SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Opinion: Why Palestinian Americans believe Rep. Rashida Tlaib spoke the truth

Saree Makdisi
Fri, November 10, 2023

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) speaks during a rally in Washington on Oct. 20. (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

“I can’t believe I have to say this,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said during the debate over the motion to censure her in Congress this week, “but Palestinian people are not disposable. We are human beings just like anyone else.”

The vote passed Tuesday in the House 234-188. Tlaib powerfully captured the extent to which Palestinians have been silenced and dehumanized in institutions across the United States, even as they are killed and injured thousands of miles away. Indeed, the dehumanization here mirrors the physical destruction in Gaza and the West Bank — and helps to sustain it

Israel has so far killed more than 11,000 people in Gaza, including more than 4,000 children. It has damaged or destroyed half of Gaza’s family homes and bombed hospitals. It has left the territory’s population of 2.3 million people — of whom around half are children — largely cut off from access to food, water, fuel, electricity and medicine.

And the House of Representatives saw this — of all times — as the ideal occasion on which to censure the only Palestinian American member of Congress for having expressed the rights and humanity of her battered but still steadfast people.

Among the reasons cited for censuring Tlaib was a video she shared on social media that included the slogan “from the river to the sea.” The resolution claims this was a “genocidal call.” In fact, variations of the phrase have been used by different parties, including, but not only, Hamas. In Israel’s Likud Party 1977 platform, for example, it was used to express uniquely Israeli sovereignty over all of historical Palestine, a theme also echoed in Israel’s 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law. In today’s context, for Palestinians and others opposing Israel’s system of apartheid, however, the phrase expresses a vision of freedom and equality for all.

In remembering that history, as one group of students recently put it, the phrase is “a call for the end to the oppression of all Palestinians — in Gaza, the West Bank and within the Green Line,” the armistice line between Israel and the West Bank set in 1949. “Liberating all of Palestine requires revolutionary change: not an eradication of Jews from the land, but a total dismantlement of the apartheid regime occupying it.”

Although I have been expressing similar sentiments for over two decades, that particular formulation is not mine: It comes from a group of Jewish students at Brown University expressing their solidarity with Brown Students for Justice in Palestine.

“As we grapple with millennia of Jewish struggle and survival,” they continue, “we will not abandon our Palestinian cousins and peers, or let them stand alone. This genocide cannot continue.”

Read more: Opinion: Even before the bombing of Gaza, generations of Palestinians were displaced from their homes

Tlaib’s censure wasn’t merely an act of gratuitous cruelty. Political figures in both parties have repeatedly made clear their contempt for Palestinian life.

Asked on live television if there is any threshold of civilian loss which might lead the U.S. government to call on Israel to stop its bombing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) unblinkingly said “no.” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) questioned whether it was possible to speak of innocent Palestinian civilians at all. And when Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon asked how many dead Palestinians would be enough to justify a cease-fire, her Republican colleague Michelle Salzman immediately shouted out, “all of them!” None of these lawmakers has faced similar censure for their comments, nor are they likely to.

On Oct. 16, Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) introduced a House resolution calling for a cease-fire. It states, “all human life is precious, and the targeting of civilians, no matter their faith or ethnicity, is a violation of international humanitarian law.” Of 435 members of the House, only 12 others were willing to co-sponsor this bill. Not one of them is white. Most of these Black and brown members of Congress had Tlaib’s back and held her for comfort during her speech. The raw racial lines of our country are there for all to see.

“The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me,” Tlaib said in her speech during the censure resolution debate. “What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all.”

Palestinian Americans feel that official and institutional America are deaf to the cries of Palestinians, and, at best, indifferent to Palestinian suffering of any kind. White House national security spokesperson John Kirby, for instance, has staked out a similar position for President Biden, saying, “we’re not drawing red lines for Israel.”

The same goes for our academic institutions — including my own in Los Angeles, where many Palestinian Americans work as students, faculty or staff — that were lightning-quick to condemn the killing of Israeli civilians on Oct. 7. Yet they have maintained a stony silence even as Israel’s rampant killing of civilians with bombing, which one former UN official and scholars of the Holocaust have said amounts to a campaign of genocidal violence, enters its second month. Silence speaks as powerfully as words themselves, and the message is clear: Some lives matter; others just don’t.

As the English poet Percy Shelley once put it, however, it’s in the absolutely darkest of times that the glorious “Phantom” of freedom bursts forth “to illumine our tempestuous day.”

Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans protesting and demonstrating across the country have expressed their affirmation of our common humanity in ways that our institutions and government somehow seem to find impossible. Above all, young people and especially students on campuses — who have bravely shrugged off an orchestrated campaign of intimidation and doxxing intended to silence them — have rallied to the cause of Palestine, which they now recognize is also the cause of justice.

I, like many other Palestinians, have long been ready to embrace our Jewish cousins on these principles, in the name of dismantling apartheid and working toward a democratic and secular state of equal citizens — and in the name of our common humanity, which alone can save us in the end.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

In Congress and on Campuses, ‘From the River to the Sea’ Inflames Debate

Karoun Demirjian and Liam Stack
Fri, November 10, 2023

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), center, during a bipartisan candlelight vigil with members of Congress, held to commemorate one month since the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas in Israel, on the steps of the Capitol in Washington, Nov. 7, 2023.

WASHINGTON — When House Republicans and a solid bloc of Democrats banded together this week to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., for her statements about the Israel-Hamas war, they homed in on her embrace and defense of one pro-Palestinian slogan they called unacceptable: “from the river to the sea.”

The official congressional rebuke of Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, said the phrase was “widely recognized as a genocidal call to violence to destroy the state of Israel.” The top White House spokesperson disavowed it from the West Wing, saying that it was “divisive” and that many considered it hurtful and antisemitic.

The phrase, which Tlaib has defended as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate,” has not only become a flashpoint for dispute in Washington; it has echoed across college campuses and in cities throughout the country in recent weeks as pro-Palestinian activists protest the heavy civilian toll of Israel’s war against Hamas. The slogan has prompted charges of antisemitism and fueled an increasingly bitter debate over the conflict, its root causes and how it should be waged — and what position the United States should be taking as it rages on.

The decades-old phrase has a complicated backstory that has led to radically different interpretations by Israelis and Palestinians — and by Americans who support them.

“The reason why this term is so hotly disputed is because it means different things to different people,” said Dov Waxman, a professor of Israel studies at UCLA, adding that “the conflicting interpretations have kind of grown over time.”

The phrase “from the river to the sea” — or in Arabic, “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” — dates to the dawn of the Palestinian nationalist movement in the early 1960s, about a quarter-century before Hamas came into existence. It gained popularity within the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, as a call for returning to the borders under British control of Palestine, where Jews and Arabs had both lived before the creation of Israel as a Jewish state in 1948.

The slogan reflects the geography of that original claim: Israel spans the narrow stretch of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But the phrase’s popularity persisted even as territorial claims shifted, after the PLO entered peace negotiations in the 1990s, formally recognizing Israel’s right to exist and coming to governance through the creation of the Palestinian Authority.

For many Palestinians, the phrase now has a dual meaning, representing their desire for a right of return to the towns and villages from which their families were expelled in 1948, as well as their hope for an independent Palestinian state, incorporating the West Bank, which abuts the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip, which hugs the coastline of the Mediterranean.

“When they’re using that phrase, it’s a very personal one for them,” said Maha Nassar, an associate professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Arizona. “They’re saying, ‘I identify with my ancestral home in Palestine, even if it’s not on a map today.’

“Also, it’s an insistence on Palestinians and Palestine being unified,” she added.

But the phrase has also been adopted over the years by Hamas, which calls for the annihilation of Israel, taking on a darker meaning that has long shaped the way in which it is received.

That has only intensified in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel, in which the group killed more than 1,400 civilians and soldiers, the largest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, and took hundreds of others hostage. Gaza’s health ministry, which is run by Hamas, says that more than 10,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since.

“It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland,” according to the Anti-Defamation League.

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, this week, the ADL, a Jewish advocacy group that fights antisemitism and discrimination, wrote, “‘From the River to the Sea’ is a Hamas call to annihilate Israel,” adding that “claiming it is a rally of coexistence gives cover to terror.”

Many members of Congress, including dozens of Democrats, endorsed a similar view this week as they condemned Tlaib for her comments.

The slogan does not appear in Hamas’ founding covenant from 1988, which pledges “to confront the Zionist invasion and defeat it,” not just in historic Palestinian territory but worldwide. It is featured, however, in a section of the group’s revised platform from 2017. In the same paragraph, Hamas indicates it could accept a Palestinian state along the borders that were in place before the 1967 war — the same borders considered under the Oslo Accords.

Still, Hamas’ firm commitment not to recognize Israel under any conditions has solidified the impression to critics that whoever repeats the slogan is participating in a rallying cry for the destruction of Israel — and by extension, of the Jewish people as well.

“The phrase ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’ suggests a vision of the future without a Jewish state, but it does not answer the question of what the role of Jews would be,” said Peter Beinart, a professor at the City University of New York. He added that the meaning of the phrase, however, “depends on the context.”

“If it’s coming from an armed Hamas member, then yes, I would feel threatened,” said Beinart, who is Jewish. “If it is coming from someone who I know has a vision of equality and mutual liberation, then no, I would not feel threatened.”

Many Palestinians have been dismayed over the outrage about the slogan, which they regard as the result of an orchestrated effort by groups like the ADL to impugn the motives of Palestinians as a means of undermining their cause of statehood and silencing them.

“It is perfectly possible for both people to be free between the river and the sea,” Ahmad Khalidi, a researcher at Oxford University who worked on Arab-Israeli peace negotiations during the 1990s, said of Palestinians and Jews. “Is ‘free’ necessarily in itself genocidal? I think any reasonable person would say no. Does it preclude the fact that the Jewish population in the area between the sea and the river cannot also be free? I think any reasonable person would also say no.”

Khalidi pointed out that Israel’s Likud party, which is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, embraced a similar slogan in its original 1977 platform, which stated that, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” That phrase also could be seen “as having a malign intent,” he said.

Likud has since dropped the phrase, though the party has opposed a two-state solution in which Palestinians would have a recognized state alongside Israel. And in 2018, Netanyahu’s governing coalition pushed through a law that enshrined the right of national self-determination in Israel as “unique to the Jewish people.”

c.2023 The New York Times Company


'From the river to the sea': Why is the Palestinian nationalist slogan about Gaza a flashpoint?

SARAH BETH HENSLEY
Fri, November 10, 2023

When the House this week voted to censure Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, accusing her of calling for Israel's destruction, her critics said it was in part because she repeated the Palestinian nationalist slogan, "from the river to the sea."

The phrase, perhaps unfamiliar to many Americans, has been around for decades, before the militant group Hamas even existed, and continues with the words, "Palestine will be free."

It has now become both a rallying cry for Palestinian rights chanted by supporters worldwide -- and what others consider offensive code for wiping Israel off the map, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, as Hamas has vowed to do.

MORE: Rep. Rashida Tlaib censured by House over Israel comments

PHOTO: A protester holds a placard reading 'From the river to the sea, we demand equality', during a protest in solidarity with Palestinians, in Berlin, Germany, Nov. 4 2023. (Clemens Bilan/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., adopted the phrase in its 2017 charter. The group's brutal attack on Israel on Oct. 7 caused the horrific deaths of 1,400 men, women and children, according to Israeli officials.

That, as the world has seen in grim detail since, set off the current war in the neighboring Gaza Strip, where more than 10,000 people have been killed, many of them innocent civilians, including thousands of children buried under blasts from Israeli bombs, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.
What Tlaib said she meant

Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman in Congress, posted on X that the entire phrase is "an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate," explaining why she posted a video to X of protesters chanting the phrase. Later in that video she accused President Joe Biden of supporting a Palestinian "genocide."

PHOTO: Rashida Tlaib post from X. (@rashidatlaib/X)

Tlaib has posted on X and said in interviews that she does not support Hamas, does not want to eradicate Israel and does not want to eradicate Jews.

Her defenders say she shouldn't be punished for exercising free speech even if they don't agree with it -- and note she didn't explicitly call for Israel's eradication.

The Anti-Defamation League has rejected that explanation, calling the phrase antisemitic -- saying it's a "charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

House Republicans repeatedly rebuked Tlaib for using the phrase during the debate over her censure.

PHOTO: Rep. Ilhan Omar comforts Rep. Rashida Tlaib as she speaks on the House floor on Nov. 7, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (House of Representatives TV)

"When [Tlaib] chants 'from the river to the sea,' she believes it. Otherwise, she would never repeat that vile, vile statement" shouted Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican.

GOP Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey said that a line had to be drawn over what is considered acceptable speech.

"We don't entertain hate in this Congress, we confront it," Van Drew said.

Even 70 of Tlaib's fellow House Democrats, many Jewish, signed a letter on Tuesday blasting her use of the slogan.

"We reject the use of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' -- a phrase used by many, including Hamas, as a rallying cry for the destruction of the State of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people," the Democratic lawmakers said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a statement condemning what Tlaib said, but not personally denouncing the Michigan congresswoman.

MORE: 'Nobody's hands are clean': Obama breaks with Biden on how to support Israel

"Echoing slogans that are widely understood as calling for the complete destruction of Israel -- such as from the River to the Sea -- does not advance progress toward a two-state solution. Instead, it unacceptably risks further polarization, division and incitement to violence," Jeffries wrote.

"As public officials serving in Congress, the words we choose matter," Jeffries continued.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the phrase "divisive" during Wednesday's press briefing.

"Many find it hurtful, and also, many find it antisemitic. And so, obviously, we categorically reject applying the term to this conflict," Jean-Pierre said.
Where did the phrase and its meaning originate?

There are many deep, complex and historical roots associated with "from the river to the sea," an expert ABC News spoke with said.

"Everything related to the Middle East conflict is complex. And part of the complexity is that you have multiple perspectives, and narratives about those perspectives," said Ezzedine Fishere, senior lecturer in Middle Eastern Studies Program at Dartmouth College.

While the phrase literally means from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, it symbolizes control over the territory within those Israeli borders and the fight for it to be a homeland for only one nation, said Fishere, who has served as a diplomat in the region, spending five years in Israel, Gaza and Palestinian territories.


Israel & Palestinian Territories as referred to in “From the River to the Sea” (ABC News)

MORE: Israel-Gaza live updates: Mass exodus from Gaza hospital

"So, the conflict is over a land. And it's a conflict between two nationalisms, each of which has a claim on this land," Fishere said of Israelis and Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party used the phrase in its party platform in 1977 to mean one nation, one state, one sovereignty: Israel. Palestinians, however, adopted it to mean one state: Palestine. So, "neither side is willing to share," Fishere said.

"From river to sea -- the question then becomes, do we have one state or two? Is it a home for two nations? Or is it a home for one nation? And if we say it's a home for one nation, what happens to the other nation? That is the question. … That was the question back then; it's the question today," he said.

PHOTO: Evacuating residents pass a destroyed building following Israeli air strikes in the northern Gaza Strip, Nov. 7, 2023. (Mohammed Saber/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

Fishere said there are differing degrees of the phrase. Some versions are more harmonious in nature, where one nation has sovereignty, but the other nation can stay and inhabit the land as residents or citizens -- as long as they behave. For others, it means the opposing nation must move somewhere else. The worst version may be more "genocidal" and endorse the killing of the other nation, he added. Hamas uses the phrase in the "crudest way possible" to signal a fight to eradicate Israelis, which they are willing to wage until the "end of days," Fishere said.

"If it's used by Palestinians, it's directed to the other side. If it's used by an Israeli, it's directed to the Palestinians," Fishere said.

The American Jewish Committee says the phrase calls for the establishment of a State of Palestine -- by erasing Israel and its people.

PHOTO: Palestinians inspect the damage of a destroyed mosque following an Israeli airstrike in Khan Younis refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip, Nov. 8, 2023. (Mohammed Dahman/AP)

"There is of course nothing antisemitic about advocating for Palestinians to have their own state. However, calling for the elimination of the Jewish state, praising Hamas or other entities who call for Israel's destruction, or suggesting that the Jews alone do not have the right to self-determination, is antisemitic," AJC wrote on its website.

For many Palestinians, it's a rallying cry that harkens back to their being expelled from the region with the establishment of Israel in 1948.

In 2018, Maha Nassar -- a Palestinian American and a scholar of Palestinian history -- wrote that the phrase represents the freedom Palestinians seek -- not an effort to disparage Israelis.

The phrase, which grew popular in the 1960s, was "part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of historic Palestine. Palestinians hoped their state would be free from oppression of all sorts, from Israeli as well as from Arab regimes," Nassar wrote.

Fishere said the phrase is emblamatic of a "repetitive" and "heartbreaking" conflict.

"It is so obvious that, you know, nobody's going anywhere. So, either … they share or they fight -- there is no third way," Fishere said.
The phrase goes beyond the current conflict

"From the river to the sea" has become a popular chant at many pro-Palestinian protests -- something Fishere said he attributes to the perception of Israel's involvement in what critics call "settler colonialism."

"Many of [the protesters] are just coming from different backgrounds, including Americans who have zero connection to the Middle East, but they are revolted by what they see as a settler colonial enterprise that continues -- and that links up with other movements that are opposed to colonialism, and, you know, native rights and so on," Fishere said. "And in their view, 'from the river to the sea' captures that desire to undo settler colonialism."

PHOTO: People, including one holding up a sign that reads: 'From the River to the Sea', attend a 'Freedom for Palestine' protest that drew thousands of participants on Nov. 4, 2023, in Berlin, Germany. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

However pure protesters' motivations may be, Fishere warns "that history cannot be undone."

"You cannot rewind the reel back to 18 A.D. and then redirect the players to, you know, [do] the following scenes different -- you can't change the script. You can only go forward from where we are," he said.

Fishere said those who use the phrase should consider what it means for the other side: "What's the next move for the other when this is what you're advocating? What do you want the other side to do?"

"When you say there is no place for Palestinian self determination in this land, what do you expect the Palestinians to do? Or feel? Does this make them more willing to live with you? Does this make them more willing to accept you? The same thing applies to the Palestinians when you say this, does this make all those millions [of Israelis] ... more [willing]?"

MORE: Blinken says 'far too many' Palestinians have died as Israel wages relentless war on Hamas

Tlaib's use of the phrase may be more polarizing than unifying, Fishere said.

"When I say this, and the majority of Israeli Jews hear it as genocidal intent, does this make them really interested in my co-existence? ... Or does this make them more belligerent and antagonistic?" Fishere asked of Tlaib.

Fishere said if a phrase is used in a specific way for decades, it "becomes very hard to kind of take that slogan and redefine it on an individual level."

"Now I heard Rep. Talib saying that she means she has developed this meaning that it means freedom for all -- everybody, from rivers to sea, and so on. And it's a very commendable definition. But it is not the common definition. And that begs the question about, you know, can you use a sentence that's already used in a certain way and then have your own definition of it?" Fishere said. "That's not for me to answer."

'From the river to the sea': Why is the Palestinian nationalist slogan about Gaza a flashpoint? originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

Netanyahu salutes Congress for Tlaib censure
Tara Suter
Thu, November 9, 2023 


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the recent censure of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) in a Thursday interview on Fox News.

“[W]hat this congresswoman is calling for, is policide and genocide, the elimination of the Jewish state, the one and only Jewish state of the Jewish people,” Netanyahu told Fox News anchor Bret Baier.

“So, that’s absurd, and I salute the Congress for [censuring] her,” Netanyahu continued.

Tlaib was censured Tuesday for her criticism of Israel amid its conflict with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Twenty-two of her Democratic colleagues joined a majority of House Republicans in the vote to censure the Michigan Democrat.

In a video posted to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, over the weekend, Tlaib said that President Biden “supported the genocide of the Palestinian people.” The video also featured clips of protestors chanting “from the river to the sea,” a phrase the Anti-Defamation League characterizes as antisemitic. She also defended the use of the phrase in a following post.

The Michigan Democrat earned criticism from both sides of the political aisle for her remarks. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized Tlaib’s use of the phrase, saying it is “widely understood as calling for the complete destruction of Israel” and “unacceptably risks further polarization, division and incitement to violence.”

Netanyahu also slammed her use of the phrase, saying, “‘From the river to the sea’ means there’s no Israel.”

Tlaib became the second Democrat and lawmaker to get censured this year, following California Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D) censure in June for his work in opposition of former President Trump.

“We are human beings just like anyone else,” Tlaib said in remarks trying to defend herself from censure Tuesday, holding up a photo of her grandmother. “My grandmother, like all Palestinians, just wants to live her life with freedom and human dignity we all deserve. Speaking up to save lives, Mr. Chair, no matter faith, no matter ethnicity, should not be controversial in this chamber.”

Netanyahu hails censure of Rashida Tlaib
Michelle Del Rey
Fri, November 10, 2023

1
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced his support for the censorship of Democratic US Representative Rashida Tlaib in a Fox News interview.

“I salute the Congress for censoring her,” the official told the network’s Bret Bair, asserting that Ms Tlaib was calling for “policide” and “genocide”, including the“elimination of the Jewish state”.

On Tuesday, the US House of Representatives voted 234 - 188 to censure Ms Tlaib, the country’s first Palestinian-American member of Congress, over language some considered to be antisemitic, including the use of the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, which Ms Tlaib said in a social media post.

The chant refers to the stretch of land spanning from the border of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, where Israel is located. Mr Netanyahu argued that the phrase advocates for the dismantling of his country.

It “means there’s no Israel,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks on as the US Secretary of State gives statements to the media inside The Kirya, which houses the Israeli Defence Ministry, after their meeting in Tel Aviv on October 12, 2023. (POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Previously, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and state Senator Jeremy Moss asked the Michigan Congresswoman to refrain from using language that might incite violence and fuel hate crimes.

A censure is not the same as expulsion. According to the US House of Representatives, it’s considered to be a “deep disapproval of member misconduct”. To censure a member, the House only needs a majority of members to pass a vote.

Responding to the criticism, Ms Tlaib said the phrase is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence,” in a written statement posted to X, formerly known as Twitter. “Not death, destruction, or hate.

Rashida Tlaib chokes up condemning resolution to censure her over Israel comments (US Pool)

“My work and advocacy is always centred in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”

More than 10,000 Palestinians have died since the war began last month. Hamas, a terrorist organisation operating in Palestine, launched a series of violent surprise attacks against Israel, resulting in the deaths of 1,400 individuals, mostly civilians.

After the assaults, Mr Netanyahu declared war against Palestine, which has mostly been concentrated in the Gaza Strip.

While human rights organisations, politicians, and demonstrators across the world have called for a ceasefire, Mr Netanyahu reiterated that his country would not be backing down from the fight.

“We’re going to continue until we eradicate Hamas,” he said.

Ukraine. Israel. Can America Support Two Wars and Still Handle China?
Damien Cave
Thu, November 9, 2023 

The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip on Nov. 7, 2023.

(Yousef Masoud/The New York Times)

SYDNEY — America’s long-promised pivot to Asia was finally gathering momentum — new security deals with the Philippines and India, expanded military exercises, and plans with allies to stay ahead of Chinese technology.

But the Middle East, like a vortex, has pulled Washington back in. And for America’s partners in the Indo-Pacific, many of which already worry that the United States is not moving fast enough to counter Beijing, the sudden focus on the Gaza Strip — with Pentagon task forces, ramped-up U.S. weapons deliveries to Israel and rushed visits to Middle Eastern capitals — feels like a loss, delaying progress on some of their most critical challenges.

“What concerns us most is the diversion of the U.S. military’s resources from East Asia to Europe, to the Middle East,” Akihisa Nagashima, a lawmaker and former national security adviser in Japan, said at a strategy forum in Sydney last week. “We really hope that conflict is completely finished pretty soon.”

U.S. military commanders have said that no equipment has left the Indo-Pacific. And two top Cabinet officials, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, will be crisscrossing Asia this week with messages of reassurance, making stops separately or together in India, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia.

Along the way, they most likely will hear a mix of views about Gaza, with India more supportive of Israel, Japan seeking a more balanced approach, and Indonesia, home of the world’s largest Muslim population, increasingly outraged by the thousands of Palestinian civilians killed in the Israeli invasion that has followed Hamas’ assault on Israel.

But what these countries all share are questions about how Washington’s entanglement with another distant war, on top of Ukraine, will be weighed against the needs of the Indo-Pacific. Many are asking: How many pledges of support to how many nations can the United States — a power stretched thin abroad and politically divided at home — actually handle?

Weapons are one area of common concern. The defense industry in the United States has struggled with shortages of ammunition being provided to both Ukraine and Israel, including 155 mm artillery shells. Guided munitions and more complex U.S. systems are also being funneled to both conflicts, even as American partners in the Indo-Pacific wait for weapons deliveries of their own.

Japan, Taiwan and Australia could face delays on military equipment that has been contracted and promised by the United States.

“It’s not just hardware,” said Andrew Nien-Dzu Yang, a former defense minister of Taiwan. “You have to teach or train the people to operate those systems.”

“The concern is that the United States won’t have a more effective and abundant capacity to deter China,” he added.

If the latest war between Israel and Hamas drags on, its impacts could change. While an extended conflict could further strain U.S. arsenals, China may learn from it that urban warfare is extraordinarily difficult, perhaps deterring Beijing from following through on threats to take the densely populated island of Taiwan, which it sees as lost territory.

For now, though, China seems to favor continued brinkmanship. Two weeks after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, a Chinese coast guard ship and maritime militia vessel rammed Philippine ships on a resupply mission to the Second Thomas Shoal, a Philippine outpost in a part of the South China Sea that China claims as its own. It was one of the most confrontational encounters between the two countries in more than 20 years of back and forth over the disputed territory.

A few days later, a Chinese fighter jet came within 10 feet of an American B-52 bomber in a nighttime maneuver over the South China Sea that nearly caused a collision — part of what the U.S. military called a “dangerous pattern of coercive and risky operational behavior.”

China’s goal, according to Adm. John C. Aquilino, the U.S. Indo-Pacific commander, is “to force the United States out of the region.” Pentagon officials have stressed that will not happen.

But for skeptics of America’s commitment, wild swings in Washington’s attention are woven into the historical fabric. Vietnam stands out as one example, but so does the era of George W. Bush. On the campaign trail in 2000, he said, “When I am president, China will have no doubts about our power and purpose in the region, about our strong commitment to democratic allies throughout Asia.”

A month after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he went to Beijing to meet with the Chinese leader at the time, Jiang Zemin. Avoiding all his previous talk of the rising giant as a “strategic competitor,” Bush emphasized trade and the need to fight terrorism together.

India recalls the impact of that shift — the war in Afghanistan pushed the United States closer to New Delhi’s archrival, Pakistan. And with Xi Jinping, China’s current leader, expected to meet with President Joe Biden at a summit in San Francisco this month, some Indian commentators have wondered if Washington may again tilt back to the Middle East.

“If you go back to the old trading relationship and the idea of ‘we’re going to work out accommodation in Asia,’ that would affect Taiwan, Japan, India and all our neighbors,” said C. Raja Mohan, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute in New Delhi. “But I don’t think we are there yet.”

For some countries, the rekindled conflict over the Palestinian issue has inflamed old beliefs that the United States is anti-Muslim, or at least too biased toward Israel. After years of watching Washington avoid confronting the often harsh mistreatment of Palestinians by both the Israeli government and extremist Israeli settlers, some no longer trust the United States to be a fair broker.

When Austin gets to Indonesia, he is likely to face an angry public, if not anti-U.S. protests, despite his efforts to advise Israel’s military on how to avoid civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip.

“There is significant cynicism toward U.S. calls for Israeli restraint,” said Chong Ja Ian, an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore. “In many ways, the Biden administration has a difficult job and has to bear the baggage of past U.S. policy, which makes it all the more important for the administration to get things right and show that it is trying hard to be evenhanded.”

Efforts by Blinken to meet with Arab leaders and try to broker a pause in the fighting for humanitarian assistance “somewhat tempers the impression that the U.S. is just simply backing Israel regardless of Israeli actions,” Chong added. And at a meeting of G7 foreign ministers this week in Japan, the grouping of leading democracies joined that call for “humanitarian pauses.”

But for Japan and many other U.S. partners in Asia, the war in Gaza risks disrupting both oil supplies and progress on security. The faster it ends, in their view, the faster the world can get back to what Washington still defines as its most important challenge: deterrence and competition with China in an interdependent world.

Asked in Japan Wednesday if the United States was too occupied with the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine to continue its pivot to Asia, Blinken said: “I can tell you that we are determined and we are, as we would say, running and chewing gum at the same time. The Indo-Pacific is the critical region for our future.”

“Even as we’re dealing with a real crisis in Gaza and the Middle East,” he added, “we’re also not only able, but we’re fully engaged in all of the interests we have in the Indo-Pacific.”

c.2023 The New York Times Company

Report: Ukraine intelligence officer behind Nord Stream pipeline explosion

Sat, November 11, 2023

Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Last year's trio of explosions that ruptured the Nord Stream gas pipelines were orchestrated by a former senior Ukrainian military officer, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

The Post, citing anonymous Ukrainian and European officials as well as others with knowledge of the operation, published the report in conjunction with German periodical Der Spiegel.

The former military officer, identified Col. Roman Chervinsky, once had strong ties to the intelligence community and served as the covert operation's "coordinator," the newspaper said.

Chervinsky previously served in Ukraine's Special Operations Forces but The Post did not elaborate on his role there, although he has carried out special previous operations for Ukraine.

"The officer's role provides the most direct evidence to date tying Ukraine's military and security leadership to a controversial act of sabotage that has spawned multiple criminal investigations and that U.S. and Western officials have called a dangerous attack on Europe's energy infrastructure," The Post reported in the exclusive story.

Through a lawyer, Chervinsky denied any involvement in the operation.

Neither U.S. or Ukrainian military sources have commented on the report.

Last year’s trio of explosions that ruptured the Nord Stream gas pipelines (pictured) were orchestrated by a former Ukrainian military officer, the Washington Post reported Saturday. Photo courtesy of Danish Defense

The story alleges Chervinsky and a six-person support team chartered a sailboat and used deep-sea diving capabilities to orchestrate the blasts.

In April a Kyiv court arrested Chervinskyi in connection with an allegedly unauthorized plot to hijack a Russian military fighter jet. Prosecutors said the scheme led to a Russian missile attack on Kanatove airfield on July 23, 2022.

He was identified by prosecutors as a former employee of Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence and the Security Service of Ukraine, as well as a former acting commander of one of the Ukrainian military's Special Operation Forces units.

Three separate explosions rocked the Swedish Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines on Sept. 26, 2022.

An investigation later revealed traces of explosives at both rupture sites, pointing to sabotage as the cause. The report did not specify how the explosives were affixed the lines or who was behind their installation.

When fully operational, the twin pipeline system can transport up to 1.94 trillion cubic feet (55 billion cubic meters) of natural gas from Russia to Germany underneath the Baltic Sea.

As recently as April, Swedish prosecutors said determining the true cause behind the explosions would be difficult to uncover and may never be known.

The pipelines were not active at the time of the explosion but were still filled with natural gas when authorities noticed a sharp drop in pressure.

Media investigation finds Ukrainian officer coordinated Nord Stream pipelines sabotage

A Ukrainian special forces commander played a key role in sabotaging the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September last year, reports said Saturday.


Issued on: 12/11/2023

This handout picture taken on September 29, 2022 and released the following day by the Danish Defence Command shows one of four gas leaks at one of the damaged Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. 

Mystery has surrounded who was behind the blasts that damaged the pipelines, cutting off a major route for Russian gas exports to Europe and fuelling already high tensions over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

Different theories have emerged pointing the finger at Ukraine, Russia or the United States. All have denied involvement.

A joint investigation by The Washington Post newspaper and German outlet Der Spiegel singles out Roman Chervinsky, a 48-year-old who served in Ukraine's Special Operations Forces.

He was the "coordinator", the reports said, citing officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, as well as other people with knowledge of the operation, who spoke anonymously.

He oversaw logistics and support for a six-person team, which rented a sailing boat using false identities and diving equipment to place explosive charges on the pipelines, said the Post.

The blasts ruptured three of the four pipelines that make up Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, spewing gas into the Baltic Sea.

Chervinsky did not plan the operation or act alone, and took orders from more senior Ukrainian officials, the Post reported.

He denied any role in the sabotage through his lawyer.

Read moreNord Stream 2: Russia-Germany gas pipeline becomes a geopolitical lever

"All speculations about my involvement in the attack on Nord Stream are being spread by Russian propaganda without any basis," he said in a statement to the Post and Der Spiegel.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly denied his country was behind the sabotage.

"I would never do that," he told Germany's Bild newspaper in June, adding that he would "like to see proof".


Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe

But the Nord Stream operation was designed to keep Zelensky in the dark, the Post reported.

The two media outlets said the Ukrainian government did not respond to requests for comment on their investigation.

Chervinsky is currently on trial in Kyiv, accused of having abused his power during an attempt to persuade a Russian pilot to defect.

He says his prosecution is political retribution for having criticised Zelensky, according to the reports.

(AFP)

FRIENDLY FASCISM

President Zelenskyy signs fresh 90-day martial law extension bill

The New Voice of Ukraine
Thu, November 9, 2023 

Zelensky approves new terms of martial law

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has approved another extension of martial law in Ukraine, according to a relevant decree published on the website of the head of state on Nov. 6.

Martial law will be extended from 5.30 a.m. on Nov. 16 for 90 days – until Feb. 14, 2024.

Read also: Former Aidar leader warns Ukraine fighting troop shortages, mobilization not offsetting mounting casualties


The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was instructed to inform the UN Secretary General and foreign officials about this. They will also be informed about the restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens during the period of martial law in Ukraine, which is a deviation from the obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Verkhovna Rada voted on Nov. 8 for the ninth time to extend martial law and general mobilization in Ukraine for another 90 days.

Read also: Ukraine runs out of volunteers to mobilize, journalist says

Martial law was declared in Ukraine after the start of Russia's full-scale invasion. At the same time, general mobilization was announced.

During the general mobilization, all citizens of Ukraine liable for military service aged 18 to 60 can be called up for military service, unless they have legal grounds for deferment or exclusion from military registration.

The New Voice of Ukraine


HAPPY VALENTINES 💖 DAY

Ukraine extends martial law, mobilization until Feb. 14
Dinara Khalilova, The Kyiv Independent news desk
Thu, November 9, 2023 



President Volodymyr Zelensky signed into law on Nov. 9 two bills extending martial law and general mobilization for another 90 days.

The two measures have been prolonged until Feb. 14, 2024.

The president first declared martial law and general mobilization on Feb. 24, 2022, when Russia started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

This is the ninth time Ukraine has extended martial law since then.

Under martial law, Ukrainian men aged between 18 and 60, with some exceptions, are not allowed to leave the country as they may be called up for military service.

The Digital Transformation Ministry's head Mykhailo Fedorov said on Oct. 30 that the ministry was working on the so-called "smart mobilization" project aimed at recruiting military specialists on a voluntary basis.

The pilot phase of the project, expected to be launched within the next two months, will focus on finding drone operators for Ukraine's Armed Forces, the official explained.

 Kyiv Independent.



It's both a great time and a terrible time for Volodymyr Zelenskyy to have an election

Matthew Loh
Fri, November 10, 2023 

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during joint press conference with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on November 4, 2023 in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Viktor Kovalchuk/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has an 81% approval rating, according to a Gallup poll.


But he's declared that Ukraine won't hold a wartime election.


An election in the near future would be disastrous for Ukraine's democracy, experts say.

On Monday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that he wouldn't support elections while Kyiv is at war.

His statement put to rest questions that arose when foreign allies, such as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, suggested Ukraine hit the polls amid the war.

But the Ukrainian president's speech on Monday was loud and clear: no election.

"We must realize that now is the time of defense, the time of battle that determines the fate of the state and people, not the time of manipulations, which only Russia expects from Ukraine," he said. "I believe that now is not the right time for elections."

An election in the near future could technically be great for Zelenskyy, who holds a staggering 81% personal approval rating in Ukraine. That's according to a 2023 Gallup public opinion poll released on October 9.

Still, experts on wartime politics and a Ukrainian election watchdog said Zelenskyy's decision to delay the election makes sense. War should be the focus, and holding an election now would undermine Ukraine's democracy instead of upholding it, they said.

"Elections and war are incompatible," Opora, a Ukrainian civil society that monitors elections, told Insider.

Insider examined three key questions relating to Ukraine's wartime election season.
Can Zelenskyy delay or call for an election?

No, according to the Ukrainian constitution and electoral code. As the president of Ukraine, Zelenskyy has neither the power to cancel elections nor call them. That authority rests with the Ukrainian parliament.

But the country is currently under martial law, which prohibits the holding of elections and all political activity.

Zelenskyy was clear about this in a May interview with The Washington Post.

"If we have martial law, we cannot have elections," he said. "The constitution prohibits any elections during martial law. If there is no martial law, then there will be."

Ukrainian leadership must extend martial law every 90 days, and Zelenskyy just signed bills extending martial law until February 14, 2024.

Zelenskyy, who was elected in March 2019, would have been set to bid for reelection in a presidential race early next year.

"Of course, everyone understands that a range of civil rights are legally limited when martial law is imposed," Opora said. Under martial law, people can't hold mass gatherings like political rallies and have to abide by curfews.

"However, such restrictions are necessary in the warring country, and similar legal norms exist in many democratic states," the civil society added.
Why is Ukraine delaying the election?

For one, most Ukrainians don't want an election now.

"There have been nine surveys now where the public has in representative samples been asked whether they want elections during the war, and 65 to 80% have clearly answered that they cannot see elections happening during war," Peter Erben, Ukraine country director for The International Foundation for Electoral Systems, or IFES, said on October 26.

"I think we should listen to the Ukrainian public in this regard," he added.

Over 100 Ukrainian NGOs have signed a statement saying a wartime election is not feasible. The appeal, led by Opora, warned that "elections during the active phase of the war are extremely dangerous."

A country under martial law has little room for opposition campaigning or fair political media coverage, Opora told Insider. And with a war ongoing and millions of Ukrainians displaced, a significant number of voters won't show up to the polls, it added.

"In turn, the president would obviously be able to win the election now given the high level of support, but if there is no secure process on voting day, the low turnout will delegitimize the government as a whole," the civil group said.

A wartime election in Ukraine would also be rare, if not unprecedented, in modern Europe, Helmut Norpoth, a professor emeritus at Stony Brook University's department of political science, told Insider.

"Logic would probably dictate, even in a democracy, to postpone an election, which is sort of inherently divisive and partisan when you're trying to fight external enemies," said Norpoth, whose work focuses on elections and wartime politics.

Almost all modern democracies have delayed elections when enemy troops are on their soil, he said.

The only major exception in the world, Norpoth said, has been the US, which held elections during significant conflicts like the Civil War, the War of 1812, and World War II.
What would a wartime election look like?

If Ukraine did move forward with a wartime election, it would face a laundry list of serious challenges, the experts said.

Erben and Gio Kobakhidze, Ukraine deputy country director for IFES, wrote in September that in order for a wartime election to happen, "a number of preconditions must be met that are currently absent."

One major requirement is that Ukraine has to somehow provide voting access to its active troops, of which there are more than 1 million, and nearly 6 million refugees overseas, they wrote.

More than 5 million other people have been internally displaced in Ukraine.

Elections are also expensive, Opora said, in a time when Ukraine needs money for weapons, humanitarian aid, and medical supplies.

Voting infrastructure in Ukraine has also been devastated by the war, with buildings for polling stations such as schools and hospitals destroyed, Opora added.

Then there are the areas near the frontlines, where voters gathering en masse to cast their ballots could easily be targeted by a Russian strike — a problem when Ukrainians overwhelmingly want to vote in person, the civil society said.

"The electronic voting system cannot be used in the conditions when Russia interferes in elections around the world," Opora said. "Only 8% of citizens trust postal voting."

And Ukraine would also have to consider how it would provide access to its citizens in occupied areas of Russia, Norpoth said. Moscow holds about 20% of Ukraine's territory.

"They probably will not send any ballots to areas occupied by Russia, which is a little bit like what happened with the Civil War," Norpoth said. "Those residents will probably not have a chance."

Overall, Erben and Kobakhidze wrote, Ukraine's laws correctly recognize that a free and fair wartime election is implausible.

But they also emphasized that Ukraine should hold an election after the war and improve on voting measures.

Opora concurred. "Now Ukraine has to act the same way as any other Western democracy would do under the conditions of full-scale war — impose martial law and postpone certain processes," it said.

Zelenskyy had harsh words on Monday for anyone urging Ukraine to hold a wartime election.

"And we all understand that now, in wartime, when there are so many challenges, it is absolutely irresponsible to throw the topic of elections into society in a lighthearted and playful way," he said.

SORE LOSERS
Having Lost Abortion Vote, Ohio GOP Now Plans to Sabotage Results

Tori Otten
Fri, November 10, 2023 

Ohio state Republican lawmakers are once again trying to overturn the will of the people, after a devastating loss on abortion rights.

Ohioans overwhelmingly chose to enshrine abortion protections in the state Constitution earlier this week. Republicans had tried multiple times to block the referendum, called Issue 1, but they were handily defeated every time.

So on Friday, the state GOP unveiled a new tactic: stopping the courts from allowing the new amendment to take effect.

“To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative,” Republican state representatives said in a press release. “The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.”

The new amendment doesn’t take effect until December 7, and even then, it isn’t automatically implemented. Each individual abortion restriction needs to be repealed by a court. And Ohio has a lot of restrictions.

Abortion is legal up to 22 weeks, but certain abortion procedures are banned. Patients must wait 24 hours and undergo anti-abortion biased counseling before they can undergo the procedure. State-based insurance is prohibited from covering abortion services, and minors must have the consent of a parent, guardian, or judge in order to get an abortion.

As abortion reporter Jessica Valenti explained, Ohio Republicans don’t want the courts to repeal all of these restrictions. They want the GOP-controlled state legislature to decide whether to repeal the restrictions.

In the press release, lawmakers also blamed “foreign billionaires” for interfering in the election and tipping it in favor of abortion rights. In reality, right-wing billionaires and organizations donated millions of dollars from out of state (although still domestically) to try to block Issue 1.

This isn’t the first time Ohio Republicans have blatantly ignored—and actively worked against—what the people want. In August, they tried to raise the threshold for constitutional amendments to a 60 percent vote instead of a simple majority.

When that failed, the Ohio Ballot Board voted 3–2, along party lines, to change the text of the amendment on the ballot to a Republican-authored summary littered with inflammatory and fearmongering language.

Republicans have repeatedly refused to accept the results of elections on abortion, in a massive threat to local democracy. In Kansas, despite residents voting overwhelmingly in August 2022 to keep abortion rights in the state Constitution, the state legislature is still trying to pass laws that would restrict abortion access. And in Wisconsin, after voters elected a state Supreme Court judge in large part because of her outspoken support for abortion access, state Republicans tried to impeach her.

Officials in Russia-annexed Crimea say private clinics have stopped providing abortions

DASHA LITVINOVA
Thu, November 9, 2023




 Two pregnant women undergo an examination in a family planning center in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on July 23, 2003. Over three decades, Russia went from having some of the world's least-restrictive abortion laws to being what officials call a bulwark of “traditional values,” with the health minister condemning women for prioritizing careers over childbearing. 

(Ural Press Photo via AP, File)

TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — Russian-installed health officials in Crimea said Thursday that private clinics on the Moscow-annexed peninsula have “voluntarily” stopped providing abortions, which means that the procedure is now only available there in state-run medical facilities.

The move comes amid a wider effort in Russia to restrict abortion, still legal and widely available, as the country takes an increasingly conservative turn under President Vladimir Putin.

Over his more than two decades in power, Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has put “traditional family values,” as well as boosting the country's declining population, at the cornerstone of his policies.


As part of the effort, authorities in several Russian regions in recent months sought to convince private clinics to stop terminating pregnancies. In Tatarstan in central Russia, officials said about a third have agreed to stop offering abortions; in the Chelyabinsk region in the Ural mountains, several clinics did as well. In the westernmost region of Kaliningrad, local legislators said they were mulling a ban for private clinics.

A nationwide ban is also something lawmakers and Russia's Health Ministry are contemplating, alleging that private clinics frequently violate existing regulations restricting access to abortion.

State statistics show that private clinics in Russia, where free, state-funded health care is available to all citizens, accounted for about 20% of all abortions in recent years. Some women who shared their experiences in pro-abortion online communities said they preferred private clinics where they could get an appointment faster, conditions were better and doctors did not pressure them to continue the pregnancy.

Crimea's Russian-installed health minister, Konstantin Skorupsky, said in an online statement that private clinics on the peninsula some time ago "offered to contribute to improving the demographic situation by giving up providing abortions,” and as of Thursday, all of them had done so.

His statement did not mention the city of Sevastopol, which is administered separately, and it was unclear if private clinics there were still providing abortions.

Two chains of private clinics in Crimea contacted by The Associated Press on Thursday by phone confirmed they no longer provide abortions, citing orders from the management or the authorities. One said it's been about a month since they stopped offering the procedure to women.

Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 in a move that was not globally recognized. Ukraine has vowed to take back the peninsula.

Putin said last week that “the problem abortion is acute” in Russia, but there “is a question” on how to solve it: by imposing restrictions or introducing more support measures for families with children. The latter is something abortion opponents in Russia want to see, along with further restrictions like a ban for private clinics.

Women in Russia can terminate a pregnancy up until 12 weeks without any conditions, until 22 weeks in case of rape, and indefinitely if there are medical reasons to do it.

However, they must wait 48 hours or a week, depending on the stage of pregnancy, between their first appointment and the procedure itself, in case they reconsider.

They also are offered psychological consults designed to discourage them from terminating their pregnancy, and told to fill out an online “motivational questionnaire” outlining state support if women continue the pregnancy.

In Crimea, Skorupsky said about 21% of women seeking abortions between January and September 2023 changed their mind after having psychological consults.

New regulations adopted in recent weeks also restrict the sales of abortion pills used to terminate pregnancies in the first trimester and many emergency contraceptives, which are taken within days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy.

In addition, at least two Russian regions have outlawed “encouraging” abortions, and another is pondering such a ban.

No more abortions at private clinics in occupied Crimea, Russian proxies say

Abbey Fenbert
Fri, November 10, 2023



Russian-installed authorities in occupied Crimea said that private clinics throughout the peninsula have stopped providing abortions, the Associated Press (AP) reported Nov. 9.

The officials claimed that the clinics had "voluntarily" stopped offering the procedure, meaning abortions can only be accessed at government health centers.

The AP contacted two chains of private clinics in occupied Crimea who confirmed that they are no longer offering abortions. The clinics said the orders to stop the procedure came from management or officials.

One clinic said it has been a month since abortion services were provided at their site.

Konstantyn Skorupskyi, Russia's proxy in charge of the health ministry in Crimea, said in an online statement that the clinics had “offered to contribute to improving the demographic situation by giving up providing abortions."

Russia has been pushing for greater restrictions to abortion access under the leadership of dictator Vladimir Putin, who has cultivated an alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church. Anti-abortion messaging stresses traditional "family values" and the need to reverse the decline in Russia's population.

Officials in Russia's Kursk Oblast also reported on Nov. 9 that private clinics in the region had stopped providing abortions. Authorities in Tatarstan and Chelyabinsk previously announced that local private clinics had stopped offering abortions.

Pregnant patients in Russia who seek abortions are offered psychological consults that pressure them not to terminate.

Skorupskyi claimed that around 21% of women in Crimea who sought abortions between January and September 2023 reversed their decision after undergoing the consults.

Read also: Russia’s annexation of Crimea

CANADA
Unifor auto talks: a quiet end to one of the year's biggest labour clashes

The Canadian Press
Fri, November 10, 2023 



TORONTO — One of Canada's most highly anticipated set of labour talks in years wrapped up this week, but there’s no victory parade planned.

Unifor’s marathon three months of high profile contact talks with the Detroit Three automakers — where gains and losses often set the tone for other industries — instead ended with a tepid 60 per cent vote of support from Stellantis production workers Monday, before the union quickly moved on to other labour fights in a year that’s been full of them.

“It seems like every week we have another strike deadline that we're facing. This has been a very big bargaining year for us,” said Lana Payne, national president of Unifor in an interview.

But while the union has seen some 85,000 members at the bargaining table this year, expectations were especially high for the nearly 20,000 who work at Stellantis, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors.

After decades of concessions to the automakers, the combination of high frustration about the rising cost of labour and the record profits of the companies had combined to create what looked like a generational opportunity to claw back past losses.

“We told the automakers that the expectations were high, and nothing short of a historic collective agreement was going to get ratified in these moments,” said Payne.

The result was a deal that secured base wage gains for production workers of nearly 20 per cent, along with a long list of other improvements including to pensions, job security, a faster path to seniority, bonus pay and more vacation days.

The low approval rate at Stellantis, along with the 54 per cent vote in favour rate at Ford in late September, show just how high those expectations were among workers.

“The most fascinating part of this round of bargaining was the contrast between the relative strength of the pattern agreement, and the relative weakness of the ratification,” said Brock University Labour Studies professor Larry Savage.

“Workers aren't content to tread water in the context of a cost-of-living crisis; they expect their unions to deliver more at the bargaining table.”

GM workers, heavily weighted toward recent hires at the Oshawa plant who will benefit the most from the faster route to senior pay, voted 84 per cent in favour. But older workers at other plants, some whom have lived through decade of belt-tightening and job losses, clearly wanted to make up more ground.

“I don't think it's that older generation of workers got a bad deal. It's just that they remember what things used to be like,” said Savage.

The wage picture shows just how much things have changed. The starting rate for workers will go from the current $24.26 an hour $31.16 by the end of the contract for a notable 28 per cent jump.

But the starting rate in 2007 was $28.82, which is almost $41 in today’s dollars, said Tony Leah, a labour activist and retiree at the Oshawa local.

“They're getting big increases only because of how badly they've been treated over the last 10 or 15 years,” said Leah.

The voting results also don’t reflect the voices of the thousands of union retirees like Leah, who made some of the biggest concessions in past bargaining rounds.

In 2007, for example, workers agreed to pensions that weren’t linked to inflation, and so haven’t seen a penny increase since.

This year, Unifor secured $800 a year in a ‘health-care allowance’ for those workers, but it’s not guaranteed long-term, and amounts to little more than a coffee a day, said Leah.

“There was a lot of anger from retirees because we had been told that pensions were the No. 1 demand.”

Payne said the union made improvements on pensions across the board this year, including a shift back to defined benefit plans. She said the boost for retirees, the last concession they were able to squeeze out of Ford, is something they can build on, but that it’s also the area where companies are most resistant.

“When you go to bargaining table, the last thing, and the hardest thing to do, is to bargain improvements in pension plans.”

Given how far autoworkers wages and benefits had slipped, it was never going to be regained in one contract, said Peggy Nash, a past labour negotiator with the Canadian Auto Workers, Unifor’s predecessor.

“You can't redress changes that have taken place over many, many years, all in one contract. Collective bargaining is always incremental” said Nash, who now heads the advisory committee at Toronto Metropolitan University’s Centre for Labour Management Relations.

There’s always the potential to push for more concessions, but negotiations are based on relationships, and at some point negotiators need to decide they’ve met their key demands.

“You just make a judgment call at a given point in time that you have bargained as much as you're going to be able to get, without a significant amount of pain on both sides.”

Unifor did go on strike at GM and Stellantis after the companies resisted matching the terms agreed to at Ford, but they only lasted about as long as a shift before the union secured tentative agreements. It was a sharp contrast with the aggressive stance of the UAW which spent six weeks in escalating strikes.

The Canadian union faces the extra complication of making sure the American companies stay committed to Canada.

“It reflects the fact that the union in Canada wanted to walk tight rope between making significant gains at the bargaining table, without scaring the (Detroit Three) into pulling investments out of Canada,” said Savage.

Payne said the question of investments, especially as auto companies undergo the massive transformation to the electric vehicle future, is always close at hand.

“Every conversation I have with the CEOs of these companies is why they should be investing more in Canada.”

She said the union has set a template for other sectors, while also putting autoworkers back on the road to prosperity.

“We've achieved a lot here,” said Payne. “People will look back on this moment as kind of a turning point in terms of building the sector up, and having these jobs once again be the premium jobs in manufacturing in Canada.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 10, 2023.

Ian Bickis, The Canadian Press

‘Unique’ creature found living on volcano in Kenya is a new species. ‘Mind-blowing’

Brendan Rascius
Fri, November 10, 2023 

A colossal volcano in Kenya is home to a small, previously unknown species of toad, researchers discovered, challenging their understanding of amphibians in East Africa.

Not only does the toad belong to a new species, but it’s a member of an entirely new genus, according to a study published on Nov. 7 in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.

Researchers trapped a male specimen in 2015 along the craggy slopes of Mount Kenya, an extinct volcano and the second tallest peak in Africa.

“We were really surprised to see this animal – it didn’t look like anything we had seen before,” co-authors Patrick Malonza and Victor Wasonga said in a Natural History Museum news release


A new species of toad was discovered living atop a volcano in Kenya, researchers said.

The amphibian, given the name Kenyaphrynoides vulcani, is distinguished by brown and green markings and large fingertips — indicating it may be a skilled climber.

It’s also armed with spikes on its thumbs called nuptial spines, which allow males to latch onto females to breed, researchers said.

This discovery puzzled scientists because it throws a wrench into the concept of the “Kenyan Interval,” which describes the striking dearth in amphibian biodiversity in Kenya as compared to neighboring countries.

While Tanzania and Ethiopia are teeming with various kinds of amphibians, Kenya — as a consequence of its recurring tectonic activity — is believed to be more forbidding for frogs and other amphibians.

“Many of Kenya’s mountains are volcanic or geologically comparatively new, so to find an ancient lineage that has persisted for millions of years is mind-blowing,” Simon Loader, a vertebrate curator at the museum, said in the release. “It’s a real conundrum to figure out how it got here.”

In order to explain this quandary, researchers tentatively put forward a hypothesis.

“It seems like it might once have had a wider distribution and as the climate changed over the past (tens) of millions of years, it tracked the tropical forest as it moved, with the toad’s final destination being the top of Mount Kenya,” Loader said.

In order to better understand the “enigmatic species,” further studies will be required, researchers said.