UK

TORY CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY

Covid: ‘Between 20,000 and 30,000 lives could have been saved with earlier lockdown’

There are examples of when “the science didn’t suit” the Government’s aims, it would be “side-stepped”.

 by Joe Mellor

THE LONDON EYE
May 27, 2021
in News



Between 20,000 and 30,000 lives could have been saved if the UK had locked down a week earlier, a leading adviser said, as he told how scientists grew increasingly concerned about the lack of a clear plan.

Professor Neil Ferguson, from Imperial College London, whose modelling was instrumental in persuading the Government to bring in the first lockdown, suggested there was a growing realisation in early March 2020 that the country was heading for a large number of deaths.

It came after Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s former top aide, Dominic Cummings, told MPs that mistakes meant “tens of thousands of people died, who didn’t need to die”.

Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme at what point the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), of which he was part, determined that a policy of pursuing herd immunity would lead to a vast number of deaths, Prof Ferguson said a key meeting was held at Imperial with the NHS and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on March 1 “which finalised estimates around health impacts, so the week after that really”.

Related Posts
Watch – ‘When will PM & others be investigated by police for alleged corporate manslaughter?’

Concern

He said he “wasn’t privy to what officials were thinking within Government”, but added: “I would say from the scientific side there was increasing concern in the week leading up to the 13th of March about the lack of clear, let’s say, (a) resolved plan of what would happen in the next few days in terms of implementing social distancing.”

Prof Ferguson was also asked how influential Sage was in changing the policy from one of herd immunity to one of lockdown.

He said: “I think the key issue… it’s multiple factors, partly the modelling, which had been around for a couple of weeks but became firmer, particularly as we saw data coming in from the UK, and, unfortunately, I think one of the biggest lessons to learn in such circumstances is we really need good surveillance within the country at a much earlier point than we actually had it back in March last year.

“As we saw the data build up, and it was matching the modelling, even worse than the modelling, let’s say it focused minds within the Government.”

He said locking down a week earlier would have saved “20,000 to 30,000 lives” adding: “I think that’s unarguable.”

He said: “I mean the epidemic was doubling every three to four days in weeks 13th to 23rd of March, and so, had we moved the interventions back a week, we would have curtailed that and saved many lives.”

On the forthcoming June 21 road map date for England to lift all legal limits on social contact, Prof Ferguson said it hangs in the balance.

He said experts are still concerned about issues such as the transmissibility of the Indian variant, and “Step 4 (of the road map) is rather in the balance, the data collected in the next two to three weeks will be critical”.

He added: “The key issue as to whether we can go forward is will the surge caused by the Indian variant – and we do think there will be a surge – be more than has been already planned in to the relaxation measures?

“So it was always expected that relaxation would lead to a surge in infections and to some extent a small third wave of transmission – that’s inevitable if you allow contact rates in population to go up, even despite immunity – (but) we can’t cope with that being too large.

“In the next two or three weeks we will be able to come to a firm assessment of whether it’s possible to go forward.”

Elsewhere, Susan Michie, professor of health psychology at University College London and a member of Sage, said there are examples of when “the science didn’t suit” the Government’s aims, it would be “side-stepped”.

She told Sky News: “There are several examples of where the scientific advice wasn’t followed, and I’ve worked with policymakers and government for decades and I would never expect policymakers to follow the science.
Scientific advice

“The hope is they will be informed by the science.

An example, I think, where the advice was side-stepped was the moving from a two-metre rule to a one metre-plus rule, and Sage didn’t waver from its advice that two metres was significantly safer, but, in that instance, instead of saying ‘Well, actually, we’re not going to follow that advice for these reasons’ – be transparent about the process – instead the Prime Minister said he set up a Downing Street review of some scientists and economists and then, on the basis of that, they changed to one metre-plus.

“But we were never told who were the people on that review. What evidence did they look at? How did they come to their conclusions? And so that’s an example where, when the science didn’t suit, the Government side-stepped it without any transparency, and I think that’s unfortunate.”

Earlier, Prof Michie said “one of the frustrations about having given scientific advice over this last year” is that there is no feedback from Government on why it gets rejected.

“So, one never really knows what the explanation is when the advice we give isn’t being implemented, and I think that’s a shame because I think it’s quite demoralising for scientists, but also I think it’s important for the public to know how taxpayers’ money is being spent, because obviously there’s a substantial expense to serving a big scientific infrastructure.”

Cummings

Prof Michie said she backs calls for an immediate public inquiry, and this was echoed by Professor Stephen Reicher, a member of the Sage sub-committee advising on behavioural science.

He told BBC Breakfast: “Yesterday should have been a public inquiry, it shouldn’t have been Dominic Cummings giving his side of the story, and, had it been a public inquiry, we might be saving lives for the future.

“We can’t, tragically, do anything about those who are lost, but perhaps it will give meaning to what happens if their experience teaches us lessons so that we learn for the future.”

Prof Reicher said Mr Cummings was “wrong” to suggest that scientists said people would not be able to cope with lockdown.

He said: “What Dominic Cummings suggested was that the behavioural scientists were saying that people just wouldn’t wear the restrictions, and that either they shouldn’t be imposed at all, or else that they should be delayed. Now that’s simply untrue.”

Macron admits to French guilt over

 role in 1994 Rwandan genocide

THU, 27 MAY, 2021 - 15:40

IGNATIUS SSUUNA AND JOHN LEICESTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS

In a key speech on his visit to Rwanda, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, said he recognises that France bears a heavy responsibility for the 1994 genocide in the central African country.

Macron solemnly detailed how France had failed the 800,000 victims of the genocide but he stopped short of an apology.

France “was not an accomplice” in the genocide but ended up siding with Rwanda’s “genocidal regime” and bore an “overwhelming responsibility” in the slide toward the massacres, the French leader said, speaking on Thursday at the genocide memorial in the capital, Kigali.

“France has a role, a history and a political responsibility in Rwanda. It has a duty: That of looking history in the face and recognising the suffering that it inflicted on the Rwandan people by favouring silence over the examination of truth for too long,” Macron said.

When the genocide started, “the international community took close to three months, three interminable months, before reacting and we, all of us, abandoned hundreds of thousands of victims”.

France’s failures contributed to “27 years of bitter distance” between the two countries, he said.

“I have to come to recognise our responsibilities,” Macron said.

His words were something more valuable than an apology, they were the truth

Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda

Although Macron did not apologise, he won praise from Rwandan President Paul Kagame for his “powerful speech”.

“His words were something more valuable than an apology, they were the truth,” Kagame said. “This was an act of tremendous courage.”

Kagame and Macron both signalled that a page had been turned in France-Rwanda ties.

“This visit is about the future, not the past,” Kagame said, adding that he and Macron discussed a range of issues, including investment and support for businesses.

Macron said they were opening “a new page”.

Appearing to explain his lack of apology, Macron said: “A genocide cannot be excused, one lives with it.”

Macron said that he had come with 100,000 coronavirus vaccines for Rwanda.

Rwandans who had hoped for an apology said they were disappointed by Macron’s speech.

“We don’t want to hear him talk about responsibility, about France’s role in the genocide,” genocide survivor Dan Karenzi told the Associated Press.

“We, the survivors, wanted to hear Macron apologizing to us officially. I am really disappointed.”

The opposition Rwandese Platform for Democracy party tweeted ahead of Macron’s speech that it hoped he would “apologise honestly” and “promise to pay reparations” to genocide victims.

Macron arrived in Kigali early on Thursday and met Kagame at the presidential residence.

Macron then toured the memorial to the frenzied 1994 slaughter in which Hutu extremists killed mainly minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus who tried to protect them.

Macron’s trip builds on a series of French efforts since his election in 2017 to repair ties between the two countries.

Two reports completed in March and in April that examined France’s role in the genocide helped clear a path for Macron’s visit, the first by a French president in 11 years.

The previous visit, by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2010, was the first by a French leader after the 1994 massacre sent relations into a tailspin.

Rwanda’s government and genocide survivor organisations often accused France of training and arming the militias and former government troops who led the genocide.

Kagame, who has been Rwanda’s de facto leader since 1994 and its president since 2000, has won praise abroad for restoring order and making advances in economic development and health care. But rights watchdogs, dissidents, and others accuse Kagame of harsh rule.

Why a ‘crushing’ day for Big Oil represents a watershed moment in the climate battle













Why a ‘crushing’ day for Big Oil represents a watershed moment in the climate battle
PUBLISHED THU, MAY 27 2021
Sam Meredith@SMEREDITH19

KEY POINTS

A series of landmark boardroom and courtroom defeats shows the growing pressure on international oil and gas companies to set short-, medium- and long-term targets that are consistent with the Paris Agreement.

“It is not often that three of the supermajors are prominently in the headlines within a 24-hour period, but that was certainly the case yesterday,” analysts at Raymond James said in a research note.

“And all three of the headlines — pertaining to Exxon, Chevron, and Shell — shared a common theme: climate risk.”


Members of the environmental group MilieuDefensie celebrate the verdict of the Dutch environmental organisation’s case against Royal Dutch Shell Plc, outside the Palace of Justice courthouse in The Hague, Netherlands, on Wednesday, May 26, 2021.
Peter Boer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

LONDON — Some of the world’s largest corporate emitters have suffered a series of landmark boardroom and courtroom defeats, reflecting the waning patience of investors pushing for much faster action to tackle the climate emergency.

In just a few hours on Wednesday, shareholders at U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil supported a tiny activist hedge fund in overhauling the company’s board, investors in U.S. energy firm Chevron defied management on a pivotal climate vote and a Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to take much more aggressive action to drive down its carbon emissions.

The confluence of events shows the growing pressure on international oil and gas companies to set short-, medium- and long-term targets that are consistent with the Paris Agreement — the climate accord widely recognized as critically important to avoid an irreversible climate crisis.

At present, none of the world’s largest oil and gas companies has disclosed how they will achieve the target of becoming a net-zero enterprise by 2050, more than five years after the Paris Agreement was ratified by nearly 200 countries.

“An utterly crushing day for Big Oil,” Bill McKibben, author and founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org, said Wednesday via Twitter. “Thanks to all who fight — you push long enough and dominoes tumble.”
What happened on Wednesday?

“It is not often that three of the supermajors are prominently in the headlines within a 24-hour period, but that was certainly the case yesterday,” analysts at Raymond James said in a research note.

“And all three of the headlines — pertaining to Exxon, Chevron, and Shell — shared a common theme: climate risk.”

Engine No.1, which has a 0.02% stake in Exxon, unseated at least two board members at the oil giant’s annual general meeting on Wednesday. The vote came as the activist firm sought to force the company to speed up plans to pivot away from fossil fuels.

Exxon CEO Darren Woods said Wednesday on CNBC’s “Closing Bell” that he welcomed the new directors and that he was looking forward “to helping them understand our plans and then hear their insights and perspectives.”

Exxon’s management has sought to emphasize the steps it is taking in solidifying its role in a lower carbon future, including funding for research around carbon capture and other emissions-cutting technologies.

Shareholders of Chevron, Exxon’s closest rival, voted in favor of a proposal put forward by Dutch group Follow This to encourage the oil company to reduce its emissions. The move underscored an activist-led investor push to reduce the firm’s carbon footprint.

“Big Oil can make or break the Paris Accord. Investors in oil companies are saying now: we want you to act by decreasing emissions now, not in the distant future,” Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This, said in a statement shortly after the majority vote.

Chevron has pledged to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to the climate crisis, but it has not yet laid out a path to net-zero emissions by 2050.

In Europe, a Dutch court ruled that Shell must reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels. That’s a much higher reduction than the company’s current aim of lowering its emissions by 20% by 2030.

The court ruling also said Shell is responsible for its own carbon emissions and those of its suppliers, known as Scope 3 emissions. The court verdict is thought to be the first time in history a company has been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris Agreement.

A spokesperson for Shell said the company expects to appeal what it described as a “disappointing” court decision.
What next?


Tom Cummins, dispute resolution partner at law firm Ashurst, told CNBC via email that the Dutch court ruling on Shell could have a broader impact on the oil and gas industry.

“This is arguably the most significant climate change related judgment yet, which emphasises that companies and not just governments may be the target of strategic litigation which seeks to drive changes in behaviour,” Cummins said.

“Oil and gas companies will be scrutinising the judgment, as will pressure groups and claimant lawyers to see whether there is scope for similar claims to be brought against other companies in other jurisdictions.”

A sign is posted in front of a Chevron gas station on July 31, 2020 in Novato, California.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

Not everyone agrees the court ruling is likely to result in greater pressure on the oil and gas industry, however. Per Magnus Nysveen, head of analysis at Oslo-based Rystad Energy, said it is “hard to imagine” a final court ruling would condemn oil companies for so-called end-use emissions.

“End user emissions should be more of a consumer’s responsibility. In my opinion this ruling has negligible chance to survive appeals,” Nysveen said.

“It is not surprising however that we see this low court ruling occur in (the) Netherlands, as the country’s public opinion is particularly sensitive to the climate impacts of the energy industry,” he added.

Regarding Exxon’s board change, Bank of America analyst Doug Leggate said the practical implications were “largely inconsequential” and “largely symbolic.”

“It has no impact on our view of XOM’s investment case, strategy or leadership team which we view as pragmatic advocates for responsible oil and gas investment,” Leggate said in a note.

Shocking video brings to life horrific working conditions of donkeys in rubbish dumps

In homemade harnesses, with ropes rubbing mercilessly against open wounds, the working animals spend their days pulling heavy rubbish carts up precipitous slopes.

 by Joe Mellor
April 30, 2021
in Heart Wrenching, Must Reads


Credit;SWNS

In the capital, Bamako,of Mali West Africa , donkeys toil in temperatures often higher than 40 degrees Celsius.

In homemade harnesses, with ropes rubbing mercilessly against open wounds, the working animals spend their days pulling heavy rubbish carts up precipitous slopes, with little rest.

And with sharp objects a constant threat underfoot, frequent cuts and infections from tetanus are agonising – and, if left untreated, often lethal.

UK based working animal charity SPANA (the Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad) has set up regular visits to help the animals, including providing treatment and vaccinations for tetanus and other deadly diseases.



And thanks to the free veterinary care they provide on the Mali rubbish dumps, the life expectancy of the donkeys has risen by several years, with improved welfare for the animals.

Dr Ben Sturgeon, director of veterinary services for SPANA said: “We often see animals working in terribly difficult and dangerous environments, but the conditions here in Mali are truly shocking.

“The donkeys and their poverty-stricken owners sadly face a never-ending cycle of work, hauling backbreaking loads of rubbish in extreme heat.

“But SPANA is making a lifesaving difference to the animals here. In 2020, we treated more than 21,000 animals across Mali, including at the rubbish dumps of Bamako.”


Now, thanks to SPANA’s intervention, donkeys at the Bamako dumps finish work in the early afternoon, retiring to a purpose-built shelter that keeps them out of the intense sun.

The shelters provide food and water, and SPANA vets are on hand to treat any injuries while vaccinating against tetanus and other deadly diseases.

Old, worn saddle pads can be exchanged, and owners receive training and advice on how to care for their animals more humanely.

Across the globe, last year SPANA treated 283,552 sick and injured animals and provided more than 350,000 veterinary treatments in total.

But the charity relies on the public to fund its vital work.

SPANA is currently raising funds to help pay for vaccinations to save the lives of working animals at serious risk from tetanus and other deadly diseases.

Regular donations can also contribute towards essential items such as bandages, medicines, antiseptics and anti-inflammatories, as well as food and bedding for animals.

Ben Sturgeon of SPANA added: “As everyone in the UK gets a jab, spare a thought for working animals overseas, whose lives can be saved by a simple vaccination.

“Vaccines and basic medicines can help prevent tetanus and other diseases from becoming a life-threatening consequence of even the smallest cuts and scratches.

“Prevention is far better than cure, so alongside our free vet care, another major focus of our work is education and training for owners to ensure they can look after their animals properly and treat them with respect and kindness.

“Our teams work tirelessly to improve the welfare of working animals around the world, but the need is enormous and we rely completely on the vital donations we receive from the public to continue our work and prevent animal suffering.”

For more information, and to support SPANA’s lifesaving work, visit www.spana.org/tetanus

Beasts of burden - Antagonism and Practical History - libcom.org

https://libcom.org › library › beasts-burden-antagonism

..

.

Mar. 26, 2017 — Slaves were treated as animals, having to endure 'terrible conditions under transportation, the removal of children and the separation of families, ...

You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 26/02/21

Commercially viable electricity from nuclear fusion a step closer thanks to British breakthrough

Scientists appear to have solved the exhaust problem for compact fusion power plants, making them more economically-viable.

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Image:Computer simulation of plasma inside the MAST Upgrade experiment

The dream of pollution and radiation-free electricity derived from nuclear fusion could be a step closer to reality thanks to a breakthrough by British scientists.

They have developed an exhaust system that can deal with the immense temperatures created during the fusion process and which so far have limited the viability of commercial fusion power plants.

Initial results from the UK Atomic Energy Authority's MAST Upgrade experiment suggest that the world-first could mean developing fusion energy becomes easier.

Producing electricity using a fusion reactor is still in the experimental stage but experts have said fusion energy - based on the same principle by which stars create heat and light - could be a safe and sustainable part of our energy supply in the future.

A fusion power station uses a machine called a tokamak to enable hydrogen atoms to fuse together, releasing energy that can make electricity.

But fusion reactions can produce a lot of heat and, without an exhaust system to handle this, materials need to be replaced more often.

This limits the operating ability of the power plant and makes energy cost more.

A fusion power station uses a machine called a tokamak to enable hydrogen atoms to fuse together

The system used by the MAST Upgrade experiment - the Super-X divertor - helped tokamak parts to last longer, however.

Tests showed at least a 10-fold reduction in heat, a result that could make the power plants more economically viable to run, in turn reducing the cost of fusion electricity.

UKAEA's lead scientist at MAST Upgrade, Dr Andrew Kirk, said the results were "fantastic", adding: "They are the moment our team at UKAEA has been working towards for almost a decade.

"We built MAST Upgrade to solve the exhaust problem for compact fusion power plants, and the signs are that we've succeeded.

"Super-X reduces the heat on the exhaust system from a blowtorch level down to more like you'd find in a car engine.

"This could mean it would only have to be replaced once during the lifetime of a power plant.

"It's a pivotal development for the UK's plan to put a fusion power plant on the grid by the early 2040s - and for bringing low-carbon energy from fusion to the world."

Climate change: Is this a 'day of reckoning' for big oil - and what's at stake?

Activists are taking on oil majors in court and in the boardroom, after companies proved 'completely immune' to previous attempts.

Victoria Seabrook
Climate reporter @v_seabrook
Wednesday 26 May 2021

It's time for big oil to change, say campaigners

The oil industry today faces a "day of reckoning" on its climate change policies, green groups have said, as activists takes it on in the boardroom and in court.

These "three big tests" have the potential to "change the status quo" in the fossil fuel industry, Michael Coffin, senior analyst at financial think tank Carbon Tracker, told Sky News.

Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil are all facing relatively new lines of attack from campaigners and shareholders, who are trying to force the oil majors align their targets with the Paris Agreement.

In Paris in 2015, 195 countries agreed to try to limit global temperature rise to 2°C or even 1.5 above pre-industrial levels.

Scientists warn emissions must therefore fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030.

Big oil says its targets are ambitious enough

But oil majors have prioritised "net zero" rather than emissions reductions targets, campaigners say, which is why they are finding new ways to fight the companies.

Three separate campaigns come to a head today, in what has been described as "a day of reckoning" by climate think tank E3G and charity Global Justice Now.

But what exactly can we expect?

What are activist investors up to Chevron's AGM?

A climate proposal that effectively demands Chevron sets an ambitious target to slash its emissions could pass at its AGM today.

Activist investors Follow This, which filed the motion, has this year already attempted an investor rebellion at Shell, last week gaining 30% support, and at BP.

The group's founder, Mark van Baal, has been filing such motions since 2016 and believes shareholder pressure is "the only way we can change big oil".

Oil majors have "proven to be completely immune" to science and public opinion, he told Sky News in an interview.

The world must slash carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement goals, scientists say

He said investors are now realising "all these investments are at risk, and therefore we are going to force the parties who can make or break the Paris climate agreement, big oil, to change rapidly.

"That's the big change which you see happening today."

Chevron did not responded to a request for comment.

Why is Shell in court?

For the first time in history a fossil fuel company could today be told in court to align its policies with the climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement.

Friends of the Earth in the Netherlands and other groups who brought the legal action are demanding Shell commits to reducing its CO2 emissions by 45% by the year 2030.

A verdict is expected at 1400BST at the District Court of the Hague.

Nine de Pater from Friends of the Earth, who is leading the campaign, told Sky News: "Because all these different social pressures that have been tried in the past did not work out, we only saw one option left and that was legal action."

Shell, which has committed to going net-zero by 2050, told Sky News in a statement that it "agreed that action is needed now on climate change", but it did not believe this would be achieved by this court action.

Friends of the Earth believes this is the first time a court has considered telling an oil major to change its policy, as opposed to, for example, provide compensation.

Will ExxonMobil's board turn one third green?

Activist investor Engine No.1 has singled out four of the 12 ExxonMobil board members it hopes to replace with directors who have "experience in successful and profitable energy industry transformations".

Shareholders will vote on the 12 positions on Wednesday morning Eastern Time.

In a statement on Monday Engine No.1 claimed ExxonMobil had for years "refused to take even gradual material steps towards being better positioned for the long-term in a decarbonizing world", and its efforts to fight off changes to the board "[spoke] volumes about ExxonMobil's future intentions".

ExxonMobil spokesperson Casey Norton told Sky News the company had "supported the Paris Agreement since its inception".

"Wind and solar power are important, but alone they cannot meet the energy needs of the key sectors (power generation, industrial and commercial transportation) that generate the vast majority of emission," he said.

Financial think tank Carbon Tracker called ExxonMobil "laggards" on climate, ranking it last in its 2020 analysis of company targets.

Dorothy Guerrero, head of policy at Global Justice Now, said shareholder revolts alone would not go far enough to "deliver justice for the communities devastated by oil companies".

"But, if successful, they too will show the tide is finally turning against fossil capital."

Climate change: Is this a 'day of reckoning' for big oil - and what's at stake? | Climate News | Sky News

IMF calls for equitable recovery from Covid crisis
 

IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva. Photo: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg


Ana Monteiro
May 26 2021 

The struggle of emerging-market nations to claw their way out of pandemic-induced the economic crisis can spill over to hurt the developed world, which should be doing all it can to ensure better access to vaccines and a more equitable recovery, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said.

Poorer nations are faced with the risk of interest rates increasing while their economies aren’t growing, and may find themselves “really strangled” to service debt, especially if it’s dollar-denominated, IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva said yesterday in a virtual event hosted by the Washington Post.

“That is not only danger for them, it is a danger for global supply chains, it’s a danger for investor confidence – in other words, it has a ricochet impact on advanced economies,” she said.

“Closing our eyes to this divergence can harm not only those countries and their people, which is bad enough.

“It can harm the global recovery and it can harm investor sentiment in a way that we see to be significant and requiring very close attention.”

Measures taken by the Biden administration to stimulate the US economy are, on balance, translating into “good news” for other countries because of the spillover effect of demand, the IMF chief said.

Ms Georgieva said she’s concerned about 2022 and beyond.

She said even a relatively small increase in interest rates, combined with a possibly stronger dollar, could create problems for corporate and sovereign debt, which was high even before the crisis.

Countries should now be looking at whether their sovereign positions are strong enough, and companies should examine whether restructuring is needed, “while conditions are very clearly favourable,” Ms Georgieva said.

“The next couple of years are going to be absolutely critical. We have to step up and then shrink this very dangerous divergence,” she said.

NYC MAYORAL RACE

Evelyn Yang breaks down in tears over ‘racist’ cartoon mocking husband Andrew

By Julia Marsh and Bruce Golding

May 25, 2021

Mayoral candidate Andrew Yang’s wife broke down in tears Tuesday over a cartoon that portrayed her husband as a tourist visiting Times Square.

An original version of the political cartoon, posted online by its artist, portrayed Yang with nothing but slits for eyes, an old anti-Asian stereotype.

“It’s not funny. It’s racist. It’s toxic,” Evelyn Yang said during a press conference with her husband in Queens.

She said the cartoon, which was later published by the New York Daily News with the candidates’ eyes added in, “perpetuates the trope of the Asian foreigner.”

“Not only does this dehumanize Asians, it promotes racism against them,” she said. “What message does this send to all the Asians who are afraid to go outside?”Evelyn Yang called the cartoon racist and toxic.Oliya Scootercaster/FNTV

Evelyn Yang — the mother of two young boys — also choked up with emotion while saying, “It’s very hard to explain this to our children.”

“Words matter, art matters, representation matters — so let’s be better than this,” she said.

“Every time you make a joke about Andrew not being a New Yorker, you are telling Asian Americans that they don’t belong.”

The cartoon at issue was first posted Monday afternoon on Twitter by Bill Bramhall, the editorial cartoonist for the Daily News, apparently in response to Andrew Yang’s assertion that Times Square was his favorite subway stop.“This is a city for everyone,” Andrew Yang said.Lev Radin/Sipa USA

The Daily News then published a slightly modified version Tuesday that added eyes to Andrew Yang’s face.

Earlier, Evelyn Yang — who was born and raised in Queens — tweeted the cartoon side by side with another featuring a crude stereotype of a person with slits for eyes, buck teeth and wearing traditional Chinese garb while saying, “HARRO AMELLICA!” next to a hotel bellhop carrying a stack of oversize Chinese food takeout boxes with wire handles.

“Every time you make a joke about Andrew not being a New Yorker, you are telling Asian Americans that they don’t belong,” Evelyn Yang said. Dan Herrick“Which one is from 2021,” she wrote.

During Tuesday’s news conference, Assemblyman Ron Kim (D-Queens) displayed a copy of the original version and called on the Daily News to apologize and remove the cartoon from its website.

Andrew Yang also said, “Some of my opponents in the race have characterized us as more New York than others.”

“That is wrong,” he said.

“This is a city for everyone.”

Yang later posted a statement on Twitter that said the cartoon “subtly approves racism at a time when people are being beaten on the street on the basis of who they are.”

He also tied it to the “history of casting immigrants and children of immigrants as perpetual foreigners or even subhuman — a stereotype which has been used to divide and exclude people for hundreds of years.”

The Daily News didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A phone number listed in Bramhall’s name was not in service Tuesday and emails seeking comment that were sent to four accounts tied to him all bounced back as undeliverable.

 

Crying ‘Self-Defense’ To Cover Up War Crimes

by Daniel Larison Posted onMay 26, 2021

Whenever the U.S. or one of its client states launches attacks on others or commits war crimes against a civilian population, they claim they are acting in self-defense. This takes a legitimate exception to the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and twists it into a catch-all justification for criminal aggression and violations of the laws of war. While the right to self-defense is supposed to protect weaker nations against more powerful predatory states, the rhetoric of self-defense has been hijacked by the most interventionist governments. These governments have used this language to add a patina of legality to the latest war of choice or punitive military action.

When the US illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration asserted that this was a case of "anticipatory self-defense" on the absurd grounds that Iraq’s government might pose a dire threat to the US someday in the future. That is how a preventive war that blatantly violated the UN Charter was sold as "defense" to the American public, and to this day this war of aggression is still often referred to wrongly as a war of preemption. Soleimani’s illegal assassination was another instance when the US took aggressive action against a foreign military and initially claimed that it was done to prevent an "imminent attack." The Trump administration later dropped that false claim, but still maintained that the assassination was a defensive measure. The motto might as well be, "if we do it, it’s self-defense."

The Saudi coalition has tried to portray its aggressive war on Yemen as a defensive action when Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the ones that have been violating Yemen’s sovereignty every day for the last six years. The US has accepted this preposterous redefinition of aggression as defense throughout the war, and supporters of the war have routinely pointed to Yemeni retaliation for the bombing campaign as proof that the US needs to protect the Saudis from their neighbors. Claiming self-defense functions as a ready-made excuse for any military action that the US and its clients want to take, and it is also used to deflect criticism from their indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas.

Then there is Israel, which routinely launches attacks on targets in other countries in the name of "defending" themselves and dresses up its bombing of civilians in Gaza as defensive in nature. Israel has launched hundreds of attacks on Iranian targets inside Syria in just the last four years. Israel was not being attacked during this period, nor was it in any danger of being attacked. Israel’s sponsorship of the attacks inside Iran against nuclear scientists and facilities is not seriously disputed. These aggressive actions are almost always spun as "defense" against an imaginary future Iranian bomb, but they are no more defensive or legal than the invasion of Iraq was.

While every state does have a right to defend itself against attack by another state, Israel’s relationship to the Palestinians under its rule is different in important ways that make the usual self-defense refrain ring hollow. Israel remains the occupying power over East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Even though Israel withdrew from Gaza, it continues to control its access to the outside world and it has placed the territory under siege since 2007. An occupying power’s responsibilities include providing for the security and welfare of the people under its control, and it is obliged to protect civilians under its charge. Obviously, the Israeli government doesn’t accept or take its responsibilities as an occupying power seriously, and it treats the Palestinians that it rules over as colonial subjects to be suppressed whenever and however they see fit.

Maryam Jamshidi called attention to the colonial context of Israeli violence against Palestinians recently in an article for Boston Review: "In various ways, this long-standing war on Gaza has much in common with the colonial wars waged by European imperial powers in the nineteenth century – including Israel’s legal acrobatics to justify and legitimize its attack on Palestinians." Israel ignores international law when it comes to their treatment of the Palestinians under its control, and it claims the right to crack down on any resistance to its rule much as the colonial powers used to do. The Israeli government tries to have things both ways by taking advantage of the law to justify using force and then ignoring it when it requires them to fulfill their obligations to the occupied population.

Jamshidi continues: "Expanding on this position, legal scholar and human rights attorney Noura Erakat and others have shown, occupation law requires that occupying forces defend themselves through the use of traditional police powers. This police authority is "restricted to the least amount of force necessary to restore order and subdue violence." Though there are some situations where lethal violence can be used, it must be "a measure of last resort." And while even military force may be permitted in exceptional circumstances, it must be "circumscribed by concern for the civilian non-combatant population." As Erakat argues, Israel’s use of the far more expansive right of self-defense may protect its "colonial authority," but it comes at the "expense of the rights of civilian non-combatants" under occupation law."

No one can seriously claim that Israel’s 11-day bombing spree in Gaza earlier this month qualifies as the "least amount of force necessary." Israel’s campaign in Gaza killed more than 200 people, including the massacres of entire extended families killed in their homes, and it left more than 90,000 people displaced and homeless in the middle of a pandemic. The Israeli military committed many war crimes in its prosecution of this campaign, including the destruction of whole block towers to inflict collective punishment on the population, and it failed in its duty to protect civilian lives in the territory that it effectively occupies. If it were almost any other government in the world that had done this, the US would be denouncing them and threatening to make them a pariah.

Slaughtering defenseless people in a besieged prison territory is not self-defense, and we should reject arguments that claim otherwise. The policy implications for the U.S.-Israel relationship are clear. Our government needs to stop subsidizing and arming a government that launches such attacks against people living under occupation. The US should demand a lifting of the blockade on Gaza at once. And the next time that Israel starts bombing civilians in Gaza, our government should condemn their war crimes and penalize the officials responsible.

Daniel Larison is a contributing editor and weekly columnist for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter 

Palestinians Delivered Two Heavy Blows to the Israeli Narrative


by Sami Hamdi | May 25, 2021

In breaking Israel’s monopoly on the narrative and dispelling its aura of “invincibility,” the Palestinians have delivered two heavy defeats on Netanyahu and the Israeli establishment that neither is likely to ever truly recover from.

People survey rubble from a building previously destroyed in an air-strike following a cease-fire reached after an 11-day war between Gaza's Hamas rulers and Israel, in Gaza City, May 21, 2021. Palestinians have been able to effectively share images and footage of Israel's brutality with the world. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Israel and Hamas finally reached a ceasefire agreement for the Gaza Strip on May 20, a day after US President Joe Biden implored Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to seek de-escalation, amid mediation attempts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations.

In the days prior to the ceasefire, diplomatic efforts had intensified to bring about a de-escalation to the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, which have seen Gaza bombarded, the Holy Mosque of Al-Aqsa stormed with troops, and the residents of Sheikh Jarrah subjected to violent attempts at forcible dispossession of their property and homes.

The conflict, which began in early May, caused a significant loss of life with over 227 Palestinians and 12 Israelis killed. Netanyahu sought to rescue his political career by taking a heavy-handed offensive approach, after failing to form a coalition government. Moreover, the Israeli establishment has escalated its attempts to “ethnically-cleanse” East Jerusalem following stubborn resistance on the part of Palestinians, who refused to relocate despite relentless harassment, arbitrary restrictions, and open provocation including home squatting from more extreme elements of Israeli society.

There is little doubt that Netanyahu will emerge stronger domestically from this recent bout of the decades-long conflict between the Israeli occupation and the Palestinians. It is expected that he will hold onto power through emergency rule before pushing for a new election in order to secure another bid to form a government. The alternative for Netanyahu would be to stand trial on corruption charges, which he is loath to do and therefore keen to maintain immunity.

Netanyahu is likely to experience the political “gains” as a pyrrhic victory in the wider context of how this latest war has unfolded.

However, Netanyahu is likely to experience the political “gains” as a pyrrhic victory in the wider context of how this latest war has unfolded. Indeed, the Palestinians have inflicted two heavy defeats on Israel that the latter is unlikely to ever recover from.
Changing the Narrative

The first resounding victory that the Palestinians have delivered on Netanyahu is the successful breaking of Israel’s monopoly over the narrative, discourse, and terminology with which the wider conflict is often broached. For the first time, the conflict is being discussed through terms that more accurately reflects the realities on the ground. The words “apartheid,” “occupation,” and “colonization” have become normalized in mainstream discussion.

“Apartheid” initially gained traction the month prior to the conflict in a Human Rights Watch report dated April 27, which followed a prior Paper by Israeli Rights Organization B’Tselem released on January 12.

However, it took off after Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted “apartheids states aren’t democracies.” Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib also brought the terminology to the Congress floor in May, in what was an undeniably powerful and symbolic moment given the US’ long-standing tradition of providing unquestionable immunity to Israel’s actions in the past. John Oliver used the term in an episode (now removed from the Show’s HBO channel) of the “Last Week Tonight” while an increasing number of celebrities and public personalities – including Mark Ruffalo, Lena Headey, and Roger Waters – have also propagated the language of “apartheid” and “Israeli war crimes.”

The ease with which Palestinians have been able to access social media means that they have been able to bypass the traditional monopolies on information.

This phenomenon has been made possible by the unique circumstances in which Israel’s latest attacks have taken place under. This is the first time that an offensive has been fought in a time of decentralized media. The dominance of social media and the ease with which Palestinians have been able to access it means that they have been able to bypass the traditional monopolies on information, which mainstream media outlets have enjoyed in the past.

Moreover, this is the first time that there is a Palestinian generation who grew up with social media and who is especially attuned to its effectiveness and accustomed to is usage. Palestinians have been able to effectively send videos, live feeds, and images across multiple applications and networks to share with the world. These posts have had such a significant impact on global opinion that an agitated Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz urgently met with Facebook and TikTok executives on May 14 to demand that pro-Palestine content be taken down under the pretext of “incitement” and “hate speech.”

The surge in social media usage by Palestinians has also provided fuel for media outlets to better access information on the ground, further enabling Palestinians to discredit much of the Israeli narrative that has been propagated on mainstream networks. Videos of child victims rendered homeless by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza are now being broadcast by prominent media outlets.

Accordingly, Palestinian commentators who have drawn attention on social media have been invited on prominent platforms such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and others, to present their narrative against Israeli commentators and former diplomats. Sky News has provided live coverage of Jerusalem with its reporters regularly expressing alarm and dismay at the practices of Israel’s security forces against the local population.

Israel’s frustration at the media coverage has been such that it decided to bomb the offices of Al Jazeera and the Associated Press in Gaza. Though Israel claimed it had provided evidence of Hamas operations in the building to the US, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was swift to deny such claims and told a news conference in Copenhagen that he had seen no such evidence. The Jerusalem Post also published a condemnation of Turkish media that it accused of inciting anti-Israel sentiment.

[Social Media Companies Help Israel Hide Evidence of War Crimes]

[UN Must Act to Halt Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing of Sheikh Jarrah in Occupied East Jerusalem]