Connect with us

Uncategorized

Donald Trump says he foresees an ‘everlasting peace’ — Immanuel Kant would have found the flaws in that vision

When Donald Trump announced that the remaining Israeli hostages had been released, he remarked, “I think it’s going to be a lasting peace, hopefully an everlasting peace.”

This prediction, predictably hailed by his cabinet members, predictably failed to win the attention of the Nobel Prize committee. The following day, the committee awarded this year’s peace prize to the Venezuelan activist Maria Corina Machado. But last week, Trump did get a welcome nod from, of all places, the United Nations when the Security Council voted 13-0 (with Russian and China abstaining) to endorse Trump’s peace plan. In a post on Truth Social, Trump hailed the vote as a “moment of true Historic proportion.”

While the capitalized “Historic” might suggest that Trump has been dipping into G.W.F. Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, his use of “everlasting peace” points to an earlier German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. In 1795, the elderly Kant published an essay in an age as unsettled and unsettling as our own. An event of truly historic proportion, the French Revolution, had burst into being six years earlier. What William Wordsworth described as the “dawn of a new age” — yet another phrase borrowed by Trump, though he replaced “new” with, of course, “golden” — soon became a blood-dimmed age with the advent of the Terror and revolutionary wars.

In faraway Königsberg, the East Prussian city where he spent his entire life, Kant nevertheless believed a republican France, born in violence, would usher in an age of perpetual peace. Titling his essay “Toward Perpetual Peace,” Kant set out the conditions, based on the dictates of reason, for a peace worthy of the name. In the 230 years since its publication, the essay has become a touchstone in democratic peace theory, which argues that democratic and republican nations are less likely than authoritarian nations to go to war.

Briefly, Kant sets out several negative conditions for a lasting peace. These forbid a state making a temporary peace treaty while planning for future wars, annexing part of another state, interfering in the internal affairs of another state, and engaging in acts that create mistrust in another state, thus rendering a lasting peace impossible. He then follows with three positive conditions, most importantly that every state must be a republic. The reason Kant emphasized this condition was his conviction that a republican state, where decisions are made by citizens, will think twice, for reasons of economics and ethics, before going to war.

Democratic peace theorists argue that history offers several cases where Kant’s theory has been borne out. But our administration’s current peace plan serves as an obvious counterexample, one unlikely to be provisional, much less perpetual. Let’s tick off the conditions, starting with the ban on planning for future wars. Only someone asleep for the past 60 years would believe that either side satisfies this criterion. As for the ban on annexing another state’s territory, Israel’s creeping annexation of Palestinian land has, under the present government, become a mad land rush. Until now limited to Palestinian land in the West Bank, Gaza is next if the extreme rightwing settler movement has its way. And when it comes to the ban on internal interference in another state’s affairs, this has long been a feature, not a bug, of both Hamas and Israeli government policy.

But the biggest hurdle is Kant’s positive condition, namely that lasting peace can be only achieved between democratic republics. We know that Gaza under the rule of Hamas was no more a democratic republic than, say, the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea. But the present-day Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — busy neutering the judiciary, monopolizing the media, and pursuing the destruction of Gaza against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens — is authoritarian-adjacent. (Last month, Harvard’s Steven Levitsky, the leading scholar on the decline and fall of democracies, declared in Ha’aretz that “Israel has crossed the line [and] is sliding into competitive authoritarianism.”)

By the time Kant died in 1804, his expectation that 1789 would lead to an era of lasting peace instead led to an era of lasting war that left millions of men, women and children dead and maimed in its wake. Nevertheless, Kant remained convinced that reason and reason alone could and should govern not only our ethics but also our politics. He did so precisely because, as he famously wrote, no straight thing was ever made from the crooked timber of humankind.

Since the timber of the political actors involved in the current plan could hardly be more crooked, reason tells us there is little hope that something straight will ever be made.

The post Donald Trump says he foresees an ‘everlasting peace’ — Immanuel Kant would have found the flaws in that vision appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Trump is still going after Palestinians in the U.S. Jews must keep protesting those antidemocratic efforts

Mohsen Mahdawi, a 35-year-old Palestinian, has been a permanent resident of the United States for the past 14 years. And as the U.S. government presses ahead with efforts to deport him over his pro-Palestinian advocacy at Columbia University, more than 1,000 Jews have come forward to defend him by signing an open letter I authored.

Why? At a time of particularly fractious division in the Jewish community over issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how is it possible that so many Jews have come together in support of a Palestinian activist?

One key reason is that the government is seeking to infringe upon the rights of someone who neither engaged in acts of violence nor supported them. In July, the Second Circuit Court overruled a prior district court judge’s dismissal of the deportation case against Mahdawi, giving new energy to the government’s efforts.

Mahdawi has committed no crime; the government has not even bothered to accuse him of doing so. Instead, he simply gave voice to his belief in the necessity of freedom for his people.

Jews of all ideological stripes can and should agree that it is wrong to penalize someone for the expression of their political views. They don’t need to go far back in time to recall that such tactics have often been used against Jews themselves — in the Soviet Union to suppress refuseniks who sought to manifest their identity as Jews; in the U.S. during the McCarthy era; and, most ominously, during the dark age of Nazi totalitarianism.

In drafting an open letter defending Mahdawi, focused on the attack on his political rights, I hoped that a diverse range of Jews would be willing to acknowledge that whether they agree or disagree with Mahdawi, the government’s targeting of him represents a threat to all of us.

I know Mahdawi personally. We met at a peace-building retreat in the summer of 2024. He was an enormously compelling presence who drew people together through his preternatural calmness and clarity of purpose.

Since then, I have come to see him as a unifier, not a divider. He’s an advocate of peace, not war. And he has the potential to become a leader of enormous charisma and potential.

So why has the Trump administration devoted so much attention to persecuting a Palestinian student who has repeatedly called out antisemitism, including at a Palestinian solidarity rally at Columbia?

The sad reality is that Mahdawi, like his fellow Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, is being persecuted for the crime of being Palestinian.

The U.S. State Department came up with the logic-defying claim, in March 2025, that Mahdawi’s activities at Columbia “would have a potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” If this administration truly wishes to advance its foreign policy interests, then it should focus on reconstructing Gaza and building a framework for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, not targeting a devoted adept of non-violence like Mahdawi.

Many who signed the letter in support of Mahdawi joined in for the simple reason that they believe it is un-American to discriminate against people on the basis of their political views. Some who added their names  felt, as I did , that there was another compelling reason to sign on: that Mahdawi’s activism gives the lie to the prevalent myth that to be pro-Palestine is to be antisemitic. This proposition gets buried in the raging discourse around antisemitism and Israel today.

It is essential to recognize that support for the cause of Palestinian freedom and self-determination is not the political or moral equivalent of antisemitism. It is a precondition to a world in which Israeli Jews and Palestinians live peaceably together. And it is a cause that Jews, by virtue of their own historical experience of exile, should be eminently capable of both understanding and supporting.

Mohsen Mahdawi perfectly exemplifies the position. He is fierce in his advocacy for Palestinian rights. And he is fierce in his opposition to all forms of identity-based discrimination, including and especially, antisemitism. He deserves better from the U.S., and we Jews must vigorously oppose the profound miscarriage of justice being directed against him.

David N. Myers teaches Jewish history at UCLA.

The post Trump is still going after Palestinians in the U.S. Jews must keep protesting those antidemocratic efforts appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Lawmakers seek 100-foot buffer zone around houses of worship to protect prayer goers from protests

(JTA) — A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a federal legislation Thursday in the House and Senate aimed at protecting houses of worship from disruptive demonstrations, following a series of protests outside of synagogues this year.

The Right to Worship Act was introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, alongside Reps. Brad Knott, a North Carolina Republican, and Tom Suozzi, a New York Democrat. It would establish a 100-foot “buffer zone” around houses of worship during religious services — mirroring similar legislation recently enacted in New York.

“The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to freely exercise their faith, and Congress has a duty to ensure that guarantee is met,” Cruz said in a statement Thursday.

The legislation would also establish civil penalties for offenders and provide pathways for individuals, including state attorneys, to seek court orders and damages in federal court. While the legislation would target protesters who knowingly disrupt scheduled religious services, houses of worship would not be required to make their schedules public.

The bill’s sponsors say the measure is aimed at conduct rather than the content of protesters’ speech.

“No one should have to push through a hostile crowd or shout over a bullhorn in an attempt to pray,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO and national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which helped lawmakers draft the legislation.

It’s the latest attempt at passing federal legislation aimed at insulating houses of worship from protest, following Suozzi’s “SACRED Act” legislation, a similar bill he introduced in April but which has not progressed in the House.

Those efforts have now been joined by Slotkin, who is Jewish, and Cruz, who has often taken aim at antisemitism within the Republican coalition over the past year.

“Exercising your right to worship should not require you to exhibit particular courage as you enter your synagogue, church, mosque, temple, mandir, or gurdwara,” Suozzi said in a statement.

The New York City Council passed a local buffer zone bill in March following a series of pro-Palestinian protests outside of synagogues that hosted Israeli real estate expos. While Jewish groups and leaders heavily advocated for the measure, it also faced opposition from civil rights leaders who said it would have a chilling effect on First Amendment protections.

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post Lawmakers seek 100-foot buffer zone around houses of worship to protect prayer goers from protests appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Over 95% of Canadian Jewish university students report exposure to antisemitism

(JTA) — Nearly all Jewish students surveyed on Canadian university campuses said they have experienced or witnessed antisemitism, according to a new government-commissioned report.

The survey from the Department of Canadian Heritage found that 95.7% of Jewish students said they were exposed to antisemitism, with 70% saying their university did not take antisemitism seriously and 22% reporting physical violence against Jews.

“Antisemitism on Canadian campuses is neither isolated nor episodic,” said Jack Jedwab, the report’s main author, at a press conference in Ottawa on Wednesday. “It can reasonably be described as systemic.”

The surveyed students anonymously detailed rhetoric, discriminatory treatment, vandalism, intimidation and physical attacks from their classmates as well as professors and administrators. Some 45% said they experienced Holocaust denial or distortion often or sometimes, and 65% said they encountered it “at least rarely.”

One respondent said they had witnessed a friend who wears a kippah being chased out of a school building by a group of students who shouted, “There is a Jew … let’s get him.”

Another student described a professor writing that “we need to kill all Zionists, that she had worked with them and saw how evil they were.” Students also said they were pressured by peers and professors to give their opinions on Israel because they were openly Jewish.

Some 36% of respondents complained about course content or classroom discussions that “they experienced as antisemitic or biased,” while 34% said “a professor introduced Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Zionism when unrelated to the course subject.”

The survey, out Wednesday as part of a report titled Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences, included about 900 Jewish students from schools across Canada. It was originally conducted for the government’s special envoy on antisemitism, a role that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s administration dissolved alongside an Islamophobia envoy earlier this year.

Carney replaced those offices with a new Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion, which he announced in June after saying that the country was “failing Jewish Canadians.” The new council was introduced as a push to unify the government’s approach toward combating systemic prejudice, but some Jewish groups decried the elimination of distinct envoys.

Pressure has mounted on Carney’s administration to stem the tide of antisemitic attacks in Canada since 2023, including gunfire at Jewish schools and synagogues and attacks on Jewish businesses and community centers.

On the same day the report was released, an Oklahoma-based organization called Jewish Tulsa made news for urging President Donald Trump’s administration to offer refugee status to Jewish Canadians.

“With the urgency around the challenges and the inaction we see in Canada, an asylum pathway makes sense,” Joe Roberts, who leads the conservative think tank, told The Canadian Press. He said that his family moved from Ontario to Tulsa after witnessing antisemitic graffiti in his neighborhood.

Martha Piper, former president of the University of British Columbia, said the campus antisemitism report revealed “a shocking presence of campus antisemitism throughout this country along with a troubling institutional failure to respond.”

“The results suggest a university culture that is not welcoming to Jewish students and systemically tries to exclude and vilify them,” said Piper.

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post Over 95% of Canadian Jewish university students report exposure to antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News