Wednesday, May 26, 2021

Netanyahu to Blinken: We oppose consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem

Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would prefer that a consulate to another entity – the Palestinian Authority – not be on Israeli sovereign territory.

By LAHAV HARKOV
MAY 26, 2021 
Jerusalem Post

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, May 25, 2021
(photo credit: HAIM ZACH/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Israel opposes the reopening of a US consulate for Palestinians in sovereign Israel, hours before the US went public with its plan to do so in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu said Israel would prefer that a consulate to another entity – the Palestinian Authority – not be on Israeli sovereign territory.

Blinken did not specify where in Jerusalem the new consulate would be. Many other countries have consulates or embassies to the Palestinians in east Jerusalem, which is part of Israel under Israeli law but not recognized by most countries, or in Ramallah.

The Trump administration then merged the US consulate for Palestinians into the US Embassy to Israel in the capital in March 2019; the move was mostly symbolic as most consulate workers continued doing the work they did before, but under the title of “Palestinian Affairs Unit.”

Blinken said in a press conference on Tuesday night that he is not sure what the time-frame will be on reopening the consulate.

"I can tell you that it’s, I think, important to have that platform to be able to more effectively engage not just the Palestinian Authority, but Palestinians from different walks of life, the NGO community, the business community, and others. And so we look forward to doing that," he stated.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said soon after that reopening the consulate "is an important step in our view, in terms of continuing to rebuild the relationship with the Palestinian leaders that was cut off for several years because of the closure of the consulate, because UNRWA funding was cut off in 2018, and there really wasn’t a method for engaging with Palestinian leaders and others."


Israeli Ambassador to the US and UN Gilad Erdan said that it is the US’s prerogative to reopen the consulate, but that Israel “indeed expressed clear opposition to reestablishing the consulate on Jerusalem’s municipal territory.”

“It can be in Abu Dis [or] Ramallah,” Erdan told KAN. “The fact that the Americans may have a security concern from opening a consulate for their workers in these places only shows what we’re talking about.”

Erdan also pointed out that opening the PA embassy in Jerusalem contradicts American policy recognizing the city as Israel’s capital, as former US president Donald Trump did in 2018 and US President Joe Biden said he would not reverse.

Still, Erdan said, “we can disagree with the current government and not every disagreement has to become a crisis. The fact is that, in the same breath, we are cooperating closely and [Blinken] announced his strong commitment to Israel’s security and replenishing the Iron Dome batteries.”

Erdan said that Netanyahu unequivocally supports US and other international humanitarian aid for Gaza but that his support is nuanced: “We can and must stop a humanitarian crisis, so things that are necessary like water, electricity, medicines or things like that certainly must be allowed, but we must check 100% that it is not reaching Hamas’s hands to be used to rebuild terrorist infrastructure.”

Netanyahu also supports economic projects for Palestinians in the West Bank, Erdan said, but only on the condition that the Palestinians back down from unilateral action against Israel in international organizations.

“When the PA promotes actions against us in the [International Criminal] Court in the Hague or [on Thursday] in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where there is a Palestinian initiative to form a commission of inquiry against Israel, we clarified to the Americans: The two things don’t go together. There won’t be an advanced dialogue with Abbas and the PA as long as they continue to try to harm the State of Israel, its soldiers and its civilians,” he said.

As such, Erdan explained, “we can try to promote economic projects but nothing beyond that, a diplomatic dialogue cannot be advanced in this way.”

Blinken said on Tuesday that Iran increased its violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action after the US left the deal in 2018, and a return to it was meant to put the nuclear threat “back in the box.”

Erdan, however, said Israel views Iran’s recent violations as a response to Biden campaigning last year on a return to the JCPOA.

Iran is “trying to put pressure, through what we call ‘nuclear extortion,’ to worsen its violations, because it doesn’t see an international military threat,” the ambassador said.

 “If Iran wants the US to return to the deal so badly, you have to ask, why do they want it? And I’ll answer why: Because in a few years, when the agreement ends, Iran will no longer have to violate it because it will have the legitimacy to have thousands of advanced centrifuges that will allow it to break out to a bomb in a very short time.
“Israel cannot accept this situation,” he added.

As for the American plan to negotiate a “longer and stronger” version of the JCPOA after Iran returns to compliance with the original, Edan pointed out that Blinken “didn’t say what would happen if the Iranians refuse to talk to them about the deal they want to aim for.”
“We totally believe the US government that it does not want Iran to have the bomb and that would be very bad, but for Israel it’s not just very bad, it’s an existential interest, because we are the ones directly threatened by Iran, and they are the ones building a network of terror organizations around us,” Erdan said.

As such, the ambassador added, “Israel will maintain its freedom to act, to take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and no agreement will bind Israel to behave in a way that will tie its hands.”

|Occupied West Bank

Ireland recognises Israel’s ‘de facto annexation’ of Palestine

Gov’t now set to vote on amendment that, if passed, would expel the Israeli ambassador to Ireland and impose sanctions against Israel.

Pro-Palestinian protesters seen on O'Connell Street, Dublin, during a Rally for Palestine on Saturday, May 22, 2021, in Dublin, Ireland [Artur Widak/ Getty Images]

26 May 2021

The Irish government has supported a parliamentary motion condemning the “de facto annexation” of Palestinian land by Israeli authorities, in what it said was the first use of the phrase by a European Union country in relation to Israel.

Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said on Tuesday that the motion, brought forward by opposition party Sinn Fein, “is a clear signal of the depth of feeling across Ireland”.

KEEP READING
Blinken arrives in Egypt to support Israel-Hamas ceasefire

“The scale, pace and strategic nature of Israel’s actions on settlement expansion and the intent behind it have brought us to a point where we need to be honest about what is actually happening on the ground. … It is de facto annexation,” Coveney, of the centre-right Fine Gael party, told parliament.

“This is not something that I, or in my view this house, says lightly. We are the first EU state to do so. But it reflects the huge concern we have about the intent of the actions and of course, their impact,” he said.

If passed, the amendment would require the government to expel the Israeli ambassador to Ireland and to impose economic, political and cultural sanctions against Israel.

Most countries view settlements Israel has built in territory captured in the 1967 war as illegal and as an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians.

Coveney, who has represented Ireland on the United Nations Security Council in debates on Israel in recent weeks, had insisted on adding a condemnation of recent rocket attacks on Israel by the Palestinian group Hamas before he agreed to government support for the motion.

Some of the Irish parliamentarians wore face masks bearing the Palestine flag or of the checkered keffiyeh pattern.

The left-leaning Sinn Fein party refused to support the government amendment condemning Hamas attacks.

The motion came days after a ceasefire ended 11 days of the worst fighting between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in years.

The violence sparked large pro-Palestinian protests in Dublin.

At least 253 Palestinians were killed, including 66 children, according to Gaza’s health ministry, while about 2,000 were injured. At least 12 people were killed in Israel.

The Irish parliament, or Dáil, is set to debate the People Before Profit amendment of the Sinn Fein Private Members motion on Wednesday, with a vote expected later.

Some welcomed Ireland’s move on social media.


“Ireland has become the first EU state to recognise Israel’s de facto annexation of Palestine in contravention of international law,” tweeted Ronan Burtenshaw, editor of the UK’s socialist Tribune Magazine. “A landmark on the road to isolating an apartheid state as we did in the 1980s. Next stop: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.”

John Brady, a Sinn Fein politician, tweeted: “We have forced a massive shift on the position of the Irish Government. They have stated that Israel has de-facto annexed Palestinian lands. Ireland is 1st EU country to state Israel’s actions break international law. There must be consequences for these actions #FreePalestine.”

People Before Profit’s Richard Boyd Barrett described Wednesday’s coming vote as “historic”.

More than 5,200 people have signed Barrett’s petition, which calls on the Irish government “to publicly declare that the state of Israel is guilty of war crimes”.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

Airships for city hops could cut flying’s CO2 emissions by 90%

Bedford-based blimp maker unveils short-haul routes such as Liverpool-Belfast that it hopes to serve by 2025

Hybrid Air Vehicles hopes to produce 12 of its Airlander 10 airships a year by 2025, 
each capable of carrying 100 people on short-haul flights. Illustration: Hybrid Air Vehicles

For those fancying a trip from Liverpool to Belfast or Barcelona to the Balearic Islands but concerned about the carbon footprint of aeroplane travel, a small Bedford-based company is promising a surprising solution: commercial airships.

Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV), which has developed a new environmentally friendly airship 84 years after the Hindenburg disaster, on Wednesday named a string of routes it hoped to serve from 2025.

The routes for the 100-passenger Airlander 10 airship include Barcelona to Palma de Mallorca in four and a half hours. The company said the journey by airship would take roughly the same time as aeroplane travel once getting to and from the airport was taken into account, but would generate a much smaller carbon footprint. HAV said the CO2 footprint per passenger on its airship would be about 4.5kg, compared with about 53kg via jet plane.

Other routes planned include Liverpool to Belfast, which would take five hours and 20 minutes; Oslo to Stockholm, in six and a half hours; and Seattle to Vancouver in just over four hours.

HAV, which has in the past attracted funding from Peter Hambro, a founder of Russian gold-miner Petropavlovsk, and Iron Maiden frontman Bruce Dickinson, said its aircraft was “ideally suited to inter-city mobility applications like Liverpool to Belfast and Seattle to Vancouver, which Airlander can service with a tiny fraction of the emissions of current air options”.

Tom Grundy, HAV’s chief executive, who compares the Airlander to a “fast ferry”, said: “This isn’t a luxury product it’s a practical solution to challenges posed by the climate crisis.”

He said that 47% of regional aeroplane flights connect cities that are less than 230 miles (370km) apart, and emit a huge about of carbon dioxide doing so.

“We’ve got aircraft designed to travel very long distances going very short distances, when there is actually a better solution,” Grundy said. “How much longer will we expect to have the luxury of travelling these short distances with such a big carbon footprint?”

Grundy said the hybrid-electric Airlander 10 could make the same connections with 10% of the carbon footprint from 2025, and with even smaller emissions in the future when the airships were expected to be all-electric powered.

“It’s an early and quick win for the climate,” he said. “Especially when you use this to get over an obstacle like water or hills.”

HAV said it was in discussions with a number of airlines to operate the routes, and expected to announce partnerships and airline customers in the next few months. The company has already signed a deal to deliver an airship to luxury Swedish travel firm OceanSky Cruises, which has said it intends to use the craft to offer “experiential travel” over the North Pole with Arctic explorer Robert Swan.

Grundy said the company was in the final stages of settling on a location for its airship production line, which he hoped would be in the UK. He said the company would hire about 500 people directly involved in building the craft, and it would support a further 1,500 jobs in the supply chain. The company currently employs about 70 people, mostly in design, at its offices in Bedford. He said the company aimed to produce about 12 airships a year from 2025.

The craft was originally designed as a surveillance vehicle for intelligence missions in Afghanistan. HAV claims independent estimates put the value of the airship market at $50bn over the next 20 years. It aims to sell 265 of its Airlander craft over that period.

The £25m Airlander 10 prototype undertook six test flights, some of which ended badly. It crashed in 2016 on its second test flight, after a successful 30-minute maiden trip. HAV tweeted at the time: “Airlander sustained damage on landing during today’s flight. No damage was sustained mid-air or as a result of a telegraph pole as reported.”

The aircraft, which can take off and land from almost any flat surface, reached heights of 7,000ft (2,100m) and speeds of up to 50 knots (57mph) during its final tests. The company has had UK government backing and grants from the European Union.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for AIRSHIPS 


 


Dominic Cummings has claimed Boris Johnson did not take the virus seriously even in February 2020, with the Prime Minister calling Covid-19 a “scare story”.

He said “senior officials and advisers such as me fell disastrously short” of expected standards during February and March of 2020 and that thousands died “unnecessarily” as the government had no plan at all for the pandemic.

Read more: Cummings Confessional: Your bingo card ahead of former No.10 aide’s Westminster tell-all

Johnson’s former top aide, who apologised for the government’s slow pandemic response, said herd immunity was Downing Street’s strategy up until mid-March and that health secretary Matt Hanock lied when he said it was never the plan on 15 March 2020.

Cummings told MPs this morning that the government was not spending much time on Covid-19 in January or February last year, saying that Boris Johnson saw it as a “scare story” and “the new swine flu”.

He said other top Downing Street advisers “were literally skiing in the middle of February” and that “it wasn’t until the last week of February that there was any sense of urgency across the Cabinet Office”.

The Prime Minister reportedly said in February 2020: “I’m going to get Chris Whitty to inject me with Covid so everybody knows there’s nothing to be frightened of.”

Cummings is facing MPs on a joint session of parliament’s Health and Science committees in a marathon session in which Johnson, the Department of Health and Hancock have been blamed for Covid failures.

Cumming said the government’s initial Covid plan was herd immunity lock and to not lock down down hard as eventually happened.

The rationale behind this is that it a lockdown would prolong the first peak of Covid-19 in order to get herd immunity and avoid a second peak in winter 2020 that could be worse, he said.

He said “Hancock himself and the chief scientific and medical officers were briefing journalists on the week of the 9th [March] that this is what the plan is”.

The former Number 10 aide said “by 11 and 12 [March] we’d already gone terribly wrong” and that he had began to call for a lockdown.

“Me and others realised the system was delaying [stricter Covid measures], because there’s not a proper plan in place,” he said.

Read more: Dominic Cummings to say PM said ‘Covid is only killing 80-year-olds’ to delay lockdown

“The justification was ‘it doesn’t matter if it’s now or in a week’s time’. The logic doesn’t work – these things are being delayed because there isn’t preparation and planning being made.”

Cummings also recalled when former deputy cabinet secretary Helen McNamara stormed in to Number 10 during this period to say “I think we are absolutely f***ed, I think this country is heading for a disaster, I think we’re going to kill thousands of people”.

He said: “On the 14th we said ‘you are going to have to lockdown’, but there is no lockdown plan, it doesn’t exist. Sage hasn’t modeled it, the Department of Health don’t have a plan, we are going to figure it out and hack it together.”

He said this included a time when Hancock said that NHS treatments were not being delayed when they in fact were.

Cummings also said it was “crackers” Johnson was Prime Minister.

“Any system which ends up giving a choice between [Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn] to lead is obviously a system that has gone extremely badly wrong,” he said.

“In any sensible rational government it is complete crazy that I should have been in such a senior position in my personal opinion.

“I’m not smart, I’ve not built great things in the world, it’s completely crackers that someone like me should have been in there just the same as it was crackers Boris Johnson was in there.”

Read more: Top UK civil servant wanted to run Covid ‘chicken pox parties’ in March 2020

Downing Street has said: “There is a huge task for this government to get on with. We are entirely focused on recovering from the pandemic, moving through the roadmap and distributing vaccines while delivering on the public’s priorities.

“Throughout this pandemic, the government’s priority has been to save lives, protect the NHS and support people’s jobs and livelihoods across the United Kingdom.”

 

Britain has promised net zero – but it’s on track to achieve absolutely nothing

George Monbiot

Despite producing ambitious targets, governments have failed to tackle the big environmental issues over the past 15 years

‘We did the easy things first. Coal-burning power stations were replaced with gas, and some of the gas with renewables.’ Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

Every week governments make headline announcements about saving the planet, and every week their small print unsaves it. The latest puff by the G7 is a classic of this genre. Apparently, all seven governments have committed “to conserve or protect at least 30% of the world’s land and at least 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030”. But what does it mean? The UK, which says it secured the new agreement, claims already to have “conserved or protected” 26% of its land and 38% of its seas. In reality, it has simply drawn lines on the map, designating our sheepwrecked hills and trawler-trashed seas “protected”, when they’re nothing of the kind. This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a press release.

All governments do this, but Boris Johnson’s has perfected the art. It operates on the principle of commitment inflation: as the action winds down, the pledges ramp up. Never mind that it won’t meet the targets set by the fourth and fifth carbon budgets: it now has a thrilling new target for the sixth one. Never mind that it can’t meet its old commitment of an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Instead, it has promised us “net zero” by the same date. Yes, we need more ambition, yes, the government is following official advice, but ever higher targets appear to be a substitute for action.

Fifteen years ago, I wrote a book called Heat. I tried to work out how far we would have to cut greenhouse gases to fulfil our international obligations fairly, and how we could do it without destroying the prosperity and peace on which success depends. The best estimates at the time suggested that if the UK were justly to discharge its responsibility for preventing climate breakdown, we would need to cut our emissions by 90% by 2030.

Researching the preface for a new edition, I wanted to discover how much progress we’ve made. An article in the journal Climate Policy uses a similar formula for global fairness. Its conclusion? If the UK were justly to discharge its responsibility for preventing climate breakdown, we would need to cut our emissions by 90% by 2030. And by 2035, it says, our emissions should reach “real zero”. In other words, in terms of the metric that really counts, we have gone nowhere. The difference is that we now have nine years in which to make the 90% cut, instead of 24.

How could this be true, given that the UK has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 49% since 1990? Surely we’ve been a global leader on climate action?

It’s partly because we now know that limiting global heating to 2C commits us to a dangerous world. In theory, governments have accepted a more stringent target of 1.5C. But it’s also because, if we ignore the impact of the pandemic, our reduction of greenhouse gases has stalled.

We did the easy things first. Coal-burning power stations were replaced with gas, and some of the gas with renewables. This makes no difference to most people: when we flick the switch, the lights still come on. But almost all the other reductions must involve us directly. They won’t happen unless the government mobilises the nation: encouraging us to drive less and use our feet, bicycles and public transport more; taxing frequent flyers; refitting our homes; reducing the amount of meat we eat; reducing the emissions embedded in the stuff we buy. On these issues, the government’s commitment to action amounts to zero. Not net zero. Absolute zero.

Road transport in the UK releases the same amount of greenhouse gases as it did in 1990: a shocking failure by successive governments. Yet Johnson intends to spend another £27bn on roads. Every major airport in the UK has plans to expand.

Buildings release more greenhouse gases than they did in 2014, and the schemes intended to green them have collapsed. The green homes grant, which the government outsourced to a private company, has been a total fiasco, meeting roughly 8% of its target. At the current rate of installation, the UK’s homes will be equipped with low-carbon heating in a mere 700 years.

When I wrote Heat, we were promised that all new homes would soon be green ones. It still hasn’t happened, and the date has been pushed back yet again, this time to 2025. Rubbish homes are still being built, which will either require a much more expensive refit or will lock in high emissions for the rest of their lives.

And no one in government wants to touch the biggest issue of all: the greenhouse gases embedded in the stuff we buy, which account for some 46% of our emissions. Government ministers urge China to cut its greenhouse gases, but our economic model depends on us buying junk we don’t need with money we don’t have. Because the fossil fuels required to produce most of it are burned overseas and don’t appear in our national accounts, the government can wash its hands of the problem.

But something has changed for the better: us. In 2006, climate campaigners beat their heads against public indifference. Now, at last, we have mass movements, and some highly effective actions, such as the successful shutdown of the McDonald’s network by Animal Rebellion last week. If there is hope, this is where it lies.