Sure A Not

The name figure and her father Joseph are being played by Jewish players, so the approaching biblical film from Netflix, Mary, has received criticism on social media.

The criticisms are based on the argument that Mary and Joseph, and their son Jesus, a Jewish man born in Bethlehem, were, in fact, Palestinian. Some critics of the Netflix casting are concerned that Israeli actors portraying Palestinians as historical figures while Israeli bombs kill contemporary Palestinians.

According to director D J. Caruso, it was important for us to select Israeli actors in order to ensure authenticity while selecting the majority of our main cast members.

So, were Jesus and his parents Palestinian?

Bethlehem is now a city located in the Israeli-occupied West Bank of the Palestinian Territories, about ten kilometers south of Jerusalem. So the short answer is: yes, Jesus was a Palestinian, according to modern geopolitics at least.

One could also argue that he was n’t Jewish and was born in a political vacuum before Palestine.

Paula Fredriksen, a historian of ancient Christianity, made this point in March. She described Jesus ‘ claims as” an act of cultural and political appropriation” in the Washington Post.

A Jewish man from Bethlehem

According to the New Testament, Jesus was born somewhere around 4-6 BCE during the reign of Herod the Great, in Bethlehem. Bethlehem’s location was in an area then known by the Romans as Judea – the land of Judah, then occupied by the Jewish people ( the Judeans ).

The Roman historian Tacitus was the first to mention the existence of Jesus as a Judean, outside of the New Testament, in his Annales ( 115-120 CE).

According to Tacitus, the Christians were to blame for the fire that destroyed Rome in 64 CE, as the Emperor Nero had predicted. They were named, he wrote, after ( Jesus )” Christus”, who was executed by Pontius Pilate when he was governor of” Judea, the first source of the evil”.

According to the Old Testament, the 12 tribes of Israel conquered Canaan ( later to become known as Palestine, then Judea, then Palestine, and then Israel ) around 1200 BCE. In the area south of Jerusalem, the tribe of Judah made its home.

This made Jesus a Judean ( in Hebrew, a Yehudi), from which the English word” Jew” is derived. As a Judean, Jesus was part of the Jewish religious tradition, which was focused on the temple in Jerusalem, known as the second temple.

‘ Palestine’ has a long history

The name” Palestine” for that region also had a long history, though. It first appeared in the writings of Herodotus, a Greek historian, in the fifth century BCE.

He wrote of a “district of Syria, called Palaistinê”, between Egypt and Phoenicia, an ancient region that corresponds to modern Lebanon, with adjoining parts of modern Syria and Israel. So, the land ( or part of it ) was called” Palestine” by the Greeks before it was called” Judea” by the Romans.

The Bar Kokhba revolt, which dates from 132-135 CE, was a pivotal period in the creation of Palestine. The Jews were killed, displaced or enslaved. They did n’t start relocating to Palestine until after World War II, when Israel became a Jewish state.

The Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province from” Judea” to” Palestinian Syria” in c. 138 CE. The region’s Jewish identity was removed by this name change, which implied that it was more Syrian and Greek than Jewish.

We might say that from this moment on, Jesus was a Palestinian.

His religious affiliation to the Jewish religion and his ethnicity both had changed, but his location had also. The Judean had become a Palestinian.

Back then, this mattered little. After all, Palestine was just another name for Judea.

Politicizing” Palestine” and” Israel”

After the fall of the Roman Empire, the boundaries of Palestine were vague and uncertain. ” Palestine” did not refer to any specific political identity, so no precise geographical determination was needed.

The crusaders preferred” the Holy Land”, or” the Kingdom of Jerusalem”. Up until the end of the first world war, Ottoman dominance over the region was overthrown, Palestine’s borders remained ambiguous until it joined the Ottoman Empire in 1516.

British and Allied forces seized Jerusalem in December 1917. The British would continue to rule Palestine until a mandated end date in 1948, and the area was already occupied by them by October 1918. In May 1948, after an estimated 750, 000 people who lived on 77.8 % of the land in then-Palestine were displaced, the modern state of Israel was declared.

Palestine’s historic geography has since come back as crucial. Prior to the establishment of the new state of Israel, Palestine would now be defined as a constrained, determined geographical space.

This new state built upon its original Judean, or Jewish identity. But with its new name, it created a new understanding of itself. A new kind of Jew, an” Israeli”, had arrived in the place formerly known as Judea.

The new Jewish” Israelis” established themselves against the previous inhabitants, the” Palestinians”. According to the Bible, they restricted the Palestinians ‘ access to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which the Israelis still believed to be the Promised Land that God had given them.

The Arabs of Palestine, for their part, began to use the term” Palestinian” to defend the nationalism of the Palestinian people and their right to an independent state.

A common humanity

Jesus could be both a Palestinian and a Judaean when Palestine and Judaea shared essentially the same geographical area. Back then, it did n’t matter.

He can no longer be both in a modern Middle East that is divided along binary lines ( between Jew and Arab, Israeli Jew and Palestinian Muslim or Christian ).

From all of this, Jesus is the only one who knows. However, we should be questioned about the validity and significance of such binary distinctions once we realize that Jesus is both a Jew and a Palestinian.

After all, Jews, Muslims and Christians believe we all come from one original pair of humans: Adam and Eve.

Beyond the arbitrary and impermanent divisions of people and places created by the changes and chances of history, that story leads us to a recognition of common humanity.

Philip C. Almond is emeritus professor in the history of religious thought, The University of Queensland

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

On November 14, 2023, a fortnight into Israel’s murderous assault on the Palestinians in Gaza, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, one of the rulers of Ansar Allah and of the state of Yemen, delivered a discourse that was broadcast on Al-Masirah broadcast.

He said,” We keep an eye on any Israeli ship while it is constantly being looked for.” ” The enemy relies on camouflage in its movement in the Red Sea, especially in Bab al-Mandab, and]does ] not dare to raise Israeli flags on its ships”.

The Bab al-Mandab, the Gate of Grief, is the 14-nautical-mile vast lake between Djibouti and Yemen. What is exciting is that, by United Nations convention, a state claims 12 nautical miles as its regional control, this means a huge part of the lakes are within Yemen’s control.

Five days later, Yemeni soldiers flew in a helicopter over the cargo ship Galaxy Leader, which is partly owned by Abraham Ungar ( one of Israel’s wealthiest men ), but is registered in the Bahamas and runs by the Chinese NYK transport line.

The ship continues to be held within Yemen’s regional waters in the harbor of Saleef, with its 25 staff members as captives in Al-Hudaydah governorate. This abuse on Galaxy Leader, and then on some other Israeli-owned arteries, halted the transportation of goods to the Port of Eliat, which sits at the end of the Gulf of Aqaba.

This port, which squeezes between Egypt and Jordan and is the only port in the Mediterranean Sea that allows Israel to access the Mediterranean Sea, is no longer capable of handling cargo ships, and the port’s personal operator has declared it to be about bankrupt.

The port has been the target of drone and missile attacks from Bahrain, Iraq, and Yemen over the course of the previous year.

US strikes hardly working

If Israel stopped its murderous war against the Palestinians, Yemen’s government said it would refrain from attacking. Since the Israeli invasion continues, Yemen’s problems have also continued.

These Yemeni problems have resulted in numerous attack on Yemen’s now unstable infrastructure, including frequent American missile strikes and Jewish strikes on Yemen’s port town of Hodeidah in July.

When US President Joe Biden was asked if the US strikes and weapon strikes on Oman were working, he answered frankly:” When you say’ working,’ are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they going to continue? Indeed”.

In other words, Yemen’s government, mistakenly called the Houthis after the Zaydi history of Islam, is still attacking Israel despite US and Israeli pressure.

The Zaydi group, the Ansar Allah movements, and the Yemeni government are among the Yemenis who are most opposed to the Jewish holocaust. Yet Tawakkol Karman, who received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2011 and is a writer of the Yemeni state, has been outspoken in her criticism of Israel.

Biden was correct in saying that US missile strikes wo n’t stop Yemen from attacking. Saudi Arabia bombarded Yemen from 2015 to 2023, killing a lot of the country’s system.

The Yemenis continue to fire at Jewish target despite this. In October 2024, the US defense deployed B-2 Spirit aircraft to reach what the Pentagon called, “five underwater goals”.

Although it was unclear whether these arms stores had been destroyed, it does indicate how desperate Israel and the US are to prevent the Yemeni attacks. The names of the US missions ( OPE Poseidon Archer and OP Prosperity Guardian ) sound intriguing.

A number of ship strike organizations that work to defend Israel and to reach Yemen as well as those that work to stop Israel’s genocide are supporting them. At least 40 000 US soldiers are stationed in the Middle East, and at least one ship strike party can be found using ships and aircraft carriers at once.

As USS Abraham Lincoln departs from the Pacific Ocean, the US Navy reports that there are two destroyers en route to the Mediterranean Sea ( USS Bulkeley and USS Arleigh Burke ) and two in the Red Sea ( USS Cole and USS Jason Dunham ), both of which are anchored by the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman.

In the area surrounding Israel, US weapons is present.

A social alternative

Biden is not the only one who claims that the US’s strikes on Yemen were futile. US Vice Admiral George Wikoff, who leads Operation Prosperity Guardian, addressed an market in Washington, DC from his office in Bahrain in August.

According to Wikoff, the United States is unable to “find a central center of gravity” for Yemenis, which would mean putting forth” a typical punishment policy.” If the United States ca n’t stop the Yemeni government’s leadership from attacking Israeli shipping and infrastructure, then it ca n’t stop the attacks.

According to Wikoff,” We have undoubtedly degraded their capability,” in reference to the US weapons ‘ robots and weapons. Wikoff did not mention that US missiles and drones used by Yemeni soldiers cost about US$ 2, 000, whereas US weapons used to shoot them down charge US$ 2 million.

In the end, Yemenis may be responsible for degrading the US military ( the Wall Street Journal reported in October that the US is running out of air-defense missiles, and the same newspaper reported in June that the US has spent$ 1 billion on its war on Yemen since October 2023 ).

Like Biden, Wikoff reflected:” Have we stopped them? No”. In an intriguing away, Wikoff said,” The answer is not going to come at the end of a weapon system”.

The only thing Israel can do is put an end to its murder, according to the Yemeni government. But yet a ceasefire might not be enough. In early November, the United Nations national Louise Wateridge posted a video on X of the loneliness in northeastern Gaza, and therefore wrote,” An whole world now a cemetery”.

If Israel continues to pursue its improper policies of murder, ethnic cleansing, and segregation, the Yemeni government’s capacity to halt shipping to Israel and impose sanctions on the country off its coast might encourage it to do so.

Both Wikoff and Biden both acknowledge that the US policy has n’t worked, and Wikoff even claimed that using military force will be the answer. It will have to be social.

Globetrotter provided the content for this article, which is now republished with authority.

Vijay Prashad is an American writer, director, and journalist. He is a writing brother and chief editor at Globetrotter. He is an director of LeftWord Books and the producer of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

He has written more than 20 publications, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest ebooks are On Cuba: Views on 70 Times of Revolution and Struggle, Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Actions for Socialism, and ( with Noam Chomsky ) The Removal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of US Power.

Continue Reading

Pacific Forum published this article at its original publication. It is republished with authority.

Japan and New Zealand announced in June 2024 that the two countries had come to terms on an data protection arrangement. &nbsp, While information on the specific characteristics of the contract are yet to be published, it might be safe to assume that this is a step toward further bilateral security assistance, given New Zealand ‘s&nbsp, increasingly vigilant approach&nbsp, to the emerging&nbsp, regional security infrastructure.

However, it’s crucial to remember that sharing intelligence does n’t always translate to aligning security policies.

The&nbsp, New Zealand Intelligence Community consists of three organizations:

• the Cabinet and Prime Minister’s Office’s National Assessment Bureau is responsible for assessing brains.
• the New Zealand Intelligence Security Services ( SIS ) for domestic security intelligence, and
• the Bureau of Signals Intelligence, part of the government connections and safety.

New Zealand has increased its activities in Asia, particularly since the UK joined the European Union, as pointed out by both&nbsp, academics&nbsp, and&nbsp, experts. New Zealand has always maintained its place among the Five Eyes society, even though it retreated from the US and Australia’s 1951 ANZUS Treaty in the 1980s.

The states ‘ monthly summits and ministerial meetings are a key part of the Five Eyes framework’s institutional strengths, which coordinate their positions, set their goals, and share ideas. They also co-ordinate their positions, and share ideas.

Despite their differing viewpoints, the New Zealand government often deviates from the conversation of other member nations. A new and striking case had been 2021, when New Zealand&nbsp, stepped back&nbsp, from involvement in joint denunciation against China’s treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority by the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia.

This is especially at conflict with the fact that the Five Eyes group just recently declared&nbsp, a more expanded relationship&nbsp, with another member states to include the political sphere.

Therefore, a question: What enables cleverness sharing to help to plan alignment?

Intelligence-sharing systems and agreements usually develop shared viewpoints. Similar types of analysis on comparable details, which have resulted in comparable opinions in various countries, have contributed, and have gained more knowledge that one’s partners also have comparable conclusions.

Establishing such mechanisms second requires acknowledging shared safety concerns and fostering trust in the companion nation’s handling of sensitive information.

Although we can conclude that these agreements will benefit both parties, the existence of an intelligence-sharing system does not always mean that the participants ‘ regional security policies will be in line with one another.

Policymakers&nbsp, with cleverness assessment inputs – no intelligence companies themselves – generally participate in policymaking. Therefore, policy will depend on how eloquently the intelligence agencies ‘ risk assessments affect policymakers ‘ attitudes.

Bisher, it seems as though New Zealand’s intelligence services and local politics have had little effect on the political landscape. In comparison to more effective institutions in another Five Eyes nations, the intelligence role is also constrained, and their influence is less developed.

However, within New Zealand culture there is also lingering suspicion of the region’s intelligence agencies originating from the&nbsp, Kim Dotcom incident, in which the agencies supposedly conducted unlawful surveillance of the accused.

Similar to other Five Eyes nations, New Zealand’s intelligence companies have since made more effort to improve their public relations and communication skills. But, just in 2023 did New Zealand publish&nbsp, a risk assessment report, with the following of its kind coming in first September 2024.

Although these more common engagements will have a greater impact on policy, their discussion is not entirely in line with that of other government agencies. For example, New Zealand’s intelligence agencies described the People’s Republic of China as generally framed as New Zealand’s and its traditional security partners ‘ corporate competitors. This seems to be a variation from New Zealand’s standard approach.

David Capie, a leading New Zealand professor, &nbsp, described&nbsp, it as a shock to the earlier New Zealand institutions that have spent much of the past decade rejecting perfectly that frame. He also noted and appreciated the significance of the SIS’s recognition that, in addition to being proper competitors, it also comes from apparently friendly nations, particularly in light of Five Eyes ‘ suspicions of India.

The American government was first accused by the American state of organizing Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s death in June 2023. In October 2023, New Zealand joined another Five Eyes nations in condemning New Delhi for threatening to formally withdraw American officials ‘ protections and immunity unless Ottawa reduced the number of delegations it had in India.

The question is whether these intelligence agencies ‘ attitudes, which are more in tune with their traditional surveillance partners, will eventually result in actual and consistent plan alignment.

The risk assessment report states that it is not a federal policy record but rather an independent assessment by the SIS, which is one caveat to answering this question. This is unusual because the New Zealand government is responsible for the publication of the report. What should this be understood as? Any corporate report must be reviewed and approved by senior government officials and political decision-makers, according to the standard operating procedure for federal papers. The key players in the state are typically essential people, not all politicians and government officials, according to the argument. So, we ask what made the Sisters include such a disclaimer.

According to my understanding, there was no discussion among the New Zealand government before the release. On page 14, the report states that it does not want to securitize some ethnic communities, but other topics might warrant discussion. Another cause could be that New Zealand officials are generally&nbsp, skeptical&nbsp, of intelligence firms, which made it difficult to get the natural light from senior officials to challenge the record as the government’s official status.

The recent SIS security assessment’s analysis serves as one more instance of how the views of New Zealand intelligence agencies have been accepted in the wider domestic policy community. The New Zealand intelligence agencies have less influence on the current Luxon government’s foreign policy and its alignment with its Five Eyes counterparts because of a relatively underdeveloped intelligence community and a low level of confidence in the policy/political community.

There is still work to be done, despite Japan and New Zealand’s intelligence cooperation offering both opportunities: more information on North Korea and China in Japan’s and New Zealand’s cases.

In order to maintain democratic control over the government, it is crucial to establish an oversight mechanism in both the parliament and the government as intelligence agencies venture into uncharted territory regarding cooperation. The scope and authority of the intelligence agencies must be enshrined in law for them to function properly, or even be established, and after that, political authorities can carry out appropriate supervision.

Japan currently lacks proper intelligence agency governance and will benefit greatly from an established, organized, and official agency with oversight. In order to bridge the gap between the intelligence agencies, on the one hand, and the government and the public, New Zealand will gain more public trust by including former intelligence officials in its oversight committee.

Rei Koga ( rei. koga@kcl .ac. uk ), a PhD student in international political economy at the Department of European and International Studies, King’s College London, is a WSD-Handa research fellow at Pacific Forum.

Continue Reading

As a business who loves offers, Donald Trump may be overjoyed with all the free tips he’s getting as president-elect.

In the times between the vote and the opening of a new leader, would-be advisors appear. They demand that this campaign promises be kept, rather than that one. They advocate carrying out specific strategy promises to the maximum or minimum. They suggest which of the counterpart’s procedures may get continued and which axed.

All this happens with any approaching leader. Due to the ongoing fight for the Republican Party’s core, it is happening frequently with Trump. Oversimplified, it’s a battle between the conservatism of Ronald Reagan and what some visit Big Government conservative.

The essential principles of Reagan conservative include tax breaks, small government, restructuring, free business and a skeletal foreign policy. Some Trump liberals are friendly to immigration, though firmly opposed to illegal immigration.

As the name implies, Big Government conservatism is n’t about shrinking the government, but about making it work harder for American workers. More Americans should be given high-paying work and the middle school to return, with particular attention.

According to its supporters, sealed borders mean that both legal and illegal immigrants are dependent on both legal and illegal immigrants, which would only raise the wages of native-born Americans who would otherwise be able to fill those positions with more lucrative pay. For the same purpose, big-government conservatives believe that taxes promote manufacturing work.

Like Reagan liberals, the big-government liberals tend to favor restructuring. Economic legislation in certain puts energy-industry jobs at hazard, in their perspective.

Unsurprisingly, they approve of the Democrats ‘ push to pass the Network and Chips Act subsidies for new businesses. They’d maintain that industrial plan, maybe even increase it.

Big government does n’t mean big Pentagon. These conservatives dislike cheap overseas war. Home revival is their goal.

Although Donald Trump may have long since distanced himself from Reagan conservative, his two most significant accomplishments in his first term, tax cuts and restructuring, were straight out of the Reagan playbook. Even though Elon Musk might not be off to it, he has accused him of shrinking the state.

From Big Government conservative, Trump has chosen isolationism, closed borders and foreign-policy caution. How far should taxes and closed borders be concerned, as well as whether new businesses should continue receiving industrial-policy subsidies, are two questions that prospective advisors are trying to control.

Tariffs

The President-elect has promised big new tariffs – as much as 20 % on all incoming goods except Chinese imports, which he’d hit with a 60 % tariff. He’s getting a lot of tips to be more restricted.

Companies and economists are warning consumers that they will experience a fresh wave of prices. Agriculture and other exporting nations are concerned about buying companion reprisals. According to Aaron Friedberg, tariffs against China wo n’t work unless they are coordinated with other, China-fearing governments.

Robert Lighthizer, the US deal representative in Trump’s second name who is said to be Trump’s selection as business” king” in this one, is highly pro-tariff. But he’s also a realist.

Higher taxes are a clarity. It’s also unclear how wide and how great.

Closed edges

It may be challenging to implement the massive arrests of illegal immigrants that member Trump promised. Thousands of them exist, and many of them have been working in the sector for centuries. A lot more border-control officials would need to be hired to round them off.

The flow of new fugitives will definitely be stopped by a Trump administration that is stronger than it was in the past. Any person who has been found guilty of a crime or has received a deportation order from a prosecutor will likely be deported. It’s hard to believe the persecution will be huge, though. If they are, they may tremendously destroy the economy.

Industrial coverage

Trump dislikes the grants, but many of them are already building. In the legislative districts where those companies are being built, many of which are red says, it would be a vote-loser to ban them.

Could he be persuaded by big-government liberals to support him in more ways? It does n’t seem likely. However, JD Vance has a great lover in Donald Trump Jr., whose views seem to have a bearing on his father, and he leans toward the huge government side.

Setting up a review committee of withdrew generals and admirals to weed out serving three- and four-star military officials is one of the worst recommendations the president-elect is receiving. Trump, who viewed commitment as the top priority in his first word with officers who believed their commitment to the Constitution, is undoubtedly drawn to the idea.

An ignorant or disobedient agent has the power to sack them as president. However, it’s a terrible idea to conduct a fidelity check for a particular politician. Officials may be promoted on the basis of significance, not politicians.

Urban Lehner, a former Wall Street Journal Asia journalist and writer, is DTN/The Progressive Farmer’s editor emeritus. &nbsp,

This&nbsp, content, originally published on November 20 by the latter media business and then republished by Asia Times with authority, is © Copyright 2024 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved. &nbsp, &nbsp, Follow&nbsp, Urban Lehner&nbsp, on X @urbanize.

Continue Reading