Categories
Newscasts

Donald Trump & Kamala Harris meet tonight in their first presidential debate

Spread the news

Interview with Politico’s Meredith McGraw on first presidential debate tonight between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump (5), Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan to link a temporary government funding bill to a requirement to show U.S. citizenship to vote clear first procedural hurdle, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) testifies before a House subcommittee about nursing home COVID-19 deaths, Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the 13 U.S. servicemembers killed in the suicide bombing during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken calls for ‘fundamental changes’ after IDF killed U.S. activist in West Bank.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

What does Iran get for sending ballistic missiles to Russia?

Spread the news

Today, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken revealed that Iran has delivered close range ballistic missiles (CRBMs) to Russia, which he expects Russian forces will use against Ukraine within a matter of weeks.

At the same time, the US Department of the Treasury announced the imposition of additional sanctions on Iranian and Russian individuals and entities, including Iran Air. These moves can hardly come as a surprise to Moscow and Tehran and will not serve to get either to change course. The real question is how the Iranian transfer of CRBMs to Russia will affect the Russia-Iran relationship. Specifically: Does Russia’s dependence on Iran, first for armed drones and now for CRBMs, give Tehran a degree of leverage over Moscow? And what would Tehran want to get from Moscow with that leverage?

Iran has long sought Su-35 fighter aircraft and S-400 air defense missile systems from Russia, according to reports, but Moscow has not yet delivered them. As Hanna Notte and Jim Lamson noted in a study published in August, there are many other Russian weapons systems and technologies that Tehran would like to receive. If any of these turn up in Iran, this will be seen as evidence that the transfer of CRBMs to Moscow is indeed a sign of increased Iranian leverage over Russia.

Tehran, then, may see Russia not so much as a great power but as another proxy . . .

Moscow, though, will be loath to transfer weapons to Iran that would upset its ability to maintain good relations with Iran’s rivals, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which could in turn result in their turning closer to the United States and even Israel for support. Indeed, Iran itself might not want this to happen. Saudi-Russian cooperation in the OPEC+ format, which keeps world oil prices relatively higher, serves Iranian interests too. Both Russia and Iran have to sell their oil at a discount due to Western sanctions, but if the Saudis conclude that Russia has become Iran’s firm ally and so decide to increase oil production, the resulting lower oil prices would hurt both Moscow and Tehran. And they know that Riyadh has in the past been willing to flood the market and accept lower oil prices in order to hurt its rivals.

Further, while Tehran may want Moscow to transfer Su-35s, S-400s, and other weapons systems and technologies, receiving them immediately may not be the Iranian leadership’s primary goal. The Islamic Republic often does not take direct military action itself, but prefers to act through proxies, such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi and other Shia militia forces.

Tehran, then, may see Russia not so much as a great power but as another proxy, whose willingness to fight against a common enemy benefits Iran but allows it to avoid the costs of fighting that common enemy itself. Ukraine, of course, does not pose a threat to Iran. But to the extent that the United States and other Western countries devote attention and resources to supporting Ukraine, then they have less of these available for dealing with Iran.

Indeed, Tehran’s one great worry might be that Russia will lose its war with Ukraine, thus allowing the United States and its Western allies (as Tehran might fear) to concentrate on Iran. Transferring first armed drones and now CRBMs to Russia, then, may be seen as a good investment by Tehran whether it receives Russian weapons systems in return or not. This attitude would also be very much in keeping with how Iran prefers to support proxies that are fighting a common adversary rather than take on the fight itself.


Mark N. Katz is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and professor emeritus of government and politics at the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government.

The post What does Iran get for sending ballistic missiles to Russia? appeared first on Atlantic Council.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Ukraine’s biggest wartime government shakeup prompts muted reaction in Kyiv

Spread the news

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy presided over his government’s largest wartime reshuffle in early September, with nine ministries getting new permanent leadership. As the news filtered into Western capitals, media and experts alike scrambled to make sense of the changes. Back in Kyiv, many lawmakers and analysts appeared relatively unmoved by the announcements, in contrast to the cheers and jeers that have come with previous shifts in Zelenskyy’s government.

Perhaps the most notable figure to resign was Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who had been a steady, passionate voice as Ukraine’s top diplomat for the last four years. Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration Olha Stefanishyna, another longtime minister, resigned from her post only to be quickly named as the new Justice Minister, replacing Denys Maliuska.

Oleksandr Kamyshin’s swift rise in government looks set to continue as he takes up a post as presidential advisor for strategic issues after resigning as Minister of Strategic Industries. He joins former Deputy Prime Minister for the Reintegration of Occupied Territories Iryna Vereshchuk, who will be a new deputy in the Office of the President.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The somewhat muted reaction in Ukraine to such a significant government shakeup reflects a number of factors. First, none of the cabinet changes came in the wake of a scandal or amid whispers of corruption. They appear to be purely a shift in personnel.

Second, Zelenskyy had long telegraphed plans for a major government shakeup. Speaking to Italian media in February 2024, he said “a reset” was necessary. “I have something serious in mind, which is not about a single person but about the direction of the country’s leadership,” he commented. At the time, observers fixated on the “single person” reference, assuming he was talking about Ukraine’s highly regarded military commander Valeriy Zaluzhny, who was subsequently removed and appointed Ukrainian ambassador to Great Britain.

Crucially, none of the changes in the recent reshuffle directly involve the military or the economy. Replacing the minister of defense or economy would have set off alarm bells among Ukraine’s Western partners, but those positions look stable. The closest person to the battlefield was Kamyshin, who leaves Ukraine’s Ministry of Strategic Industries with a revamped and highly effective drone program in place.

The new blood leading these ministries is not all that new, either. Instead, Zelenskyy appears to be promoting trusted cadres, assigning others new or enhanced portfolios, offering acting ministers permanent gigs, and, in the case of former foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, giving some a deserved break after years of strenuous work.

Publicly at least, Ukraine’s Western partners took the personnel changes in stride. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and many other foreign ministers thanked Kuleba for his work and dedication. The European Union offered a suitably bland reaction, calling the shakeup Ukraine’s “internal matter” and expressing hopes to “continue very good cooperation” with Kyiv.

The two most interesting newcomers are new Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha and Oleksiy Kuleba, the incoming Deputy Prime Minister for Restoration of Ukraine and Minister for Communities and Territories Development.

Sybiha moves from the Office of the President back to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he has spent much of his government career. He previously served as Ukraine’s ambassador to Türkiye and at the Ukrainian Embassy in Poland, both senior diplomatic posts working with two of Ukraine’s most important neighbors. Zelenskyy will be hoping Sybiha’s experience and strong relationship with presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak make him an efficient liaison between Kyiv and its many partners.

Kuleba takes over a large ministry formed by the merger of the Ministry for the Reintegration of Occupied Territories and the Ministry of Community Development, Territories, and Infrastructure, which had been led by Oleksandr Kubrakov until his dismissal in May. Some outlets reported that Kuleba’s ministry will soon be split in two, with one ministry set to focus on reconstruction and development, while the other concentrates on infrastructure. That may be a sensible move ahead of what could be another harsh winter of Russian assaults on Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure. Kuleba’s previous job was head of regional policy in the Office of the President, working closely with Yermak.

The most controversial personnel decision to emerge from the recent flurry of changes in Kyiv was the firing of Ukrenergo CEO Volodymyr Kudrytskyi. He is widely credited with having worked miracles as head of Ukraine’s state-owned electrical grid operator, most significantly leading the country’s disconnection from the Russian grid in February 2022, months ahead of schedule. Kudrytskyi was seen as a real reformer in Western capitals, leading to significant alarm over his dismissal. Two members of Ukrenergo’s supervisory board resigned in protest, calling Kudrytskyi’s firing “politically motivated.”

Overall, Zelenskyy appears to be shuffling the deck rather than choosing a new set of cards. It is unlikely the nine new ministers will produce dramatic changes in government policy, but they may offer new impetus as Ukraine heads toward its third winter of full-scale war. Kyiv’s whole-of-government approach to the country’s defense has been largely effective so far; Zelenskyy may be betting these tweaks will maintain Ukraine’s edge.

Andrew D’Anieri is a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine’s biggest wartime government shakeup prompts muted reaction in Kyiv appeared first on Atlantic Council.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Escalation management is the appeasement of the 21st century

Spread the news

When Vladimir Putin first began the invasion of Ukraine with the seizure of Crimea, he did so using troops without identifying insignia and was careful to hide his attack behind a veil of deniability, however implausible. Ten years later, the Russian dictator now routinely threatens Western leaders with nuclear apocalypse if they dare to disrupt his methodical destruction of Europe’s largest nation. This dramatic escalation in Russian aggression is the bitter fruit of a decade spent trying to avoid provoking Putin rather than confronting the Kremlin.

In 2014, the West chose not to impose any significant costs on Russia for the occupation of Crimea and the subsequent invasion of eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. At the time, many preferred to pursue a business as usual approach, strengthening trade ties with Moscow and constructing new gas pipelines to deepen Europe’s energy dependence on the Kremlin. Unsurprisingly, Putin interpreted this timidity as a tacit green light to continue, safe in the knowledge that performative Western outrage was unlikely to translate into action. The stage was thus set for the largest European invasion since World War II.

Since February 2022, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has transformed the geopolitical landscape, but it has so far failed to convince Western leaders of the need to abandon their failed policies of escalation management. Instead, the international response to Russia’s invasion has been hampered at every turn by delays and indecisiveness, with Kyiv’s partners denying the country vital weapons and imposing absurd restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. As a result, the Ukrainian military currently finds itself forced to fight an existential war with one hand tied behind its back.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

We have been here before, of course. In the 1930s, Western leaders responded to the challenge of an increasingly aggressive Nazi Germany by seeking to appease Adolf Hitler with a series of concessions. The architects of appeasement have come to be viewed as fools and cowards, but in fact they were mostly honorable men who believed it was their sacred duty to prevent another world war. The majority of today’s escalation managers are doubtless driven by similarly noble intentions. However, it should be painfully clear to them by now that escalation management is the appeasement of the modern era and is steadily creating the conditions for the global conflict they aim to avert.

Like Hitler before him, Putin makes no secret of his expansionist goals and imperial ambitions. Indeed, the Kremlin dictator likes nothing better than discussing his sense of historical mission. He is notorious for delivering rambling lectures on Russian history, and has often delved into the distant past to justify his contemporary geopolitical grievances. Ukraine is a favorite topic, with Putin frequently questioning the legitimacy of Ukrainian statehood and referring to entire regions of Ukraine as “historically Russian lands.” Few were surprised in summer 2022 when he compared the current invasion of Ukraine to the eighteenth century imperial conquests of Russian Czar Peter the Great.

Nor is Putin’s historical revisionism limited to the reconquest of Ukraine. He has often lamented modern Russia’s retreat from empire and has referred to the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union as the “disintegration of historical Russia.” At its greatest extent, the Russian Empire stretched far beyond today’s Ukrainian borders and featured a long list of additional countries including Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the whole of Central Asia. Many of these states could be at risk of suffering Ukraine’s fate if the current invasion is allowed to succeed.

While there can be little doubt regarding the scale of Putin’s revisionist ambitions, some skeptics still question whether he possesses the military capabilities to achieve his goals. This is shortsighted. The invasion of Ukraine may have exposed the limitations of the Russian army, but it has also revealed the weakness of the West. This disastrous lack of Western resolve is visibly emboldening the Kremlin and may yet persuade Putin that he can risk going further without triggering an overwhelming Western response.

In recent months, Putin has begun testing NATO with occasional drone incursions across the border into Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states. So far, he has received minimal push back. This gray zone aggression is just one small part of an escalating Russian hybrid war being waged throughout the Western world that includes a dizzying array of disinformation operations, cyber attacks, weaponized corruption, sabotage, and support for extremist political movements of all kinds. Although many policymakers in Western capitals are still reluctant to admit it, Russia evidently believes it is already at war with the West and is acting accordingly.

Back in the Russian Federation itself, there are ample indications that Putin is preparing the domestic front for a long war. He has placed the entire Russian economy on a wartime footing, and has instructed his vast propaganda apparatus to preach holy war against the West. On the international stage, he is consolidating an authoritarian axis of like-minded nations such as China, Iran, and North Korea, all of whom share his stated goal of overturning the current world order. While it is impossible to anticipate exactly what Putin might do next if he succeeds in Ukraine, the idea that he will simply stop is dangerously delusional.

There was a time when such delusions regarding the revanchist nature of Putin’s Russia could be excused. Not anymore. Since 2022, the Kremlin has embarked on a path of open hostility toward the entire Western world, with each successive attempt to appease Putin merely serving to encourage bolder acts of aggression. In this climate of confrontation, compromising with the Kremlin will not bring peace. On the contrary, any territorial concessions in Ukraine would be viewed by Moscow as a victory and used to justify more war.

Before it is too late, the West must recognize the necessity of speaking to Putin in the only language he understands: The language of strength. This means committing fully and unambiguously to Ukrainian victory. More specifically, it means lifting the restrictions that currently protect Russia from attack, and supplying Ukraine with enough weapons to actually win. Putin sees international relations as a zero sum game and believes he has the upper hand over opponents who have revealed their fundamental weakness. By continuing to signal their fear of escalation, Western leaders now risk repeating the mistakes of the 1930s and provoking the wider war they so desperately seek to prevent.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Escalation management is the appeasement of the 21st century appeared first on Atlantic Council.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Most Americans Want to Stop Arming Israel. Politicians Don’t Care.

Spread the news

When Kamala Harris sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash last month, Bash asked a question: “Would you withhold some U.S. weapons shipments to Israel? That’s what a lot of people on the progressive left want you to do.” 

Harris sidestepped the question, talked about a ceasefire, and ultimately said that she would not change course from the Biden administration’s policy of arming Israel as its war on Gaza enters its 11th month. 

But polls of the American voting population show that she’s ignoring more than just the “progressive left”: A majority of voters support ending arms transfers to Israel, and support for an arms embargo is growing.

“The reality is that the public is far more in favor of stopping arms sales to Israel than opposed,” Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine/Israel Program at Arab Center Washington D.C., told The Intercept. He pointed to a June poll from CBS that showed 61 percent of all Americans said the U.S. should not send weapons to Israel, including 77 percent of Democrats and nearly 40 percent of Republicans. 

Poll results have been consistent for months. 

Since the start of the war in Gaza, a majority of Americans have expressed support for some form of restrictions on the U.S. sending weapons to Israel in repeated public surveys. Americans are even more overwhelmingly in favor of a ceasefire.

Among the most consistent string of polls on the issue of weapons transfers to Israel has come from CBS News, which partnered with YouGov to carry out its survey. About two weeks after the October 7 attacks by Hamas, as Israel’s bombardment had already killed more than 2,000 civilians in Gaza, a CBS poll of more than 1,800 Americans found that 52 percent of American adults said the U.S. should not send weapons to Israel. The totals included large majorities among both Democrats and independents, and 43 percent of Republicans. 

In April, CBS News/YouGov asked the same question in a new poll and found that an even larger number of Americans (60 percent), including 68 percent of Democrats, said they felt the U.S. should not send arms to Israel. The poll was conducted days after an Israeli strike killed seven aid workers in a clearly marked World Central Kitchen convoy. 

And in June, when more than 30,000 Palestinians were killed and as Israel continued its operations in Rafah where many of Gaza civilians had been sheltering, spurring the “All Eyes on Rafah” social media campaign, a third CBS News poll seemingly solidified Americans’ opposition to military aid to Israel with 61 percent of American adults calling for a halt on weapons transfers to Israel, including 77 percent of Democrats.

Stopping arms transfers also polls highly in key swing states, according to recent polls.

A poll published this week by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute found that the majority of likely voters in some Rust Belt swing states are in favor of conditioning military aid to Israel or are against sending aid altogether. The tallies showed 61 percent in Wisconsin expressing support, along with 56 percent in Michigan and 51 percent in Pennsylvania.

Another poll from August, commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project and conducted by YouGov, showed that a majority of voters in Pennsylvania (57 percent), and a significant share of voters in swing states Arizona (44 percent) and Georgia (34 percent), said they would more likely vote for Harris if the U.S. withholds arms to Israel

An additional swing-state focused poll earlier this year, commissioned by Americans for Justice in Palestine Action and conducted by YouGov in May, also found 2 in 5 Democrats and independents in Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota said that an immediate and permanent ceasefire and conditioning of aid to Israel would make them more likely to vote for then-candidate Joe Biden.

“This is not a ‘progressive left’ issue — the vast majority of Democrats support ending arms sales to Israel,” Munayyer said. “This is a mainstream position, as I think it should be for any sensible person watching what is happening in Gaza, that we should not continue funding this, we should not continue supporting this.”


Related

“I Have Lost Everything”: In Federal Court, Palestinians Accuse Biden of Complicity in Genocide


Despite the popularity of cutting Israel off from American weapons, the Biden administration has continued to pump billions in military aid, including thousands of 2,000-pound bombs, to Israel, approving a $20 billion weapons package just last month. His administration has ignored calls from Democratic senators to halt aid, as well as credible evidence of human rights violations committed by the Israeli military. Biden briefly halted transfer of munitions in May as Israel prepared for an offensive in Rafah where 1 million Palestinians had sought refuge, but later reversed his position after pressure from the pro-Israel lobby within the party. At the Democratic National Convention, party officials denied a main-stage speaker slot from more than 200 “Uncommitted” delegates and ceasefire delegates committed to Harris who are in favor of an arms embargo. Harris’s CNN interview seemingly dampened the cautious optimism of those who hoped for her to depart from her boss’s policies. 

Even with the renewed energy from across the Democratic party since Biden dropped out of the race, Harris continues to be in a dead heat with former President Donald Trump. This week’s New York Times and Siena College national poll had 47 percent of likely voters supporting Harris, with Trump garnering 48. Both candidates are expected to be asked about their approach on the war in Gaza during Tuesday’s highly anticipated debate on ABC.

The most commonly cited U.S. law by proponents of an arms embargo has been the Leahy law, enacted in 1997, which prohibits the State Department from sending military aid to any foreign security force that is found to violate human rights law. Also, in March, a group of Democratic senators, including Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., cited the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which prohibits military aid to countries that block humanitarian aid. They were responding to evidence and allegations that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet had been interrupting U.S. humanitarian aid from entering Gaza

The polling data has accumulated for many months. A poll from left-wing think tank Data for Progress, showed in December that 63 percent of voters agreed that military aid should be conditioned on whether Israel meets the U.S. standard for human rights. In March, 52 percent of Americans said that Biden should halt weapons transfers to Israel, according to a poll by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

In June, another Data for Progress poll found that a majority of Americans (53 percent) supported withdrawing military aid from Israel if the country does not accept a ceasefire deal. Seventy percent of Democrats and 53 percent of swing voters supported the measure. The poll was conducted about one month after Netanyahu had rejected a ceasefire deal, even after Hamas had accepted its terms. 

A poll of more than 2,000 Americans taken by the Arab American Institute in the period between the Republican and Democratic national conventions in late July and early August showed that support for Harris would grow from 44 to 49 percent if she were to suspend arms shipments and withhold diplomatic support for Israel until there was a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza. 

More recently, an August poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that a majority (53 percent) of Americans, including 68 percent of Democrats, believe the U.S. should restrict military aid to Israel so it cannot use the aid in military operations against Palestinians. An earlier July poll from the Chicago-based think tank found that such support for restricting military aid was more favorable among people of color, including respondents who were Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The August poll did however find that 60 percent of Americans would support military aid to Israel until the hostages taken by Hamas are freed. 

Support for a ceasefire was considered a controversial demand among U.S. lawmakers for months but has now become a regular talking point among Democratic leaders, though critics say it’s often used to deflect from U.S. responsibility for the ongoing war on Gaza. Since the beginning of the year, it has also been consistently popular among Americans. As early as January, an Associated Press poll found that half of Americans felt Israel had gone too far in its war, including 63 percent of Democrats. 

The June Data for Progress poll showed the majority of Americans (64 percent) supported a permanent ceasefire deal and an Economist/YouGov poll in May found that same number in support of a ceasefire. The August Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll said the majority of Americans should pressure Israel into a ceasefire deal, with a plurality of respondents saying the U.S. should reduce arms shipments to do so. 

A series of Gallup polls that showed Americans’ attitudes toward Israel’s military operations in Gaza also show a gradual progression toward disapproval for the war. While in November, 50 percent of Americans said they support Israel’s war in Gaza, among that total were 63 percent of Democrats who expressed disapproval. About four months later, Americans had shifted with the majority (55 percent) saying they disapproved of Israel’s operations, according to a March Gallup poll. Although a June Gallup poll showed disapproval dropping to 48 percent, opposition to the war stood firm among Democrats (77 percent) and independents (66 percent).

An outlier among polls that asked Americans about sending arms to Israel was a March survey from the Pew Research Center, which found that only 35 percent of Americans were opposed to military aid. However, the poll also showed a plurality of Democrats (44 percent) opposed military aid to Israel and a majority of liberals (54 percent). 

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom broke from the U.S. and announced it would ban some of its weapons transfers to Israel. However, the number is minimal, suspending 30 of its 350 arms licenses. Other countries to suspend military support to Israel include Italy, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain, which also banned ships from carrying weapons to Israel from docking in its ports. 

After Harris’s CNN interview, Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser for Sanders, told The Intercept that the issue of restricting arms to Israel did not begin with October 7 but has been a popular move within the party for much longer.

“This is not new, this is not a radical departure — this is a consistent trend we’ve seen for years among Democratic voters,” Duss said.

Before October 7, concerns largely centered around Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, continued settlement expansion, and evidence of human rights violations by the Israeli military in the occupied territory. In 2020, then candidates for president Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Julian Castro at least signaled support or interest in conditioning aid so that it wouldn’t support further annexation of land in the occupied West Bank.

And on the 2020 election night, J Street, a liberal Jewish lobbyist group, conducted a poll that showed 57 percent of American Jews would want to restrict military aid to ensure it cannot be spent on annexation. In 2021, J Street also backed a Democrat-backed bill that would have prevented aid to Israel to be used on human rights abuses of Palestinians, destruction of Palestinian property, or displacement of Palestinians from their land.

“I’m not saying everyone should just make their policy decisions based on what the polling says on any given date,” Duss said. “But this is a consistent trend, this is what Democrats clearly think.”

The post Most Americans Want to Stop Arming Israel. Politicians Don’t Care. appeared first on The Intercept.


Spread the news
Categories
Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠

New York Magazine Reporter Olivia Nuzzi: What I Learned When Trump Let Me Inspect His Ear

Spread the news


Michael_Novakhov
shared this story
from The Daily Beast Latest Articles.

New York Magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi was invited to stare closely at the surface of Trump’s ear and see the aftermath of it being struck by a bullet.


Spread the news
Categories
Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠

Melania Trump boosts conspiracy theory online about rally shooting

Spread the news


Michael_Novakhov
shared this story
from The Guardian.

Former first lady Melania Trump has raised questions around the law enforcement response to the attempted assassination of her husband, in a video she published on Tuesday to promote her new book.

In the 34-second video posted to her X account, Melania begins by describing the attempted assassination on her husband as a “horrible, distressing experience”. And now, she says in the video, which is overlayed with dramatic instrumental music, “the silence around it feels heavy”.

“I can’t help but wonder why didn’t law enforcement officials arrest the shooter before the speech?” she asks in the video. “There is definitely more to this story and we need to uncover the truth.”

The video then cuts to black and then ends with an image of the cover to her new memoir, Melania, and a link to buy copies.

Donald Trump himself has recently, without any evidence, blamed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the assassination attempt and accused them of making it difficult for the Secret Service to have the staffing to protect him. Conspiracy theories around the shooting have spread in some Republican and rightwing circles.

There has been no evidence that the US president or vice-president were directly involved in or interfered with the Secret Service’s arrangements, or that there was any wider plot to attack Trump beyond the lone shooter, who was killed moments after opening fire.

On Melania’s website, it states her memoir, which she describes as “the powerful and inspiring story of a woman who has defined personal excellence, overcome adversity, and carved her own path” is available to pre-order for $40.

A signed edition is also available for $75, and a collector’s edition, which includes a signature, bonus photographs and a “digital collectable”, is on sale for $250.

Since the assassination attempt on the former president on 13 July in Pennsylvania, where 20-year-old Thomas Crooks opened fire on Trump as he spoke at a campaign rally, the FBI and Secret Service have come under intense scrutiny and criticism over security issues at the event.

Trump survived the shooting but sustained an injury to his ear, and one rally attendee was killed in the attack and two others were injured. The gunman was shot dead by a Secret Service officer at the scene.

The remarks by the former first lady on Tuesday come as investigations are under way looking into what happened that day, as well as the decisions and actions of personnel leading up to the event.

New details have emerged in the last two months regarding the lead-up to 13 July, apparent security and communication failings by and between law enforcement agencies, as well as new details on the shooter himself, such as his search history and preparations for the attack, but FBI officials have not yet uncovered a motive for the attack.

In late July, the director of the Secret Service resigned after a hearing where she was criticized by lawmakers over the apparent security failures around the shooting, and of failing to answer some specific questions about what went wrong. A day later, the House voted to form a taskforce to investigate the failings around the rally security and in late August, at least five US Secret Service agents were placed on leave in relation to the 13 July rally.


Spread the news
Categories
Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠

Melania Trump questions Trump assassination attempt story: ‘We need to uncover the truth’

Spread the news


Michael_Novakhov
shared this story
.

Screen grab showing Former First Lady Melania Trump addresses her husbands assassination attempt on X.

Source: @melaniatrump | X

Former first lady Melania Trump questioned the official account of the attempted assassination this summer of her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Speaking in a dramatically produced 30-second video, posted to social media platform X on Tuesday to promote her new memoir, Trump argues there is “definitely more to the story.”

She refers specifically to the failure of law enforcement to arrest the shooter, Thomas Crooks, before the near-fatal shooting of Donald Trump at a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania.

“The attempt to end my husband’s life was a horrible, distressing experience,” she says on the video. “Now the silence around it feels heavy.”

“I can’t help but wonder, why didn’t law enforcement officials arrest the shooter before the speech?” she said. “There is definitely more to this story, and we need to uncover the truth.”

The video ends with an image of her new book, “Melania,” and a link to buy copies of it. The book is being released the second week of October.

CNBC has reached out to Donald Trump’s campaign to request comment on the statement by his wife, which was posted online hours before her husband was due to debate Vice President Kalama Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, in Philadelphia.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump with his bloodied face is assisted by the Secret Service as multiple shots rang out during a campaign rally at the Butler Farm Show in Butler, Pennsylvania, U.S., July 13, 2024. 

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

The Secret Service, which protects Donald Trump and other former presidents, has faced intense criticism for its failure to prevent Crooks from firing during the rally in Butler Township, Pennsylvania, on July 13. Crooks had positioned himself on a roof overlooking the rally site nearby.

Trump’s ear was hit by gunfire and one man was killed, former fire chief Corey Comperatore. Several other people were injured before Crooks was fatally shot by the Secret Service.

Crooks was identified by police as suspicious near the rally because “he was milling about and he stood out to them because he never made his way to a point of ingress to the venue,” Pennsylvania State Police Col. Christopher Paris said at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on July 23.

Crooks was later spotted by police carrying a range finder, according to Paris.

He fired off rounds from a rifle after a Butler Township police officer hoisted himself up to the edge of the roof, only to see Crooks pointing a gun at him.

Kimberly Cheatle, who had been the Secret Service’s director at the time of the shooting, resigned on July 23, a day after members of a House of Representatives committee lambasted her and the Secret Service over their handling of the shooting.


Spread the news
Categories
Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠

Trump’s ear looks like it couldn’t have ‘gone through less’ after rally shooting, reporter says

Spread the news


Michael_Novakhov
shared this story
.

About Your Privacy

We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent and legitimate interest. You may exercise your right to consent or object to a legitimate interest, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.

More information


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

As new EU law looms, researchers find many ‘green labels’ fall short of sustainability promises

Spread the news

Voluntary certifications used by companies to tout their green credentials are not fully in line with a new European Union law banning the trade of goods linked to forest destruction, according to a new academic study.

Producers and traders of timber, palm oil and other forestry or agricultural commodities often use so-called green labels to show customers and shareholders that their operations and products do not harm the environment or violate human rights.

However, a study recently published in the Forest Policy and Economics journal found that some sustainability certification schemes awarding such labels “fell short in providing a comprehensive prohibition of deforestation and forest degradation.” The study cautioned companies not to rely on the schemes to prove compliance with the upcoming EU Deforestation Regulation.

The EUDR will go into effect at the end of 2024, requiring most European companies importing certain commodities to be able to prove the products did not originate from deforested land or contribute to forest degradation.

As part of the study, researchers at the University of Padova, in Italy, compared the requirements imposed by the new law with the standards five organizations used to certify the sustainability of timber, soy, palm oil, coffee, rubber and cocoa. Their study did not cover beef because there is no related voluntary certification scheme, the researchers said.

The EUDR makes clear that voluntary sustainability certifications are not mandatory nor sufficient to prove compliance.

Some trade organizations have urged lawmakers to recognize the schemes but the study raises questions about the industry’s position, likening the green labels to “marketing tools” that should be used in tandem with stricter legal requirements.

The “voluntary initiatives can provide on-the-ground information periodically assessed by an independent third party” and “facilitate the implementation of the EUDR,” the study said, but companies “must be cautious when incorporating these schemes into their due diligence systems.”

For instance, the researchers found that certification organizations don’t require companies to precisely geolocate the land where commodities originate from, allow deforestation and conversion of natural forests in some cases, and are lenient toward companies that violate voluntary standards.

“The evidence collected suggests that conducting deforestation, forest degradation, or non-compliance with legislation, does not result in certificate suspension, cancelation [or] withdraw,” the study said.

The researchers’ findings add to reporting by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and others exposing flaws in a lightly regulated sustainability industry that overlooks environmental harm and human rights violations when granting sustainability certifications.

In 2023, ICIJ’s Deforestation Inc. investigation revealed that certification firms frequently validate products linked to deforestation, logging in conflict zones and other abuses. Certification helped the firms’ clients produce and promote teak yacht decks, high-end furniture and other products in markets around the world.

An ICIJ analysis of records in at least 50 countries showed that, since 1998, more than 340 certified companies in the forest products industry were accused of environmental crimes or other wrongdoing by local communities, environmental groups, and government agencies, among others. About 50 of those firms held sustainability certificates at the time they were fined or convicted by a government agency.

‘Responsibility to keep their promises’

The researchers examined five well-known voluntary certification schemes including Forest Stewardship Council for wood, Rainforest Alliance for cocoa and coffee, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and others. They then analyzed whether the schemes required products to be deforestation-free and have traceable supply chains, as well as whether the schemes themselves were transparent about their methods of certification and enforcement.

Mauro Masiero, one of the authors of the study, told ICIJ that he found it “surprising” that, with the exception of the FSC, most of the schemes examined in the study have some flaws in monitoring the way non-certified materials enter the supply chain of certified products.

The researchers found that “there is an inherent risk that products managed under such traceability systems are associated with deforestation and non-compliance with legislation.”

The EU law requires national authorities to conduct regular checks and act swiftly against companies that don’t comply; penalties include fines of at least 4% of a company’s annual turnover.

According to Masiero, effective enforcement of the regulation will be key to its success. Though sustainability certifications remain voluntary, he said that national authorities in some EU states may still  view the certifications as indicators of compliance with the law. Masiero noted there were previoulsy “disparities” in the way the old European timber regulation was implemented across countries, with some having less strict controls than others.

Voluntary forest certification organizations, such as the FSC, were founded in the 1990s after environmentalists and regulators failed to agree on an international legal framework for forest conservation. Since then, more than a dozen such organizations and many affiliated programs have been established around the world — each with its own criteria and label.

Do you have a story about corruption, fraud, or abuse of power?

ICIJ accepts information about wrongdoing by corporate, government or public services around the world. We do our utmost to guarantee the confidentiality of our sources.

LEAK TO ICIJ

Experts say that in countries where deforestation is widespread and forestry governance is weak, such as Brazil, voluntary certification can be a better alternative to poorly enforced laws on forest management and supply chains.

However, as more brands became willing to pay for green certifications, some organizations relaxed their standards, and the process became less effective, auditors and forestry experts told ICIJ.

According to Earthsight, an international environmental charity that has long warned about the flaws in the sustainability certification sector, the University of Padova study the first independent examination of “the interplay between these schemes and the EUDR.”

Voluntary certification schemes should not be taken as gospel, Masiero said. “We are aware that there may be mistakes or conditions that can be improved. It is important to acknowledge that and intervene whenever possible,” he said.

The researchers acknowledged that some certification organizations were seeking to change their standards to align with the new EU law, and said that the study will continue.

Masiero warned that consumers should be aware of what green labels mean as well as their limitations. “At the same time, these labels have the responsibility to keep their promises,” he said.


Spread the news