The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment by Peter Beinart. Benjamin Netanyahu; drawing by John Springs. In 2. 00. 3, several prominent Jewish philanthropists hired Republican pollster Frank Luntz to explain why American Jewish college students were not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism of Israel. In response, he unwittingly produced the most damning indictment of the organized American Jewish community that I have ever seen. The philanthropists wanted to know what Jewish students thought about Israel. Luntz found that they mostly didn’t. Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,” he reported.

· Your new hires are thinking just that. It’s shouldn’t be a surprise. Remember those first days at your job? Remember all the paperwork, people, and.

Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us’ to describe the situation.”That Luntz encountered indifference was not surprising. In recent years, several studies have revealed, in the words of Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis, that “non- Orthodox younger Jews, on the whole, feel much less attached to Israel than their elders,” with many professing “a near- total absence of positive feelings.” In 2. Brandeis, the only nonsectarian Jewish- sponsored university in America, rejected a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the Jewish state.

Luntz’s task was to figure out what had gone wrong. When he probed the students’ views of Israel, he hit up against some firm beliefs.

First, “they reserve the right to question the Israeli position.” These young Jews, Luntz explained, “resist anything they see as ‘group think.'” They want an “open and frank” discussion of Israel and its flaws. Second, “young Jews desperately want peace.” When Luntz showed them a series of ads, one of the most popular was entitled “Proof that Israel Wants Peace,” and listed offers by various Israeli governments to withdraw from conquered land. Third, “some empathize with the plight of the Palestinians.” When Luntz displayed ads depicting Palestinians as violent and hateful, several focus group participants criticized them as stereotypical and unfair, citing their own Muslim friends. Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs.

Have you ever actually considered how the mechanics of having sex with a fish-person (mermaid or otherwise) might actually work? Guillermo del Toro certainly has, and. · Washington (CNN)Republican sources close to the White House, aides inside the Trump administration, and GOP congressional staff involved in the health care.

Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives. Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for all people, Palestinians included.

But the two groups are increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster—indeed, have actively opposed—a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead. Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral.

If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox- dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled. Saving liberal Zionism in the United States—so that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israel—is the great American Jewish challenge of our age. And it starts where Luntz’s students wanted it to start: by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes. Since the 1. 99. 0s, journalists and scholars have been describing a bifurcation in Israeli society.

In the words of Hebrew University political scientist Yaron Ezrahi, “After decades of what came to be called a national consensus, the Zionist narrative of liberation [has] dissolved into openly contesting versions.” One version, “founded on a long memory of persecution, genocide, and a bitter struggle for survival, is pessimistic, distrustful of non- Jews, and believing only in Jewish power and solidarity.” Another, “nourished by secularized versions of messianism as well as the Enlightenment idea of progress,” articulates “a deep sense of the limits of military force, and a commitment to liberal- democratic values.” Every country manifests some kind of ideological divide. But in contemporary Israel, the gulf is among the widest on earth. As Ezrahi and others have noted, this latter, liberal- democratic Zionism has grown alongside a new individualism, particularly among secular Israelis, a greater demand for free expression, and a greater skepticism of coercive authority. You can see this spirit in “new historians” like Tom Segev who have fearlessly excavated the darker corners of the Zionist past and in jurists like former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak who have overturned Knesset laws that violate the human rights guarantees in Israel’s “Basic Laws.” You can also see it in former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s apparent willingness to relinquish much of the West Bank in 2. But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power.

The actress opened up about her sexuality in a candid message she posted to Twitter on Tuesday. · Leadership 11/21/2016 @ 9:51AM 15,953 views How To Lead A Team When You're Not The Boss: 10 Tips That Won't Alienate Your Coworkers. NFL ratings for every game this season compared to last year. Are TV ratings really down as much as some say? See for yourself. Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many.

To the contrary, it is gasping for air. To understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, it’s worth considering the case of Effi Eitam. Eitam, a charismatic ex–cabinet minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank.

We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system,” he declared in 2. In 2. 00. 8, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu’s Likud.

And for the 2. 00. Netanyahu’s special emissary for overseas “campus engagement.” In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government’s behalf. The group that organized his tour was called “Caravan for Democracy.”Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once shared Eitam’s views.

In his youth, he briefly joined Meir Kahane’s now banned Kach Party, which also advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israeli soil. Now Lieberman’s position might be called “pre- expulsion.” He wants to revoke the citizenship of Israeli Arabs who won’t swear a loyalty oath to the Jewish state. He tried to prevent two Arab parties that opposed Israel’s 2. Gaza war from running candidates for the Knesset.

Interactive Map Global Forest Watch. Forest change. Forest change data measure tree cover loss, tree cover gain, or forest disturbance. This layer displays the geographic coverage of FORMA alerts, which. WWF ecoregions. This layer displays the geographic coverage of FORMA alerts, which.

WWF ecoregions. Drag the handle to adjust the minimum tree cover canopy (TCC) density for the visualization and analysis of Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA tree cover and tree cover loss. TCC density represents the estimated percent of a pixel that was covered by tree canopy in the year 2. For the tree cover loss data, TCC density therefore corresponds to the density of tree cover before loss occurred. For example, if you select 2. TCC density, you will only see tree cover loss pixels for which the original tree cover density was greater than 2.

Adjustments to the minimum TCC density only affect the tree cover and tree cover loss data layers. This feature does not pertain to Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA tree cover gain or to other GFW data layers or statistics. Tree cover gain is displayed with a set minimum TCC density greater than 5. The minimum TCC density cannot be changed independently for tree cover and tree cover loss.

A change made to one data layer will immediately take effect in the other. This feature is also available for statistics within the Country Profiles & Rankings. However, the adjustment made to the visualization and analysis through the map view will not be automatically reflected in other areas of the website. To adjust the minimum TCC density within the Country Profiles & Rankings pages, click on the settings icon.

Loss of tree cover may occur for many reasons, including deforestation, fire, and logging within the course of sustainable forestry operations. In sustainably managed forests, the “loss” will eventually show up as “gain”, as young trees get large enough to achieve canopy closure. Watch He`S Just Not That Into You Online (2017).

Function. Identifies areas of gross tree cover loss. RESOLUTION / SCALE3. Geographic coverage. Global land area (excluding Antarctica and other Arctic islands)Source data. Landsat. Frequency of updates.

Annual. Date of content. Tree cover canopy density. Varies according to selection (use the legend on the map to change the minimum tree cover canopy density threshold)Cautions. This data layer was updated in January 2. August 2. 01. 5 to extend the tree cover loss analysis to 2.

The updates include new data for the target year and re- processed data for the previous two years (2. The re- processing increased the amount of change that could be detected, resulting in some changes in calculated tree cover loss for 2. Calculated tree cover loss for 2. The integrated use of the original 2. Version 1. 0) data and the updated 2. Version 1. 1) data should be performed with caution.

For the purpose of this study, “tree cover” was defined as all vegetation taller than 5 meters in height. Tree cover” is the biophysical presence of trees and may take the form of natural forests or plantations existing over a range of canopy densities. Loss” indicates the removal or mortality of tree canopy cover and can be due to a variety of factors, including mechanical harvesting, fire, disease, or storm damage. As such, “loss” does not equate to deforestation.

When zoomed out (< zoom level 1. Pixels with darker shading represent areas with a higher concentration of tree cover loss, whereas pixels with lighter shading indicate a lower concentration of tree cover loss. There is no variation in pixel shading when the data is at full resolution (≥ zoom level 1.

Overview. This data set measures areas of tree cover loss across all global land (except Antarctica and other Arctic islands) at approximately 3. The data were generated using multispectral satellite imagery from the Landsat 5 thematic mapper (TM), the Landsat 7 thematic mapper plus (ETM+), and the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) sensors. Over 1 million satellite images were processed and analyzed, including over 6. Landsat 7 images for the 2.

Landsat 5, 7, and 8 images for updates for the 2. The clear land surface observations in the satellite images were assembled and a supervised learning algorithm was applied to identify per pixel tree cover loss. Tree cover loss is defined as “stand replacement disturbance,” or the complete removal of tree cover canopy at the Landsat pixel scale. Tree cover loss may be the result of human activities, including forestry practices such as timber harvesting or deforestation (the conversion of natural forest to other land uses), as well as natural causes such as disease or storm damage. Fire is another widespread cause of tree cover loss, and can be either natural or human- induced. Update (Version 1. This data set has been updated twice since its creation, and now includes loss up to 2.

The analysis method has been modified in numerous ways, and the update should be seen as part of a transition to a future “version 2. Key changes include: The use of Landsat 8 data for 2. Landsat 5 data for 2. The reprocessing of data from the previous two years in measuring loss (2. Improved training data for calibrating the loss model.

Improved per sensor quality assessment models to filter input data. Improved input spectral features for building and applying the loss model. These changes lead to a different and improved detection of global tree cover loss. However, the years preceding 2. It must also be noted that a full validation of the results incorporating Landsat 8 has not been undertaken. Such an analysis may reveal a more sensitive ability to detect and map forest disturbance using Landsat 8 data.

If this is the case then there will be a more fundamental limitation to the consistency of this data set before and after the inclusion of Landsat 8 data. Validation of Landsat 8- incorporated loss detection is planned. Some examples of improved change detection in the 2. Improved detection of boreal forest loss due to fire. Improved detection of smallholder rotation agricultural clearing in dry and humid tropical forests. Improved detection of selective logging.

These are examples of dynamics that may be differentially mapped over the 2. Version 1. 1. A version 2. The original version 1.

Citation: Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J.

Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R. G. Townshend. 2. High- Resolution Global Maps of 2. Century Forest Cover Change.” Science 3.

November): 8. 50–5. Data available online from: http: //earthenginepartners. Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J.

Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R. G. Townshend. 2. Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA Tree Cover Loss and Gain Area.” University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA. Accessed through Global Forest Watch on [date].

Learn more or download data. Function. Deforestation monitoring system for the Brazilian Amazon used by the Brazilian government to establish public policy. RESOLUTION / SCALE3. Geographic coverage. Brazilian Amazon. Source data. Landsat, supplemented with CBERS, Resourcesat, and UK2- DMCFrequency of updates. Annual. Date of content.

Cautions. PRODES only identifies forest clearings of 6. Frequent cloud cover over areas of the Amazon may change the reported year of deforestation.