Tuesday, June 01, 2021

Brazilian town experiment shows mass vaccination can wipe out COVID-19

Residents of the Brazilian city of Serrana line up for their COVID-19 vaccine doses. DIVULGAÇÃO/BUTANTAN INSTITUTE


By Sofia MoutinhoJun. 1, 2021

Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation.

A small commuter town surrounded by sugarcane fields in southeastern Brazil, one of the countries hardest hit by COVID-19, has shown that even a vaccine that had low efficacy in some clinical trials can dramatically control the pandemic virus.

As part of an unusual experiment to track the real-world effectiveness of CoronaVac, a COVID-19 vaccine made by a Chinese company, almost all adult residents of Serrana, in the state of São Paulo, received the required two shots between February and April, long before most would otherwise have become eligible for the vaccine. The results were dramatic. Symptomatic cases of COVID-19 have dropped by 80% since the start of mass vaccination, related hospitalizations fell 86%, and deaths plummeted 95%, the research team in charge of the experiment reported during a press conference yesterday.

Meanwhile, cases have risen out of control in 15 other cities nearby. “Serrana is now an oasis,” says Ricardo Palacios, an epidemiologist at the Butantan Institute, a state-owned research center that produces the vaccine in Brazil. “And it has shown us that it is surely possible to control the epidemic through vaccination.”

Some other COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated greater than 90% real-world effectiveness at preventing serious disease, and they have helped countries bring cases down to very low levels. But there has been concern about CoronaVac, which uses an inactivated copy of SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate immunity. Clinical trials conducted in several countries came up with different efficacy values for the vaccine, the lowest being 50% in Brazil—right at the threshold established by the World Health Organization (WHO) for emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine. Later studies in Brazil that tried to assess the vaccine’s real-world effectiveness have indicated similar levels of protection.

That’s why the data from Serrana are reassuring to many scientists in Brazil, where CoronaVac makes up 80% of all vaccine doses administered. “These are very encouraging results,” says Ethel Maciel, an epidemiologist at the Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, who was not part of the study. Maciel is especially relieved the vaccine protected the town because a SARS-CoV-2 variant dubbed P1, which originated in Brazil and is now the most prevalent in the country, was also the most common variant in Serrana during the period of the study. Lab studies had suggested P1, which WHO recently proposed renaming delta, could elude protection from vaccines.

WHO announced today that it granted CoronaVac an emergency use listing, a step that should speed the vaccine’s use in many low-income countries. Brazil has the world’s second deadliest COVID-19 outbreak, with more than 461,000 deaths officially, below the United States but ahead of India. Brazil’s vaccination campaign, slow to get off the ground because of scarce vaccine supplies, is still only targeting the elderly and patients with comorbidities. Only 15% of the population has had at least one vaccine dose.

The mass vaccination experiment in Serrana was named Project S—not for the town, but for “secret,” as the plans were initially kept quiet to avoid a massive migration to the town. When it began, one in 20 Serrana residents was infected, and more than 25% had been previously exposed to the virus. The high caseload made the town attractive as a test site, along with its modest population of just over 45,000 people and its proximity to a campus of the University of São Paulo.

The team of about 15 researchers, supported by local authorities and health professionals, first conducted a detailed census. Then they divided Serrana into 25 sections that represented microcosms of people who interact with each other—for example, residents living in the same group of buildings or shopping in the same stores. The researchers then assembled four groups of residents from these clusters and started to vaccinate each group 1 week apart, administering second doses 4 weeks after the first. Only residents 18 years and older who weren’t suffering from chronic diseases and not pregnant were eligible. After 8 weeks, 96% of those, about 27,000 in total, had received two shots.

Although the town was never closed or isolated from neighboring cities, the researchers say they started to see a reduction in transmission almost immediately after the first group got its second dose. By the time the third group received its second dose, and about 75% of the eligible population was immunized, the outbreak was effectively under control.

The researchers suggest the vaccination campaign, combined with the population’s previous infections, may have gotten the town to “herd immunity,” the point at which the coronavirus has difficulty finding new people to infect because so many are already immune. On day 14 after the last vaccination, there were only two cases among vaccinated people and no deaths. “It was amazing,” Palacios says. COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths also plummeted among children and teenagers, none of whom received the vaccine.

No severe side effects were reported. The team says the results will soon be submitted to a journal for publication and it may post a preprint before that. Florian Krammer, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, says the experiment “sounds interesting and the outcome makes sense,” but cautions that further data from a published study are necessary to draw conclusions.

Ricardo Gazzinelli, president of the Brazilian Immunology Society, says the results are good news for CoronaVac, but cautions that 2 months of analysis is too short. The research team plans to track Serrana’s residents for up to 1 year to see whether their immunity wanes. If it does so quickly, ending the pandemic using CoronaVac might be hard, because Brazil would probably need to start giving booster shots even before it has fully vaccinated the entire population.

“If the vaccine’s efficacy period is short and we keep the current pace of vaccination, herd immunity will never be reached because when most of the population is vaccinated, a large group won’t be immune anymore,” Gazzinelli says.


doi:10.1126/science.abj7815
Experts sound the alarm ahead of Brazil’s third COVID-19 wave


ALEX NGUYEN
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED MAY 29, 2021

Nurse technician Marlon Samuel cares for a COVID-19 patient in the Intensive Care Unit of a former men’s hospital, which has been converted into a field hospital for COVID-19 patients, on May 20, 2021 in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES

Weeks after Brazil experienced the COVID-19 pandemic’s deadliest month with 82,266 deaths recorded in April, medical experts in the country are already warning about a third wave.

Over the first few months of 2021, a punishing second wave – partly from the P.1 variant first identified in the city of Manaus – battered Brazil. Facing overwhelmed hospitals as well as oxygen and sedative shortages, the most populous country in Latin America saw April’s death toll surpass March’s record of 66,573 fatalities. But just as some states started to reduce public-health restrictions after daily infections and deaths declined since mid-April, COVID-19 cases are once again rising.

As of May 27, Brazil has confirmed more than 16.3 million cases and more than 456,000 deaths – the world’s second-highest death toll after the U.S. – since the beginning of the pandemic.

For Antonio Flores, an infectious disease specialist and medical co-ordinator for Médecins sans frontières (MSF) in Brazil, the upward trend signals the impending arrival of a third wave. He added that some municipalities are already seeing waitlists for intensive-care beds.

“There will be a third wave,” he said. “We just don’t know how hard and how fast it will hit, but we can say that it’s on the way because cases are going up again.”

There is already fear that this third wave would be devastating.

On top of the fact that Brazil is entering its winter months, a big concern revolves around its sluggish vaccine rollout, which started on Jan. 18. In a country of around 214 million people, the campaign has given out 65.27 million doses – with 20.6 per cent of the population receiving at least one dose and 10.1 per cent being fully vaccinated – as of May 27. The daily vaccination rate for most of May was also lower than the peak in mid-April, only surpassing it on May 24.

This slow pace frustrates Dr. Flores. He said Brazil has the expertise and infrastructure through its national immunization program to do better. In fact, during the swine flu pandemic, it administered more than 89 million vaccine doses in less than four months in 2010.

He attributed the problem instead to the federal government’s lack of co-ordination.

Brazil was slow to secure COVID-19 vaccines. Declining Pfizer’s offer for 70 million doses last year, the country decided to rely on AstraZeneca and Sinovac vaccines, which could be manufactured locally. But it has faced troubles sourcing raw materials for them, forcing some large cities to pause second-dose vaccinations. Brazil also later changed its mind and bought 100 million Pfizer doses in March, but it has only received a small fraction of that order so far.

The challenge is also more than just vaccine procurement.

Since the start of the pandemic, Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has repeatedly downplayed COVID-19: He disparaged mask-wearing and lockdown measures in favour of reopening the economy, promoted unproven drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, and stoked vaccine distrust. These actions are now being investigated as part of a Senate inquiry into his government’s pandemic management.

“There is no magic bullet,” Dr. Flores said. “There needs to be a change of direction from the federal government, and that needs to happen fast.”

Beyond the third wave’s potential physical toll, there are also worries about its impact on mental health.

Pedro Gordilho, a medical student in Sao Paulo, experienced the crushing load of responding to a peaking COVID-19 wave first-hand.

While he spent the first wave studying online, Mr. Gordilho was working as a generalist in the public-health system at the height of the second wave. Most days of the week, he would be testing and responding to COVID-19 patients from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And until he was vaccinated in April, he would only work and isolate himself in his room at home – a routine that “drove him crazy.”

The stress eventually pushed him to take antidepressants – though he has since stopped – and to seek therapy.

“I always knew I would put myself at risk in certain situations, but I was really scared of bringing a virus that could potentially kill my parents so easily at home,” Mr. Gordilho said, adding that his parents and siblings are still not yet vaccinated.

“It’s been really tiring the past few months.”

Now, he worries for his friends who will be rotating into his former role in the upcoming months with the impending third wave: “Honestly, it can get worse than March and April.”

For others, the stress can also come from facing rising inflation, hunger and unemployment.

Lili Vieira de Carvalho, executive director of the Vancouver Latin American Cultural Centre, sends money back monthly to support her elderly mother who lives in Petropolis, a city near Rio de Janeiro. With the monthly grocery bill for her mother and her two caregivers rising from $200 to $250 recently, she has felt the need to send more home.

In April, inflation was at 6.8 per cent – the highest rate since November, 2016. The costs of staples such as rice and beans have also risen by more than 50 per cent in the past year.

Ms. Vieira de Carvalho added that her family situation is still a “privileged” one. Over the past year, around 19 million Brazilians faced hunger, while more than half the country experienced food insecurity.

“Unemployment is huge. … A lot of people don’t have food to eat. Prices are going crazy,” she said.

Dr. Flores has noticed this challenge, too. He views it as another product of the federal government’s lack of co-ordination: Had it implemented a stronger response from the beginning, Brazil would have seen fewer cases and less long-term economic fallout.

Looking ahead, he said MSF will continue to focus on testing and contact tracing in Brazil’s North and Northeast regions, where the health system is more vulnerable.

“If you let the outbreak rip, the country will be a breeding ground for more variants,” Dr. Flores said.

“So how do you stop variants from emerging? By controlling the epidemic in the community – that’s a basic concept and it needs to be done.”

MSF is also calling on the international community to share resources and waive COVID-19 vaccine patent protections. After the U.S. expressed support for waiving these rights, Canada announced new funding on May 7 to support vaccine production and distribution, but did not state its position on the waiver idea.

Meanwhile, many Brazilians are already looking forward to next year’s general election, as Mr. Bolsonaro’s approval rating plunged to 24 per cent. Leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and centrist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, two former presidents who were rivals, also recently signalled a common opposition against the incumbent.

And others are simply looking to survive this deadly pandemic year in Brazil.

“It’s really hard to have hope, but I try to have hope because that’s the only thing we have right now,” said Mr. Gordilho. “We just hope for the better.”
NASA RELEASES 3D VIDEO OF INGENUITY MARS HELICOPTER’S 3RD FLIGHT
MICHAEL MCCABE
MAY 31ST, 2021



On April 25, 2021, the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter performed its third test flight. Recently, NASA engineers converted a video of the flight into anaglyph 3D.

As part of the third flight, the Perseverance Rover’s Mastcam-Z, which is a state-of-the-art dual-camera, zoomable imaging system, captured a video of Ingenuity. NASA recently converted it into 3D. You can view this on NASA’s YouTube channel using red and cyan 3D glasses.

Justin Maki, who is an imaging scientist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, has headed the team that rendered the video imaging of Ingenuity’s third flight and had it converted to anaglyph, which is when the frames are optimized for viewing when seen through color-filtered glasses.

“The Mastcam-Z video capability was inherited from the Mars Science Laboratory MARDI (MArs Descent Imager) camera,” Maki said in a NASA news release. “To be reusing this capability on a new mission by acquiring 3D video of a helicopter flying above the surface of Mars is just spectacular.”

This adds an element of depth to another aspect of the historical moments being captured on the red planet’s surface. It also gives the viewer the feeling of standing on the surface of Mars, with the flight happening right in front of their eyes.

NASA and JPL are continuing to pushing the envelope with the Ingenuity. Now that its primary technology demonstration mission is completed, the team has transitioned into an operations demonstration phase.

IMMORAL MAJORITY

An Evangelical Battle of the Generations: To Embrace Trump or Not?

As Liberty University plots its post-Falwell future, young people want to steer clear of politics. The trustees aren’t buying it.


Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump delivers the 2016 convocation at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. | Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

LONG READ

By MAGGIE SEVERNS
06/01/2021 

For years, there was an adage around Liberty University that if God split Jerry Falwell in half, you would have his sons Jerry and Jonathan

Jerry Jr. inherited his father’s desire to be a force in American politics, and his post as Liberty University president, while Jonathan inherited his father’s gift for evangelical uplift and became pastor of his church.

Now, 14 years after Jerry Falwell Sr. died and nine months after Jerry Jr. was ousted in a scandal, Liberty is enmeshed in a debate that could have profound implications for the nation’s religious right: Whether it should keep nurturing Jerry Jr.’s focus on politics and maintain its high-flying role in the Republican Party, or begin to change its culture and back away from politics, an approach increasingly favored by younger evangelicals.

As part of their discussions, the Liberty trustees are considering naming Jonathan Falwell as the university’s chancellor—an important and highly symbolic post—in order to maintain the Falwell family connection but not their political baggage, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

Donald Trump looms large over the university’s dilemma. Jerry Jr. shocked many in the religious right with his early endorsement of Trump over many Republicans with far greater evangelical ties; during Trump’s presidency, Jerry Jr. spent university funds on ads and programs that highlighted Trump and his followers. But Jonathan has been far cooler toward Trump. And in the wake of Jerry Jr.’s ouster, some in the Liberty community question whether the university would do better to concentrate on its religious values rather than casting its lot with the former president.

Liberty’s ultimate path will influence the greater evangelical world, which is having its own reckoning with the post-Trump Republican Party. With more than 100,000 students, Liberty has long been one of a small handful of top cultural institutions for evangelicals, its board studded with famed pastors and movement leaders. Observers believe that even a small change in direction at Liberty could signal shifting winds among one of Republicans’ most important voting blocs.

“Liberty University is a reflection of evangelicalism at large. Good, and bad, and everything,” said Karen Swallow Prior, a professor at Liberty for 21 years before leaving in 2020. “There’s a battle going on between the pro-Trump, pro-conspiracy theory, anti-vaccine crowd and Christians who might or might not have some overlap with those things, but who care most about the ministry.”

Since Jerry Jr. was pushed out of Liberty’s leadership last August, after claiming he was being blackmailed by a former pool attendant who had an affair with his wife, the university’s seven-member trustee executive committee has been struggling to determine how to take the university forward, according to interviews with more than 15 current and former Liberty students, faculty members, administrators and trustees. A Liberty spokesperson did not respond to questions from POLITICO for this story.

Jerry Falwell Jr. delivers a speech on the fourth day of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The members of the executive committee are all older conservatives who tend to be enthusiastic Trump supporters themselves. In Jerry Jr.’s absence, the board has made several key decisions that have served to keep Liberty aligned with the GOP, while at the same time elevating leaders who have the strong religious focus that Jerry Jr. lacked.



In April, the trustees replaced their acting chairman, Allen McFarland, the first Black person to serve as Liberty board chairman, who had an interest in increasing tolerance and diversity at Liberty. He was replaced with Tim Lee, a pugnacious pro-Trump pastor.

Lee—who also refers to himself as “Marine Tim Lee” and “Evangelist Tim Lee”—recently took to task a former Democratic operative who tweeted about how thrilled he was to be getting the Covid vaccine, for example. “Did not quite anticipate the wave of euphoria and emotion that comes with that first shot” of the Covid vaccine, the operative said.

“I’m guessing you have a fairly boring life. This is the best you’ve had in a year?” Lee responded on Twitter. “Eat a WHATABURGER and see how that feels.”

But as Lee and others have taken increasing control of the school, a growing chorus of campus critics has been calling on the trustees to enact greater reforms, and they appear to be listening. A week before they took their strongest step yet to distance themselves from Jerry Jr., suing him for failing to reveal the alleged blackmail scheme, they designated Jonathan Falwell as campus pastor. Liberty’s reformers are now pushing for Jonathan to assume an even bigger leadership role at Liberty and help transform the university into a more genteel place. That would mean halting the university’s uncritical embrace of Trump’s party. Today’s GOP, they allege, simply does not represent Christian values.

Matt Morris, a Liberty student from Northern Virginia who recently launched a viral petition against a pro-Trump think tank at Liberty, said he would like it to be a place where “the focus isn’t necessarily the conservative values, but more the biblical values that are part of the school.”

“Shoving politics down people’s throats is not the way Falwell Sr. went about it,” Morris added.

Dumping one Falwell, hiring another


On April 16, Liberty announced that the 70-year-old Lee, a double amputee Vietnam veteran who has preached for over 40 years, would be its new trustee chairman. Lee had been a longtime Liberty trustee and member of the executive committee. The previous day, the university had filed a lawsuit against Jerry Jr., ending a perplexing period in which the former president had tweeted his presence on campus and claimed in a POLITICO interview that he was on great terms with the same trustees who ousted him. The executive committee decided to file the lawsuit without telling the rest of the board members, some of whom learned of the decision through news reports the day before a spring board meeting, two people who discussed the incident with Liberty board members told POLITICO.

But Liberty’s board did not strip the Falwell family from Liberty altogether. Jonathan, the board had already announced, would take the role of campus pastor. Behind the scenes, there were also conversations about elevating Jonathan to the currently unfilled post of chancellor later this year, according to two people who have discussed the issue with Liberty board members.

Giving Jonathan a prominent position shows the university is still invested in the Falwell family’s legacy. And while his role of campus pastor is somewhat limited in scope, becoming chancellor would make Falwell one of the main stewards of the university and give him a role in hiring Liberty’s next president, too.

At 54, the red-haired Jonathan is younger than both Lee and interim president Jerry Prevo, who is 76, as well as many Liberty board members. Jonathan is telegenic and preaches at a quick clip, sometimes dressed in a chic plaid blazer or, as during a speech last fall at Liberty, while wearing black sneakers that appeared to be Allbirds, the favorite shoes of employees at Silicon Valley startups.

Most important for those who would like to see change at Liberty, Jonathan did not embrace Trump when his brother became an enthusiastic supporter in 2016. At the time, Jerry Jr. told POLITICO that Jonathan likely “isn’t crazy about [him] endorsing Trump,” but that his brother hadn’t said anything negative to him about it. Jonathan, declining to speak directly about the election, said at the time, “I’m less interested in that, and more interested in the Gospel.”

That’s not to say that Jonathan, who did not respond to interview requests, is not a conservative. He has spoken out on social issues including gay marriage, which he said would never be allowed at the family’s Thomas Roads Baptist Church. And he voted in the 2016 and 2020 elections, records show.

But Jonathan has not shared his brother and father’s affection for the rough-and-tumble of national politics, or in becoming a national figure at all. When he traveled with his father, Jonathan usually opted to bring a camera, staying behind the lens and shooting thousands of photos of the celebrities and political leaders who coalesced around his father.

Most significantly, Jonathan’s friends and supporters say they feel he would be content providing spiritual guidance to Liberty while letting others manage the university’s administration. If Jonathan were to become chancellor, Liberty would hire a separate president to administer the university, people familiar with the conversations say. It is not clear which post—president or chancellor—would be the top job, or if Jonathan would be Liberty’s sole public face, like his brother and father before him.

Jerry Sr. always wanted Jonathan to play a large role at Liberty, and making him chancellor would restore his father’s vision, many people in the Liberty community said. Back in 2006, after two stints at the hospital, Jerry Sr. embarked on succession planning at the university and ministry that had become his life’s biggest achievements. Falwell Sr. had known for years that he wanted Jonathan to lead his church and Jerry Jr. to lead Liberty after he died, and each son had taken a job at his biggest legacy institutions. But Falwell Sr. wanted additional structure, which included naming Jonathan as Liberty’s executive vice president of spiritual life.

“After my serious health challenges in early 2005, I determined that, at age 73, I must put in place an organizational structure which will assure business stability and spiritual perpetuity to a far larger and rapidly growing LU, even after I am gone,” Falwell wrote in explaining the changes in October 2006, according to an email that was later submitted to Liberty’s board by one of Falwell Sr.’s deputies, Ron Godwin, and subsequently posted online by Save71, a pro-reform alumni organization.

“Preserving the ‘Spiritual Life’ of Liberty is my foremost concern,” Falwell wrote, and “the defining of Jonathan’s post is pivotal to maintaining the doctrinal integrity of this institution and of my personal legacy.”

But Jonathan’s tenure at Liberty proved to be short-lived. Falwell Sr. died of a heart attack the following May. Jonathan took over Thomas Roads Baptist Church, and Jerry Jr. began leading Liberty. Jonathan helped direct the campus church and run Liberty’s convocation program, which invites high-profile outside religious leaders and politicians to speak on campus.

In this 2007 photo, Jonathan Falwell, right, and his brother Jerry Falwell Jr. pray after Jonathan delivered the sermon at the church founded by their late father in Lynchburg, Va. | P. Kevin Morley, Richmond Times-Dispatch/AP Photo

But Jonathan’s presence on campus seemed to undermine his older brother, two former Liberty employees told POLITICO. Jonathan—who had already been preaching at the church for multiple years—was better known in evangelical circles than Jerry Jr., who had held an administrative job at Liberty for years before his father passed away.

“It’s as if Jerry felt like he had to consolidate his influence, because people were looking at Jonathan as a leader the way his dad was,” said one former Liberty employee.

Within a few years, Jonathan stopped appearing often on Liberty’s campus. His hours plummeted, from an average of 23 hours per week of Liberty work in the year after his father’s death to nine hours per week four years later, according to Liberty tax filings. (Former employees say Jonathan spent far fewer hours around campus, and pulled back from his role sooner.) And while he maintained his seat on Liberty’s board he rarely spoke up in meetings, perhaps fearful of contradicting his brother, according to people who have witnessed Liberty board meetings.

Jonathan and Jerry Jr. did not have a particularly close relationship, two people who know both brothers said. One issue on which the brothers did not align was on how fully to embrace Trump. And Jonathan has made it clear that he has some very different views from the former president‘s. The day after the 2017 “Unite the Right” white supremacist march in Charlottesville, which Trump notably failed to condemn, Jonathan Falwell delivered a blazing sermon condemning racism and the rising alt-right.

Standing a mere 60 miles from Charlottesville with a Bible in one hand, Falwell told the congregation, “I hope that you were saddened, I hope you were sickened by what you saw.”

“Some people call it the alt-right, some people call it white supremacy or white nationalism. They may want to call it, you know, neo-Nazis or they may want to call it KKK,” Jonathan said. “The one thing that I know is that God calls it sin. Racism is against God’s word, it is wrong every single time.”

The following Sunday, Jerry Jr. sat down with veteran journalist Martha Raddatz on “This Week,” a top Sunday morning news program. Pressed by Raddatz, Jerry Jr. denounced racism but defended Trump’s response to the event, including his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the rally.

“He has inside information that I don't have,” Falwell told Raddatz. “I don't know if there were historical purists [at the Charlottesville protest] who were trying to preserve some statues. I don't know.”

Blurring religion and politics


For Jerry Falwell Sr., religion and politics often went hand in hand.

By 1979, he and his circle of televangelists had achieved their own kind of rock star status. Falwell was featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and his sermons were broadcast on hundreds of television and radio stations across the country. He toured with a band often composed of Liberty students, flanked by local politicians and church leaders at each stop.

That May, Falwell—who long had considered entering politics but hesitated to do so — gathered a group of conservative consultants and religious leaders at his office in Lynchburg to discuss the need for a return to morality in American life. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision granting women the right to terminate their pregnancies, in particular, had bothered Falwell, as had federal requirements of school desegregation, rising drug and alcohol abuse, and the increasing availability of pornography. “The American family was being threatened as never before in the history of the nation,” he later wrote in his autobiography.

Jerry Falwell gestures while speaking at a Philadelphia rally in January 2006. | Jeff Fusco/Getty Images

Falwell had for years railed against these evils. After the meeting in Lynchburg, he did something different: He co-founded the Moral Majority, a mass political and voter registration effort that would soon be credited with uniting the Christian right and helping deliver a landslide victory for Republican Ronald Reagan over the evangelical Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Within three years, according to Falwell, the organization had amassed a $10 million annual budget.

A decade later, the Moral Majority disbanded. But evangelical voters remain politically engaged, thanks in no small part to Jerry Sr. Eight years after he passed away, his son Jerry Jr. would make another deeply consequential decision to inject himself into national politics, endorsing Trump for president shortly before the caucuses in Iowa, a state with a large evangelical population.

Trump, Falwell said in his announcement, “is a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.”

To some at Liberty, it seemed that Jerry Jr., after succeeding in vastly improving Liberty’s financial situation, felt ready to assert the kind of national influence his father once had. But the choice of Trump stunned many evangelicals, some of whom had longstanding relationships with Trump’s rivals for the GOP nomination.

“The late Dr. Jerry Falwell Sr. would be rolling over in his grave if he knew the son who bore his name had endorsed the most immoral and ungodly man to ever run for President of the United States,” John Stemberger, president of the evangelical Florida Family Policy Council, said the day Falwell Jr. announced his endorsement.

Nonetheless, the backing of Falwell helped Trump gain a share of the evangelical vote while securing a string of primary victories over his more religious counterparts, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who had gone so far as to announce his presidential bid at Liberty. Ultimately, 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump in the 2016 general election, according to exit polls. In 2020, most white evangelicals—somewhere between 76 and 81 percent—voted for Trump a second time.

But polling also tells a second story, one that is troubling church leaders. Since 2008, the share of white evangelical Protestants as part of the population has been on a sharp decline, from 21 percent to 15 percent of the population now. The decline is unusually steep among organized religions.

And while fewer people identify as evangelical, the median age of a white evangelical person in America has gone up, from 50 to 56 years old.

“They’re losing people in the under-50 category,” said Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute. And focus groups and research have shown that people who have left the church say they were turned off by its overt partisanship.

“People who came of age when the Christian right movement was ascendant, what they saw of Christianity was this hard-edge, anti-gay, partisan politics. And I think it was something that just didn’t resonate with that generation’s values and what they thought religion ought to be about,” Jones said.

A growing number of Liberty students, faculty and alumni feel that way, and are becoming vocal about what they see as overt partisanship at the university.

Last summer, a wave of Black faculty and students, including Liberty’s diversity director, announced plans to resign or transfer schools after Jerry Jr. posted a tweet about mask mandates that invoked Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s blackface scandal that Jerry Jr. said was intended to be facetious. Chelsea Andrews, a Liberty alumni who was senior class in 2015, has called for Liberty to take a stronger stance against sexual misconduct and recently assembled dozens of signatures on a letter urging Liberty to investigate Jerry Jr.’s alleged sexual misconduct while he was university president. Other alumni have formed a nonprofit, Save71, to focus on lobbying for reforming the school.

An on-campus think tank started by Jerry Jr. has become a particular flashpoint for reformers. The so-called Falkirk Center—named after Jerry Jr. and GOP activist Charlie Kirk—hired fellows including Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis and spent money on advertising featuring Republican candidates on Facebook, POLITICO reported last year. One spot showed Trump, his hands joined in prayer, with the words, “Pray For Our President.”

In December, both Liberty’s current student body president and vice president tweeted that they thought Falkirk Center was overtly partisan and un-Christian in its tone.

“We have had dozens of conversations with students who are embarrassed to claim the name of our school due to the rhetoric that comes from this center,” wrote Constance Schneider, the student body president.


Liberty University students study and talk in the library on the Lynchburg, Va., campus. | AP Photo/Steve Helber

Their tweets led Morris, a rising sophomore, to wonder if many other Liberty students were similarly irked by the Falkirk Center. He typed up a petition, titled “Liberty United Against Falkirk,” on a Google form shortly before Christmas.

“This petition has been created to show those outside Liberty that we will not be silent about the damage being done to our school's reputation by several un-Christlike people,” the petition read. “We don’t want to be soldiers in a culture war; we want only to be champions for Christ.”

More than 400 students and alumni signed Morris’ petition—far more than he’d anticipated. Not long afterward, Liberty’s board changed the name of the Falkirk Center to the Standing for Freedom Center and cut ties with Kirk. (Kirk was on a one-year contract, Liberty’s communications director told the New York Times, that the university opted to not renew.)

Morris said he sees the student response as a sign of where an increasing number of students want the university to go.

“I want to pursue the more biblical and moral way of going about things as Christians,” Morris said in an interview. “Honestly, I see that becoming more and more the nature of the student body, but not necessarily the school itself.”
Conservatives still call the shots

There’s another possibility for Liberty University’s future, one in which Liberty keeps embracing the Republican Party and finds a new university president—perhaps even a politician—whose views closely resemble those of the executive committee. In that case, the university could continue to be a uniting force between evangelicals and the Republican Party, driving voters to Trump or whoever emerges in his place in 2024. Rather than fretting about un-Christian rhetoric, Liberty could embrace its role in today’s culture wars, which have roots in some of the issues that prompted Jerry Sr. to co-found the Moral Majority.

In the days after Jerry Jr. resigned at Liberty, rumors were rampant around the Lynchburg campus that former Vice President Mike Pence would take the role as Liberty president. Others have hoped Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and former pastor who currently serves as a fellow at the Standing for Freedom Center, would want it.

Liberty’s board is not close to hiring a new president, and will probably wait until it has finished investigating Jerry Jr. before doing so, people familiar with the discussions said.

This new era could well be more conservative. While Jerry Jr. relished being a high-flying player in Republican politics, he was not









Why Did 72% of Israelis Want Attack on Gaza to Continue?

Posted on June 1, 2021 by 
LONG READ

Yves here. This post is a troubling counterpoint to the story we featured last week, of Haaretz in a break with press censorship, putting photos of Palestinian children killed in the Gaza attacks on its front page. We thought this might be a sign of a shift in sentiment. But maybe it was allowed because the powers that be knew it wouldn’t make a difference.

By Paul Jay. Originally published at theAnalysis.news

Paul Jay

Hi, I’m Paul Jay. Welcome to theAnalysis.news. Once again, don’t forget the donate button and subscribe button share button. Also I’d like to thank everyone who already did donate hit all of these different buttons we couldn’t do this without you. We’ll be back in a second with Shir Hever to talk about what’s going on inside Israel.

A survey conducted by direct polls in Israel, that question, 684 Israelis has a margin of error of 4.3 percent, finds that a majority of Israelis didn’t want Israel to negotiate a cease fire that was announced yesterday and they wanted the attacks to continue. In fact, there is a cease fire now in place as we speak, at any rate, but what does this poll tell us about Israeli society? The poll found that 72 percent of the people that responded thought the operation should continue, with the number rising slightly in the south of Israel to 73 percent. Only 24 percent said we should agree to a cease fire, with the figure dropping to 22 percent in the south. When asked whether Israel had made greater achievements in this round of fighting over the previous round, 66 percent said yes, with the figure dropping to 30 percent for those that lived in the south.

Now, the question of whether there should have been such an “operation” – another word to use for bombing – whether the question was asked, should there have been such an operation at all? Well, it doesn’t seem like it was asked, at least not in that poll. Now joining us to discuss the state of Israeli society and politics and what the significance of this poll me is, is Shir Hever. He’s a political economist living in Heidelberg, Germany. He was born and raised in Jerusalem. He lived in Tel Aviv before moving to Germany in 2010. His recent book is The Privatization of Israeli Security. Thanks for joining me again Shir.

Shir Hever

Thanks for having me Paul. The poll that you just quoted, does it also include Palestinian citizens of Israel?

Paul Jay

I have no idea. Doesn’t doesn’t say that. So I don’t know. You tell me from the sound of the numbers. Doesn it sound like it might? I don’t know.

Shir Hever

Most polls do not and I think that’s a big part of the story, but in recent years, there’s a growing tendency of the polling companies to start also asking Palestinian citizens of Israel to tell what they think about Israeli military operations, for example. Of course, a vast majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel are not too happy about the Israeli army bombing the Gaza Strip, where they have family and friends in such a brutal way.

Paul Jay

Well, in fact, more so than four years, the Palestinian population of Israel has risen up and is part of this resistance. If I understand it correctly, they’ve been relatively more passive in the past. So what has that meant to Israeli society? The fact that the Palestinians in Israel. I know Israel likes to call them Arabs in Israel, but they’re Palestinians, as far as I understand it, are far more united with the Palestinians outside Israel than maybe they have been in the past.

Shir Hever

Yeah, they are Arabs, of course, but just calling them Arab Israelis is a very offensive term because it erases their Palestinian nationality. So you can call them Arabs, but they are Palestinian citizens of Israel and sometimes called Palestinians 48. They went on a strike. The first time since the 30s that there was a strike on the West Bank, Gaza Strip, inside the borders of Israel at the same time, a level of unity and solidarity that we haven’t seen before. This struck a lot of fear into Jewish Israeli society to see Palestinians united more than ever before. I think it’s interesting that at the same time, the Palestinians are showing this unity that is really very impressive and cost them a lot. Thousands of Palestinians were fired for going on that strike. At the same time, the Israeli society, the Jewish Israeli society, is more divided than it ever was.

Paul Jay

Why do you think the Palestinians in Israel are so much more engaged than in the past? This certainly isn’t the first time bombs have rained down on Gaza.

Shir Hever

Because the liberal message of the liberal Zionists or the leftist Zionists has completely collapsed. There was this sort of promise which is a mirage, that if they are good citizens, if they’re loyal, if they don’t talk about politics too much, eventually they will be allowed to integrate into Israeli society and have better public services and job opportunities and so on.

Paul Jay

It’s a message that I think would be very familiar to people from many different kinds of minority groups all over the world in the United States and Canada. If we’re talking about African-Americans and people of color that were told, just hang in there in one or two generations, you’re going to be fine. This was a lie, of course, now it’s very clear that it was a lie, and the reason that it’s so clear is because there is a populist right government in Israel, which is not even making a pretense of working towards equality. They’re very clear and they say this is a state where only Jews can have equal rights and full rights, only Jews. So if you’re not a Jew, you have no hope of equality in that state. So that means Palestinian citizens of Israel understand they have to resist. They have to fight against this apartheid system in order to have equality.

Paul Jay

For Israeli Jews who are in solidarity with Palestinians, do they have rights to do that? In the past to some extent I think they did. From what I understand, there’s less and less rights for Jews in support of Palestinians.

Shir Hever

Yeah, an Israeli member of Knesset, member of parliament, Ahmed Tibi, said once famously, Israel is a Jewish state for its Arabs and a democratic state for its Jews. I think maybe it was true for a time. Certainly when I lived there, I had freedom of speech and I knew that I could say things that my Palestinian friends just cannot say and I will not get into trouble and they did, but I think you can’t have a sustainable situation like this. When you have also people who are Jews who are being critical of the government and critical of the apartheid system. As soon as they start speaking English, as soon as they start speaking to the outside world, not just Hebrew among themselves, but also writing reports. For example, you have B’Tselem, the largest Israeli human rights organization, that this January published a report about Israeli apartheid, and they published it in English. When they do that, the backlash is very, very violent, aggressive, and if we’re seeing this now, the last two weeks of violence, whenever there is an invasion of Gaza, bombardment of Gaza, there are some anti-war demonstrations in Israel. Some lefty Jews are organizing demonstrations, for example, in Jerusalem, not far from where I used to live in so-called Paris Square where women in black used to stand every Friday in protest of the occupation every week. Now, last week, a bunch of lefty Israelis organized a demonstration against the bombardment of Gaza on Paris Square and the police came up to them and said there are a thousand armed right-wing Israelis coming this way. They’re going to be here in a few minutes. We are not going to protect you. If you want to stay do whatever you want. The police left and of course, they didn’t stay. This would have been a massacre and this has never happened before.

Paul Jay

I’ve been to Israel three times, one in 1967, a couple of months before I was like 14, I guess something like that. Just before the 67 war. My sister had gone to kibbutz there and I came away feeling because I wasn’t born in Israel, I was a second class person there and I didn’t like it at all. I came away and I was saying to myself at 14, 15 years old, if I feel this and I get treated this way, what the hell is the feeling of being Palestinian here? I was there again in 98 or 99. I’d been invited to a film festival for one of my movies and I wasn’t going to go, but a bunch of Palestinian filmmakers were attending, so I figured if they are, I would. When I got there, the Palestinians actually had all withdrawn from the festival, but I was taken aback by the extent of the way Palestinians were talked about. Also, I was told by people I encountered there that if it hadn’t been for the Palestinian, “threat” Israeli society itself would just break out into civil war between the secular Jews and the Orthodox. Then I was there again about 10 years later. I was actually mostly in the West Bank and Ramallah doing some filming, but I was in Israel for a few days. I was absolutely shocked at the overtness of the racism. I’d never encountered anything like it. Maybe in the old slave society, southern United States, people might have talked that way. Take us through the kind of progression of what I call the fascistization of Israeli society.

Paul Jay

I don’t know what you call it, but what’s going on here and why?

Shir Hever

The one thing that really puts together what we’re seeing now and what you saw when you were there a few months before the 67 war, both of these were periods of extreme fear in Israeli society because the Israelis didn’t know they’re going to win the war. The generals knew, but the general public, the majority of the people thought that this could end in a terrible tragedy for Jewish Israelis in 1967 and they didn’t know what’s going to happen. They were very much afraid. I think a lot of the racism and hatred are a way to work out through this trauma and fear, and I think what we see now is a post-traumatic society which is reacting with extreme fear, violence and racism towards Palestinians most of all, but not just towards Palestinians. There’s also a lot of hate between different groups within society. It’s not just the Orthodox and the secular, because you have national orthodox and ultra orthodox, you have Zionist ultra orthodox and anti-Zionist ultra orthodox. The tensions are very high. I think this fear is exactly the reason that I don’t like to use the word “fascistization” because fascist societies are not based on fear. Fascist societies say we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for the nation, for the leader, for the state. Israel is the opposite, where you have polls like you just quoted in which the vast majority of Jewish Israelis say, yeah, let’s bomb Gaza into the Stone Age again, but if the poll then goes and asks another question, are you willing to do some reserve duty, put on a uniform, go into Gaza, then the answer is no. Actually, if you look at the conscription numbers to the Israeli army, they’re dropping every year. So it’s very theoretical militarism and when it comes to actual decisions that people take in their daily lives, a lot of people just want to emigrate. They just want to to have a job and racism becomes something that you adopt, not because you wake up in the morning and say how much I hate Arabs, but because you are afraid to be called out as an Arab lover, as not patriotic enough. You could lose your job. You could be assaulted by those crazy right-wing rioters in the street. So you just have to prove that you hate Arabs as much as the other guy, but this is not a situation that allows for creation of a fascist movement.

Shir Hever

There is a fascist movement in Israel. There is a movement. It’s very small and a lot of people are very hostile towards it because they say, you know, if we go ahead with your kind of fascism, we are the ones who are going to pay with blood for it. There is a politician Itamar Ben-Gvir who set up his office in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in order to provoke this whole thing. Netanyahu sent him there. He definitely uses fascist language. He definitely talks about annihilating Palestinians. He talks about kicking them all out. But now you see a lot of Israelis, even right wing Israelis, but not so extreme right wing Israelis saying, look what you did. Your fascism is uniting all the Palestinians into into a unified group against us. So they’re looking for ways to keep the Palestinians under control by using divide and conquer techniques, which is not the fascist strategy at all.

Paul Jay

The fear you talk about, while I understand it’s there, certainly when I was there most recently, I would say I didn’t experience a people living in fear. Actually people were practically apolitical, like as long as the Palestinian attacks in Israel had ended years before. I don’t know when the last time there was a terrorist attack on Israeli soil. And when there is it’s very few and far between because the Palestinians themselves decided that its not a productive tactic.

Shir Hever

Which period are you talking about now? Your first visit or your second?

Paul Jay

The last one, which would have been like 10 years ago, 12 years ago. And there really is no reason to be so scared now, the Palestinian, “threat” is not that serious. You get these rockets every few years. What the Israelis call mowing the lawn. They engineer some way to provoke something in Gaza and they bomb the hell out of the place. But then life kind of returns to normal for Israelis.

Shir Hever

Fear is not a rational thing. I don’t measure fear by the amount of rockets Palestinians have or their military power. Fear is not related to that. Fear is how many people write articles in newspapers that start with the words “this and that is an existential threat to Israel”. There is no country in the world that is as obsessed about its ability to exist than the state of Israel. And you have Israeli politicians going around the world and explaining why Gaza has to be bombed because Israel has a right to exist, which makes no sense and everybody knows it makes no sense. But this idea that if we don’t take care of the traffic problems, the state of Israel will collapse. If you don’t balance the commodity foreign exchange market, Israel will collapse. This kind of talk is a talk that emerges from fear.

Paul Jay

But the reality is that in any historical horizon one can see, the Palestinians actually don’t represent an existential threat to Jews in Israel, but there sure is a lot of effort made to persuade people that there is such a threat.

Shir Hever

But they do pose a real existential threat to apartheid. And that is because in order to preserve apartheid, you have to make those privileges of the dominant group in society come easy. The problem is that these new rockets that Hamas just showed that they have and fired all the way to Tel Aviv and beyond, those rockets kept millions of Israelis awake throughout the night because there was alarm after alarm and people had to go into the bunker. It didn’t take a heavy toll of human life. I mean, 12 Israelis were killed in the entire two weeks of the operation, which is, of course, a lot. But we have over 200 Palestinians who were killed by the Israeli fire. But, of course, statistically speaking, the chance of an Israeli to be one of those 12 is very small. But if you don’t sleep the whole night because every couple of hours there’s another alarm, then you can say “oh, this is something that’s happening over there and it doesn’t affect my life”. It affects your life. And that means that you have to acknowledge there is a connection between the fact that you can go into your car, ride wherever you want with your car, nobody’s going to stop you at the checkpoint, but a Palestinian will be stopped. And you can go to whatever school you want and do whatever job you want. And you have all these privileges that are for Jews only, that is the apartheid situation. Then there is a connection with the fact that there might be an alarm in the middle of the night, there might be international protests and sanctions and things like that. And people respond to that by looking for a strategy. But there is no strategy. And until there is some idea of how apartheid can be made sustainable, people say, oh, well, maybe the idea of apartheid is not sustainable. And when they say that they don’t use the word apartheid, they just use the word Jewish state. But of course, they mean the same thing.

Paul Jay

Do you think the majority of Jews represented in this poll or otherwise understand that the recent conflict, the recent rockets coming from Gaza and so on, was triggered by the Israeli ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem? That Hamas didn’t just, out of nowhere, start firing rockets. There’s a context here. But do most Israeli Jews get the context?

Shir Hever

I think they understand it on a much deeper level. Jerusalem was chosen by Netanyahu to start this because Netanyahu knew that he has until a certain date. I think it was May 4th or May 6th that he could form a government and he didn’t get a majority. So the chance to form a government was passed to his main opponent, which is Yair Lapid from the opposition. Yair Lapid has until June 2nd to form the coalition. At that moment, Netanyahu knew that if he triggers some kind of security crisis, the coalition talks are going to break apart. Lapid will not be able to form his coalition until June 2nd. And that means there’s going to be another election, a fifth election within a two year period. And Netanyahu will stay the interim prime minister again and as long as he’s doing that, he cannot go to jail. And he has a very serious corruption trial going on against him. So everyone understands that. And the amazing thing is that you have the political parties that try to build a coalition. They had the coalition talks. They knew that they have a majority. They were just ironing out the details. And then the police entered Sheikh Jarrah, then the police entered Al-Aqsa and they knew exactly what was going on. They understood exactly what Netanyahu was doing, but they didn’t dare to say a word. Not one of them said, oh, this is just a political, cynical maneuver by Netanyahu to prevent us from forming a government, because if they had said that, they would brand themselves as leftists. And you can’t have a worse tag in Israel than being a leftist now, it’s like being called a communist in the 50s.

Paul Jay

And I assume that they’d also be called traitors. There was also some talk that they were going to include in their coalition some of the Arab parties in the Knesset. I suppose that’s completely off the table now.

Shir Hever

That’s the whole point. Mansour Abbas from the Ra’am party represents a very new direction or a new group, actually, of Palestinian citizens of Israel, Palestinians 48. All the kind of conservative Muslim middle class that’s not very political, but still very much insisting on having equal rights and freedoms. They’re just saying we don’t care how exactly we’re going to have those rights, but we want to have them. So they don’t particularly like the communists and they don’t particularly like the nationalists. And Mansour Abbas said, you know what, I’m sick of being part of this group of parties that are called the Arab parties and are considered not legitimate and are sent to the far left, even though I’m not particularly lefty. And I’m just going to break up from them and if Netanyahu gives me a good offer, I’ll sit in his government. I will sit with whoever gives me a good offer. And then there was a lot of talk about how he has split the Palestinian vote and harmed Palestinian unity. But actually, very ironically, it created the opposite effect because Netanyahu realized that he has to court him for the opportunity to get a majority with him. And Netanyahu started to talk in a very different kind of language that he never used before about differentiating between different Palestinians with different opinions. And some of them are OK, not all of them are terrorists. A very new kind of language coming up Netanyahu. And then, of course, all the parties left of Netanyahu couldn’t really go out and say, no, no, we’re not going to sit with an Arab in the government.

Shir Hever

So Mansour Abbas had a really good shot at being the first Palestinian minister in the Israeli cabinet. He had a chance. But of course, as soon as this crisis started, as soon as the police stormed Sheikh Jarrah and Al-Aqsa, his own voters said to him, you cannot sit in the same government with Yair Lapid and the other people who are saying “we are on the side of the police, the police is justified, the Muslims praying in Al-Aqsa Mosque are all terrorists,” you cannot sit with them even if they give you a ministry. And of course, the coalition talks broke apart.

Paul Jay

So it’s so obvious to everyone, really, how cynical this move by Netanyahu was. You’d have to think most Israelis get it, whether they’re very political or not. But still, the opposition coalition, the opposition to Netanyahu, you’re saying, couldn’t dare say what it was, even though everybody knew what it was. So, I go back to this question. I mean, I know there’s fear and all the rest, but there’s other countries that have lived in fear and they don’t all become so thoroughly racist that they don’t give a damn what their government does.

Shir Hever

Well, there are different kinds of fear. And I think when the fear comes from having a colonial society where you know that you are maybe part of this hegemonic group within that society, but actually you’re the minority. Jews are a minority in the whole area of Israel Palestine, and they know that. And they know that if Palestinians unify, they will lose all of their privileges. So that is a different kind of fear. And it’s a paralyzing fear, because whenever you have some kind of social movement coming up and people are saying “let’s fight for better housing rights and for better social benefits to try to save the crumbling social benefit system of the state of Israel”, then some small voice in the demonstration would come and say, oh, do you mean for everyone or just for Jews? And then, the whole movement falls apart. Because it’s a question that just evokes too many fears. And because of that, all the political movements, one after the other, fail. And the only thing that keeps it somehow glued together is Netanyahu’s populism. Netanyahu proved to be very, very intelligent, very resourceful. He always finds a way out of whatever trouble he stumbles into. But, at some point he might run out of rabbits to pull out of his hat and there is nobody to replace him. There’s no politician in Israel who really has a plan. And I think that’s part of the reason that nobody really wants to deal with the same problems and they’re not posing a real challenge Netanyahu. And you have this situation where he doesn’t have a majority, but nobody else really has any chance of having a majority either.

Paul Jay

When I was at that film festival, several people, Israeli Jews, progressives, said that if it wasn’t for the Palestinian “threat” there’d be civil war in Israel in terms of the secular versus the Orthodox and other factions. How real is that? There’s various reasons for the Israeli state and military industrial complex, which you specialize in, there’s various reasons for them to want to keep this “threat” going. Talk a bit about that.

Shir Hever

Yeah, but of course, it doesn’t end there. I mean, if it was so simple that you have a Jewish state where Jews are fortifying themselves against the Arab threat in this kind of black and white picture, then maybe that would work that way. But it’s not the reality. The reality is that the Jewish Israeli society is so deeply divided and you have Mizrahi Jews who originate from Arab countries and have been discriminated against for the last 73 years of the state’s existence. And you have black Jews, that are suffering from horrible anti-black racism on every level of society. And, of course, the great fear of the Israeli government is what happens if different minority groups start to form solidarity with each other. What happens if black Jews demonstrate alongside Palestinians? And in some parts it does happen. And no, I don’t think it’s going to be civil war in the sense of battles in the streets between armed groups because nobody really is willing to risk their skin. In a situation in which people are not willing to take personal risk, you can’t really have a civil war. On the other hand, if you’re talking about the disintegration of public institutions, the collapse of the court system, the bastardization of the police, the rise of organized crime, the complete betrayal of the media, of basic journalistic responsibilities to report stories in a fair or semi fair way at least. All of these things have already happened.

Shir Hever

I don’t call it civil war exactly. But but it is a disintegration of society. And you have the majority of young Israelis when they reach the age of 18 and they get this letter in the mail that says you have to go to the army, their first reaction is “how am I going to get out of this? How am I going to find a way not to go to the army?” And most of them do find a way out. And so, it’s not exactly a situation that leads to civil war. It’s a situation that leads maybe to state building. There might be a new regime, a new government, a new system of government.

Paul Jay

But the picture you paint of Israel, the new system of government, it sounds to me like there’s a very good possibility it will actually be more overtly fascist. More like in terms of not allowing even a certain amount of democracy for Israeli Jews, certainly with an agenda perhaps of more overt ethnic cleansing, not just in Jerusalem, but more broadly. There’s certainly forces calling for that. And I know you say that helps to unite the Palestinian Israelis when that kind of fascism develops, but that’s also assuming there’s a kind of rationality and this place isn’t sounding so rational.

Shir Hever

No, it’s not rational, but I think that the one thing that fascists always ask you is to give up your blood for the country, for the state. You have to follow the leader. And a lot of people in Israel do have some some desire to develop a cult of personality for Netanyahu and to follow him like some kind of fatherly figure and follow him blindly. But it’s not really working out. In the end, his popularity level is about 40 percent. That does not make you fuhrer or duce or any kind of fascist leader. And it’s not that he hasn’t been trying for 13 years. He was prime minister for 13 years and he still didn’t manage to get to that point. So when we’re talking about a new government system, we are talking about a democracy. There is no democracy right now. But there is a certain understanding, which is, I think, the foundation of democracy, which says you have to give up your privileges and your hegemonic position in exchange for being part of a group of citizens that gives you at least a guarantee of basic rights and equality in the face of the law.

Shir Hever

It’s not perfect, but if you’re in a position where you have to protect your privileges with force of arms, it is sounding more and more attractive.

Paul Jay

Well, democracy means one person, one vote, which has to include the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, which gives the Palestinians 52 percent of the vote.

Shir Hever

It doesn’t have to. I mean, you could also imagine two Democratic states next to each other, but with some kind of border. I think it’s the less likely outcome. But I don’t think that it’s very useful to talk in terms of “have to” because political systems are artificial systems that are created by human beings and they can create whatever they want. There’s one movement that I think is especially interesting because it shows the possibility of human beings to be creative where they say, let’s have two states at the same place. Let’s have Palestine and Israel, two states, but with exactly the same borders and with two parliaments. And everyone can choose if they want to be a citizen of one or the other. But of course, the two parliaments will have to coordinate very closely together because they basically share the same territory exactly.

Paul Jay

There was something sort of like that in Yugoslavia, no?

Shir Hever

No, in Yugoslavia, you had a system where the different ethnic groups were defined by their ethnicity and religion in a way that segregated them from each other and really encouraged creating a very racist discourse where you say, well, my Albanian neighbors or my Bosnian neighbors or my Kosovarian neighbors, they are just leeches that are getting fat on the work of us good, hardworking Serbians and that sort of thing. There’s also a little bit of that kind of language that we see in Lebanon today or in Iraq, where you have a system where every group, based on their ethnic or religious identity, has a certain guaranteed representation within the system.

Shir Hever

That’s not what we’re talking about. When we say one person, one vote, of course, we talk about a system that doesn’t take into account whatever your ethnic or religious identity is when it comes to your political representation. It shouldn’t matter.

Paul Jay

Maybe the model is closer to even something like a Canadian model where Quebec has a definite territory. The civil law in Quebec is not the same as civil law in the rest of the country. Federal laws apply, but there’s some very specific rights to the language in Quebec and so on. And I mean, are you imagining something more like that?

Shir Hever

Well, in many ways there was a tendency to that. There was an attempt by some more liberal factions within Israeli society to, for example, make sure that there would be a translation to Arabic in all public and official texts, as a token of respect towards the Palestinian population. In order to say that even though it’s defined as a Jewish state and Palestinians don’t have equal rights, we don’t want to alienate them for no reason. But the problem is that because of that kind of of logic, a lot of Palestinians started to believe the lie and believe that maybe they could become equal citizens.

Shir Hever

And then there was the famous apartheid report that was written by the U.N., by ESCWA, by Virginia Tilley and Richard Falk about the apartheid situation in Israel. And the United States got that report censored. Not Israel, the United States had this report censored. And so, the Israeli government and parliament became nervous that the censoring of the apartheid report might give Palestinians the idea that maybe there is no apartheid and maybe they will demand equal rights.

Shir Hever

So then they legislated the law of the nation state, or how it’s called in Israel, the law of the nation, in July 2018, which clearly said only Jews can have national rights in this country. And that Arabic is not an official state language. So we see a movement in the opposite direction. But I think seeing the movement in the opposite direction from this kind of liberal arrangement that exists with Quebec is not a sign that Israel is becoming stronger in its way to control minority groups and especially Palestinians, but rather Israel is becoming much, much weaker and has to rely on overt brute force because that’s the only tool they still have at their disposal.

Paul Jay

All right, let’s continue this discussion in a second segment, because this isn’t just about ordinary Jews who live in fear and so on. There’s a handful of families in Israel that own most of the stuff and a very wealthy and powerful military industrial complex. And so this is more than just about how people are feeling about the situation. So join us for the next segment of this series of conversations with Shir Hever. And thanks for joining me on theAnalysis.news.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This Time May Be Different: on the UN commission of inquiry investigating violations in the occupied Palestinian territory

Thanks to a rapidly changing political context the new UN Human Rights Council commission announced on May 27th may be different from those in the past -- this one may actually help hold Israel accountable.
THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS ROOM IN THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND WHERE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL FREQUENTLY MEETS. (PHOTO: UN PHOTO/JEAN-MARC FERRÉ)

The May 27th vote of the UN Human Rights Council to establish an ongoing commission of inquiry to report on rights violations in Israel, the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip is very similar to the many commissions that have come before. Established with a majority vote in favor of Resolution A/HRC/S-30/L.1, this commission reaffirms state responsibilities to protect human rights and international humanitarian law as the bases for peace.

The UN and other international coalitions have been launched dozens of previous similar commissions. Many have been prompted by an uptick in spectacular violence in the Gaza Strip. This latest commission comes in response to eleven days of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, which began on May 10, killed at least 253 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounded more than 1,900 people, with 13 people killed in Israel. Among other recent UN investigations was one in 2014 and another in 2009, known as the Goldstone Mission, which investigated the 2008–2009 fighting in the Gaza Strip that left some 1,400 Palestinians dead.

Although a UN commission on its own can do little to change Israel’s actions, within today’s shifting social and political dynamics, it can play a role in coalescing attention and mobilizing meaningful action to stop and reverse Israel’s settler-colonial project.

Unique to this most recent commission, however, is the context in which it has emerged, marked by a resurgence of international legal and activist efforts to challenge Israel’s systematic abuse and dispossession of Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel, and the diaspora—including efforts among Jews. Although a UN commission on its own can do little to change Israel’s actions, within today’s shifting social and political dynamics, it can play a role in coalescing attention and mobilizing meaningful action to stop and reverse Israel’s settler-colonial project.

In specifying that this investigation should collect evidence of violations “to maximize the possibility of its admissibility in legal proceedings,” the text of this latest UN resolution points to one important new contextual factor. Namely, that the International Criminal Court (ICC) decided on February 5, 2021 that it has jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territory, allowing the Prosecutor to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity that have taken place in the occupied Palestinian territory.

In opening last week’s special session in Geneva, Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, referred to Israel’s attacks on Gaza this month as possibly constituting war crimes. Attention to possible war crimes also was central in the Goldstone Mission findings and the report of that commission focused on ending impunity. Although, as I note in my book, A History of False Hope: Investigative Commissions in Palestine, this marked a turning point in the international legal language used to analyze the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it did not lead to actions to end Israel’s impunity. Residents of the Gaza Strip continue to suffer life under restrictions and siege imposed since the 1990s and intensified in 2007, maintaining this sliver of land as an open air prison for the 1.8 million Palestinians who live there. If this latest commissions of inquiry does “identify, where possible, those responsible, with a view to ensuring that perpetrators of violations are held accountable,” the ICC may be able to make use of that evidence.

The groundswell of analysis identifying Israel as an apartheid state is a second crucial distinguishing element of the world into which this commission is being born. Issued in April 2021, the report by the international human rights NGO, Human Rights Watch (HRW), condemned Israel for committing the crimes of apartheid and persecution. It is just the latest in a string of similar reports. In 2017, ESCWA, a UN body, issued a report on Israel’s apartheid practices against Palestinians. Many Palestinian organizations have been part of this chorus, too. In 2019, eight Palestinian, regional, and international organizations, including Al-Haq, BADIL, and Addameer submitted a report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, detailing Israel’s practices that constitute the crime of apartheid under international law. Like that of Human Rights Watch, the report in January 2021 by Israeli NGO B’Tselem suggests that international recognition of Israel as an apartheid state is going mainstream. Given that the new permanent Commission of Inquiry aims to investigate “all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict” including “discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity,” we may be seeing more authoritative evidence of Israel’s crimes of apartheid leading to pressure on states to stop it.

Like what happened in response to South Africa’s apartheid regime, an international boycott movement has galvanized academics, activists, and artists in speaking out for freedom, justice and equality for Palestinians. BDS, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, is a third distinctive feature of today’s context. BDS promotes public education about Palestinians’ conditions while pressuring Israeli institutions to end their complicity with state oppression of Palestinians, and demanding the Israeli government comply with international law.

Beyond BDS, new solidarity actions have been notable, especially in response to the violence in May, including the International Dockworkers Council-IDC support of the Palestinian General Strike, actions by Israeli and Palestinian workers refusing enmity, and protest marches around the globe. More persistent dynamics suggesting an upsurge of diverse support for Palestinians include a revival of Black internationalism, Black Lives Matter, and other Black progressive groups re-energizing Black-Palestinian solidarity, statements supporting Palestinian rights by influential Jewish figures, and young liberal Jews’ alienation from Zionism and sympathy with Palestinian causes.

What is not new is Israel’s ongoing refusal to engage with international legal processes such as the commission of inquiry and the ICC— and US efforts to shield Israel from scrutiny. The US often justifies its rejection of international legal investigation of Israel with the claim that it would threaten progress in resolving the conflict. There has been no progress on this front for a very long time. If people of conscience take up the opportunity afforded by the latest UN effort to grow public awareness of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, this might be that rarest of commissions that helps dislodge Israel-Palestine from the quagmire in which it has been stuck for so long.