Editorial Roundup: US
Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
Dec. 18
The Denver Post on impeaching President Donald Trump:
It is with a solemn sense of responsibility to the U.S. Constitution and a deep love of this country that we call for Congress to exercise its power of impeachment.
The Denver Post editorial board does not take this position lightly.
President Donald Trump was elected to serve this nation in a legitimate election, and to recommend that the Senate remove him from office is a severe and consequential undertaking that has only occurred two other times in U.S. history.
But we have determined - based on hours of sworn testimony, text messages, emails and the president's own words - that Trump has so abused the power of his office that for him to remain in the White House is a threat to our democracy.
All Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, should be deeply troubled by Trump's actions. Standing up now as a nation and declaring that this U.S. president and future presidents cannot behave with such blatant disregard for honesty and integrity is essential. We cannot tolerate this behavior.
We urge all seven members of Colorado's congressional delegation to support the two articles of impeachment that have been approved by the House Judiciary Committee: First, that he abused the high powers of his office to solicit 'œthe interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.'ť Second, that he obstructed Congress by directing 'œthe unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment.'ť
Over the course of several months beginning in late April, Trump attempted to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, who is one of Trump's possible political rivals for 2020.
It's possible that other presidents have wielded foreign policy for domestic political gains with such disregard for election integrity and the rule of law, but never have Americans been presented with such clear evidence of it.
Compromising his own stated foreign policy objectives, the interests of a close U.S. ally and our democratic process, Trump demanded that Zelensky announce an investigation into Biden's actions and a debunked conspiracy that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election.
This was an orchestrated and multi-pronged effort that makes us deeply uncomfortable. No number of assurances from Zelensky that he did not feel pressure can outweigh what we have learned from a whistle-blower's accusations that a House investigation has verified and expounded upon.
A timeline of events, constructed by this board using original reporting from the hearings and a timeline created by The Washington Post, is damning. To the extent that questions remain unanswered, it is because Trump has barred key witnesses from testifying. This wasn't one phone call or one official gone rogue.
It began with the late-April ouster of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's private attorney, was working the back channels while European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine, applied pressure directly from the U.S. government. The White House placed a freeze on congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine as early as July 3 over the objections of employees in the Office of Management and Budget, two of whom resigned at least in part because of the aid. A Trump appointee took over the approval process to personally place the aid on hold.
Ukrainians likely knew the White House was withholding aid as officials were demanding the investigations, and we believe it has been proved that the quid pro quo was expressed to Ukraine. On July 9, Vice President Mike Pence is told that the aid is on hold to prepare him for a meeting with Ukrainian officials. On July 25 - the same day Zelensky and Trump talk on the phone - State Department officials receive an email from the Ukrainian Embassy expressing concern about the hold on security assistance. And after the phone call, days and days of explicit requests for an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election are relayed to Ukrainians.
On Sept. 1, in a meeting in Warsaw, Sondland said he pulled a Ukrainian aide aside. Sondland told Congress he said 'œthat I believed that the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.'ť (It must be noted the Ukrainian official, Andriy Yermak, says this did not happen. However, a White House aide confirmed that he saw Yermak and Sondland talking and then Sondland told him the conversation was about opening the Burisma investigation.) Aid was released on Sept. 11 and Trump denied the quid pro quo to Sondland, but this is after the White House became aware of the whistle-blower complaint and a separate House investigation.
Trump's actions, if they go unpunished, will pave the way for foreign prosecution powers to become proxy tools of aggrieved presidents seeking to secure a political victory at any cost. 'œThis is precisely the thing that the founders feared - foreign interference in our elections. (George) Washington was strong about it in his farewell address,'ť Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Arvada, told The Post editorial board last week as we considered an editorial on impeachment. 'œI hesitated and I've been reluctant '¦ but this goes to the heart of freedom, and independence, and fair elections.'ť
Indeed, President George Washington, upon retiring after two terms for the good of the fledgling nation, warned that 'œforeign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.'ť
Despite Trump's assurances that he was only interested in stopping corruption in Ukraine, that is not what the record supports. Trump and his staff were clear they wanted two things mentioned in a planned press conference: Biden and the 2016 election interference. Trump asked Zelensky directly on July 25, according to a not-verbatim transcript of the call, to look into 'œtalk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it '¦ It sounds horrible to me.'ť
We cannot imagine that our founders would shrug their shoulders at such a request made with the full force of the president's official powers.
Nor can we imagine they would look kindly upon Trump thumbing his nose at Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives the House the sole power to impeach. Trump ordered officials not to participate in the inquiry and subsequently, a host of individuals, most serving at his pleasure, refused to comply with congressional subpoenas.
We find Trump is in clear contempt of Congress, although we wish Democrats would have taken the time necessary to have the courts adjudicate the issue and determine with complete certainty that Trump's order was unlawful.
We hope the House will send these grave charges to the Senate and that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will ensure there is a full and impartial trial to determine if Trump should still be trusted with the powers of the presidency.
Online: https://www.denverpost.com/
___
Dec. 18
The Evening Standard of London on the Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, losing the election:
Here's a surprise. Jeremy Corbyn is right about something for the first and last time in his leadership.
He says Labour needs a period of reflection after its election catastrophe. It does.
The party needs to work out why it has lost the past four contests under three different leaders and why the Conservative vote has gone up at the past six elections.
It needs to work out why the Conservative Party has just scored double-digit leads among the poorest families in Britain. It needs to work out why it went backwards with younger voters.
It needs to work out why it was all but wiped out in Scotland, crashed in the North, went nowhere in London and the South and was obliterated in the Midlands.
Defeat last week was not just the short-term fault of Brexit, as the Left claims. Nor did it happen only because the party was led by a graceless and dangerous hard-Left leader, as almost everyone says.
These factors made things worse, but it's not enough for the party to hope that after Brexit, and with a better leader, it will be heading right back to power. Socialists are struggling to win everywhere.
There has only been one socialist president of France in the past 25 years, the Australian Labor Party has just lost again and if the US Democrats put a Leftist candidate against Donald Trump they may go the same way.
Unfortunately for Labour, its response has been to start rushing about in search of a new leader rather than thinking first.
Yes, Mr Corbyn has to go because his surviving MPs are sick of the sight of him, but that doesn't mean the luckless unknown who replaces him will do any better.
Who will it be? Rebecca Long-Bailey is pulling ahead as the Corbynism-without-Corbyn candidate. She's a new face who has only been an MP for four years, she's backed by the shadow chancellor John McDonnell and at least she didn't mess up on TV in the election.
But what would she do differently? Her arrival would be about as predictable a response to Boris Johnson's landslide as the Tory decision to make Iain Duncan Smith leader after Tony Blair's second massive win.
The result would be the same, too. Another defeat.
The remains of the centre-Right of the party are hoping someone such as Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper might make it - both candidates who can tell the party the truth about what went wrong.
An even braver choice would be to pick Jess Phillips, one of the few Labour MPs who doesn't sound like a depressed robot. But being good at spiky phrases isn't the same as dragging together a competent Opposition and taking on a Government with a massive majority.
Whoever wins will find that voters have switched off.
That period of reflection could take years.
Online: https://www.standard.co.uk/
___
Dec. 17
The Chicago Sun-Times on a Hallmark commercial advertisement featuring a lesbian wedding:
Three items in the news:
'œSesame Street'ť is 50 years old this year.
The new prime minister of Finland was raised by two moms.
The Hallmark Channel on Friday pulled an ad showing a lesbian wedding, buckling to pressure from a conservative group, then on Sunday restored the ad in the face of a backlash from millions of other Americans.
We think those three stories are related - in a good way.
We see further proof that what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1956 is true: 'œThe arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'ť We are reminded again that changing hearts and minds, so often the work of pop culture, matters as much or more than changing laws.
'œRainbow family'ť
Sanna Marin, who was elected the prime minister of Finland earlier this month, was raised in a working class family by her mother and her mother's female partner. She credits her 'œrainbow family'ť for her confidence as a woman, her achievements and her values.
'œFor me, people have always been equal,'ť she told The Guardian. 'œIt's not a matter of opinion. That's the foundation of everything.'ť
But though Marin is young - just 34 - she grew up in less accepting times and has experienced that slow bend toward justice. As a school child, she never talked about her family, aware of the stigma attached to LGBTQ people. Only 'œnow in the 21st century,'ť she told the Guardian, are families like hers discussed in Finland 'œquite openly.'ť
'Hallmark buckles to pressure'
In a similar way in the United States, full equality for LGBTQ people remains a distant shore, but gains have been made and there's no going back - as Hallmark has learned the hard way.
On Friday, the Hallmark Channel made a decision to pull advertising for the wedding site Zola that featured same-sex couples. Hallmark did not pull Zola's ads featuring different-sex couple.
Hallmark's decision followed pressure from One Million Moms, a part of the conservative American Family Association, that complained about the ads to Bill Abbott, the CEO of Hallmark's parent company Crown Media Family Networks.
One Million Moms claimed on its website that Abbott said the ads 'œaired in error.'ť
Where's the error? We can't find it.
Are LGBTQ people an error? Is same-sex marriage - the law of the land - an error?
'~Hallmark gets schooled'
Crown got an earful all weekend from advocacy and civil liberty groups and ordinary outraged Americans. In a tweet, the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres asked Hallmark and Abbot, 'œWhat are you thinking? Please explain. We're all ears.'ť
On Sunday, Crown and Hallmark backed down and reinstated the ads.
'œThe Crown Media team has been agonizing over this decision as we've seen the hurt it has unintentionally caused,'ť Hallmark CEO Mike Perry said in a statement. 'œSaid simply, they believe this was the wrong decision.'ť
We're not privy to the inner sanctums of decision-making at Hallmark, but we'd bet two things turned the bosses around.
First, it's all about money. Hallmark figured out the company would lose more viewers and customers by killing the ads than by running them.
Second, you can bet that hundreds of employees let it be known they had a problem with working for a company that would so easily buckle under. Corporate recruiters have learned that values matter when recruiting the best and brightest young employees.
Hallmark might have thought that One Million Moms speaks for mainstream America, but the group does not. It doesn't speak for even 1 million moms. It has only 96,000 followers on Facebook.
Meanwhile, 63% of Americans, according to a Gallup Poll, support the legalization of same-sex marriage.
'~Diversity is just life'
Which is where 'œSesame Street,'ť and the power of popular culture in general, come into this.
Several generations of American children have grown up absorbing the show's message of kindness and acceptance. They have met a Muppet named Lily who was homeless, a Muppet named Ari who was blind, and a Muppet named Julia who had autism. They have met Muppets and human beings of all colors and abilities - and disabilities.
Diversity on 'œSesame Street'ť is just how life works.
'œSesame Street'ť has never included an overtly gay character, whether human or Muppet, unless you think of Bert and Ernie that way. But we like to believe - we would hope - that its message of inclusion and kindness has washed over 50 years of children in a more general way, helping to make them more compassionate adults.
It's not just 'œSesame Street.'ť It's also 'œMr. Rogers' Neighborhood.'ť And, when the kids got a bit older, pioneering shows like 'œWill & Grace'ť that made gay people just folks. And pioneering people like DeGeneres.
We could go on and on, but the point is made: Pop culture at its best is changing hearts and minds.
Hallmark's initial mistake was to see One Million Moms as the 'œreal'ť America and those who champion equal rights for LGBQT people - and people up against it in every way - as the elitist fringe. They got it backward.
We are a better nation than we give ourselves credit, regardless of groups like One Million Moms and the moral ugliness of President Donald Trump.
It will be our salvation, we can only hope, in next year's presidential election.
Online: https://chicago.suntimes.com/
___
Dec. 16
The Los Angeles Times on the Madrid climate change meeting:
An international meeting in Madrid that was supposed to finalize rules arising from the groundbreaking 2015 Paris agreement on climate change went into extra time over the weekend - two days longer than scheduled, in fact. But the delegates may as well have gone home early, given how disappointingly little was accomplished.
It's tempting to conclude that the United Nations is better at telling the governments of the world that they need to act quickly on climate change than it is at actually getting them to do so.
But in truth the blame belongs primarily to the national leaders themselves, whose delegates failed miserably during the two-week Conference of the Parties to craft rules on how the Paris agreement would be implemented, including designing a transparent global carbon trading system and firming up a process for getting financial aid to smaller, more impoverished nations already beset by the effects of global warming. As U.N Secretary General António Guterres said, the world 'œlost an important opportunity'ť to chart a different future, setting the stage for an even rockier meeting next year in Glasgow, Scotland, at which the international community is supposed to set still more ambitious goals than were included in the Paris agreement.
Shouldn't it be clear by now that this is no time for global leaders to dawdle? It's true that many countries are struggling to meet the goals they set under the 2015 Paris agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Indeed, although the pact called for holding warming to 'œwell below'ť 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the world has already warmed by 1 degree and is now expected to warm by 3 degrees or more - disastrously high - by the end of the century even under the current Paris commitments.
So the world knows it needs to do more, yet political leaders are doing less, a point made in raucous terms by protesters inside the Madrid meeting hall and in the streets outside.
The conference and the protests spotlighted a couple of significant friction points. Attendees said smaller nations that stand to lose the most from rising seas and changing climates pushed for aggressive measures while larger economies balked. Helen Mountford of the World Resources Institute, an environmental advocacy group, lamented the lack of progress. 'œInstead of leading the charge for more ambition, most of the large emitters were missing in action or obstructive,'ť she said.
That, of course, includes the United States. Last month, President Trump formally notified the U.N. that he is pulling our country out of the agreement effective in November 2020, leaving the United States as the only nation in the world not to be a party to it. Notably, the U.S. has for generations fueled its economy through the burning of oil, coal and gas, helping create one of the richest societies in human history. We and other industrialized nations bear significant responsibility for trying to undo the harm we have caused. Yet without U.S. leadership, it becomes increasingly difficult for world economies to forge and adopt the critically necessary policies, including ending the production of energy from burning fossil fuels, to limit the worst effects of global warming.
This is not a good time for failure, yet we have it. The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has become the face of the next generation, and Chilean Environment Minister Carolina Schmidt, who co-chaired the conference, referred directly to the responsibility today's leaders have to the young people of the world: 'œThe consensus is still not there to increase ambition to the levels that we need,'ť she said. 'œThe new generations expect more from us.'ť
Maybe that's part of the problem, though. Climate change arising from global warming is not just something we're foisting off on our children and grandchildren, though it is indeed that. In fact, its effects are already being felt. The current generation also expects more from global leaders, and must insist on it. The more time we take to change how we produce and consume energy globally, the more difficult it will be - and more dreadful will be the consequences. The protests in Madrid were energetic and clamorous, but apparently not sufficiently so to goad action. Clearly more pressure is needed from all generations to compel political leaders to act with a sense of urgency before we become a world of boiled frogs.
Online: https://www.latimes.com/
___
Dec. 11
The Wall Street Journal on impeaching President Donald Trump:
So that's it? That's all there is? After all the talk of obstruction of justice, collusion with Russia, bribery, extortion, profiting from the Presidency, and more, House Democrats have reduced their articles of impeachment against President Trump to two: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Honey, we shrunk the impeachment.
(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)
At least (Andrew) Johnson was impeached for violating a specific statute, the Tenure of Office Act, by firing Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War. There was wide agreement that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton violated criminal statutes. In this case Democrats don't even try to allege a criminal act.
Whatever happened to bribery and extortion? Democrats spent weeks talking them up as the crimes of Mr. Trump's Ukraine interventions. They had turned to those words after focus groups with voters found them more compelling than 'œquid pro quo.'ť Yet suddenly they're gone. Have Democrats concluded that Mr. Trump's actions aren't illegal under statutes that have specific meaning?
Democrats have retreated instead to charge 'œabuse of power,'ť a phrase general enough for anything Congress wants to stuff into it. They don't even pretend any more to prove a quid pro quo. Instead they assert that Mr. Trump, in his phone call with Ukraine's president, 'œsolicited the interference of a foreign government'ť in the 2020 election 'œin pursuit of personal political benefit.'ť They also assert that this 'œcompromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process.'ť
Their problem is that Mr. Trump didn't withhold military aid to Ukraine, and even if he had he would have merely been returning to Barack Obama's policy of denying lethal aid. How would that have jeopardized national security? Every President also solicits actions from foreign leaders that he hopes will help him politically at home.
We don't condone Mr. Trump's mention of Joe Biden in his call to Ukraine's President, which was far from perfect and reflects his often bad judgment. But 'œabuse of power'ť on this evidence is a new and low standard for impeachment that will come back to haunt future Presidents of all parties.
As for corrupting the 2020 election, even if Ukraine had announced an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, Mr. Trump couldn't know how effective it would be, how long it would take, or whether it might even exonerate them. The election is still a year away. If the mere announcement of a foreign government's investigation into corruption can poison a U.S. election, then American democracy must be weaker than even its enemies think.
The second Democratic article is weaker in that it amounts to impeaching Mr. Trump because he is resisting their subpoenas. 'œWithout lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas,'ť the article charges.
His lawful cause is defending his presidential powers under the Constitution. Every modern President has to some extent or another resisted Congressional or special-counsel subpoenas. Nixon and Mr. Clinton did until they lost at the Supreme Court. House Democrats are refusing even to fight in court, claiming impeachment gives them plenary power to see all documents and any witnesses they want.
This ignores that the Constitution stipulates co-equal branches that each have the right to defend their powers. If Democrats are right in their claim, then every President essentially works for Congress. We should skip elections and let Congress choose the President.
Democrats also claim the emergency of time, and as usual Rep. Adam Schiff puts this case in the least credible way. 'œThe argument '~why don't you just wait?' amounts to this: Why don't you just let (Mr. Trump) cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time?,'ť Mr. Schiff told the press as the articles were unveiled.
But Mr. Trump didn't cheat to win in 2016, as Robert Mueller's Russia collusion investigation demonstrated after two years of looking. As for 2020, the Constitution includes no clause for pre-emptive impeachment to prevent acts that a President might commit.
(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)
Democrats wrap these charges in high-toned rhetoric about 'œthis solemn day'ť and quotes from Benjamin Franklin. But they are essentially impeaching Mr. Trump because they despise him and the way he governs.
This is the classic standard of 'œmaladministration,'ť which the Founders explicitly considered but excluded from the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. They did so because they feared that partisan Congresses would too easily impeach Presidents of the opposite political faction on this subjective basis, rather than for serious offenses.
In their wisdom, the American people seem to have figured all this out. Despite one-sided lobbying by the impeachment press, the polls show that a majority opposes removing Mr. Trump from office. This may be the real explanation behind the Democratic move to shrink impeachment. Democrats now want a fast and furious vote to satisfy their most anti-Trump partisans, dump the mess on the Senate, and campaign on something else.
They shouldn't get off that easy. By defining impeachment down, they are turning what should be a rare and extraordinary constitutional remedy into a routine tool of partisan warfare. They are harming constitutional norms, as the liberals like to say.
Americans will decide in 11 months whether Mr. Trump deserves to remain in office. But they should also keep the impeachment vote very much in mind when they decide whether Democrats deserve to keep the House.
Online: https://www.wsj.com/
___
Dec. 11
The New York Times on Trump's executive order to 'œcombat anti-Semitism'ť
Last year, anti-Semitic attacks killed more Jews around the globe than in any year in decades. Worshipers were gunned down during Saturday services at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue. Attackers took the lives of a Jewish college student in California and a Holocaust survivor in France. German Jews were cautioned not to wear skullcaps or Stars of David on the street.
Charlottesville, Va., rang out with cries of 'œJews will not replace us!'ť one year before. When local residents turned up for services at Charlottesville's Congregation Beth Israel, they found men with semiautomatic rifles at the synagogue doors, offering protection they didn't know they'd need.
On Tuesday (Dec. 10), two gunmen, including one said to have published anti-Semitic posts and to have been a follower of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, which is hostile to Jews, killed four people in a rampage in Jersey City that appears to have targeted a kosher market.
The tides of anti-Semitism continue to rise higher, and more government action is sorely needed. The Department of Homeland Security's recent strategy shift to focus on the growing threat of white nationalist terrorism was an important step. On Wednesday (Dec. 11), President Trump stepped in himself - but he did as much to stir the waters as he did to settle them.
Mr. Trump signed an executive order to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses by using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to withhold federal money from schools that fail to counter discrimination against Jews. Similar congressional legislation has had bipartisan support, and previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have taken similar actions to prevent hate and discrimination.
While Mr. Trump's action might seem like a gesture of real concern, it does little to target the larger source of violent anti-Semitism in America and possibly threatens free speech rights.
The object of the government's response is the increased campus debate about Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a movement advocating economic measures opposing Israel's occupation of the West Bank. The campaign's Palestinian founders initially called for changes in Israeli policies, but many supporters have taken it up to oppose Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Many supporters of Israel have said the boycott movement is anti-Semitism in disguise.
Whatever its intent, B.D.S. has helped to create a hostile environment for Jewish students, most of whom support Israel. At Emory University, for example, a Palestinian advocacy group posted mock eviction notices on campus to protest Israeli actions, frightening some Jewish students.
Such incidents are frightening. But the larger threat to American Jews goes beyond college students sparring over Israeli policy. Violent anti-Semitism is being fomented most significantly by white nationalists and the far right.
The gunman responsible for a shooting at a Chabad in Poway, Calif., said he was inspired by Adolf Hitler's ideology. Robert Bowers, who killed 11 in the Pittsburgh massacre, posted anti-Semitic messages on the social media platform Gab, popular with white supremacists and the alt-right. Blaze Bernstein, a gay Jewish University of Pennsylvania sophomore, was murdered near his California home in January 2018, and the suspect awaiting trial is a known neo-Nazi.
The threads tying much of the anti-Semitic violence to white nationalist ideology are impossible to ignore. Those seams grew ever clearer in Charlottesville, at 'œUnite the Right,'ť where demonstrators displayed swastikas on banners and shouted slogans drawn from Nazi ideology, like 'œblood and soil.'ť When white nationalist Richard Spencer was interviewed about the role of anti-Semitism at the rally days later, he said Jews are overrepresented on the left and establishment as 'œIvy League-educated people who really determine policy'ť while 'œwhite people are being dispossessed.'ť
The president himself has trafficked in anti-Semitic stereotypes, frequently endorsing crude, negative caricatures about Jews. On Saturday (Dec. 7), speaking before the Israeli American Council, Mr. Trump said that Jews should support him because Senator Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax would put them out of business.
'œA lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well, you're brutal killers,'ť the president said. 'œNot nice people at all, but you have to vote for me. You have no choice.'ť
Criticism of the president's executive order has come from across the ideological spectrum. The Foundation For Individual Rights in Education, a group that advocates free speech on campus, often for conservatives, said the executive order would 'œimpermissibly threaten the expressive rights of students and faculty at institutions across the country.'ť
Senator Brian Schatz, a liberal Jewish Democrat from Hawaii, summed it up: 'œThe idea that a college campus would have its views on Israel regulated by the federal Department of Education? Oy Gevalt.'ť
Mr. Trump's executive order points agencies to the definition of anti-Semitism prepared by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. This definition includes several examples of speech that should be covered by the First Amendment, like 'œclaiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.'ť For this reason Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the definition, wrote in The Times that it shouldn't be applied to higher education. The agency's definition was prepared for data collectors writing reports in Europe, not for government officials policing campus speech.
It is true that anti-Israel speech, whether on campus or in Congress, makes some Jews feel unsafe, especially those who feel that Zionism is intrinsic to Jewish identity. Some worry that critics of Israel too often blame all Jews for the actions of the Jewish state halfway around the world. Others share critics' concerns about Israeli actions but find themselves unwelcome as allies, because of hostility toward the Jewish state.
The solution to these worries isn't to stifle conversation. It's to allow a healthy discourse about the country's policies, its future and the role of American diplomacy and aid in the region.
Online: https://www.nytimes.com/