Regence Claim Form For Vision: Fill & Download for Free

I find that most explanations for the 1830 invasion are not accurate enough or not profound enough. I have long since resolved to find some more form of a suitable explanation.The Barbary pirates, originating from North Africa, were the cause of many European outrages. The pirates, reaching as far as Ireland, captured slaves by the thousands. In 1664, France invaded Algeria at the city of Jijel (where my family originates) and occupied the territory for several months before being forced to leave. In 1682, Admiral Duquesne bombarded Algiers in retaliation to the Berber piracy of the Mediterranean. It should be mentioned that France was not the only country to have bombarded, attacked, or invaded Algeria, as the list also includes the Netherlands, Spain, England, Portugal, and the United States.In 1541, Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire attempted a serious invasion of Algeria with a very large force. He ultimately failed, and his army took massive casualties. One of the more haunting scenes of that invasion was the Chevalier de Malte dying in front of the walls of Algiers saying, “Nous reviendrons!” (We will return).There is a clear pattern. For centuries European nations (most frequently France) had been attempting to solidify a hold on Algeria, but failed to do so. France, in the 17th and 18th centuries, was simply uninterested in trying to conquer some domain belonging to the Ottoman Empire (there was a tacit alliance between the two), as interests were elsewhere. Besides, colonialism was an alien concept to the major European powers during that time. As a matter of fact, it was a comparatively liberal idea that really cemented after the fall of Charles X, establishing itself in the less conservative governments that followed.Fast forward to the French revolution. The French armies are fighting most of Europe, and the French government(s) needed resources. The Directory, which sent armies to Northern Italy in 1795 and Egypt in 1798, had to supply them somehow. The government turned to Algeria, which was a nominal Ottoman province, but was almost completely autonomous. The Dey of Algiers, Ali V Ben Ahmed, agreed to give France large quantities of grain via a line of credit provided by the Algerian Jewish families Bacri and Bunasch. The Dey acted as a sort of intermediary, or guarantee. Several million of francs were loaned out.When Napoleon took power in 1799, he set out to create some sort of stable peace. He fixed French relations with the United States, ending the Quasi-war. After his victory at Marengo in 1800, he tried to do the same with much of his European adversaries. Talleyrand, the foreign minister of France and chief diplomat, was achieving these goals. He sought to achieve some sort of peace with Algiers and the Regency.We cannot hope to succeed fully in our given goals, in our dealings with the Barbary States, unless we deal efficiently with the settlement and reimbursement of the debts.Talleyrand arranged for the debts to be paid, mainly through installments. Several were paid through. However, relations between the French diplomats and the Algerians steadily worsened. Piracy continued, and many Frenchmen were taken slaves, greatly contributing to Napoleon’s anger.The details concerning the Bunasch family are long and complicated. In general, the trend that decided actions and attitudes taken by the French and other parties was the fact that the Bunasch family was Jewish. This led to a good deal of condescension on the French part, and contributed to any possible unwillingness or hesitance.There were further complications in Algiers, as the constant plague of the Regency were coups and instability in the leadership. In addition, there were a lot of familial issues with the Bacri and Bunasch, resulting with one of their members being assassinated. As the Napoleonic Era went on, Talleyrand increasingly distanced himself from this Algerian affair as he had greater matters to attend to.It should be noted that these pecuniary conflicts annoyed Napoleon considerably, so much so that he drafted invasion plans of Algeria. They saw light of day 22 years later.In 1816, after the fall of Napoleon, Talleyrand approved the Consul to Algeria, Pierre Deval, and sought to liquidate the debts to the Bacri family. By 1819, several agreements were reached between the parties, and several installments were going to be pushed through. The problem, however, lay in the fact that, by resolving the debts to the families, the Dey Hussein was to be excluded and lose any claims to reimbursement from the French government. This served to worsen the relations between the Regency and Paris.Dey Hussein wanted Deval gone and Paris disagreed. So Berber piracy continued. As a response, Charles X (r. 1824–1830) sent ships to blockade the Algiers port.Tensions came to a breaking point in 30 April 1827, when Dey Hussein struck Deval in the face with his fly-whisk (or fan handle) in this famous coup d’éventail.This was just the pretext Charles X needed to finally invade Algeria. In 1827, he fully blockaded the Algerian coast, and in 1830, sent a fleet carrying troops to conquer Algiers.Let us study in greater detail why Charles decided to invade Algeria because of some seemingly harmless strike.Charles X is a figure too quickly glossed over in the textbooks in which the main takeaway is that he was too conservative, reckless, and imprudent.Indeed, he was someone who valued the power of Monarchy. However, he was by no means an ignorant man.Charles was acclaimed when he took power in 1824. He made a mistake when the crown passed to him; he accepted official coronation in the Reims Cathedral, a symbol of traditional Catholic power. For the remainder of his reign, he always implicitly conformed to the ancien régime’s ideal mixture of Catholicism and Monarchy.Charles himself was a robust man. He was infamous during his youth because of his drinking, lavishness, and misbehavior. However, his attitude drastically changed as he grew older.(This was painted in 1827, when he was 70 years old. He aged extraordinarily well.)Charles was a king of positive and good demeanor. He an active ruler and presided over most of his cabinet meetings. He was, for a time, wildly popular. However, this started waning when he organized a government led by the Ultra-Royalist Joseph de Villèle.With Villèle, Charles drafted several laws that were in favor of the nobility, such as restoring primogeniture (which was met with so much fury that it had to be withdrawn), and paying indemnities to noble lands. He also gradually restricted freedom of the press, which the liberals greeted with outrage.Charles’ proclivities for Catholicism endangered him and his government. He was suspected of being a supporter of the Jesuits, which worsened his reputation.In general, Charles’ good nature, combined with his subtle naïveté, was a recipe for disaster. He possessed neither the shrewd passivity of his brother Louis XVIII nor the occasional foresight of Louis XVI.The noticeable decline began in 1827. When Charles was inspecting the National Guard, he was the met with the cries, “À bas les ministres! À bas les Jésuites!” (Down with the ministers! Down with the Jesuits!)Charles immediately dissolved the National Guard, which alienated the regime from the middle classes. Villèle’s government soon lost re-election, and, despite Charles’s pleadings, he resigned from his position in 1828. The Vicomte of Martignac replaced him. He was a moderate, which Charles disliked. Martignac tried to reconcile the left wing by proposing a new system of elections and division of power that would relax the centralization favored by the conservatives. In addition, he attempted to restrict the activity of Jesuits and to relieve censorship. In 1829, Charles fired Martignac and installed a new prime minister, the Prince of Polignac.Polignac was an Ultra-Royalist who was highly unpopular. When learning of his post, the liberal bourgeois François Guizot declaredCharles X has hoisted upon the Tuileries the flag of the counter-revolution.The new prime minister was quickly criticized. In March 1830, Charles openly stated that he would fight to keep his ministers. The chamber then demanded that he appoint other ministers because they distrusted Polignac. So Charles dissolved the entire chamber in May. He felt that these measures were absolutely necessary, statingIf I accepted these demands, they would treat me as they did my unfortunate brother [Louis XVI], for his first compromise signaled his fall.The King and Polignac were hoping that the new elections would take place, and the position of their government would be secure when French learned about their glorious victory in Africa. Technically, his actions were constitutional, as the Charter permitted for the creation of a new electoral system.As of all this was occurring, the French launched the expedition on Algiers. They quickly defeated the Algerian army guarding the capital. However, these conquests did not have the intended effects. Charles’s government still lost the elections. Driven to the brink, Charles set forth his July Resolutions, suspending the chamber of deputies, liberty of press, and introducing new electoral colleges for September.This was enough to drive the French to revolution, and Charles subsequently lost his throne.There are other reasons to consider the invasion of Algiers other than the political climate in which Charles had found himself.France was seeking to ally itself more closely with Russia, which was leading the destruction of the Ottoman empire. Polignac accepted the very real possibility of Constantinople falling to the Russians. However, all of these designs upset Great Britain. The British had always stalled the collapse of the Ottoman empire because of their distrust of Russia, the most powerful country after the fall of Napoleon. Algiers technically belonged to the Ottomans, and invading it would have provoked them.The reason that there was a lull of three years between the French blockade of the Algerian coast and the actual invasion was largely because of England, which did not want to entertain the possibility of French hegemony in North Africa. England had recently created new trade routes to the East through the Mediterranean. In addition, the English did not enjoy Charles’s “crusader attitude” towards the prospect of an Algerian expedition. He saw that it was duty to reinstall the Christian religion into such lands.Talleyrand was very opposed to an Algerian expedition. He saw that it was a futile move that would create uneasiness with England, which he deemed vital for any sort of enduring peace.Although Talleyrand proposed to Louis-Philippe that he give up Algiers as a gesture to the British, Louis-Philippe declined…Nonetheless, the British could deal with Louis-Philippe as someone who shared their vision of Europe, as they could not have dealt with Charles X.The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789–1914, Immanuel WallersteinThe general reaction in France to the conquest of Algiers was at first taken with indifference. Politicians did not really see the use of Algeria, and it was not until 1870 that France truly became heavily invested there.I wonder what would have happened to Algeria if Charles had remained in power. The concept of colonialism was not a very conservative one, as the Royalists wanted a more stable France that was not reminiscent of Napoleonic ambition. They did not think that France needed to spread its values, and understood that silence and subtlety would have secured their position.The conquest of Algeria was greatly encouraged by more liberal thinkers, such as De Tocqueville. He wrote that France needed to create a republican, agrarian, society in Algeria that would model the French vision of the world, which resembled the current American/Jeffersonian ideal.And so it was all these reasons that France should go on such a fateful expedition that would result in a lot of pain, controversy, and socio-political issues that still resonate today.

Jokowi visited the Arfak mountains, it is fascinating to see what the 7th Indonesian President has done andafter the inauguration of the Indonesian cabinet, he immediately flew to West Papua, precisely to the Arfak mountains.As a young Papuan, I see this arrival as a midpoint of the tension that occurred there, thousands of residents from 162 Arfak mountain villages were very enthusiastic to welcome the arrival of President Jokowi and First Lady Iriana on 27 October 2019. This became the highlight for West Papua as it was the first province visited by Jokowi in his new presidential period. Amid the enthusiasm for welcoming Jokowi by the people of the Arfak Mountains, he also conveyed his vision and mission to continue advance West Papua. The President said that there are 139 kilometres of road access to the Arfak mountains that must be addressed developed to make it easier for local people to sell agricultural products, plantations, and handicrafts typical of local people to the market located in Manokwari because local residents have to travel for around five hours to get to Manokwari currently. It is even more difficult due to rocky roads and steep inclines. According to Jokowi, the construction will facilitate transportation of for people and the distribution of goods, especially agricultural products. Farmers from the Arfak Mountains can later sell a variety of agricultural commodities, such as carrots, cabbages, and potatoes, to Manokwari.Jokowi asked for two years to pave and build road infrastructure in the Arfak Mountains to Manokwari.President Jokowi also mentioned the excellent tourism potential in the Arfak mountains. He claimed to be very impressed with the natural beauty of the Arfak Mountains Regency, in particular, Anggi Giji Lake and Anggi Gida.. He said, "Yes, this is my first visit to the Arfak Mountains. And I was very surprised, from the top it was very beautiful, and the lake was beautiful and also the nature. "Jokowi is committed to improving other public facilities, namely airports that can enhance the welfare of local residents to be able to more easily go around and to make it easier for tourists to visit the Arfak mountains. With easy access to transportation, it will increase the income of the surrounding population because their agricultural products and handicrafts can be bought by migrant tourists who visit there.Jokowi was asked to pay attention to the health department in West Papua, namely by building hospitals, puskesmas, markets, and all public facilities requested by the Regent. Jokowi is committed to build all the demands of the Regent, but he asks for 2-3 years to complete everythingIn the second period of his leadership, Jokowi continued to commit for advancing Papua, both in the physical and human resources fields, for the progressing Indonesia forward.

Are Palestinians really treated as "second class citizens" in Israel?No citizen is treated as a second class citizen, once they have citizenship. That said Israel has two types of citizenship due to the reasons listed below. This was not true before 2018. Those Arabs that refuse citizenship (most do not choose to get it) are treated as either residents (most Arabs choose this option) or foreigners.ISRAEL DOES NOT CONFER ANY INHERENT RIGHTS ON FOREIGN NATIONALS UNLESS THEY HAVE OFFICIAL RESIDENCY. RATHER IT GIVES THEM COURTESIES. FOREIGN NATIONALS DO NOT HAVE INHERENT PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.Foreign nationals and tourists without residency have “human rights under the conventions Israel has voluntarily agreed to by treaty” these are significantly less than those enjoyed by Israeli citizens or residents. Foreigners do not have freedom of speech or expression. It is a courtesy.Israel reserves its full sovereignty and can, and often does retract these courtesies if the foreigner is deemed a security risk.Israel has a law called the Nation State Law. Its a new law that was established in June 9–19, 2018. That added the Inherent citizenship to the law. It also made Israel a “liberal theocracy”.Before this time the law in Israel was written in such a way that all rights were equally applicable. This was because the laws in Israel were geared to a culturally Jewish State based only on a historic right.When the Nation State law passed the nature of the state changed.The first section of the law states that “the state of Israel is within The Land of Israel. The Land of Israel is the eternal homeland of the Jewish people”. This means that the Nation State Law recognizes the Bibilically Defined Land of Israel ( Western Jordan, Southern Lebanon, and Southern Syria) as the ancient homeland of the Jewish people and does not limit the national homeland by the current borders of The State.The second section defines the nature of this right as based on unique heritage, ethics, culture, history and religion. However the technical Hebrew grammar of the law implies that the heritage, ethics, cultural and historical rights is based on the religious component. Meaning The Torah and Talmud and the Divine Covenant given through prophecy. This is the component completely unique to The Jewish People.A third section states that the state exists for the purpose of protecting the Jewish people, the settling of The Land of Israel (the state is within the land of Israel remember) and defending the cultural/historic/religious rights of the Jewish people. This actually creates a legal way to expand Israel’s borders. It claims a right to the entire Biblical region, even if Israel currently doesn’t have sovereignty there.Within the second section there is another componnent. This states that the inherent right to self-determination is EXCLUSIVE to the Jewish people, as defined by religious law, and that exclusive right is based on the unique component that is exclusive to Jews. The Torah, and its Oral tradition as given through its Prophets.A fourth section defines the status of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people. This means that Israel recognizes the Biblical Narrative that Mechitzedek king of Salem (Shem son of Noach) gave the right of succesion to Abraham when Abraham renamed it Yire-Shalem after offering up Isaac. This is important because the right over Cannan is based on the territorial claims of the Prophet-Priest-King of Shalem. (Later divided into the offices of the High Priest, King, and Master Prophet/Av Sanhedrin).The other sections are not relevant to sovereignty and discuss cultural topics.This does not make Palestinians a second class per say, but rather it creates two type of citizens under the law. Inherent Citizens (By birth and irrevocable though they may be exiled) and Naturalized non-Jewish citizens whose citizenship may be revoked.There are many countries with this type of Citizenship. The Usa has Inherent Citizenship and Naturalized Citizenship. A naturalized citizen is not able to become President even if he was born a citizen, had it revoked (or was born to a parent that relenquished it) and then re-apllied for it under the naturalization procedure.It is of course objectively a second class citizenship for all non-Jews. However in Israel anyone with citizenship is eligble for all governmental positions and posesses all rights except the inherent G-D given right to be a citizen of Israel.The law is clear that once citizenship is attained the rights and restrictions are the same. They must marry within their religion (applies to all Israelis) they can own land, must pay taxes, sit on the supreme court (Did you know there is an Arab Justice?), sit in the Parliament, be Prime Minister, President etc. There are even Arab Generals.The Nation State Law sealed into law the marriage between the Kingship of Israel (Sovereignty) the Priesthood (Jerusalem and its prayer sites), and Prophetic legacy (Rabbinate).It was the vision of President Chaim Weizman (Practical Zionism) vs. the vision of Herzl (Cultural Zionism) which was the precursor to the political atmosphere before the Netanyahu era in Israel.It was the official joining under law of Religion and State defining the nature of the Jewish State as based officially on Judaism rather than on ancient historical migration. It established Zionism as a Divine Right and made Israel into what is known as a “Liberal Theocracy”. It was the joining of Nachmanedes Religious Aaliyah (The Precursor of Religious Zionism and all other forms of Zionism) movement which re-started Jewish life in Israel in the 13th century.Two interesting points. Both Ramban and Chaim Weitzman were known descendants of King David through their paternal line. The founder of the Chief Rabbanut of Israel’s pre-state authority and the first President of Israel were both Descendants of King David and therefore had a halachic right to establish Jerusalem as the place of authority/capital.The halachic argument could be made that all subsequent Chief Rabbis After Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman (13th century-Present) and Presidents after Dr. Chaim-Azriel Weitzman were merely placeholders commonly reffered to as a regents. Ramban was given the status of a non-hereditary Prince (Nasi) after winning the Disputation of Barcelona (which was why he was exiled and not killed from Spain). Chaim Weitzman represented the entirety of the Jewish People in the eyes of the nations and was responsible for the Balfour declaratin. Chaim Weitzman’s Hebrew title under Israeli law is Nasi, which means “Elected Prince”.Halacha Source-Mishne Torah: Laws of Kings and their wars, Rambam (Maionedes)Meaning the state exists as theocracy under the Nation State law upon the joining of these two elements. And it does so with Halachic legitimacy as a “liberal theocracy”. It allows individuals equal freedom of expression in public and private spaces and equal rights under the law. It would be valid as being established under halacha as a Jewish State that is a regency for the preparation for the establishment of a future Kingship (President) and Sanhedrin. (Rabbanut). Which is exactly what Israel, especially since the founders of both the Rabbanut and sovereign Government were descendants of David with the halachic authority to make a regency with its capital in Jerusalem.Halacha Source-Mishne Torah: Laws of Kings and their wars, RambamUnlike every other theocracy Israel does not treat anyone as a second class citizen, but it does have different categories of citizenship. Inherent for Jews and Naturalized for Non-Jews and Converts. [Converts can lose citizenship if they are determined to be invalid, non-Jews can lose citizenship for certain crimes such as treason and participation of terror or organized crime for example.This is what categorizes Israel as a liberal theocracy, its existence is based on the theology under its laws, but its laws do not discriminate in application to any citizen and it allows all its citizens the same freedoms of belief, speech, as well as the same universal civil and criminal protections. Religions may not intermarry, but that applies to all its citizens and does not target a specific group. Its equal.Practical Zionism and Religious Zionism together. President Weizman TZL and Rav Moshe Ben Nachman TZL.Did you know that both tried desperately to make peace with the Arabs and abhored what we would call racism today? Both considered action the main thing. Incidentally both were men of both religion and science. Ramban was a Physcian by trade and President Weitzman had a Doctorate of Chemistry.Both Ramban and President Weitzman believed in the 13 principles of the Jewish faith. Contrary to popular belief Chaim Weitzman, unlike Herzl, never discarded Judaism, he simply didn’t always practice, it was he who demanded Israel rather than Uganda be the homeland because “Zionism is and expression of the Jewish love for God….and the Jew can no more be outside of Israel than they can leave their God”. This clearly shows that he never left Judaism.“The essence of equality is based on the equal evaluation and application of action. It is not based on the nature of an object, but rather what it does.”-Rabbi Natan Shlomo Valadez (Rav Shaul)Check out my posts about Judaism, Kabbalah, Israeli Culture, and Mideast Politics on my Quora Space:Israel, Jewish Secrets, and Stuff