1 in 15 deaths in Israel in 2020 was from COVID and President Trump concedes to Joe Biden, condemns supporters who rioted at U.S. Capitol and The left continues to control the national agenda through the deep state and “anyone-but-Bibi” rightist politicians. By Caroline Glick and Post-Pandemic Culture Shock By Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld and live video capture of Hawaiian Lava Explosion and Tucker Carlson Tonight 1/8/21 FULL | FOX BREAKING TRUMP NEWS
Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.
When you become so utterly convinced in the justice of your worldview that you refuse to countenance being mistaken - even if you are making an absolutely extraordinary, earth-shattering claim which is disputed by all experts and by people who share the same ideals and values as you, even when the consequences of your worldview are enormously severe to the extent of destroying vaccines or storming the Capitol - this becomesmore than just a cognitive error. It's a personality flaw that needs addressing.
The Three Musketeers at the Kotel
1 in 15 deaths in Israel in 2020 were from COVID
Ahead of the new calendar year, the Central Bureau of Statistics releases population data.
It says there are some 9,291,000 Israelis as of the end of the year. The Jewish population accounts for 73 percent (6.87 million), the Muslim population represents 21% (1.95 million), with another 456,000 members of other religions.
According to the CBS, as of the end of November, 44,154 Israelis died this year, with the number projected to climb to 49,000 by the end of the year. One in 15 deaths was coronavirus-related.
President Trump concedes to Joe Biden, condemns supporters who rioted at U.S. Capitol
President Trump condemned supporters who rioted at the U.S. Capitol and conceded the election to Joe Biden in a new video. The video was released on January 7, one day after a deadly riot by thousands of his supporters at the seat of America's government. He called for healing and love and a peaceful transition to the next administration.
Tucker Carlson Tonight 1/8/21 FULL | FOX BREAKING TRUMP NEWS January 8 ,21
Censorship is in full Display
Lavanado captured on video at Halemaumau crater
December 28, 2020 from my friend in Hawaii Mark Mystic
Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto.
In past decades, citizens of Western societies lived their lives and mapped out their futures more or less in line with the expectation of a slowly changing progression from past to future. Individuals might have experienced events that radically changed their lives for the worse—for instance, a serious illness. But such events mainly influenced personal environments. They had hardly any impact on society at large.
The term "culture shock" was coined in the 1950s to describe the experience of people who found themselves disoriented when they went abroad. Immigrants, for example, arrived in societies with unfamiliar cultures and often found adaptation difficult. The same could happen to students who went abroad to far-away universities. Even tourists who visited a country for a short time could experience shock at the country's radically different culture.
In certain circumstances, a form of culture shock can affect Westerners while they are in their home environment. This can happen if, for example, asylum seekers from completely different environments are placed in or close to their Western hometowns. Still, the local people's home environment remains largely the same.
The coronavirus pandemic has caused a very different type of culture shock. It affects essential elements of peoples' lives in their own home environment. Often very personal issues are at stake. These include where one can go, whom one can meet, where one can work, and who can visit one's home, which can even include a prohibition against receiving close family members.
A culture shock of this magnitude, affecting a great many people all at once in a variety of countries, has not occurred in most Western societies since WWII. That conflict upended the lives of huge numbers of people, and for a far longer time and to a much greater degree than coronavirus.
There have been major culture shocks in past decades in smaller territories as well. The Greek Civil War, which occurred just after WWII, was one example. Others were the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and the imposition of communism on a number of countries in Middle and Eastern Europe after WWII, which had a huge impact on those societies. The subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union and the freeing of its satellite countries from communism created yet another culture shock.
The coronavirus culture shock will have a number of layers that will affect individuals, groups, and societies at large. There are sizable numbers of "new poor," for example. Many of these people never imagined that they were at such risk. Their reaction to this personal kind of culture shock will be heavily influenced by their self-image.
The culture shock for many of the newly unemployed will probably be significant. The problem is particularly difficult because these people live in societies where unemployment has greatly risen, making it much more difficult to find new work. If companies close factories down, the closures will affect not only the factories' employees but the many others who provide services to the factories and their employees.
People over 50 who find themselves unemployed will have great difficulty finding new work. Women might be particularly hard hit, as there are indications that more women have lost their jobs during the pandemic than men. This can partly be explained by the fact that more women than men tend to have jobs that involve contact with others.
Young people entering the work force will be confronted with far higher barriers to employment than they faced prior to the pandemic. Internships and apprenticeships will be much harder to secure. Young people, many of whom are not used to much hardship, will have to cope with more structural societal adversity than did previous generations.
All of this means that many people will have to accept less desirable jobs if they are to work at all. In such a context, those able to take initiative and be resilient will have great advantages over others.
Some people have suffered from the virus more severely than others. After-effects like the loss of the senses of smell or taste might last for people's entire lives. There are indications that mental health problems have multiplied, and professionals might find themselves unable to cope with the increased demand. There are also cases of what might be called long-term disorientation. There is some debate on whether suicides are increasing.
The societal response to those who are suffering may prove to be inadequate or even negligent. In post-pandemic society there will probably be less attention paid to individuals' specific problems. The welfare state will be further weakened. The phrase "social justice" is unlikely to disappear from public discourse, but operationally it will get far less attention.
A frequently raised topic is how children will be affected in the long run by the disturbance of their normal lives during the pandemic. If WWII is to be our reference, we might find that compared to adults, children are more resilient and suffer from fewer long-term negative effects from the disruption to their lives caused by coronavirus.
Not everyone is vulnerable by any means. Not much may change for government employees, for instance, compared to their pre-pandemic lives. Possibly their salaries will be frozen. But still, the societal environment these people will live in after the pandemic will differ from the one before it.
The scale of the problems facing individuals and societies after the pandemic ends is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to forecast. We can, however, identify broad phenomena that will play a role in defining how societies have changed. They may be important enough to represent culture shocks for society at large.
The first phenomenon concerns money. During the pandemic, governments broke generally accepted economic rules concerning budget deficiencies. Several governments injected money into their societies in an unsustainable manner. They will have to allocate budget funds after the pandemic in a much tougher way than before. The shortage of available money versus the accumulated demand of all those who will make claims to receive it is serious. This is likely to lead to far more ferocious battles over funds than in the past.
The second phenomenon concerns civil unrest. There have been many protests against the ways governments made decisions relating to the pandemic. In many countries, there are demonstrations against government measures such as lockdowns and possible forced vaccination. When the pandemic ends, public discontent will likely mutate in other directions that are not yet foreseeable.
Another issue is how government attitudes will change as a result of the pandemic. The policies of those in power toward the crisis were largely trial and error. This has led to policies that differ substantially from country to country. What the states have in common is that their leaders were not elected to deal with this kind of exceptional situation.
After the pandemic, governments will have to interfere in society more than many of them can justify ideologically. What will this lead to? Will there be new mutations of socialist government due to the need to provide a financial safety net for many more people than before? Or will we see more attempts at authoritarianism? Concerning the latter, it is clear that segments of the public will not let governments get away with the attempt.
Another related issue is trust in the authorities. As governments did not find efficient ways to deal with the pandemic, will the public be able to trust them on other issues? How will this lack of trust express itself? What does this mean for democracy? Is liberal democracy able to deal with the post-pandemic challenges, many of which will likely require a firm hand?
And what about violence in post-coronavirus society? Considering all the new strains on societies, common sense would say that violence is likely to increase. But where and in what circumstances will it erupt, and how will it manifest itself?
The left continues to control the national agenda through the deep state and "anyone-but-Bibi" rightist politicians.
By Caroline Glick
Over the past several weeks, Israel's political commentators have repeatedly declared the demise of the political left. On the face of things, they are right. The polls all show that the right-religious bloc will win a comfortable majority in the Knesset elections are scheduled for next March. There is no way that the left-Arab bloc will win a sufficient number of seats to form a government.
The commentators insist that given the polls, today the name of the game is the contest between the right-wing leaders. Will Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party win enough seats to maintain their dominant position? Will his opponents Gideon Saar and Naftali Bennett win sufficient seats to unseat him?
With all due respect to the polls and the commentators that interpret them, the left is far from dead. True, its parties aren't popular enough to form a government. But that has been the case since the mid-1990s. The left long ago accepted that it has lost the public.
Rather than reconsider its positions, the left developed a strategy that compensates for its lack of public appeal. That strategy enables the left both to seize and wield power without public support and prevent the right from wielding the power it wins at the ballot box.
Winning without the electorate
The left's post-democratic strategy has two main components. The first is the so-called deep state. The deep state in Israel is an amalgam of senior government officials, the legal fraternity including the state prosecution, the attorney general's office, and the Supreme Court, and the media.
Members of these groups are overwhelmingly associated with the left. They use their powers to advance the ideological and political goals of their camp while stymying the right's efforts to implement its own policy and ideological agenda.
Last week we were witness to two spectacles of the deep state in action.
On Tuesday, the justices of the Supreme Court conducted a hearing on a number of petitions asking the justices to abrogate the 2018 Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. Despite the law's name, the hearing wasn't geared primarily to undermining Israel's Jewish national identity. Israel was the Jewish state before the law and doesn't need the law to remain the Jewish state.
The purpose of the hearing had little to do with the law itself. Instead, as far as the justices were concerned its purpose was to stake out the claim that the court has the right to overturn Basic Laws. To understand how radical this move is, it is important to understand the legal basis of the court's current powers.
Israel has no constitution. At the outset of Israel's so-called "judicial revolution" in the 1990s, the justices invented a distinction between Israel's Basic Laws, which deal with the general principles of the state, and its other laws. On their own volition and with no legal foundation, the justices called the Basic Laws a constitution. Having made this determination, the justices proceeded to arrogate to themselves the power to abrogate the non-Basic Laws, claiming the Basic Laws as the source for their extra-legal seizure of power.
A significant portion of the Court's more radical political judgments have been anchored in their radical interpretation of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Among other things, they have used the law as a means to erode the significance of Israel's Jewish character.
The Knesset passed the Nation-State Law as a Basic Law in a bid to curb the justices' power to exploit their radical interpretations of the Human Dignity and Liberty law. Since the court said the source of its power is the Basic Laws, it is self-evidently barred from abrogating the source of its authority. But on Tuesday, the justices set out to do just that and so seize the Knesset's power to legislate, as the sovereign repository of the people's will, the quasi-constitutional foundations of the state.
To legitimize her legally groundless action, during the hearing Chief Justice Esther Hayut announced the existence of a heretofore the non-existent third type of law — the law that lets Supreme Court justices abrogate Basic Laws. She referred to her new type of law as "the doctrine of amending laws that are unconstitutional."
Both Netanyahu and Knesset Speaker Yariv Levin stated flat out that the justices have no legal authority to discuss the constitutionality of Basic Laws. But Hayut and her comrades, and their supporters in the media, the attorney general's office and the left's political parties couldn't have cared less. They are staking a claim and there is nothing the government can do about it.
The day after Hayut's democracy-killing Kabuki court theater, her comrades in the Attorney General's office celebrated their own extra-legal seizure of power from Israel's elected leaders at a farewell bash for Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber.
Zilber – symbol of deep state
Over the past decade, Zilber emerged as the symbol of the deep state's seizure of policy making power from Israel's elected leaders. Whether she worked to undermine Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, harm religious liberty or economic freedom, Zilber repeatedly used the language of the law to present her political views as law.
Her actions have compelled successive unwilling governments to advance the political and ideological goals of the left while undercutting those of the right.
In her farewell address, as has long been her habit, Zilber presented her unpopular, controversial ideological positions as uncontroversial and beyond reproach.
"What is unacceptable about the goal of inserting redistributive justice into the allocation of state resources?" she asked rhetorically.
Non-rhetorically, the concept of "redistributive justice" is highly controversial and unacceptable to a large cross-section of the public. Whether redistributive justice is something the government should or should not advance is a question for voters — not unelected government lawyers — to decide.
"What is unacceptable about aspiring to be a free nation in our land?" asked Zilber.
On the face of things, nothing about the aspiration immortalized in the national anthem is objectionable. But considering the source of the question, the answer is, it depends.
It depends on who decides what "free" means. It depends on who decides how "nation" is defined. And it depends on who decides what we're talking about when we say "our land."
Moreover, in the Jewish nation's free state in the land of Israel, the answer is that the public decides these things, not members of the state prosecution's appointments committee.
As she concluded her remarks, Zilber rallied her troops to carry on her democracy-defying work. "Don't forget that you are beautiful and just. Many people in the silent majority are with us," she said.
This sort of nonsense is able to pass without an episode because the media supports it. The media is the main tool that enables the likes of Zilber and Hayut to seize the powers of Israel's elected leaders. For years, the media have done their best to delegitimize every effort by right-wing politicians to advance their camp's political and ideological goals as somehow base and corrupt.
The term "political" has become a dirty word. On the other hand, "professional" — as in everything "professional" judges and government lawyers do — is objective, and right and true and just and democratic.
Ironically, the right itself — or specific factions of the right — is the second component of the left's strategy for maintaining and expanding its power despite its lack of public support. The presence on Israel's political scene of right-wing political factions motivated primarily not by ideology but by hatred for Netanyahu enables the political left to secure its continued relevance and it enables the institutional left to secure its power.
As Israel moves toward elections, there are two right-wing parties that are largely defined not by their ideological convictions but by their hatred of Netanyahu — Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party and Gideon Saar's newly minted New Hope Party.
Netanyahu-hating rightists empower the left politically in two ways. First, while they are ideologically aligned with the right, they are politically aligned with the left. Both Liberman and Saar have made clear they will not join a coalition led by Netanyahu. Also running is Naftali Bennett and his Yemina Party, which has made clear that it will join both a left-led coalition and a right-led coalition.
Saar, Liberman, Bennett and their colleagues understand that the only way for them to form a government without Likud and Netanyahu is to form a government with the left. Consequently, these "anyone-but-Bibi" rightists are the left's ticket to power. This unspoken but well-understood state of affairs is the reason that the media, which has obsessively attacked Netanyahu for the past 25 years, slobbers over "anyone-but-Bibi" right-wing politicians.
Even when the "anyone-but-Bibi" camp doesn't have the requisite number of Knesset seats to form a government, so entrenched are its right-wing members in their hatred for Netanyahu that they still empower the left. Following the April and September 2019 elections, Liberman prevented the formation of a government and forced the country into the second and third round of elections by refusing to join a Netanyahu-led coalition.
And following the third round of elections, former Netanyahu aides and current "anyone-but-Bibi" right-wing politicians Zvi Hauser and Yoaz Hendel, who broke away from two parties to join the Blue and White list, were willing to block their leftist Blue and White party from forming a post-Zionist government with the Joint Arab List. But they weren't willing to leave Blue and White to join Netanyahu to form a right-wing government. And as a result, Netanyahu was compelled to form a coalition with Blue and White.
Blue and White's position in the outgoing government didn't give its leaders Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi the power to implement their leftist policies. But it did give them the power to block Netanyahu and Likud from advancing their rightist policies, which Hauser and Hendel ostensibly support.
Gantz and Ashkenazi torpedoed Netanyahu's plan to apply Israel's sovereignty to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley in accordance with U.S. President Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan. Last week, Gantz and Ashkenazi blocked Netanyahu from bringing the young Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to the government for formal approval.
Blue and White's Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn has worked assiduously to expand the powers of his leftist partners in the judiciary and the state prosecution while ruling out the implementation of the Likud's agenda of legal reform.
Given the left's success in seizing and wielding power through its partners in the deep state and its enablers in the "anyone-but-Bibi" right, it is clear that the polls that give a significant majority of Knesset seats to right-wing parties obscure more than they reveal.
The left remains the only power that competes with the Likud for power. And if Likud and its coalition partners do not win 61 seats in the upcoming elections, the left will continue to control the national agenda regardless of what the public thinks.
Caroline Glick is an award-winning columnist and author of "The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East."