that they would rip powers away from local people and communities in favour of wealthy property developers, threatening our environment and treasured green spaces.

The speech also included confirmation that a Building Safety Regulator is being set up as part of the Building Safety Bill, which will be introduced this year.

NBS spokesperson Richard Waterhousebacked the plans but said that the regulator must have access to digital records and accurate record-keeping on behalf of building owners so that transparency is at the heart of the construction industry.

Only when this is done will the design teams, constructors, and end-users have the assurances they need to know the products have been specified in the right way and to the correct standards.

Also in the speech were proposals to introduce legislation setting binding net zero targets, a streamlining of public procurement and legislation to support a lifetime skills guarantee to enable people to access training throughout their lives.

Arcadis UK cities director Peter Hogg said the focus on skills will be welcome news to the industry with growth constrained by capability, and individuals whose skills are mismatched to a fast-changing workplace alike.

Director of external affairs for the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA) Marie-Claude Hemming welcomed the plans to simplify public procurement and said she hoped the government would consider the findings of a review into frameworks currently being carried out.

Turner & Townsend UK managing director Patricia Moore said that procurement was a vital piece of the puzzle for the industrys capacity to deliver the governments building agenda.

As constructions biggest client, it is government that needs to lead the charge and initiate this change speeding up and simplifying processes, prioritising local businesses, investing in new technologies and mandating sustainable procurement solutions.

More here:

Construction reacts to Queen's Speech | News | Building - Building - Building

A daily newspaper cannot publish for 200 years without getting some things wrong. This one has made its share of mistakes.

There will always be errors of news judgment given the nature of the work. Tight deadlines meant the sinking of the Titanic was relegated to a small spot on page 9 in 1912; errors of scientific understanding resulted in a 1927 article that promoted the virtues of asbestos, and others in the late 1970s that warned of a looming ice age.

But the most noticeable missteps stem not from the news pages but from the editorial column. For it is here that readers find out what the paper thinks about the great issues of the day. And it is here that mistakes are inked most indelibly into history, whether they relate to suffrage, reform or, most notably in recent years, the debate over Brexit.

To err is human. But making the wrong call is both inevitable and painful. To see why the Guardian thinks the way it does, it is useful to start with the interests it originally sought to advance. The Manchester Guardian was born of moderate radicalism, and began life in 1821 as a mouthpiece for male middle-class political reform.

In the years after the 1832 Reform Act, upwardly mobile men were enfranchised and the paper steadily lost its radical edge. When revolution convulsed Europe in the middle of the 19th century, the Manchester Guardian had little sympathy for the insurrectionists. Nationalism was associated with democracy in 1848, wrote David Ayerst in his history of the newspaper, and democracy was still suspect in the Guardian circle. The papers leader column declared support for martial law in Ireland to quell political turbulence as famine stalked the land. Its cold-hearted analysis was that Ireland could only feed itself if freed from its dependence on a few crops, and that required capital that would not be forthcoming without political stability.

Fear of the mob dominated this period of the Manchester Guardians thinking. The paper advocated political reform extending the franchise and promoting secret ballots but it wanted to limit voting to male ratepayers. The call was for a property-based democracy, sound money and rational government. The Manchester Guardian wanted no part in the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history. It was also a proudly imperialist paper. When the Indian mutiny broke out in 1857 a rebellion acknowledged as the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century the leader column on 26 September of that year thundered with racism that England must retain unfaltering confidence in our right to rule over the native population by virtue of inherent superiority.

Victorian liberalism was beset by double standards: while Asians could not be trusted with self-determination, Americans could be. More than 150 years ago the paper believed that the southern US states had the right to secede. It suspected that a free Confederacy would prosper and claimed it was as entitled to freedom as the Hungarians were when they had broken away from Austria in 1849. The Guardian reasoned that the breakup of the US would hasten the end of slavery, which it despised. This view was shared by William Gladstone of the Liberal party, who would be prime minister four times.

The papers support for the Confederacy led to a loathing of Abraham Lincoln that today seems petty and shameful. For the Guardian of the 1860s, Lincoln was a fraud who treated emancipation of the slaves as negotiable because it stood in the way of US unity. In 1862, reflecting on his election the previous year, the paper said it is impossible not to feel that it was an evil day both for America and the world. Three years later an editorial on the presidents assassination scaled new heights of anti-Lincoln mania. Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty, the paper wrote, before tactfully adding: It is doubtless to be regretted that he had not the opportunity of vindicating his good intentions.

Under the editorship of CP Scott, the paper moved from the right of the Liberal party to the left, not so much following Gladstone as scouting ahead of him. From the late 1880s the editorial line is more radical and the papers politics feel more familiar. Scott supported the movement for womens suffrage, but was critical of any suffragette direct action. In his leader he wrote: The really ludicrous position is that Mr Lloyd George is fighting to enfranchise 7 million women and the militants are smashing unoffending peoples windows and breaking up benevolent societies meetings in a desperate effort to prevent him.

When Arthur Balfour, then Britains foreign secretary, promised 104 years ago to help establish a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, his words changed the world. The Guardian of 1917 supported, celebrated and could even be said to have helped facilitate the Balfour declaration. Scott was a supporter of Zionism and this blinded him to Palestinian rights. In 1917 he wrote a leader on the day the Balfour declaration was announced, in which he dismissed any other claim to the Holy Land, saying: The existing Arab population of Palestine is small and at a low stage of civilisation. Whatever else can be said, Israel today is not the country the Guardian foresaw or would have wanted.

Under Scott, the Manchester Guardian made its name in foreign affairs, notably opposing the second Boer war against popular opinion. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were shot dead in Sarajevo in June 1914, Scott saw few signs that the continent would be disturbed, let alone that a world war would follow. The Guardian leader said: It is not to be supposed that the death of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand will have any immediate or salient effect on the politics of Europe.

The truth is that Scott, like all prognosticators, could only view the historical process in the rear-view mirror. He couldnt foretell the future. The Manchester Guardians long-serving editor would have known that previous predictions had been superseded in ways he could not have foreseen. He understood that the growth of technology and societys increasing ability to dominate nature meant that societies that were scientifically effective would dominate societies that were not. But no one could know the different set of priorities later generations would have.

Having been a strong supporter of the Liberal party in the 19th century, the Manchester Guardian warmed to the Labour party in the 20th, while never losing its Liberal connections. Scott spent much of the last three decades of his life calling for Labour and the old Liberal party to cooperate and save the country from Conservative domination, a cause that is still very much alive today in the paper.

In 1945, a new editor, Alfred Powell Wadsworth, erred in declaring that the chances of Labour sweeping the country ... are pretty remote and called in an editorial for the most fruitful coalition in these times: a Liberal-Labour government. The paper looked badly wrongfooted by the Labour landslide.

Almost all the Guardians election leaders since the second world war have endorsed either Labour or the Liberals, and sometimes both. The exception came in 1951, when AP Wadsworths dislike of Labours health minister, Aneurin Bevan, saw the paper back Churchills Tories.

Editors do make a difference: under Wadsworth the Manchester Guardian took a surprisingly conservative view of the foundation of the National Health Service. While supporting the changes as a great step forward, the Guardian feared that the state providing welfare risks an increase in the proportion of the less gifted. Alastair Hetherington, a strait-laced military man who edited the Guardian in the swinging 60s, earned the distinction of being in charge when the first fuck appeared in a British or American newspaper after a jury in 1960 decided Lady Chatterleys Lover was not obscene. During the trial, Hetherington had gone to great lengths to ensure that Guardian news reports did not print swearwords used in open court, only for an opinion piece to do so.

From the early 70s, the Guardians leaders alighted on consumerism and overpopulation as existential crises. A 1970 editorial wondered how, if the worlds population doubled, a decent standard of living could be maintained. Such Malthusian fears have not been realised. When the facts change, the Guardian changes its mind. In 1982 the paper thought that a windmill to generate electricity on every British hilltop would be an environmental disaster. It would not say that today.

And then there is Europe. The postwar Guardian had been a reliably European newspaper. The paper looked favourably on joining the Common Market from the late 1950s. The Guardian was running, it felt, with the tide of history: so much so that when the UK did not join the euro in 2003, the leader column described it as the biggest setback to the pro-European cause for a generation.

The UKs place within the European club had been secured by an in/out referendum in 1975 called by Harold Wilson, who wanted the electorate to settle a question that divided the Labour party. The Guardian found itself siding with a small pro-European band in Labour, as well as almost all Tories and the Liberal party. On Thursday 5 June 1975, in a leader headlined: A vote for the next century, the paper called for voters to endorse Britains membership of the Common Market in that days referendum to ensure the country would be safer and more prosperous.

Since then, referendums have become, much to the papers displeasure, an established part of our constitution, used as a way to stamp democratic legitimacy on to controversial ideas and as a tool of party management. The Guardian, aware of the historical significance of such votes, had got into a habit of telling readers how they ought to cast their ballot on the morning of the vote. On the day of referendums in 1998 the leader column suggested voters in Northern Ireland back the Good Friday Agreement and asked Londoners to back a mayoralty. In 2014, on the day of the Scottish independence referendum, it urged Scots to stick with the union.

No country had ever voted to leave the European Union before. The Guardian had been clear in the run-up to 2016s Brexit vote that the electorate ought to vote to stay in. But on the morning of 23 June 2016, the paper did not tell readers how it thought they should vote. Instead, on a vote that would define the countrys role in the next century, the leader said: The UK will, gradually, put the tensions of the campaign behind it, however painful they have been, and start instead to focus on its future.

History had other ideas. Perhaps the Guardians unwavering belief in the strength of the EUs case was a source of complacency. If so, it was not the only paper to suffer such delusions. As Julie Firmstone of Leeds University put it in 2016: Most disappointingly, whilst the leave papers pulled out all the stops on polling day, only the Mirror clearly called for a vote to remain.

While the Guardian leader column is now just one voice among many, it still represents the only long-range institutional view. It represents not any one persons belief but an attempt to distil values that have evolved across the centuries. The column tries to keep in mind past mistakes and to proceed with humility. No one knows the verdicts history will hand down on the opinions that appear obvious today.

See the rest here:

What we got wrong: the Guardians worst errors of judgment over 200 years - The Guardian