Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Democrats' snub of Netanyahu does not indicate end to widespread support for unconditional aid to Israel

Symbolic showing is not indicative of any meaningful change in the party's hitherto unwavering support for continued unconditional aid for Israel

Michael Hernandez |29.07.202
Attendees applaud during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., United States on July 24, 2024.


WASHINGTON

Democrats this week staged a historic boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress, with an unprecedented number of the party's federal representatives opting to skip the speech.

Netanyahu receives standing ovation from US lawmakers despite war crimes in Gaza

The symbolic showing is not, however, indicative of any meaningful change in the party's hitherto unwavering support for continued unconditional aid for Israel, even as the Palestinian death toll continues to mount, now rapidly approaching 40,000 amid acute shortages of daily necessities and medical supplies that have put the coastal enclave on the brink of famine and at risk of severe disease.

Nearly all of Gaza's population -- 1.9 million out of 2.3 million -- has been forced into internal displacement amid relentless Israeli bombardment that has turned much of the territory into a sprawling field of rubble.

The true death toll is feared to be much higher than the official toll reported by Gaza's Health Ministry because many of the missing Palestinians are presumed dead under the rubble. US-supplied weapons have been repeatedly linked to attacks that have killed scores of civilians, including children.

Many of the Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu's address said they were doing so because of the humanitarian catastrophe that his war has spawned, including Representative Ami Bera, who said: "It is imperative to agree to a cease-fire, release the hostages, and negotiate a future that promises peace and stability for Israelis and Palestinians."

US, Germany lead West in arming Israel’s war on Gaza



Representative Robert Garcia, another boycotter, said in October that "Palestinian and Israeli lives have equal value."

"Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas and must follow international law in their response," he said on X. "I support a humanitarian pause in order to prioritize rescuing hostages and getting food, water and aid to civilians."

"@POTUS is right that #Israel has a right to self-defense, and I commend him for emphasizing the need to focus on #Hamas & minimize harm to civilians. I grieve for the loss of innocent Israeli and Palestinian lives & worry for the safety of hostages as a ground incursion expands," Representative Steve Cohen said in October on X.

Group of Democratic lawmakers skip Netanyahu's address in Congress

But Bera, Cohen and Garcia, like dozens of the Democrats who partook in the protest, also voted to authorize a sweeping spending package to send Israel billions of dollars in US military assistance in April, when the death toll stood around 34,000, so that it could continue its war on Gaza.

Just 58 representatives voted against the supplemental, including 37 Democrats. At least 73 House Democrats boycotted Netanyahu, in addition to 23 senators, according to a tally compiled by Anadolu.

The sweeping volume of holdouts stands in stark contrast to the dozens of standing ovations Netanyahu received from many of the lawmakers present Wednesday.

Many other Democrats, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sought to portray their decision to skip the speech as a reflection of concerns with Netanyahu's leadership rather than an explicit renunciation of Israel's actions in Gaza.

"Benjamin Netanyahu’s presentation in the House Chamber today was by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States. Many of us who love Israel spent time today listening to Israeli citizens whose families have suffered in the wake of the October 7th Hamas terror attack and kidnappings," she said after Netanyahu's address.

"These families are asking for a cease-fire deal that will bring the hostages home – and we hope the Prime Minister would spend his time achieving that goal," she added.

As Netanyahu addressed the gathering at the Capitol, thousands of demonstrators gathered outside, protesting him and Israel's ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. They called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and denounced the decision to grant the Israeli leader one of the highest honors possible for a foreign leader.



On US trip, Netanyahu found support as usual — but also problems ahead

Relationship with US is crucial to Israel, making Netanyahu’s trip of vital importance.

Netanyahu waves at Congress speech

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is used to being the centre of attention on his trips to the United States, basking in the glow of bipartisan support and ignoring the few American politicians who choose to criticise his country.

But his latest trip came at an inflexion point in the race for the US presidency, with Democrat President Joe Biden announcing the day before Netanyahu’s arrival that he would be dropping out of running for re-election. Instead of finding politicians eager to meet him, Netanyahu spent most of his trip being overshadowed by local events.end of list

Then, he was forced to cut short his trip after a rocket attack on a Druze town in the occupied Golan Heights killed 12 people on Saturday. Israel has blamed Hezbollah for the attack, but the Lebanon-based group has denied responsibility.

While the European Union called for an independent investigation into the incident and most countries avoided blaming either side, the US accused Hezbollah of being behind the attack, underscoring Netanyahu’s reliance on Washington at a time when he is increasingly isolated at home and internationally.

The Israeli leader’s domestic popularity is at an all-time low, with many Israelis frustrated at his inability to secure the release of captives taken during the Hamas-led attack on October 7, and who continue to be held in Gaza.

In Washington, DC, Netanyahu was able to give his fourth address to the US Congress – the most of any foreign leader – with a cheering audience applauding what felt like every other word. But dozens of lawmakers boycotted the event in protest of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, where its military has killed almost 40,000 Palestinians since October 7.

Netanyahu was able to meet Biden, the Democrats’ new presumptive presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

However, Harris followed the meeting by highlighting the suffering of the people of Gaza. Even Trump said last week that Israel needed to end its war on Gaza quickly because of the bad publicity and because the world was “not taking lightly” its war.

The presidential race

The timing of Netanyahu’s trip, coming as the US presidential election environment began to heat up, was always going to be difficult, say analysts. The Israeli leader faced a tough balancing act, keeping all sides of the US political divide happy and avoiding any perception that he was supporting one side over the other.

And what was looking like a presidential race with Trump as a heavy favourite has now turned more evenly balanced as the Democrats get behind Harris. The vice president has been eager to energise her party’s base and one way is to signal a more pro-Palestinian policy than Biden’s.

“Netanyahu’s main takeaway is probably going to be that Harris is likely to be less of a blank cheque for him than Biden has been already, on the Democratic side, even if that’s minimal,” said HA Hellyer, a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Institute’s Middle East programme.

“More than that, he appears to have resolved the rift with Donald Trump on this trip, who was reportedly furious with Netanyahu when the latter congratulated Biden on his victory in [the] 2020 [presidential election].”

“One should expect Netanyahu to continue precisely as he has done thus far, until at least the elections in November,” Hellyer added. “Both a Harris presidency and a Trump presidency will prioritise support for Israel, but it’s a question of how much, and Netanyahu definitely prefers a Trump one.”

Some analysts believe, however, that a win for Trump – notorious for his temperamental personality – can also have downsides for Netanyahu, hence the importance of a positive meeting on this trip.

“It’s not as straightforward as you might think,” said Mitchell Barak, a pollster and former Netanyahu aide.

“Netanyahu knows that Biden will overlook personal disrespect if it means he can continue to help safeguard Israel. With Trump, that’s not the case. With Trump, it’s very much about the personal. He needs to know he’s respected,” Barak said.

Netanyahu’s address to Congress was evidence that for the majority of politicians in Washington, DC – particularly on the Republican side – full-throated support for Israel is still the standard. According to Hellyer, the prime minister’s trip, therefore, was more about maintaining the current US position and making sure the voices of dissent do not get louder – even if that risks antagonising his critics.

“The US-Israeli relationship more broadly hasn’t changed much as a result of Netanyahu’s trip, but there are trends that are changing that relationship over time, which this trip plays into,” Hellyer said.

“[Washington] DC’s relationship with Israel is no longer as bipartisan as it used to be, and a big part of the reason why is Netanyahu’s engagement directly into American politics. He just did more of that, and [those dissenting] in the Democratic Party on Israel will just see his trip as more evidence of why their dissent is important

Domestic troubles

Netanyahu found a more receptive audience in the US Congress than he often does in the Israeli Knesset.

In fact, as American lawmakers whooped and cheered his speech – once even being asked by Netanyahu to stop and listen – politicians and opponents back home were criticising him.

“What about the hostages? What did you say about [them] besides empty words,” said opposition leader Yair Lapid.

On the streets, the protests that began before the war over his proposed judicial reforms continue, even if their focus has shifted. Now, thousands of Israelis fill the streets of Tel Aviv and other locations across Israel, calling for a deal that ultranationalist members of Netanyahu’s coalition cabinet inevitably refuse, threatening the prime minister’s grip on power and bringing a reckoning both for his inaction on October 7, as well as longstanding corruption charges, closer.

Many Israelis, therefore, see his trip to the US as a chance to take a break from his troubles back home.

“He wanted to escape,” said Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former consul general to the US between 2000 and 2004. “It’s a vanity tour, pure and simple. He’s doing what he thinks a prime minister does: speaking. Not working on policy or negotiations, just speaking.”

“Congress has provided everything [Netanyahu] asked for, and more,” Pinkas added. “That he wanted to thank them is understandable, but that’s a Zoom call, not an international visit.”

With those issues at home and continued global isolation, US support is more vital than ever for Israel.

The US provides Israel with arms, economic aid and diplomatic cover at the United Nations. It has also turned its ire on international institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) when they focus on Israel.

It is why the US is always such an important stop for Netanyahu. But while Israel still has strong support in Washington, despite its devastation of Gaza, the increase in US politicians willing to openly criticise Israel will be worrying if it is indicative of a wider shift coming.

“The US government is nearly the only supporter left in the world for Israel,” said Omar Rahman, a fellow at the Middle East Council. “Even in Europe, support is wavering.” Rahman cited the example of the UK, where a new Labour government has pulled back from challenging the ICC prosecutor’s call for warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. “So it makes sense to try and shore up that support in Washington,” he said.

“While most Israelis won’t buy much of what he said, especially regarding getting back hostages, his speech and the enthusiastic reaction of American congresspeople signals his unique power in Washington,” Rahman continued.

“For an American – and international – audience, he was able to make his case. However flimsy and discredited it may be, it still resonates with many. And he wants the US government to continue to back him and his war in the face of mounting international pressure, especially from international courts.”

 

Assessing Netanyahu’s Not-So-Great DC Trip

Netanyahu's speechJuly 29, 2024
By | Jul 29, 2024

Netanyahu's speech


How do you turn a week that began with the attempted assassination of a presidential candidate and ended with the sitting president dropping out of the race, into five points? Let’s give it a try.

1. Bridge building? Bibi’s not into that 

Many things can be said about Benjamin Netanyahu’s July 24 address to Congress. It was well-crafted, it artfully framed Israel’s war in Gaza as a struggle America and the West should care about, it was carried live by all major networks, and it won dozens of standing ovations from members of Congress.

But most of the praise came from the Republican side of the aisle.

In 54 minutes, Netanyahu did everything in his power to justify the actions of his government and to appeal for American and international support, but he did nothing to reach out to Democrats or to the Biden administration. The Israeli prime minister, who notably did not get a handshake from Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer when walking up to the dais, went through his speech without touching on any of the issues Democrats had been raising for months. Netanyahu did not mention the hostage deal, which Biden has put his weight behind and in which his administration is investing all of its diplomatic capital; he did not provide explanations to the heavy civilian death toll caused by the Israeli military in Gaza; and he shrugged off claims of malnutrition and starvation by arguing that Gazans get more than 3,000 calories per day thanks to aid convoys Israel allows in. Netanyahu did not lay out any plan or date to end the war, nor did he mention the idea of a two-state solution.

To be clear, no one expected Bibi to paper over his policy differences with the Biden administration, nor was there any hope among Democrats that a leader known for decades as a hardliner on all issues relating to the rights of Palestinians for self determination would suddenly become a bleeding heart liberal once he steps on the House floor.

But there were simple steps Netanyahu could have taken in order to signal to the already skeptical Democratic side that he came to Washington with a true bipartisan message: Key among these steps would have been acknowledging the hostage release deal that’s on the table and expressing a commitment to turning this deal into reality. It’s not that much to ask, given that the deal is fully based on a plan that Netanyahu himself presented, and it would have gone a long way in assuaging Democratic concerns that Bibi wants the war to drag on and has no intention of finalizing a deal.

2. For Dems, the chasm deepens

This did not go unnoticed—or unanticipated.
Roughly half of the Democratic caucus members in both the House and the Senate boycotted Netanyahu’s speech. Those who attended sat mostly silently, rarely joining in applause or standing up. (Rashida Tlaib decided not to boycott, instead she held up a sign reading “war criminal” during the speech.)

Democrats’ response to Netanyahu’s speech ran the gamut from disappointment to anger, but a Tweet from speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi crystallized the feeling shared that day by so many on the Democratic side: “Benjamin Netanyahu’s presentation in the House Chamber today was by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States,” she wrote in her post.

Netanyahu, to his credit, did thank Biden in his speech, “for his tireless efforts on behalf of the hostages and for his efforts to the hostage families” and for his “heartful support for Israel.” He also threw in a line about Biden calling himself a “proud Irish-American Zionist.” (Bibi gave equal time to former president Trump, and read a laundry list of actions Trump took as president to help Israel.)

But while Netanyahu could have tried a little harder to show his gratitude to Biden—the president who traveled to Israel in the midst of a war and who pushed through Congress an emergency aid package of historic proportions—it’s not about showing appreciation. What got Democrats so angry was the feeling that Netanyahu has chosen to willfully and fully ignore the Biden administration’s requests to focus on the deal that is on the table and to finally sign an agreement that would release the hostages, bring about a cease-fire and potentially end the war. “Many of us who love Israel spent time today listening to Israeli citizens whose families have suffered in the wake of the October 7th Hamas terror attack and kidnappings,” Pelosi went on in her X post. “These families are asking for a ceasefire deal that will bring the hostages home—and we hope the Prime Minister would spend his time achieving that goal.”

Quite frankly, it takes a lot for an Israeli leader to get a mainstream Democrat like Pelosi to use such harsh words or to drive veteran New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, one of Israel’s top supporters and for some the unofficial dean of Jewish Democrats in Congress, to call Netanyahu “the worst leader in Jewish history.”

3. Kamala Harris and the daylight factor

Netanyahu’s next day in Washington wasn’t any better in terms of his relationship with the Democrats. After being snubbed for a year and a half, the Israeli leader finally made his way to the White House for an Oval Office meeting with Biden. It didn’t seem to go very well. Biden quickly shook hands with Netanyahu as the two leaders exchanged brief pleasantries (and yes, Biden did mention Golda Meir) before the press was ushered out. After about 90 minutes, Biden called in representatives of the families of U.S. citizens held by Hamas in Gaza to join the meeting. The families, whose loved ones are all Israeli citizens as well, sat on Biden’s side of the table, sending Netanyahu a clear message that when it comes to the need to sign a deal, they’re with Biden.

From there Netanyahu hopped over to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for a 40-minute meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris, who is now also the unofficial Democratic presidential candidate. That didn’t appear to go well either. Shortly after Netanyahu departed, Harris called in the press and read out a statement about the meeting, which she described as “frank and constructive.” In her statement, Harris said that it is “time for this war to end” and expressed her “serious concerns” over the killing of civilians in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis caused by the war. “We cannot allow ourselves to be numb to the suffering, and I will not be silent,” she said.

An hour later, Harris’s statement was met with a response from a senior Israeli official who claimed that the vice president’s comments could harm the hostage negotiations, because Hamas will sense that the United States and Israel are not on the same page.. “We have no idea what they’re talking about,” was the response of a Harris aide to these claims.
Much of this goes back to the notion that Harris is and will be tougher on Israel than Biden, that there is daylight between the positions held by the president and those of his vice president and potential successor. The White House has pushed back against this perception, noting that Harris laid out in her comments after the meeting exactly the same principles Biden has presented to the Israelis many times.

Earlier last week I asked Haile Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, who served in the past as Harris’s Senate national security adviser, about the perception of Harris playing “bad cop” while Biden maintains a more positive approach toward Israel and Netanyahu. “The vice president is in lockstep with the president. There’s really no daylight between them,” she replied.

4. The hostage families call it like they see it

Walking out to the White House front lawn after their joint meeting with Biden and Netanyahu on Thursday, families of the U.S. hostages expressed a mix of optimism and anger. They were optimistic about what they understood as a commitment from both leaders to take the needed steps to advance the hostage release deal, but they were angry at Netanyahu. Here’s what Ronen Neutra, whose son Omer is being held captive by Hamas, had to say after the meeting: “The prime minister was distanced and lacked sensitivity, in contrast to the warm response and embrace we received from Biden, and I can’t understand this,” he said. “How is it more important for the American president to bring my son home than it is to the Israeli prime minister?” Neutra described the hostage families’ conversation with Biden after Netanyahu left the room, quoting Biden from memory as saying: “I will do everything in my power to bring them back.”

Aviva Siegel, who was released from captivity in December and whose husband Keith is still held in Gaza, said she came out of the meeting believing that Netanyahu wants to continue the war and that he is not willing to sign the deal now. “What can I do? I can scream, I can cry, I can hurt, I can talk, and that’s what I’m doing,” she said on a Sunday Zoom meeting with members of the activist group UnXceptable DC.

5. Heading south to Mar-a-lago

Hoping for some reprieve, perhaps, Netanyahu, with his wife Sara and team of advisers, flew down to Florida early Friday morning to meet with former president and 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump.

It’s been a tense few years for Trump and Netanyahu. The former president, still mad at Netanyahu for calling Joe Biden to congratulate him on his win in the 2020 election, has been publicly criticizing Bibi ever since. The pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago helped sort things out.

Trump gave Netanyahu a warm welcome, showered praise on Sara Netanyahu, and spent most of the meeting talking about his achievements in the region and how, if elected, he will bring peace to the Middle East.

Was this Netanyahu’s silver lining in an otherwise frustrating visit to the U.S.?
Probably not.

The former president may have given the Israeli leader the photo-op he needed, but Trump’s message on the Gaza war was anything but what Netanyahu wanted to hear. Israel, Trump had said in a Fox News interview, must end the war, “and get it done quickly.”

Wait a second, isn’t that exactly what Biden and Harris told Netanyahu?

Turns out that when it comes to his plan to extend the Gaza war until Israel achieves “total victory,” Netanyahu may have won over congressional Republicans, but when it comes to America’s current and future leaders, he is all alone.



US says it requested information from Israel on Rafah water reservoir bombing

THEY DIDN'T CLEAR IT WITH US

State Department highlights 'importance of not targeting civilian infrastructure' such as water, sewage treatment plants

Rabia Iclal Turan |29.07.2024


WASHINGTON

The US has requested additional information from Israel regarding reports of its bombing of a drinking water reservoir in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, said State Department on Monday.

"We have been in touch with our partners" in Israel and its military, Deputy Spokesman Vedant Patel told reporters when asked about the reports. "We've sought out additional information as to what happened".

"Over the course of this conflict, you have seen myself, Matt (Miller) and others speak clearly about the importance of not targeting civilian infrastructure, things like water, sewage treatment plants. Of course, such a facility like this one would be inconsistent with that," he added.

Earlier on Monday, the Israeli army admitted that its soldiers were responsible for the bombing of the water reservoir in Tal al-Sultan. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, an investigation into the incident has been initiated.

The incident has raised alarm about the worsening water crisis in the area.

Activists have recently circulated a video on social media showing an Israeli soldier planting an explosive device at Tal al-Sultan's main water reservoir, which was then detonated.

One of the soldiers posted a video of the explosion on social media with the caption "Destruction of the Tel Sultan water reservoir in honor of Shabbat," the daily said.

Local institutions and municipalities in Gaza have repeatedly accused the Israeli military of deliberately destroying water networks, wells, and desalination plants, exacerbating the drinking water crisis.​​​​​​​

Also, fuel restrictions imposed by Israel have further hindered the operation of remaining desalination facilities in the region.
What’s AI doing in the chemistry lab?

AI may not be just for automating mundane tasks. It turns out, it can do its own mixing with beakers of chemicals to create new compounds and chemistries.


Eric White@FEDERALNEWSCAST
July 29, 2024 

AI may not be just for automating mundane tasks. It turns out, it can do its own mixing with beakers of chemicals to create new compounds and chemistries. These interactions can be used to make some interesting new technologies and materials. To learn more, Federal News Network executive producer Eric White spoke to Jen Sovada, president of Global Public Sector for SandboxAQ, one of the purveyors of these AI platforms — on the Federal Drive with Tom Temin.

Interview transcript:


Eric White
Why don’t we start there. Everyone knows what AI is capable of more and more these days, and it’s being talked about using it for data entry and things like that. But this is actually putting a lab coat on it and having do some experimentation, for doing quantum level calculations, why don’t you just kind of lay out what it is that you all have here.

Jen Sovada
It’s exciting. We’ve seen recently a lot in the news, large language models. And the idea that these models can help with artificial intelligence for language. And we can do customer service, we can do software code, we can do a lot of media related things. But what we’re looking at are large quantitative models. So LQMs. And what they are, is they’re marrying artificial intelligence for physics, chemistry, biopharma as well as finance. And they really are at the forefront of taking large amounts of data, and training it based on physics based technology to produce an entirely new molecules from scratch, and getting desired sets of combinations based on the properties that we’re trying to look for.

Eric White
So this is basically, I made the joke of an AI model mixing and matching on beakers, but they’re doing the lab side of things, they’re more the chalkboard in the background, so to speak.

Jen Sovada
That’s exactly right, what we do is we try to figure out what types of molecules can combine together based on a set of standards or requirements from our customers, such as the US Army, and then we identify based on those parameters, what the best solutions are, and it’s probably not going to be the number one that the thing that’s going to work. But instead of giving them 250 different types of molecules, we now can give them 10 to 15 to 20 molecules based on different parameters such as toxicity, or lifecycle, or is it eco friendly? And then if we’re looking at material science, looking at things like, can it survive being shot at? Will it be a lot lighter, so that it can go on an airplane instead of on a ship? And many other types of requirements and characteristics?

Eric White
It is those agreements that you have signed with the US Army that got me interested in this project? What exactly is it that they were looking for, and that you’re going to be doing with them?

Jen Sovada
As we know that the Indo Pacific Theater is really an area of concentration right now, and something that all of the combatant commands, but in particular, those combatant commands like INDOPACOM, transportation commands, and many others that are focused on how do we fight and win and deter in the INDOPACOM theater for the likes of China, and also, we are moving on up into Russia, especially with the conflict we have in the Ukraine. And some of the things that the US Army has identified is that they have a lot of really good equipment, but it is based on fighting in Europe, or it is based on fighting in the Middle East. And so you think of a tank, a tank is extremely heavy. And right now, based on the size of a tank, you can actually fit two tanks in the C17, so a large cargo aircraft. But in reality, you can only put one in the aircraft because the tank is too heavy. And it maxes out the weights that a C17 can carry. And so one of the things that the US Army is interested in is, how do they build the next generation tank that enables them to have a lighter weight vehicle with the same amount of survivability, with the same ability to maneuver and sustain, but also look at something that is made of materials that are more ecologically friendly. And so what we’re doing is we’re partnering with the US Army to try to figure out what kind of molecules that they could test in the laboratory. So we’re doing it in silico. So in the computer, so that they can go and do it in the laboratory, and start with a vast smaller number of molecules to test rather than trying to pick any and every combination that’s out there in the world. The second contract we’re doing is looking at batteries. The US Army uses a lot of batteries. You think of a soldier, for example, a soldier has 10s of 20s of pounds of weight for batteries that they carry with them, because they need them to run all of the equipment that they have. As an example the US Army is looking to try to find ways how do you like batteries increase the shelf life, increase the Usage Timelines, and also not be reliant on rare earth minerals. So we’re talking to the US Army about how do we do that as well.


Eric White
We’re speaking with Jen, Sovada she is the president of Global Public Sector for SandboxAQ. And so yeah, this seems like kind of a strange use for this technology. I only say strange, just because it’s not the first thing that anybody thinks of, it’s like looking at a horse and thinking that you can make glue out of it. How did this idea come about and give me a little bit of the background in history on it? Because, obviously this isn’t the first idea that people have with it.

Jen Sovada
It really started with looking at how could we impact the pharmaceutical industry. COVID had a big impact on the SandboxAQ team. The sandbox started inside of Google before COVID hit. And we’ve worked through COVID, to try to identify product market fit, what were people interested in. And the idea that we had commercial companies working really, really hard to find a vaccination for COVID led us to think about how can we use quantum technology and artificial intelligence to enable us to get to drug discovery faster. Right now, the average time to go from an initial idea to a drug that’s been FDA approved and out in the market takes 16 years. With an AI simulated capability, we can decrease that by seven to 10 years of timeline, because we no longer have to do many, as many phase one, which is the early phase experiments with the different types of molecules. We can now run rapid accelerated processing of different parameters and different combinations in a computer setting in Silico, with artificial intelligence and continually training and improving our results on that data, and then give that to the pharmaceutical company that can take that data and now when they are going through their trials, they don’t have as much time that they need to complete the full lifecycle of that drug discovery. And that’s what led us to thinking about this as a bio biological process, what other biological processes are out there? And then you think about how materials are built and how batteries are built, and it’s very much in line and the same throughput of how we do it.


Eric White
Applying it to the defense sector, you’d won’t have to build Los Alamos anymore to build the weapon of the future, it seems, which doesn’t make for as interesting of a movie. But what can you tell me about the potential for this and where this is headed? And what’s the status of the two ongoing projects that you do have right now.

Jen Sovada
We just kicked off the project. So we’re still trying to figure out, what are we going to actually do? How long is it going to take? What are they really interested in and building that plan that we have? Because it’s this is a partnership with the army, and we hope that it will be a long term partnership with them. What’s the reality of what can happen? I think that if you think beyond what is developed today, to what can be developed tomorrow, is there’s a lot of potential there. If we can no longer need to rely on China, for rare earth minerals, for example, we’ve identified something else that we can do to create batteries that have long life, and are ecologically friendly, so that when we try to recycle them, they actually don’t create toxicity in the environment. That would be amazing. And then from a material science perspective, what’s the ability for us to create the skin of the next sixth through 10th generation fighter that we might need for the US Air Force or the US Navy? What can we do from a ship perspective to increase survivability, or from a submarine perspective where we don’t need to have submarines that weigh as much that they might be more maneuverable, that might be more survivable? Because we found even stronger materials that are lighter weight, and then we can put more into the submarine for sensing and for data collection. So I think that really your own limitations and how you think about this or what can hold you back, when in reality the options and the opportunities are endless.
As climate changes fuels hotter temperatures, kids are learning less

Rising temperatures mean dehydrated, exhausted kids, but some policy makers are starting to take notice





by Jessica Kutz July 29, 2024

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox. Consider supporting our stories and becoming a member today.

Angela Girol has been teaching fourth grade in Pittsburgh for over two decades. Over the years she’s noticed a change at her school: It’s getting hotter.
This story also appeared in The 19th



Some days temperatures reach 90 degrees Fahrenheit in her classroom which, like many on the East Coast, isn’t air-conditioned. When it’s hot, she said, kids don’t eat, or drink enough water. “They end up in the nurse’s office because they’re dizzy, they have a headache, their stomach hurts — all because of heat and dehydration,” she said.

To cope with the heat, her students are now allowed to keep water on their desks, but that presents its own challenges. “They’re constantly filling up water bottles, so I have to give them breaks during the day for that. And then everyone has to go to the bathroom all the time,” she said. “I’m losing instruction time.”


The effect extreme heat is having on schools and childcare is starting to get the attention of policymakers and researchers. Last week, the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, published a report on the issue. In April, so did the Federation of American Scientists a nonprofit policy organization.

“The average school building in the U.S. was built nearly 50 years ago,” said policy analyst Allie Schneider, co-author of the Center for American Progress report. “Schools and childcare centers were built in areas that maybe 30 or 15 years ago didn’t require access to air-conditioning, or at least for a good portion of the year. Now we’re seeing that becoming a more pressing concern.” Students are also on campus during the hottest parts of the day. “It’s something that is really important not just to their physical health, but their learning outcomes,” she said.

Last April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its own report detailing some of the effects heat has on kids. It notes that children have a harder time thermo-regulating and take longer to produce sweat, making them more vulnerable than adults to heat exhaustion and heat illness.

Kids don’t necessarily listen to their body’s cues about heat, and might need an adult to remind them to drink water or not play outside. Kevin Toolan, a sixth-grade teacher in Long Island, New York, said having to constantly monitor heat safety distracts him from being able to teach. “The mindset is shifting to safety rather than instruction,” he said. “Those children don’t know how to handle it.”

To keep the classroom cool, he’ll turn the lights off, but kids fall asleep. “They are lethargic,” he said.

Related links
Changing education could change the climateClimate change: Are we ready?Climate change is sabotaging education for America’s students — and it’s only going to get worseHow will flood risks affect your school?

To protect kids, schools have canceled classes because temperatures have gotten too high. Warmer temperatures also lead to more kids being absent from school, especially low-income students. And heat makes it harder to learn. One study from 2020 tracked the scores of students from schools without air-conditioning who took the PSAT exam at least twice. It found that increases in the average outdoor temperature corresponded with students making smaller gains on their retakes.

Both Toolan and Girol said that cooling options like keeping doors and windows open to promote cross ventilation are gone, thanks to the clampdowns in school security after 9/11 — and worsened by the threat of school shootings. Students and teachers are trapped in their overheating classrooms. “Teachers report leaving with migraines or signs of heat exhaustion,” said Toolan. “At 100 degrees, it is very uncomfortable. Your clothes are stuck to you.”

The Center for American Progress report joins a call by other advocacy groups to create federal guidance that schools and childcare centers could adopt “to ensure that children are not forced to learn, play and exercise in dangerously hot conditions,” Schneider said. Some states already have standards in place, but they vary. In California, childcare facilities are required to keep temperatures between 68 and 85 degrees. In Maryland, the recommendation is between 74 and 82 degrees. A few states, like Florida, require schools to reduce outdoor activity on high-heat days. Schneider says federal guidance would help all school districts use the latest scientific evidence to set protective standards.

Related: Canceled classes, sweltering classrooms: How extreme heat impairs learning

In June, 23 health and education advocacy organizations signed a letter making a similar request of the Department of Education, asking for better guidance and coordination to protect kids. Some of their recommendations included publishing a plan that schools could adopt for dealing with high temperatures; encouraging states to direct more resources to providing air-conditioning in schools; and providing school districts with information on heat hazards.

“We know that school infrastructure is being overwhelmed by extreme heat, and that without a better system to advise schools on the types of practices they should be implementing, it’s going to be a little bit of the Wild West of actions being taken,” said Grace Wickerson, health equity policy manager at the Federation of American Scientists.

A longer term solution is upgrading school infrastructure but the need for air conditioning is overwhelming. According to the Center for American Progress report, 36,000 schools nationwide don’t have adequate HVAC systems. By 2025, it estimates that installing or upgrading HVAC or other cooling systems will cost around $4.4 billion.

Some state or local governments are trying to address the heat issue. In June, the New York State Legislature passed a bill now awaiting the governor’s signature that would require school staff to take measures like closing blinds or turning off lights when temperatures reach 82 degrees inside a classroom. At 88 degrees, classes would be canceled. A bill introduced last year and currently before California’s state assembly would require schools to create extreme heat action plans that could include mandating hydration and rest breaks or moving recess to cooler parts of the day.

Some teachers have been galvanized to take action, too. As president of the Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, Toolan was part of an effort to secure $80 million for infrastructure upgrades through a bond vote. Over half will go to HVAC systems for some 500 schools in his district.

And Girol is running for a state representative seat in Pennsylvania, where a main plank in her platform is to fully fund public schools in order to pay for things like air-conditioning. She was recently endorsed by the Climate Cabinet, a federal political action committee. “Part of the reason climate is so important to me is because of this issue,” she said. “I see how it’s negatively affecting my students.”

This story about heat and schools was produced by The 19th and the reprinted with permission.

Wolf 2 — von der Leyen 0: 

EU court insists on being careful with wolf hunting


Joe Biden has expelled nearly 7 million illegal immigrants

Over the weekend, Jack Herrera had a piece in Politico that provides an interesting perspective on the Biden administration's immigration policy. It's true that illegal border crossings soared after Biden took office, but expulsions soared too, starting from his first day:

Most Americans don’t understand how many people the Biden-Harris administration has removed from the country.... In the spring of 2021, deep in the depths of the Covid-19 pandemic, I was in a camp in Tijuana, where some migrants were so hopeful the new president would let them in that they flew “BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT” flags outside their tents. But most of them who crossed got a slap from reality: They were quickly frog-marched by U.S. Border Patrol back through the deportation doorway, back to the squalid camps in cartel turf. Others got rapidly loaded onto ICE planes and flown back to Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, wherever. As the number of people crossing the border grew during Biden’s first two years in office, these expulsions reached a scorching pace. ICE charter flights bounced around the globe like Taylor Swift’s jet.

Naturally you want to see this in chart form. I'm here to help:

During Biden's term in office, he will have expelled, detained, or deported 6.9 million illegal immigrants. That's 73% more than Donald Trump.

This is why, despite the surge in migrants, the total population of illegal immigrants in the US has probably increased less than most people think. Out of roughly 11 million migrants (border crossers plus asylum seekers), around 7 million of them were expelled. At the same time, about 2 million illegal immigrants who are already in the country return to their homes every year. That gets us to 9 million. So net growth has probably been on the order of 2 million or so, an increase of 18%.

That's just a guess, and it might be off on either side. Still, you might wonder why, if this is the case, Biden hasn't bragged more about it. I imagine there are two reasons. First, it's still growth of 2 million illegal immigrants compared to roughly zero during the Trump administration. Second, the Democratic base doesn't want to hear that Biden has been pretty strict about expelling illegal immigrants. It's a no-win problem

 Kevin Drum

Ancient Sites Contaminated by Microplastics, Study Finds


The highest level of microplastic contamination found in the study was 20,588 microplastic particles per kilogram of sediment, discovered in an archived sample from the lowest depth (about 7.35 meters) at one of the archaeological sites. This surprising concentration of microplastics deep within ancient layers highlights the extent of modern pollution's reach into our historical record.

by Kaleigh Harrison | Jul 29, 2024

A recent study in York, UK, has revealed a surprising discovery: microplastics (MPs) are contaminating both contemporary and archived archaeological sediment samples, some dating back to the late 1980s. Researchers found various types of MP polymers, including those used in food packaging and automotive parts, in significant quantities within these samples.

This unexpected presence of tiny plastic particles in historical dirt layers is raising concerns among archaeologists and heritage managers. The contamination could potentially compromise the long-term preservation of archaeological deposits and impact future research capabilities.
Challenging Current Preservation Practices

The discovery of MPs in archaeological sediments is forcing experts to reconsider current preservation strategies. In the UK, there’s a preference for preserving heritage assets in situ – leaving them undisturbed in the ground for future generations to study. However, the presence of microplastics may be putting this approach at risk.

Microplastics can persist in soil for long periods, potentially altering soil structure and affecting microbial communities. This contamination could harm delicate organic materials and interfere with dating techniques or chemical analyses. As a result, the argument for keeping archaeological deposits untouched is being called into question.
Balancing Preservation and Progress

This new plastic threat creates a complex challenge for heritage professionals and urban planners. While preserving archaeological sites in place has allowed for sustainable development alongside heritage conservation, the risk of microplastic contamination introduces new concerns.

Moving forward, decision-makers will need to weigh the potential risks of MP contamination against the benefits of in situ preservation. This may lead to changes in how we approach site preservation and urban development, potentially favoring more extensive excavation and documentation before development occurs.

As we grapple with this unexpected intersection of modern pollution and ancient history, finding the right balance between preserving our past and building our future has become more crucial – and more complicated – than ever.
Trump-Allied Policy Writers Back Deregulation of PFAS

Experts warn that allies of the Republican nominee aim to undermine the EPA’s ability to regulate forever chemicals.
July 29, 2024

A second Trump administration would undermine the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect the public from toxic “forever chemicals,” The Guardian reported Sunday, citing experts inside and outside the agency.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of about 16,000 synthetic compounds that break down only very slowly, have been linked to a wide array of serious medical conditions including cancer. The EPA under the Biden administration has instituted limits on PFAS levels in drinking water and other PFAS regulations that industry groups oppose.

Experts warn that allies of Republican nominee Donald Trump aim not just to roll back Biden-era regulations but fundamentally reshape the agency.

“Basically the entire infrastructure of how [the] EPA considers science and develops rules is very much under attack,” Erik Olson, legislative director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, told The Guardian.

An unnamed EPA employee told the newspaper that a second Trump administration would seek to disempower agency experts and let political appointees make key regulatory decisions.


News |
New technology could help water utilities remove stubborn PFAS chemicals linked to cancer and other maladies.
By Mike Ludwig , TruthoutJune 6, 2024

“They want a small group of 20 people making the rules, and the rest of the agency can go to hell as far as they care,” said the EPA employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Project 2025, a roadmap for Republican governance produced by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, proposes deregulation of PFAS, narrowing the definition of the class of toxic compounds, and elimination of the EPA office that assesses chemicals’ toxicity.

Project 2025, to the extent that it’s known about, has proven unpopular with the American public, and Trump has tried to distance himself from the plan, but has close links to its authors, at least 140 of whom worked in the former president’s administration.

Project 2025’s proposals on forever chemicals are aligned with the aims of the American Chemistry Council, the fourth largest lobbying group in the country. During his first term, Trump appointed ACC leaders to key positions in the EPA, and critics of the former president argue that his second administration would be even more unabashedly pro-industry.

“The Trump administration learned some lessons and would be much more surgical and effective at affixation next time,” the NRDC’s Olson said.

The unnamed EPA employee said a Trump victory might even mean the abolishment of the EPA’s entire Office of Research and Development.

ACC members 3M and DuPont developed PFAS in the mid-20th century and used them in a wide range of products, even with knowledge of their toxicity and the way that they accumulate in the human body, according to a series of exposés in recent years, notably by the journalist Sharon Lerner in her work at ProPublica and The Intercept. A recent article of Lerner’s in The New Yorker showed that 3M long concealed the dangers of PFAS.