Night Raids, Tear Gas, and Captivity

Reflections on a mother's eyes.

by Matthew Hoh Posted onNovember 27, 2023

Note: I originally intended this as a short post to provide videos and photos of my time in Palestine in 2017. With news of a possible hostage swap, my mind is on the terror that detention and captivity bring to Israeli and Palestinian families. At the end of this essay, along with the photos, is a documentary of our time in Palestine in 2017, it is violent and distressing.

As I type, reports are being posted that the Israeli government and Hamas are near a deal for a hostage swap.

More than nine years ago, I had dinner with Bowe Bergdahl’s parents. Bowe was the American soldier who had been held prisoner by the Taliban for nearly five years. At that point, 41 years old and having been to war three times, I had seen a lot. However, I had never seen a look of pain like I did in the eyes of Jani, Bowe’s mom, that night. The next day, President Obama announced Bowe’s release as part of a prisoner exchange with the Taliban.

I have been with mothers as they have buried their sons. Holding them as they are forced to accept the atrocity of a son being put in the ground transfers an agony to you that is unnatural and ghastly as if an unholy specter has entered your body, mind and soul to vandalize your past love and steal your future. Similarly, I once had the task of informing a young man of his brother’s death. Putting that kind of pain onto someone was the worst moment of my life.

But I had never seen pain like I saw in Jani’s eyes that night. A mother whose child is held captive in both unknown circumstances and well-understood violence is enduring a helplessness, grief and terror that should never be known.

Then I went to Palestine.

In 2017, I was part of a Veterans For Peace (VFP) delegation that spent three weeks in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. We spent our time with both Israelis and Palestinians, and on multiple occasions, we participated in non-violent resistance against the occupation. Many of those times, maybe most, we were met with a violent response from the Israeli security services as well as Israeli settlers.

We witnessed Palestinians endure the daily humiliation and subjugation of occupation – the checkpoints, the searches, and the house raids – to which, as foreigners, we were not subject, but, as veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq, we were familiar with committing. We heard and met those who had loved ones gunned down in the streets where they were born by an occupying power, again something with which we were familiar. There was also the apartheid, evident and apparent – separate roads, denial of water and land, eviction and destruction of housing, and, of course, a forbidden airport. These were rules, restrictions and restraints from which we were exempt, but the Palestinians were not. Yet, none of that is what scarred me.

In every village, town and city we went to in those three weeks, I saw a nightmare in the eyes of Palestinian parents that I had seen only before in Jani’s eyes. Of all the crimes of the occupation, we heard none so often and emotionally as the arrest of children.

Since 2000, the Israeli military and border police have abducted more than 500 Palestinian children a year. These arrests are almost always arbitrary, with night raids on a home and the child taken from bed. A day or two or three in custody, with little information provided to the family, during which the child is interrogated, treated roughly and abused, put in solitary confinement or not allowed sleep, and often forced to sign a confession in Hebrew, which they cannot read. Sometimes that confession is just nonsense; other times, it serves as a mark against the child, and, many times, chillingly, it implicates family members.

Most children are released in 24-72 hours, but some are not. Before October 7, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’tselem, at least 146 Palestinian children were being held, the majority without sentence, in Israeli prisons for “security” purposes. The New York Times reports that currently there are 200 Palestinian boys in Israeli prisons, along with 75 women and 5 girls. These women and children would make up the bulk of the Palestinians exchanged for Israelis in the reported deal. Overall, it is believed there are 7,000 Palestinians in Israeli detention.

This rendition of children is as systematic as it is arbitrary; no family can know whether or not their child will be next. A village or a neighborhood only has to be visited with one or two such kidnappings a year to strike a fear in parents that dominates every moment of their life, awake and asleep. It is a deliberate form of state terrorism meant to dissuade resistance to the occupation.

The terror, anger and debilitating apprehension I encountered in Palestinian families across the West Bank, one family after another, was only outdone by their determination to tell us what the occupation was doing to them. I don’t think what we witnessed will ever leave me, just as what I saw in Jani’s eyes will ever been forgotten. It certainly will never leave those who have had to bear it, and just like our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, with those checkpoints, shootings and night raids, the Israeli occupation has only served to engender and sustain resistance. A resistance that will only grow more violent and extreme as it is suppressed. What else could ever come from occupation, subjugation and humiliation?

Among those held in Israeli prisons are my friends Bassem and Ahed Tamimi (see the documentary at the end of this post). Bassem is a long-time leader of the non-violent resistance in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, a place, among others, where our VFP delegation encountered grenades, gas and live rounds. His daughter, Ahed, gained international attention several years ago when, as a minor, she was arrested by the Israeli military. Bassem was arrested in October without charge, as far as I know. More than 2,000 Palestinians have been detained along with Bassem in the West Bank during the last six weeks, while Israeli soldiers, border police and settlers have killed more than 200. This follows a mass subjugation campaign in the West Bank that saw more than one Palestinian shot dead by Israeli security forces and settlers each day this year before October 7. (Here is an excellent recent report by the AP on the current situation in the West Bank.)

22-year-old Ahed was arrested earlier this month by more than a dozen soldiers in a night raid on her family’s home. The charges against Ahed are of incitement on social media, specifically a post on Instagram. Ahed and her family reject the charges, saying the account that posted the offending words was not hers. I believe that. This war in Palestine is the most propagandized war of our lifetimes, and the use of social media to inform and misinform, rally and manipulate, and justify and condemn is one of its hallmarks. To masquerade as someone else on Instagram or hack an account to justify arrest, detention or worse, is simple. Before I stopped counting, I noted 20 Ahed Tamimi accounts on Instagram, with her picture in the profile. War, a house that has forever been built on lies, has entered a new era. As we are coming to understand, social media is as much a critical driver of war as the newspaper and telegraph line were, and the internet is as much a revolution in military affairs as the stirrup or gunpowder.

I hope the reports of a hostage swap are accurate and that the horror, grief and fear dominating hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian families will come to an end. Maybe by the time you are reading this, men, women, and children have been returned home to their families, and a pain I hope none of us will ever personally know will come to an end. Perhaps, for a relative few, there can be some relief amidst the ongoing death, fear and suffering.

---

Documentary and photos from 2017 Veterans For Peace Delegation to Palestine:

Documentary on VFP 2017 Delegation to Palestine, warning graphic content.

Outside the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. This might have been our only action that was not met with violence. (Photo: Ellen Davidson)

Non-violent action on Shuhada Street in Hebron. Shuhada Street, once a part of a thriving market and residential neighborhood, is off-limits to Palestinians. No more than five minutes later settlers and a platoon of soldiers arrived. (Photo: Ellen Davidson)

Advancing arm in arm with Issa Amro, one of many unheralded “Palestinian Gahndis” towards a line of Israeli Border Police in Hebron. Ray McGovern, the first red shirt on the left, had just been struck in the arm by a tear gas canister. (Photo: unknown)

Gassed in Hebron (Photo: Ellen Davidson)

Children in the Bethlehem refugee camp. (Photo: Will Griffin)

The apartheid wall in Bethany. Chris Smiley, filmmaker, pictured. (Photo: Matthew Hoh)

Outside the Knesset in Tel Aviv after having met with Palestinian MPs. The Palestinian MPs laid out clearly how Palestinian citizens of Israel were second-class citizens. (Photo: Ellen Davidson)

I had my falafel interrupted by Israeli Border Police, East Jerusalem. (Photo: Ellen Davidson)

Gassed again in Nabi Saleh 

Matthew Hoh is the Associate Director of the Eisenhower Media Network. Matt is a former Marine Corps captain, Afghanistan State Department officer, a disabled Iraq War veteran and is a Senior Fellow Emeritus with the Center for International Policy. He writes at Substack.

Four Myths About Putin

by Ted Snider Posted onNovember 27, 2023

In the Russo-Ukrainian war, US propaganda has exploited a time tested syllogistic sophistry. First you identify the nation at war with the individual who leads the nation. It is not Russia’s war on Ukraine, it is Putin’s war on Ukraine. Then you identify the individual with Hitler. At various times, Hilary Clinton, John McCain, Lindasy Graham, Marco Rubio and Zbigniew Brzezinski have all compared Putin to Hitler, as have James Clapper, Kevin McCarthy, Polish President Andrzej Duda, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and others. What powerfully follows psychologically, is that, since the war is a war against “a second Hitler,” any method used to stop him is morally and militarily justified.

A corollary of the Hitler strategy is the madman strategy. By labeling a leader a madman, you render him incapable of reason or, therefore, of negotiation in the public imagination. If he can’t be negotiated with, he can only be defeated on the battlefield. Like the Hitler strategy, the madman strategy is not new. Leading up to the 1953 coup in Iran, while officials privately compared Mohammad Mossadeq to Gandhi, they publicly painted him as unstable, irrational, hysterical and crazy. Putin has been painted as an irrational actor who cannot be reasoned with, trusted or negotiated with.

Putin is no Gandhi. Russia’s pounding assault on Ukraine has disqualified him as a nominee for a Nobel Peace Prize. But Putin is no Hitler.

Myth #1: Putin Wants to Wipe Ukraine Off the Map

The US has consistently accused Putin of seeking to annex Ukraine, end its sovereignty and erase it from the map.

But eliminating the state of Ukraine has never been a stated goal of the Russian military operation. Russia has several times listed their grievances and goals and that goal has never been among them. A guarantee that Ukraine will remain neutral and not join NATO, a guarantee that NATO won’t turn Ukraine into an armed anti-Russian bridgehead on its border, and assurances of protection of the rights of Russian speaking Ukrainians have all been consistently on that list. But wiping Ukraine off the face of the map has not.

John Mearsheimer has pointed out that “There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.” Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov recently reminded that Russia “recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine back in 1991, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which Ukraine adopted when it withdrew from the Soviet Union.” That Declaration of Independence says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs. . ..” That was “one of the main points for Russia,” Lavrov said before saying clearly, “In that version, on those conditions, we support Ukraine’s territorial integrity.”

Russia does not desire to erase a neutral Ukraine from the map; Russia does desire to erase NATO from Ukraine.

Myth #2: Putin Wants to Reestablish the Russian Empire

“The Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict, and I want to make that clear…[W]e have no interest in conquering additional territory,” Putin recently told an audience of scholars and diplomats. The war, he explained, is a war over a future security arrangement, over “the principles underlying the new international order,” not over acquiring more territory.

US president Joe Biden has claimed from the first day of the war that Putin “has much larger ambitions than Ukraine. He wants to, in fact, reestablish the former Soviet Union. That’s what this is about.” Reading from the same script, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that Putin has “made clear that he’d like to reconstitute the Soviet empire.”

But if Putin had wanted to reestablish the Soviet empire, he wouldn’t have waited until the 2014 coup that aimed to pull Ukraine into the Western sphere to act. He wouldn’t have resisted the mandate from parliament to use military force, not just in Crimea, but in all of Ukraine. At that time, that would have been an easy military feat. He would not have tried to prevent referendums in the Donbas that sought to leave Ukraine and follow Crimea to Russia, and he would have accepted them when they were held.

If Putin had wanted to reestablish the Soviet empire, he would have completed the conquest of Georgia when Russian troops defended South Ossetia from Georgian shelling in 2008. He would have marched the advancing Russian troops all the way to the capitol of Tbilisi and reclaimed Georgia. As in the Donbas, Putin would have recognized the declarations of independence by the ethnic Russian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And when he finally did recognize their autonomy following the Georgian invasion, he would have annexed them to Russia and not just recognized their autonomy.

There is no evidence in the historical record that Putin has sought to reestablish the Soviet empire.

Myth #3: Putin Has Not Been Serious About Negotiating Peace

Putin has always been serious about negotiating peace. In 2014, he did not annex the Donbas because he remained committed to solving the problems of the region by negotiating its autonomy within Ukraine through the Minsk Accords. It was the Political West that was not serious about negotiating for peace. It is now clear, because of their own testimony, that Germany, France and Ukraine used the Minsk negotiations as a deception to buy time for Ukraine to build an armed forces capable of achieving a military solution to the Donbas. Europe never intended to negotiate a peaceful solution. And the US never pressured them to do so nor gave Ukraine the support it needed to do so.

Putin, though, always remained committed to negotiating peace through the Minsk Accords. In 2014, he “believed that we would manage to come to terms, and Lugansk and Donetsk would be able to reunify with Ukraine somehow under the agreements – the Minsk agreements.” And on the eve of the war in 2022, he was “convinced” that there was “still . . . no alternative.” In the days leading up to the war, Putin continued to push for the implementation of the Minsk Accords. Geoffrey Roberts, professor emeritus of history at University College Cork, reports that Putin spoke with Macron on February 12 and complained of the West’s failure to prompt Kiev to implement the agreements and that the next day he told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that he believed a solution within the Minsk agreements was still possible but that Germany and France had to pressure Ukraine.

In December 2021, Putin pressed the US and NATO to negotiate mutual security guarantees, but the US was not interested in negotiating, and Russia’s central demand, not expanding NATO to Ukraine, was never on the table.

Once the war began, it was the US that was not serious about negotiating a peace, not Putin. Putin demonstrated his seriousness in several sets of talks, starting in Belarus in the first days of the war. According to Naftali Bennett, who was at the time prime minister of Israel and who was mediating negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Putin made “huge concessions,” and “there was a good chance of reaching a ceasefire,” but the US “blocked it.” Weeks later, Russia would again engage in sincere and promising negotiations in Istanbul. Those negotiations would produce an initialed tentative agreement. But, according to several sources who were present at the talks, the US blocked those talks too. It was not Putin who was not serious about negotiating a peace.

Myth #4: Putin is a Thug Who Murders His Opponents

A constant claim of the Political West is that Putin deals with political threats and opposition by having the opposition killed. “There is,” however, according to the late Stephen Cohen, who was professor emeritus of politics and director of Russian Studies at Princeton, “no actual evidence . . . to support” this claim.

Putin biographer Philip Short concedes that Putin may have “allowed a climate to develop” in which powerful people could order killings. But, he says, “contrary to widespread belief in the West,” Putin “did not” authorize the killings. Short argues that in a list of ten suspicious deaths of Putin critics compiled by The Washington Post in 2017, “only the death of Alexandr Litvinenko can be laid firmly at Putin’s door. All the others appear to have been killed for reasons unconnected with the Kremlin.”

Cohen argued that, even for that one death, despite the verdict that Putin was “probably” responsible for Litvinenko, “there is still no conclusive proof.” “Not a shred of actual proof,” he says, “points to Putin.”

None of this establishes Putin as the protagonist in history. But the many myths written in the west to paint him as the arch-antagonist – as the “second Hitler” – do not stand up under analysis.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on US foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets.  To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.

IMPERIALIST PIRACY

Greece PM laments lack of progress with UK on Parthenon Sculptures

The Parthenon Sculptures were removed  STOLEN 

by British diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 19th century.

PHOTO: Reuters

PUBLISHED ONNOVEMBER 26, 2023 


LONDON — Talks over a possible return of the British Museum's Parthenon Sculptures to Athens are not advancing quickly enough, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said on Sunday (Nov 26).

His comments came as he prepared to meet British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in the coming week.

Athens has long campaigned for the return of the Elgin Marbles, as they are often described.


The 75m of Parthenon frieze, 15 metopes and 17 sculptures were removed by diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 19th century, when he was ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, which was then ruling Greece.

"We have not made as much progress as I would like in the negotiations," Mitsotakis told BBC television on Nov 26. "I'm a patient man, and we've waited for hundreds of years, and I will persist in these discussions.

"We feel that the sculptures belong to Greece and that they were essentially stolen," Mitsotakis added before playing down the ownership aspect of the discussions and focusing instead on the importance of reuniting the sculptures with those in Athens.

GOT A RECIEPT?!

British officials say the works were acquired legally.

Sunak in March ruled out any change to a law that stops the British Museum handing the marbles back to Greece permanently, but the legislation does not prohibit a loan.

George Osborne, a former British finance minister who is chairman of the museum's trustees, this month expressed hope for a deal that would allow the sculptures "to be seen in Athens".

Mitsotakis is due to meet Sunak on Nov 28.

That meeting will come a day after the Greek Prime Minister meets Keir Starmer, leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party, which is riding high in opinion polls ahead of an election expected in 2024.

The Financial Times last week reported that Starmer would not block a "mutually acceptable" loan deal for the sculptures.

UK

Tories woo Middle East cash — just not for their beloved Telegraph

As Global Investment Summit tries to sell brand Britain, MPs and Telegraph journalists fear sale of conservative standard-bearer to UAE-backed fund.

There is mounting Conservative unease at the proposed acquisition of the Daily Telegraph — a staple of British conservatism for almost 200 years |

 Rob Pinney/Getty Images

BY STEFAN BOSCIA

POLITICO UK
NOVEMBER 26, 2023 

LONDON — Brexit Britain is open to the world — unless you’re a Dubai-backed fund trying to buy up the governing Tories’ favorite newspaper.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak faces an awkward dilemma Monday as his much-hyped Global Investment Summit coincides with mounting Conservative unease at the proposed acquisition of the Daily Telegraph — a staple of British conservatism for almost 200 years — to a fund backed by United Arab Emirates state money.

Amid mounting calls for an official review of the deal and deep concerns about press freedom, senior Conservative MP David Davis warned “being open for business is not the same as being naive.”

But Investment Minister Dominic Johnson told POLITICO on the eve of the summit that Britain needs to avoid being “sentimental about some of our so-called treasured assets” — and signaled he’s relaxed about the deal if the right process is followed.

It’s hardly the ideal backdrop as Sunak and other ministers spend the day in Hampton Court Palace, former residence of Henry VIII, trying to convince leaders from the world’s biggest companies to invest in the underperforming British economy. Ahead of the summit, the U.K. government said it had secured £29.5 billion worth of investment commitments in the country’s green energy, life sciences and technology sectors.

The Global Investment Summit will also play host to representatives from state-backed sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East — so expect schmoozing of representatives from the UAE to play a part.

A growing number of Tory MPs are already calling on Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer to launch an official review of the Telegraph deal. They fear a sale would precipitate a curtailing of editorial freedom at one of Britain’s largest newspapers.

Tory MP John Hayes, a standard bearer for the party’s right, has warned in a letter to Frazer that “material influence over a quality national newspaper being passed to a foreign ruler at any time should raise concerns.” Frazer said on Wednesday she was “minded” to issue a Public Interest Intervention Notice (PIIN), which would trigger a review of the sale by two British watchdogs. But she has not yet made a final decision.

“The truth of the matter is that these are really rather unusual investments,” warned Davis.

“We’re talking about a billion quid and the yearly profits of the Telegraph have never been above £40 million, which implies the interest in this is not simply financial and is something else,” Davis said. “Maybe when they look at it the UAE will be the best candidate, but we have to go through that process first.”

Art of the deal

The controversy has been months in the making, but came to a head last week.

Rishi Sunak faces an awkward dilemma Monday as his much-hyped Global Investment Summit coincides with mounting Conservative unease at the proposed acquisition of the Daily Telegraph | Pool photo by Ian Forsyth/AFP via Getty Images

Lloyds Bank took control of the the Telegraph and the Spectator, a favorite magazine of the Conservative grassroots, earlier this year in an attempt to recoup an estimated £1.1 billion outstanding debt owed by the Barclay family — the now former owners of the titles.

Lloyds last week approved an attempt by Redbird IMI, an investment vehicle controlled by Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, to buy out the Barclay family’s debt. It would allow the fund to take control of both publications without a planned auction.

It’s already sent alarm bells ringing in the Telegraph newsroom. Editor Chris Evans wrote an editorial last week urging any future owner of the paper to guarantee complete editorial independence in perpetuity.

Redbird IMI chief Jeff Zucker, the former president of CNN, insisted on Friday that the Telegraph would maintain its editorial independence in an interview with the Financial Times.

One member of staff at the title, granted anonymity to speak freely about their workplace, said they didn’t believe “a f*cking word” from Zucker.

The UAE ranked 145th out of 180 countries on the Reporters Without Borders 2023 Press Freedom Index. It’s a country where criticism of the royal family and members of the government is not tolerated.

Fiona O’Brien, the U.K. bureau director for Reporters Without Borders, said “inside the UAE, journalists” — including those at publications associated with the fund trying to buy the Telegraph — “often face interference in the editorial process.”

Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, who led UAE’s censorship agency for five years, will be a senior member of the new ownership of the Telegraph if the sale goes through, according to The Times.

Al-Jaber, coincidentally, is also the UAE’s president-designate for the looming Dubai-hosted COP28 climate summit.

The saga is creating serious headaches for the British government as it grapples with maintaining an economy open to vast swathes of state investment from countries who do not share the same democratic ideals as the U.K.

A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street last week did not deny a report in the Telegraph that the Foreign Office intervened in Frazer’s statement about the sale in order to tone down the language out of fear of offending UAE officials before the Global Investment Summit and COP28.

Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, who led UAE’s censorship agency for five years, will be a senior member of the new ownership of the Telegraph if the sale goes through 

| Ryan Lim/AFP via Getty Images

Taking a government position on selling a conservative-leaning newspaper to Middle Eastern state interests may also raise eyebrows. Ministers happily allowed investment into other revered British cultural institutions, including football clubs Manchester City and Newcastle United. The clubs are controlled by groups backed by the Abu Dhabi royal family and the Saudi Arabian regime respectively.

Manchester City’s owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is also the deputy prime minister of the UAE, is bankrolling the attempted acquisition of The Telegraph.
Open for business

Speaking to POLITICO, Investment Minister Dominic Johnson indicated he would not oppose the sale of a national newspaper to the UAE as long as the proper “judicial processes” were followed.

“The UAE is a first class and extremely well run country. I do a lot of work with them, I’ve always been immensely impressed by the caliber of leadership there,” Johnson told POLITICO.

“My view is that we remain an open economy and it’s very important we remain an open economy if we’re to have the wealth and investment to power this country.”


He added that “we can be quite sentimental about some of our so-called treasured assets” and that “the reality is that media and information has moved on and clearly most of us today don’t buy a physical newspaper or necessarily go to a traditional news source.”

A former Conservative cabinet minister said “our friends in the Gulf need to know that they are safe to invest in Britain — they certainly were under past prime ministers of both colors” and that any government push to intervene in the sale “is unhelpful.”

Sunak will likely to find the timing of the row unhelpful at Hampton Court Monday, where the investment summit’s sponsors include none other than Lloyds Bank.

US, Britain and other countries ink ‘secure by design’ AI guidelines

WE ALL KNOW SELF REGULATION DOES NOT WORK

SO LETS TRY IT AGAIN

The guidelines suggest cybersecurity practices AI firms should implement when designing, developing, launching, and monitoring AI models.




The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and 15 other countries have released global guidelines to help protect AI models from being tampered with, urging companies to make their models “secure by design.”

On Nov. 26, the 18 countries released a 20-page document outlining how AI firms should handle their cybersecurity when developing or using AI models, as they claimed “security can often be a secondary consideration” in the fast-paced industry.

The guidelines consisted of mostly general recommendations such as maintaining a tight leash on the AI model’s infrastructure, monitoring for any tampering with models before and after release, and training staff on cybersecurity risks.

Not mentioned were certain contentious issues in the AI space, including what possible controls there should be around the use of image-generating models and deep fakes or data collection methods and use in training models — an issue that’s seen multiple AI firms sued on copyright infringement claims.

“We are at an inflection point in the development of artificial intelligence, which may well be the most consequential technology of our time,” U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement. “Cybersecurity is key to building AI systems that are safe, secure, and trustworthy.”

Related: EU tech coalition warns of over-regulating AI before EU AI Act finalization

The guidelines follow other government initiatives that weigh in on AI, including governments and AI firms meeting for an AI Safety Summit in London earlier this month to coordinate an agreement on AI development.

Meanwhile, the European Union is hashing out details of its AI Act that will oversee the space and U.S. President Joe Biden issued an executive order in October that set standards for AI safety and security — though both have seen pushback from the AI industry claiming they could stifle innovation.

Other co-signers to the new "secure by design" guidelines include Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, South Korea, and Singapore. AI firms, including OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Anthropic and Scale AI, also contributed to developing the guidelines.

Sony facing $7.9 billion mass lawsuit over PlayStation Store prices

By Reuters News Service

November 27, 2023

Sony (6758.T) must face a mass lawsuit worth up to 6.3 billion pounds ($7.9 billion) over claims the PlayStation maker abused its dominant position leading to unfair prices for customers, a London tribunal ruled last week.

Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) was sued last year on behalf of nearly 9 million people in the United Kingdom who had bought digital games or add-on content through Sony’s PlayStation Store.

Alex Neill, a consumer advocate who has worked on previous campaigns, is bringing the case against Sony which is valued at up to 5 billion pounds ($6.23 billion) plus interest.

Her lawyers said the aggregate damages estimate of the case was up to 6.3 billion pounds in court filings last month.

She says the company abused its dominant position by requiring digital games and add-ons to be bought and sold only via the PlayStation Store, which charges a 30 per cent commission to developers and publishers.

The claim alleges customers have therefore paid higher prices for games and add-on content than they would have done.

Sony’s lawyers argued the case was “flawed from start to finish” and said it should be thrown out.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Neill’s case could continue, though it said people who had made PlayStation Store purchases after the case was filed in 2022 should be removed from the proposed claimant class.

Neill said in a statement that Tuesday’s ruling was “the first step in ensuring consumers get back what they’re owed”. Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE

UK

Nissan plans next-gen Leaf and two new electric models, including Qashqai

NOVEMBER 27, 2023
RIZ AKHTAR

Japanese car giant Nissan – one of the pioneers of mass-produced EVs with the launch of the Leaf more than a decade ago – has revealed plans for a next-generation Leaf and two new electric vehicle models as part of a multi-billion investment in the UK.

The two new fully electric offerings include the a mid-sized electric SUV, an all-electric Nissan Qashqai and a slightly smaller model, the electric Nissan Juke.

Nissan plans to invest £3 billion ($A5.7 billion) in the creation of three new factories at its EV36Zero hub in Sunderland where it will produce the new models, as well as batteries and respective infrastructure.

It is one of the largest EV investment initiatives to date in the country. The Sunderland hub is powered by a renewables micro-grid based around locally produced wind and solar, including a new 20MW solar plant.

NISSAN UK

The Qashqai SUV was the UK’s best-selling car in 2022 and makes up one in every five cars built in the country. The smaller Juke has also sold in large numbers with over one million cars making it onto the road. Both of these of course are the ICE models which will be electrified as part of this investment.

All three electric initiatives will be based around concept models, two of which were recently unveiled at the Japan Mobility Show.

This included the Hyper Urban Concept, a crossover EV that will form the basis of the electric Qashqai, the Hyper Punk Concept, that will form the basis of the Juke, a compact crossover, and the Chill-Out Concept, which was first unveiled in 2021 and will form the basis of the renewed Leaf.

Further information about the three models, including names, specifications and launch dates, will be released at a later time.

The announcement, made late Friday in the UK, follows Nissan’s confirmation that all its new cars in Europe from now will be fully electric, and that it expects its passenger car line-up in Europe to be 100% electric by 2030.

“Exciting, electric vehicles are at the heart of our plans to achieve carbon neutrality,” Nissan president and CEO Makoto Uchida said. “With electric versions of our core European models on the way, we are accelerating towards a new era for Nissan, for industry and for our customers.”

IMAGE; NISSAN UK

UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Nissan’s investment is a massive vote of confidence in the UK’s automotive industry.

“This venture will no doubt secure Sunderland’s future as the UK’s Silicon Valley for electric vehicle innovation and manufacturing.”

“Renault is taking over as the manufacturer of cars for the people”
Mike Rutherford thinks Renault is doing more than any other manufacturer when it comes to making affordable electric cars


by: Mike Rutherford
26 Nov 2023
2


Tuesday 7 November, 2023: the Government barks up the wrong tree by trying to answer the question that desperately few real-world motorists are asking. You know, the one about when inevitably expensive driverless cars we don’t want or need will be legal and insurable on UK roads, thereby putting countless hard-working, tax-paying professional drivers out of work and on the dole. Not clever.

A week later: the more clued-up, non-political ‘establishment’ did the opposite by asking – and to some extent answering – several of the more immediate concerns we have about the prices of, and future for, vehicles that run solely on electricity.

Cheapest electric cars on sale 2023

“EV demand in Europe to slow as customers await affordable electric cars,” warned the highly respected Reuters news agency. On the front page of the always- reliable Financial Times was the headline, “Electric car prices slashed after sales run out of juice.”

Even HSBC got in on the act by showing graphics clearly illustrating the current dramatic decline in the rates of EV sales growth across Europe and the United States. Of more immediate interest to buyers in Britain, the bank reckoned that average discounts on new electric cars in UK showrooms jumped from 6.5 per cent in August to 11.1 per cent last month.

The response from the Renault Group was instant and impeccably timed – or purely but deliciously coincidental. The Paris-based empire – led by Italian-born CEO Luca De Meo, ably assisted by his highly cost-effective factories in Eastern Europe, China and beyond – is well aware that the global EV industry’s business model (comprising generally excessive official retail prices resulting in sharply decelerating demand) ain’t working. Now there’s a surprise.

So the Group is now doing and saying more than any other large car maker about what’s broken. It already produces the least expensive pure EV in mainland Europe – the Dacia Spring. When it arrives in the UK in 2024, this urban runabout could start at under £20k.

And the good news continues after De Meo said last week that by 2026 he’ll bring back the Twingo – in pure-electric guise – below the psychologically important 20,000-Euro (£17,000) barrier. For those unable or unwilling to buy outright, the word is that this proper, small, pure-electric car will be available from as little as 100 Euros (£87) a month in some markets with incentives for EVs. By comparison, Citroen UK currently markets the Ami quadricycle from £99 a month (after a deposit of £1,337). Incidentally, Renault’s monthly figure of 100 Euros/£87 for the 2026 Twingo translates into precisely £20 a week.

Pay a bit more and you’ll get more from other imminent, temptingly priced, all-new Renaults, including the intriguing 4 and 5. Maybe a small Alpine or Dacia, or a product from the lesser-known Mobilize brand will be more up your street.

Regardless, at a time when Volkswagen has depressingly decided to ditch its entire entry-level up! range, Luca De Meo’s Renault Group is perfectly positioning itself to take over as the manufacturer of the car – or cars – for the people.

Deliveroo ruling in UK ‘could impact’ future Irish gig economy cases

But employment law experts say there are significant differences between case and Irish Supreme Court ruling in Domino’s case

THESE RULINGS HAVE GLOBAL LABOUR LAW IMPACT

The UK supreme court ruled Deliveroo riders are not employees.

 Photograph: David Davies/PA
Colin Gleeson
Mon Nov 27 2023 -

A ruling by the UK’s supreme court that Deliveroo riders cannot form unions or be recognised as employees could potentially have implications in the Irish courts in future gig economy cases, a leading employment lawyer has said.

The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain, which has the largest membership of app-based couriers in the UK, had fought the case in court for years, seeking to win formal collective bargaining rights for tens of thousands of Deliveroo riders.

However, the UK supreme court ruled that since riders are able to choose another person to cover their deliveries without Deliveroo’s involvement, the contracts between riders and the company do not constitute an “employment relationship”.

The case drew parallels with a ruling in the Irish Supreme Court last month which found delivery drivers for Domino’s Pizza should be treated as employees and not contractors. The drivers argued they were employees for tax purposes and Domino’s said they were independent contractors under “contracts for service”.

Jeffrey Greene, a partner in William Fry’s employment and benefits department, said that in spite of the similarities between the two cases, there are “notable differences” from a legal standpoint.

“The Domino’s case concerned a Revenue challenge as to whether the drivers be taxed as employees or not, whereas the Deliveroo case was a trade union seeking to officially represent Deliveroo riders in collective bargaining,” he said.

Mr Greene also said there were differences in the weight given by the two courts to different factors. One of these was the right of “substitution”, meaning the right of the driver to appoint someone else to do their work.

“The UK supreme court attached a very high weight to this question of substitution alone,” he said.

“A further distinguishing factor between the two cases is that Deliveroo riders had a very high degree of discretion over who they substituted in for their work, not even limiting it to other Deliveroo riders and not preventing the rider from profiting from that substitution.

“By contrast, in the Dominos case, the right of substitution was very limited and as seen as more akin to swapping shifts between co-workers.”

A Domino's Pizza delivery driver. Photograph: Jason Alden/Bloomberg

Mr Greene pointed out that UK decisions “are often quoted in arguments before Irish courts so you can expect today’s ruling and its arguments to potentially be referred to in later Irish gig economy cases by one side or another”.

Michael Doyle, employment partner at A&L Goodbody, agreed the Irish and UK supreme courts “appear aligned” on the issue of substitution being a key factor in determining employment status.


“Both accept that, as personal service goes to the very heart of the employment relationship, where there is an unconditional right to delegate the performance of this service to another person, that is inconsistent with the existence of an employment relationship,” he said.

Triona Sugrue, a knowledge consultant at A&L Goodbody, said an “obvious difference” between the two cases is that the UK case concerned adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights whereas the Irish case concerned tax law.

“As pointed out by the Irish Supreme Court in the Domino’s case, the particular legislative regime under consideration is a key factor in the overall analysis of whether or not an individual is properly considered an employee,” she said.

Ronnie Neville, a partner in Mason Hayes and Curran’s employment law and benefits team, said the Irish Supreme Court looked closely at and took guidance from various UK decisions on the “vexing question of employment status” when reaching its decision.

However, he said that while there are some common themes or features examined by both courts, the cases are “in fact very different”.

Mr Neville said Deliveroo riders in the UK were seeking recognition of riders as “workers” which is an intermediate employment status for many people whose working relationship has some features of an independent contractor and some features of an employee.


“This worker status in the UK confers some limited employment protections on the worker, including collective bargaining,” he said. “In Ireland, you are either an employee with full employment law protections or a contractor with no employment law protections, other than equality law.

“The court and tribunals both in Ireland and in the UK have strongly and repeatedly emphasised that they will not be bound by the description of the status of a worker set out in the relevant contract between the parties.

“That said, the contract is this starting point in any analysis of the relationship between the parties. Next, you look at the facts on the ground, how the de facto relationship actually operates.

“The Irish Supreme Court looked closely at the contract, and the nature of the relationship, between the company and the drivers before concluding, after detailed analysis, that the drivers were employees for tax purposes.”

Mr Neville said that those who regularly use contractors in their business in Ireland should review and consider the Irish Supreme Court decision from a risk evaluation and risk mitigation perspective.

€800 million to jolt the market: Europe’s hydrogen boosters activate

By Nikolaus J. Kurmayer | Euractiv.com
Nov 24, 2023

EU Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic has launched the EU's hydrogen bank in order to provide a jolt to the nascent market. 

[EPA-EFE/RONALD WITTEK]
 Euractiv is part of the Trust Project >>>

The EU’s Hydrogen Bank has begun operations and is offering €800 million to hydrogen producers to kickstart demand for the fuel crucial to industrial decarbonisation.

By 2030, Europe wants to produce 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen annually. To get companies to switch, Brussels is footing the difference between their ability to pay and the high prices charged by producers of clean-burning gas.

“Today’s launch is about connecting supply and demand for renewable hydrogen,” explained the EU’s new Green Deal chief, Maroš Šefčovič, when launching on 23 November.

Using revenue generated from the EU’s carbon price, currently at €80 per tonne, the “hydrogen bank” will match suppliers to off-takers and smooth over the price difference.

Doing so transparently will allow outside observers to understand the market dynamics of the developing hydrogen economy. Today, little hydrogen is traded as the main consumers and refineries tend to produce it on-site for their own use.

“It is about creating transparency about price points, which will help kickstart a European hydrogen market,” says the Commissioner.

A total of €3 billion was allocated to the scheme, the remaining €2.2 billion will be up for grabs early next year.

Support is capped at €4.5 per kilogramme and will be disbursed for ten years and once signed, production must start within five years. Given the budget, the entirety of the scheme could facilitate the production of a total of at least 0.09 million tonnes of hydrogen or 0.9% of the annual 2030 target.

Meanwhile, Germany’s domestic hydrogen procurement scheme, H2Global, is about €5 billion. Europe’s hydrogen industry has long hoped to marry the two schemes and for other EU countries to also put money into the bank and the idea was officially endorsed by Berlin leadership in May but has yet to be implemented.

More money for other technologies

Meanwhile, €4 billion of ETS revenues is also going towards deploying other decarbonisation technologies – beneficiaries of the hydrogen bank will be excluded.

Projects large and small can have 60% of their cost covered by the EU, provided they can prove their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, are cost-efficient and located in Europe.

“We are investing massively in this transition by using the revenues of emissions trading. This is a sustainable model that brings down emissions and boosts the competitiveness of European industry,” said the Green Deal chief.

In hopes of bolstering the EU’s clean technology manufacturing base, €1.4 billion has been earmarked with a target audience of producers of solar panel components, wind turbine parts, batteries, heat pumps and hydrogen electrolysers.

[Edited by Alice Taylor]