On February 14 the gun debate in the United States was forever changed because of the terrible shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Since the shooting, teenagers from that high school and thousands of other students from across the country have strongly advocated for common sense gun reforms. Student activism should be strongly encouraged and applauded, as these young people are making their voices heard on a topic that has unfortunately touched the lives of countless people.  

Fortunately for these students they are not marching alone; grandmothers across the country have joined the fight for reasonable gun control measures. During the massive March for Our Lives protest, that saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets of Washington, D.C. and across the globe to protest gun violence; senior citizens were marching right alongside everyone else. In Washington, D.C. a group of grandmothers banded together to show their support. These grandmothers protested for two and half hours to condemn the National Rifle Association (NRA), support universal background checks and labeled themselves “grannies for gun control.” 

“We want to get people’s attention. So we made sure to include some signs that people might find upsetting. You know, things like ‘’bury guns, not kids.’ If that makes you uncomfortable, good,” Tina Hobson, one of the protesters, told the Washington Post.

Senior activism regarding gun control is nothing new. Grandmothers Against Gun Violence (GAGV), a group from Seattle, has been fighting since 2013 for gun reform.  Inspired by the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Margaret Heldering, president of GAGV, and three of her friends (all grandmothers of kids 6 and 7 at the time) started GAGV in order to contribute to our national dialogue about gun control. Today,  GAGV has grown from four members to more than 700.  

GAGV’s work embodies the following principles: 1) Closing the gun sale loophole and requiring universal background checks on gun sales; 2) banning the sale of high capacity ammunition magazines; 3) banning the sale of military style assault weapons; and 4) safe storage of guns. Their accomplishments and passion for trying to bring about positive change is laudable. For instance, they have organized a mayoral debate in Seattle regarding gun violence, donated $10,000 to firearm research and have visited with law makers.

Gun violence impacts more than just our countries’ grandchildren, but also senior citizens. B’nai B’rith International serving as the largest national Jewish sponsor of subsidized housing in the United States, with 38 buildings in 28 communities, unfortunately has to train staff members of our buildings on active shooter drills. We have worked with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and outside experts to teach our building’s staff members on best practices in the event of an active shooter. Staff members who attended, were able to create an emergency preparedness plan for potential active shooters in the building. “In the United States shootings don’t happen in a vacuum. Staff members who work for senior communities need to be trained on the proper procedures in case they are confronted with a potential active shooter. And training should not stop for when the shooter has been neutralized, buildings need to be aware of how traumatized residents will be and how best to respond with counseling,” B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services Associate Director Janel Doughten said.

Given the horrible impact that occurs in the United States from gun violence, I still can’t understand why groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) take such a militant approach towards reasonable gun reform. These types of organizations like to point to the second amendment, and how gun control measures for military style assault weapons are an encroachment on people’s freedom. Let’s say for the sake of argument we accept the NRA’s position that the second amendment does allow someone to own a firearm. Okay, having said that, why can’t we have reasonable restrictions for weapons whose only purpose is for war? As noted above, GAGV has some pretty fair and reasonable restrictions on gun sales. Does anyone really need to own a military style weapon? Does it really violate the second amendment and impinge on people’s freedom to close the gun show loophole?
​
While certain members of Congress’ response to gun violence over the years have been woefully inadequate, hopefully our elected representatives can learn from the oldest and youngest members of our society. It’s great that Americans are coming together like never before to make their voices heard regarding gun violence. Seniors and students have done a great job of pushing the gun reform movement, which has unfortunately been stagnant in Congress for far too long.   

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.

As ever in the Middle East, it would be overly simplistic to assert that any power, including the regime in Iran, is purely on the rise or on the wane. But the radical, adventurist theocrats in Tehran have recently been feeling the proverbial heat. While allies of Iran’s especially lethal proxy, Hezbollah, gained strength at the expense of relative moderates in last week’s Lebanese election, the so-called “Party of God” remained roughly unchanged in its own share of officeholders. While Syria’s Assad regime now seems entrenched in power, its Sunni resisters scattered and ravaged, that country’s civil strife appears fated to persist indefinitely and Hezbollah’s centrality to the bloodletting has sapped the “resistance movement” of its inter-sectarian appeal. While the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers was ostensibly never popular with Iran’s powerful revolutionaries, who balk at any restriction on military endeavors and detest any accommodation with Western countries, the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the compact has embarrassed the Iranian ruling class, as did Israel’s earlier disclosure of extensive intelligence proving Tehran’s nuclear duplicity.

Fear of the nuclear deal’s substantial weaknesses – and of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, weapons accumulation and mischief-making more generally – has united Israeli and key Arab leaders in remarkable, and increasingly unsubtle, ways. Meanwhile, the Iranian state’s continuing oppressiveness, corruption and failure to achieve economic growth have again spurred open domestic discontent to an extent not seen in almost a decade.

Faced with this pressure from within and without, Iranian leaders have felt compelled to project strength and extract a cost for recent setbacks. Iranian missiles and a drone from Syria were launched at Israel, prompting a furious Israeli counterattack aimed at thoroughly degrading a menacing Iranian military infrastructure being erected in Syria to mimic that which has been amassed in Lebanon. Analysts believe that Iran has also stoked and escalated support for the deliberately provoking Palestinian rioting on Gaza’s border with Israel. Although Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is Sunni, it remains estranged from the Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah, and has sought to direct Gazans’ frustrations at Israel, not itself, particularly as wider Arab attention has shifted elsewhere and the Trump administration took the occasion of Israel’s 70th anniversary to relocate the United States Embassy to Jerusalem.

Undoubtedly, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah badly now want to be seen as scoring some victories, without going so far as to prompt a devastating, all-out Israeli or U.S. counteroffensive. But this dangerous “dance” remains unpredictable and of grave concern. Iran is expected by many to increase cyber-attacks, like a series of those recently aimed at Saudi Arabia, which have potential to sabotage varied forms of critical infrastructure in adversary countries. No less, terrorism abroad has long been a favored tool in Tehran, giving it the possibility of concealing its fingerprints from such violence but inflicting death and panic among targeted populations, including non-Israeli diaspora Jews. And if Iranian decision-makers, egged on by the ideologues of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, soon conclude that the benefits to Iran of the nuclear deal without U.S. inclusion are too limited – especially since European companies, prioritizing their access to American markets, want to avoid running afoul of sanctions imposed on Iran by Washington – Tehran could again make a mad dash for nuclear weaponry, prompting acute alarm and counter-measures across the region.

Finally, although Hezbollah knows that any massive attack, of which it is now capable, against Israelis would result in a fiery response from Israel unlikely to please the people of Lebanon, Hezbollah remains answerable chiefly to its patrons in Iran and is also desperate to reclaim Arab “legitimacy” as the leading non-state threat to Israel. Accordingly, especially if direct Israeli-Iranian skirmishing (with little precedent) continues in Syria, the potential for Hezbollah to be activated against Israel – and thus for outright war – is real. Add acute tension between the U.S. and Iran, and red-hot recrimination (over rivalry in Syria, Qatar, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere) between Gulf Arabs and Iran, and the possibility exists for regional conflict unlike that experienced in the past.

To make matters worse, those jihadist groups more focused on destroying Israel than on containing Iran will want to force Sunni leaders away from a tacit alliance with Jerusalem by stage-managing a propaganda spectacle whose primary victims are ultimately Palestinian.
​
In this – and, most recklessly, in turning a blind eye to the looming danger posed by a foremost terrorist army, Hezbollah, just subjected to intensified U.S. sanctions – the United Nations and other willfully oblivious members of the global community can sadly be expected to play right along.

​David J. Michaels is Director of United Nations and Intercommunal Affairs at B'nai B'rith International, where he began working in 2004 as Special Assistant to the Executive Vice President. A Wexner Fellow/Davidson Scholar, and past winner of the Young Professional Award of the Jewish Communal Service Association of North America, he holds degrees from Yale and Yeshiva University. Click here to view more of his content.

Yesterday’s massive reception in Jerusalem at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs in honor of the visiting delegation from the U.S., here to help inaugurate the new American embassy in Jerusalem later today, was a celebration of new heights in U.S.-Israel relations reached under the Trump-Netanyahu partnership. Not only were the speeches rendered — by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin —  mutually supportive, but there were moments of candid camaraderi, such as when the prime minister recognized White House senior advisor Jared Kushner, saying that he has known him for “105 years and there is a special bond between our families” — that must convince any observer that this is no normal diplomatic relationship based solely on state interests, but one that bores down to the kishkes of both governments.

The relocation of the embassy to Israel’s capital should give Israel’s enemies (Iran and Hezbollah) and detractors (the EU and U.N.) good reason for conjecture about what coordinated steps they might face as they continue to threaten joint Israeli-U.S. strategic interests.

The relief felt by most Israelis who have carried the 70-year old burden of this unique boycott by the international community against its capital and other hurtful diplomatic anomalies was reflected in the words of Netanyahu, who set the tone for the event:

“I call on all countries to join the U.S. in moving their embassies to Jerusalem. Move your embassies to Jerusalem because it’s the right thing to do…Move your embassies to Jerusalem because it advances peace, and that’s because you can’t base peace on a foundation of lies. You base peace on the foundations of truth, and the truth is that not only has Jerusalem been the capital of the Jewish people for millennia and the capital of our state from its inception, the truth is that under any peace agreement you could possibly imagine, Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital.

It took President Trump, a President Trump to enunciate this simple, basic truth. And once enunciated, that truth will propagate…

And to achieve peace, we have to do one other thing: We must confront the enemies of peace, and I thank President Trump for his decision to confront Iran rather than to appease it…With all due respect to those sitting in European capitals, we here in the capitals of the Middle East — in Jerusalem, in Riyadh and elsewhere — we’ve seen the disastrous consequences of the Iran deal. And so when President Trump decides to pull out of this deal, to walk away from it, we know that when he walks away from a bad deal, he’s doing a good thing for our region, for the United States and for the world.”

While the U.S. will not be alone in Jerusalem — Guatemala will reopen its embassy here on Wednesday (after opening its embassy in Jerusalem in 1959 and moving it to Tel Aviv about 20 years later) and Paraguay will relocate next week — a signal that the going will still be tough, which was reflected in the dearth of foreign ambassadors who accepted the Foreign Ministry’s invitation to honor Israel and the U.S. with their presence at the reception. Of EU states, only Romania, Hungary and the  Czech Republic — three countries that blocked an EU draft resolution condemning the U.S. move — and Austria were present, alongside a number of African and Latin American states. Even countries famous for their friendship with Israel such as Germany, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus — the latter two who held their fourth summit with Netanyahu just last week in Nicosia — stayed demonstratively at arm’s length.

Besides the upbeat atmosphere of the whole affair — that included a great performance of Naomi Shemer’s “Jerusalem of Gold” by an Ethiopian vocalist and ended with Netta Barzilai’s winning Eurovision song “Toy” — the reception engendered particular pride for me and anyone affiliated with B’nai B’rith. A special exhibit on former U.S. President Harry Truman was displayed in the expansive reception hall. Guests were able to view the pen used to sign the de jure recognition of the State of Israel, which occurred on January 31, 1949. They were also able to view the famous photograph from that occasion showing Truman with the only three invited guests: B’nai B’rith President Frank Goldman, B’nai B’rith Executive Vice President Maurice Bisgyer and B’nai B’rith Kansas City member Eddie Jacobson.  
It was Jacobson — Truman’s WWI comrade-in-arms and lifelong confidant — who, acting at the request of Goldman, successfully appealed to the president to meet with World Zionist Organization President Dr. Chaim Weizmann when the State Department was lobbying Truman to rescind U.S. support for the U.N. Partition Plan in favor of a U.N. mandate over “Palestine.” This was anathema to the Zionists who viewed this looming threat as the possible end to the Zionist endeavor of the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. Truman agreed to see the ailing Weizmann — who was ushered in through the back door of the White House secretly, and lodged at a hotel under the alias “Frank Goldman” — and his impassioned appeal to the president to maintain U.S. support for partition won the day.
​
The rest, as they say, is history.

​Alan Schneider is the director of B’nai B’rith World Center in Jerusalem, which serves as the hub of B'nai B'rith International activities in Israel. The World Center is the key link between Israel and B'nai B'rith members and supporters around the world. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

As director of B’nai B’rith’s “embassy” in Jerusalem, I am acutely aware that the relocation of the American embassy to Israel’s capital — slated for this coming Monday — has special significance for our organization. It was at the September 1980 International Convention that B’nai B’rith International decided — perhaps the first by any U.S.-based Jewish organization — to establish a “permanent and official presence” in Jerusalem. This was B’nai B’rith’s  robust refutation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 478 that just weeks earlier had called on all 13 member states with embassies in Jerusalem at the time (Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, the Netherlands and Haiti) to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.
 
The U.N.’s excuse for this assault was passage of the Jerusalem Law by the Knesset in July of that year which declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "complete and united" capital, declaring it a violation of international law. At its height, Jerusalem boasted 16 embassies — the above plus Ivory Coast, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Kenya. But since 2006, Jerusalem — the Jewish capital since the days of King David and never declared the capital of any other people, despite having been occupied by many — has been bereft of any embassies and official recognition as Israel’s capital.
 
Jerusalem was long the seat of B’nai B’rith in Israel. It was where the Jerusalem Lodge — the first lodge to be established in the Land of Israel — was inaugurated in 1888 (nine years before the founding the Zionist movement by Theodore Herzl) and undertook some of the most significant civic projects at the time: sending clandestine missions to establish lodges in Jewish communities across the Ottoman Empire; founding the first library in the Land of Israel; setting up the Committee of the Hebrew Language and battling Christian missionaries by providing alternatives to Christian education and medical services, among others. But leadership — both in Israel and internationally — recognized that the U.N.’s affront could not be left unanswered, and the B’nai B’rith World Center-Jerusalem was founded.
 
Since then, successive chairmen and directors have implemented its role as the organization’s public affairs arm in Israel and permanent and official presence in Jerusalem. One of our declared goals was, indeed, to encourage countries to move their embassies to the city or establish new one’s here, instead of in Tel Aviv or Ramat Gan. While we cannot claim success in this endeavor, the World Center did submit a white paper to the Foreign Ministry that identified strategies for attracting embassies to the city, although this never seemed to be a priority for Israeli governments faced with a multitude of bi-lateral and multi-lateral diplomatic challenges throughout its 70 years.
 
Finally, on Monday, this will change as President Donald J. Trump makes good on a 23-year promise by Congress and successive presidents. By also recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital de jure, Trump will blaze new, significant ground that was not engendered by the presence of embassies in the past. All praise for these courageous steps, long-awaited by the people of Israel, is deserved. The move has already had a ripple effect — albeit modest at first — with Guatemala and Paraguay following suit. The fanfare of Monday’s events will undoubtedly convince other countries that the rightful place for their legations is in Jerusalem — at least 10 are reportedly considering an imminent move —  and this will have a positive effect on this fascinating, but challenging city.
 
Certain questions remain about the full significance of the embassy move as U.S. State Department officials insist that the administration will continue long-standing policy not to note “Jerusalem, Israel” in official U.S. documents, but only “Jerusalem.” There is also the cloud cast by the long-awaited U.S. proposal for peace between Israel and the Palestinians that according to news reports, will call on Israel to relinquish control of four Arab neighborhoods in favor of the creation of a capital for “Palestine.”
 
These questions will undoubtedly be dealt with after sometime after Monday — perhaps even far in the future. But in the meantime, we will bask in the knowledge that Jerusalem has begun the long journey to its rightful place among the great capitals of the world.  

​Alan Schneider is the director of B’nai B’rith World Center in Jerusalem, which serves as the hub of B'nai B'rith International activities in Israel. The World Center is the key link between Israel and B'nai B'rith members and supporters around the world. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

More than 25 years ago President George H.W. Bush signed into law, with bi-partisan support, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is legislation that provides civil rights protection for people with disabilities. Amongst the many protections the bill affords the disabled community is the ability to access places of public accommodation. Because of the ADA, disabled persons have an easier time entering doctor’s offices, shopping centers, grocery stores, restaurants and other public places. 

Recently, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), which despite its name, does severe harm to disabled persons. The bill creates additional and unnecessary roadblocks for the disabled community to file civil actions for violations of the ADA regarding places of public accommodation. Under current law an aggrieved individual who can’t access a business can file a complaint with United States Department of Justice, bring litigation or talk with the business owner. It should be noted under federal law that people who file lawsuits and are victorious are only entitled to injunctive relief (removal of the barrier) and attorney’s fees. They are not entitled to damage awards.

Under H.R. 620 the burden would be unfairly shifted to disabled persons to make sure the business community is complying with the ADA. For example, this legislation would force the aggrieved party to file written technical notice, often needing a lawyer, give the offending party 60 days to respond, then force the victim to wait another 120 days to see if “substantial progress” is made to fix the problem, before the matter can legally enter the court system. Is the United States Congress reasonably expecting people with a non-legal background to understand the technical intricacies of the ADA to file notice?

In addition, if businesses are not legally required to make their accommodations accessible under the ADA, what incentive do they have to comply before a complaint is filed in court? Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) who uses a wheelchair said on the House floor, “The idea that places of public accommodation should receive a free pass for six months before correctly implementing a law that has been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.”
 
Presently, 16 million seniors have one or more disabilities, with mobility issues being the most common. Are proponents of the bill going to argue the elderly community should have to wait six months or more to visit a hospital or doctor’s office because it’s not accessible? Not to mention being barred from everyday activities like going shopping or the movies.   

The ADA has been the law of the land for the past 28 years. Are members of Congress going to argue that businesses have not had enough time to comply with the ADA’s requirements? The ADA National Network, funded by the federal government, offers no cost technical assistance to businesses about how to comply under the law. Furthermore, this assistance is offered at 10 regional centers around the country, and there are tax credits available to businesses that remove barriers for the disabled community. Having almost 30 years of notice, tax credits and the ADA National Network, it’s hard to cry foul that the ADA is too onerous. 
 
Lastly, proponents of the bill believe it’s a necessity because of unethical attorneys who are bringing frivolous lawsuits. People on both sides of this debate can agree that unwarranted litigation is a problem in this country. However, this bill does nothing to fix that problem! First, as referenced above, federal law does not permit plaintiffs to collect damages for cases filed under Title III of the ADA. While it’s true some states permit monetary damages for violations, the current proposal does nothing to change state law. Most importantly, what other member of a federally protected class must wait months to exercise their civil rights against discrimination?   
​
When Bush signed the ADA he said, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.” Sadly this legislation recreates exclusionary walls for disabled Americans that the ADA fought so hard to knock down. Presently, the United States Senate has shown better judgment than the House of Representatives, with 42 Senators promising to block any vote on this shameful legislation. While that is good news for the disabled community, let’s hope these senators’ commitment does not waiver. 

​​​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.