NAKBA II

Smotrich launches annexation campaign to expel Palestinians from ‘Area B’ of West Bank

August 19, 2024 

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich gives a speech in front of the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem on June 3, 2024 [Saeed Qaq/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images]


Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich today launched an annexation campaign to expel Palestinians and demolish structures in ‘Area B’ of the occupied West Bank.

In a statement on X, the far-right politician detailed his recent visit to the area, which constitutes about three per cent of the occupied West Bank and falls under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control.

He described the area as strategically vital as it will form part of the illegal Gush Etzion settlement cluster and connect the region with nearby Jerusalem.

Smotrich, who heads a pro-settler party and who himself is a settler, accused the Palestinian Authority of investing significant resources to create territorial continuity in the region, which he claims threatens Israeli control and causes environmental damage.

READ: West Bank Bedouin communities affected by Israel’s policy of forced displacement

He wrote: “The Palestinian Authority in concerted efforts with a great deal of money and energy is trying to take over the east, to create a territorial continuity from north to south, and also from east to west, thus essentially interrupting our continuity.”

“There is also a very, very serious scenic damage here, in one of the most valuable and important areas in the State of Israel.”

He added: “As I recall, about a month ago, my proposal to enforce the Wye Agreement, which mandates the protection of the agreed reserve against Palestinian construction and takeover, was approved in the political and security cabinet. In accordance with the decision, the authority for enforcement passed from the Palestinian Authority to the Civil Administration.”

This comes after Israeli media reported that the Israeli occupation government, at Smotrich’s request, approved the legalisation of five illegal settlements in Area B of the Occupied West Bank.

The Oslo II Agreement of 1995 divided the West Bank into three areas: “A”, which is subject to full Palestinian control; “B” is subject to Israeli security authority and Palestinian civil control; and “C” which is subject to Israeli civil, administrative and security control. The latter constitutes about 61 per cent of the total occupied West Bank area.

Israel’s illegal settlements are creeping deeper into the West Bank and taking up greater swathes of the area’s land, with occupation forces claiming some areas a “closed military zones” forcing Palestinians off their ancestral properties.

Canada urges immediate cease-fire, boost in aid to Gaza on World Humanitarian Day

'One region where humanitarian aid is most needed today is Gaza,' says Prime Minister Trudeau

Merve Gül Aydoğan Ağlarcı |19.08.2024 - 



HAMILTON, Canada

On World Humanitarian Day, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called for an urgent cease-fire and increased humanitarian aid to Gaza, underscoring the dire need for assistance in the region.

"Today, on World Humanitarian Day, we honor the heroes who risk their lives to protect the world’s most vulnerable," Trudeau stated.

Reflecting on the deadly attack that occurred 21 years ago on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which resulted in the deaths of 22 humanitarian workers and injuries to over 150 others, Trudeau highlighted the growing challenges faced by aid efforts worldwide.

"The effects of armed conflict and climate change have led to a record-high number of people in need of humanitarian assistance," he said.

Trudeau reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to aiding those in need through partnerships with organizations such as the UN, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and various NGOs.

Addressing the crisis in Gaza, he described the situation as "catastrophic" and emphasized, "One region where humanitarian aid is most needed today is Gaza."

Canada has pledged $165 million in aid for Gaza and the West Bank. Trudeau called for "an urgent cease-fire" and stressed the importance of "the release of hostages, the protection of civilians, and an increased flow of humanitarian aid throughout the region."

Prime Minister talks Welsh steel industry with First Minister

Both the British and Welsh governments are now Labour Party run.


Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer meeting First Minister of Wales Eluned Morgan during a visit to Cathays Park in Cardiff (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

PA Wire
George Lithgow

The Prime Minister and First Minister of Wales have discussed the Welsh steel industry in their first meeting since taking over their respective roles.

Sir Keir met Eluned Morgan, who was sworn in earlier this month, in the Welsh capital Cardiff.

Baroness Morgan said “croeso”, the Welsh word for welcome, before shaking hands with the Prime Minister on the steps of the Welsh Government building at Cathays Park.



Both the British and Welsh governments are now run by the Labour Party.

“We can actually start working together,” a smiling Sir Keir told his Welsh counterpart.

Baroness Morgan is the third leader of the country this year.

She succeeded Vaughan Gething, who lasted less than 140 days as first minister, having presided over a turbulent period in office, beset by rows over donations and sacked ministers

Baroness Morgan was health secretary from 2021 until she succeeded Vaughan Gething – himself a former health secretary – as leader of Welsh Labour on July 24.

Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens said everything is on the table when it comes to negotiations with Tata Steel (Tejas Sandhu/PA)
PA Wire

Joined by the new Welsh secretary Jo Stevens, the trio discussed the country’s troubled steel industry

“We’re going to need more steel,” Sir Keir said, adding that there were “massive opportunities” in the sector.

“My concern is that we’re going to lose the capacity to make the steel,” he said.

Ms Stevens previously said “everything is on the table” when it comes to negotiations with Tata Steel.

The company is switching to a greener form of steel production at its plant in Port Talbot, South Wales, which will lead to thousands of job losses.

The trio are meeting to discuss resetting the relationship between the governments of the UK and Wales.

UK
Strikes at colleges suspended after 'progress' made in pay dispute

Rebecca Newlands
Mon, 19 August 2024

Strikes at colleges suspended after 'progress' made in pay dispute


ukUpcoming strikes at colleges have been suspended after 'progress' was made in a pay dispute.

College lecturers based at learning institutions across Scotland were set to walk out in a dispute over pay this week.

Dates were originally set for Tuesday, August 20, Wednesday, August 21, and Thursday, August 22 and would impact colleges across the country including Glasgow Kelvin College and West College Scotland, which has campuses in Clydebank, Greenock and Paisley.

Now the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) has revealed that strike action has been suspended after they reached 'significant' progress at a meeting with EIS-FELA representatives, College Employers Scotland and the Scottish Government Minister for Further & Higher Education on Monday.

EIS General Secretary Andrea Bradley said: "EIS-FELA representatives met with representatives of Scotland’s Colleges after meeting the Minister responsible for Further Education, this morning.

"Significant progress was made at this meeting, with the result that EIS-FELA and the EIS have decided to suspend three days of strike action, scheduled for this week.

"This is intended as an act of good faith and in the interests of supporting students and is on the understanding that an improved offer will be made formally by College Employers Scotland in the coming days.

"While a final settlement has yet to be reached, EIS-FELA negotiators were significantly encouraged by today’s developments and believed it appropriate to suspend this week's strikes.

"Based on discussions this morning, we remain hopeful that a resolution can be struck that will finally see a fair pay settlement that will allow lecturers to return to working as normal, and to do what they do best which is supporting their students in colleges across Scotland to learn and progress.

"Discussions will now continue to iron out final details. Once a revised offer is formally on the table, our intention is to put this to EIS-FELA members in a ballot.

"Today has brought us closer to an end to this long-running dispute, and we hope that discussions will now move quickly and smoothly towards a fair agreement for all parties and a return for students to the uninterrupted, quality learning and teaching that they need and deserve."

Jeremy Corbyn offers support to Scottish college lecturers in long-running pay battle

Gabriel McKay
Sun, 18 August 2024 

Jeremy Corbyn


Jeremy Corbyn has offered his support to lecturers at Edinburgh College who face pay deductions as part of an ongoing industrial dispute.

As part of a long-running dispute over pay, members of the EIS-FELA union are engaged in action short of a strike, including not inputting results into college systems.

The dispute has been ongoing since 2021, with no pay rise agreed between college employers and the union.

EIS-FELA has announced that new strike dates will take place this month after a re-ballot of its members renewed its mandate.

Read More:

Scotland must increase investment in education or pay a 'very high price'


College lecturers renew industrial action as union warns strikes could follow


Lecturers 'stand between the students and disaster' as pay fight goes on

Last week, lecturers at Edinburgh College were told they faced having pay withheld as part of the dispute "unless there is an agreed reason for a resulting delay", a process known as 'deeming'.

Following a talk with Neil Findlay, the former Labour MSP, at the Edinburgh Fringe, Mr Corbyn offered his support to the lecturers.

The former Labour leader said: "I just want to send my solidarity to the lecturers, what they are doing is fighting for decent pay and conditions.

"Decent pay and conditions and proper funding of further and higher education means a better experience for students, means better achievements of our students, and in the end a much better society.

"Short-changing our teachers, short-changing our lecturers, short-changing our support staff, damages the life chances of all of our young people.

"So stick at it, and win."

EIS Branch Secretary Dan Holland said: "By choosing to punish staff for participating in Action Short of a Strike and deduct all their salary, this has now escalated the matter locally which will only serve to harm industrial relations.

"Following a local strike last year which damaged these relations, the local EIS branch has worked extremely hard with local management to repair this trust.

"This unconscionable act of deducting all our salary for refusing to complete less than 1% of our job is effectively locking staff out of coming to work, as the Principal clearly stated that any work carried out would be considered voluntary and go unpaid.

"The local branch implores the Principal to withdraw this punitive approach to evidence her commitment to the agreed cultural reset.”

Edinburgh College has been contacted for comment.

Amid an economic crisis, Iraqi parliament’s 'secret' salary hike vote sparks public fury

The decision provoked strong reactions across Iraq, where unemployment rates are soaring, and public sector employees are demanding wage increases.

Dana Taib Menmy
Iraq
19 August, 2024

The secretive nature of the vote has drawn sharp criticism from activists and political observers. [Getty]

The Iraqi Parliament's "secret" vote to significantly increase its members' salaries and entitlements has ignited widespread public outrage and intense political controversy.

The decision—concealed from the official agenda during the parliamentary session on 7 August and kept away from media scrutiny—provoked strong reactions across Iraq, where unemployment rates are soaring, and public sector employees are demanding wage increases.

Soran Omar, a Kurdish lawmaker from the Kurdistan Justice Group, told The New Arab that the salary increase for Iraqi lawmakers would elevate their pay to the same level as ministers in the Iraqi federal government. Omar, who did not support the decision, formally expressed his opposition to the parliamentary presidency, citing the lack of transparency and details provided during the vote.

Analysts warn that this move could trigger a wave of protests, as public anger intensifies over the lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process, especially when Iraq is grappling with liquidity issues and high unemployment.

"This is a great scandal given Iraq's current situation," Yassin Taha, a Kurdish political analyst, told TNA. He highlighted the dire economic conditions, with thousands of young people unemployed and many others working for very low wages, all while the country’s infrastructure remains in a poor state.

Taha further noted that the decision reinforces previous accusations that the Iraqi Parliament is more focused on personal enrichment rather than serving the public interest. He warned that if the salary increase is finalised, it could inflame ongoing protests demanding employment opportunities and wage increases for public sector workers.

He also pointed out a troubling dynamic in Iraqi politics, where lawmakers are often expected to provide financial support to voters and party loyalists rather than focusing on active parliamentary work. This expectation, he argued, makes even the current parliamentary salaries insufficient to cover such expenditures.

The controversy began on 7 August, when the Iraqi Parliament convened with an agenda listing six items—none of which mentioned a vote on salary increases. During the session, however, parliamentary leadership secretly introduced the salary hike proposal, which was then approved without public knowledge. The decision remained hidden until a leaked document from the parliamentary leadership revealed the details.

An Iraqi lawyer, speaking to TNA on condition of anonymity, revealed that the parliament has the authority to add new topics to its agenda based on requests from some MPs.

The document disclosed that the Parliament had voted to raise the salaries and allowances of its members to match those of ministers. It also included a 30% increase in danger pay for parliamentary staff based on their base salary.

Currently, an Iraqi MP earns between eight and ten million Iraqi dinars (approximately US$6,700) per month, but the increase would raise this to 19 million dinars (approximately US$12,750) per month.

The secretive nature of the vote has drawn sharp criticism from activists and political observers, who pointed out that the Iraqi Constitution mandates that parliamentary sessions be conducted openly. Former officials have condemned the decision, arguing that it targets Iraq's poor and could incite public anger. Some have suggested that instead of raising salaries, the Parliament should have voted to reduce ministerial salaries to align them with those of parliamentarians.

In response to the growing controversy, Iraqi MP Ahmed al-Sharmani declared to local media outlets that the decision was "invalid" and threatened to take the matter to the Federal Supreme Court if the parliamentary leadership does not reverse it. Fellow MP Zohair al-Fatlawi also criticized the secret vote, stating, "The secret vote to increase MPs' salaries is unjustifiable and seems to provoke millions of Iraqis."

Despite the widespread backlash, the Iraqi parliamentary leadership has yet to issue any clarification regarding the vote. It remains unclear why the leadership chose to conduct the vote in secret, and whether any specific political pressures influenced the decision.

Israeli airstrikes on Yemen’s Al Hudaydah Port ‘possible war crime’: Rights group

At least 6 killed, dozens injured in Israeli strikes on oil storage tanks, shipping cranes in Al Hudaydah Port last month

Rania Abu Shamala |19.08.2024 

- TRT/AA

ISTANBUL

Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Monday denounced last month’s Israeli airstrikes on Al Hudaydah Port in western Yemen as a “possible war crime.”

At least six civilians were killed and over 80 others injured on July 20 when Israeli warplanes struck more than two dozen oil storage tanks and two shipping cranes in the Yemeni port as well as a power plant in the province.

The attacks came one day after a Houthi drone strike killed one Israeli and injured four others in Tel Aviv.

“The attacks appeared to cause disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects,” the New York-based rights groups said.

“Serious violations of the laws of war committed willfully, that is deliberately or recklessly, are war crimes.”

Niku Jafarnia, a HWR researcher for Yemen and Bahrain, said the Israeli attacks on Al Hudaydah “could have a lasting impact on millions of Yemenis in Houthi-controlled territories.”

“Yemenis are already enduring widespread hunger after a decade-long conflict. These attacks will only exacerbate their suffering.”

The Al Hudaydah Port is critical for delivering food and other necessities to Yemen, through which about 70% of the country’s commercial imports and 80% of its humanitarian assistance passes.

“The applicable laws of war prohibit deliberate, indiscriminate, or disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian objects,” HRW said.

“An attack not directed at a specific military objective is indiscriminate. An attack is disproportionate if the expected civilian loss is excessive compared to the anticipated military gain of the attack.”

The rights group said governments that continue to provide arms to the Israeli government risk complicity in war crimes.

“The Israeli airstrikes on critical infrastructure in Al Hudaydah could have a profoundly devastating impact on many Yemeni lives over the longer term,” Jafarnia said. “Both the Israelis and the Houthis should immediately halt all unlawful attacks affecting civilians and their lives.”

Regional tensions have escalated due to Israel’s brutal offensive on the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 40,130 people, mostly women and children, and injured 92,700 others since last Oct. 7 following a Hamas attack.

Politicians working past 65 reflects U.S. society

By Matthew J. Wolf-Meyer, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

THE CONVERSATION

08/19/24


Why don't more politicians retire? President Joe Biden's decision to step down offers a chance to collectively consider when Americans should retire. File Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are hardly the only examples of politicians who work well into their golden years. Members of the baby-boom generation -- Americans born between 1946 and 1964 -- are the most numerous in the House, and in the Senate they outnumber lawmakers from all other generations combined.

All told, two-thirds of U.S. senators and nearly half of House lawmakers are eligible for full retirement benefits through the Federal Employees' Retirement System. And yet they keep working. So do the four Supreme Court justices who are over 65.

They're not alone. When given the choice, many Americans seem to prefer to work more rather than less. This is true in their weekly and annual work hours as well as the period of their life they spend working. About 1 in 5 Americans over 65 are working, even though they've passed the point where they are eligible for full retirement benefits and Social Security payments.

The share of older adults in the workforce is rising, although it's not clear how many of them are still punching a clock because they want to and how many can't afford to stop because of holes in the U.S. safety net.

As a historian and anthropologist of medicine in the United States, I have spent years researching the ways that American adults have generally chosen to earn higher wages rather than reduce their work hours.

I believe that Biden's decision to retire after years of public service offers an opportunity to consider what is at stake as a society when so many people over the age of 65 keep working, especially in prominent roles.

Retirement conventions in other countries

Maybe not for politicians, but in many occupations it now takes fewer hours of work to achieve the same labor output as a century ago, thanks to advances in manufacturing and computing.

Yet, hardly anyone is reducing their workloads despite these increases in efficiency. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government agency, most full-time U.S. employees log about 40 hours of work each week.

Many Europeans work shorter hours, take longer vacations and get more generous retirement benefits from their governments than their U.S. counterparts. Not coincidentally, support of retirement at the age of 65 or earlier has broad support in the European Union.

In the United States, later retirement is partly due to policy changes. For Americans born in 1960 or later, the federal retirement age has edged up to 67 from 65. That includes the tail end of those born during the baby boom, who will turn 65 between 2025 and 2028. Retirees eligible for Social Security benefits can collect a lower level of them at 62 and get rewarded with higher levels of Social Security benefits if they work until they turn 70.

As economist Dora Costa recounts in her book The Evolution of Retirement, the convention of a set retirement age arose in the early 20th century as a result of actuarial data on life expectancy and the establishment of pensions and social security systems.

Aging and health

To be sure, everyone ages differently, and there are benefits for society when older people remain on the job after their 65th birthday, including institutional memory and workplace experience.

There are recurrent debates about the benefits of working through one's later life. In some cases, research supports the benefits some people derive from working after 65. But research also supports the importance of having hobbies and their health-promoting effects. What is clear is that remaining active later in life is the most important thing in staying healthy in old age.

But there are several drawbacks, too, related to the health issues associated with aging.

For example, routine illnesses can have outsized effects on aging bodies, and recovery from injuries and sickness can take longer when you're over 65 than it does for younger adults. That can mean long stretches where an employee can't do their job.

Cognitive abilities may barely decline for some people, while others experience the dramatic changes associated with age-related dementia.

Unfortunately, figuring out who really should retire if they don't volunteer to do so is tough because cognitive tests are not always reliable. They often assess the capacities needed to take the test rather than underlying capacities.

For example, aural tests inadvertently assess hearing comprehension by attempting to measure the ability to remember a sequence of words. Many tests functionally test someone's personality rather than their cognitive capacities. People with certain personality types can mask their cognitive changes. Moreover, bias in assessing cognitive changes is often based in the assessor's experience of their interactions with the testee.

Except in cases where someone is obviously experiencing clear-cut changes in their cognitive capacity and ability to interact with others, arguing that somebody must retire is often rooted in ableist assumptions.

Social Security concerns

Basing the need for someone to retire on their perceived capacity to do the job brings unnecessary bias to this decision. In my view, setting a mandatory retirement age would provide a neutral mechanism to ensure that retirement from public service happens more smoothly than has been the case with Biden.

Many older Americans who keep working past 65 do so because they can't afford to retire. The cost of living, including the costs associated with longevity, have outstripped the support provided by Social Security benefits. The poverty rate among adults over 65 is much higher than it is in Europe.

But nearly all U.S. politicians and civil servants are free to stop working when they turn 65 or soon after. They have the benefit of the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan, which some economist argue could serve as a model for everyone else. Despite their ability to step back from their careers with few financial concerns, many of these leaders and workers remain on the job long after they could step down.

If the United States were to adopt a mandatory retirement age for all federal employees, it would spare at least those Americans from the difficult conversations about mental capacity many of us eventually face as we age.

In the meantime, Biden's decision to retire offers a chance to collectively consider when Americans should retire.

Matthew J. Wolf-Meyer is a professor of science and technology studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

 

Favorable views of Kamala Harris have risen this summer heading into the DNC, AP-NORC poll shows

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris is entering the Democratic National Convention with increased excitement from Democrats and a steady rise in her favorability ratings among Americans as a whole. About half of U.S.

Linley Sanders, The Associated Press

Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris greets supporters at a campaign event, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2024, in Rochester, Pa. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris is entering the Democratic National Convention with increased excitement from Democrats and a steady rise in her favorability ratings among Americans as a whole.

About half of U.S. adults — 48% — have a very or somewhat favorable view of Harris, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That is up from 39% at the beginning of the summer, before President Joe Biden's poor performance in his debate against former President Donald Trump ultimately led him to drop out of the presidential race.

That's not just an improvement for Harris but also from where President Joe Biden stood before he dropped out, when 38% said they had a favorable opinion of him. It's also somewhat better than the 41% of adults who say they have a favorable opinion of Trump.

The rise in favorability for Harris comes as more Americans overall have formed an opinion about her while the Harris and Trump campaigns rush to define her nascent candidacy. The share saying they don’t know enough about her to have an opinion has halved, from 12% in June to 6% now.

The latest measurement is in line with how Americans viewed Harris in early 2021, when she and Biden first took office. It suggests renewed positivity toward Harris — the share of Americans who have a “very favorable” opinion of her has also increased over the same period — but she risks hitting a ceiling as she approaches her previous highest rating.

Potential strengths for Harris

Since June, Harris’ favorability has slightly risen among some groups that generally already favor the Democratic Party. She’s seen slight increases in favorability among Democrats, independents, women and young adults under age 30. There’s been no significant movement from Black adults or Hispanic adults — other constituencies Harris will likely need the support of in November.

Half of adults under 30 have a very or somewhat favorable view of Harris in the latest poll, up from 34% in June. That comes as more young adults have formed an opinion about her, with the share of adults who say they don’t know enough to say shrinking from about 2 in 10 to roughly 1 in 10. The number of young adults with an unfavorable view of her has not changed significantly.

Harris has relatively high levels of favorability among Black adults, though it’s been relatively steady over the last month. Around two-thirds of Black adults have a very or somewhat positive view of Harris. That includes around 4 in 10 who say their opinion of her is “very favorable.” Black adults are more likely than Americans overall to have a favorable impression of Harris. About 6 in 10 nonwhite men and women have a positive view of Harris.

Johnita Johnson, a 45-year-old Black woman living in North Carolina, said she plans to vote for Harris in November, but she wants the campaign to be honest and realistic about what it can promise. She has a problem with politicians, generally, who overpromise what they will be able to accomplish in office.

“If (Harris) was able to do exactly what she wants to do and what she says she would do, she would do an awesome job,” Johnson said. “Well, we all know that is not going to go like that. She may get to do some of the things that she wanted to do. Will she do everything? I can’t say that she will. And she can’t promise me that.”

Johnson noted that while Harris is a historic candidate because of her race and sex, it’s not something that’s factoring into her support.

“It wouldn't matter who it was. ... As long as they are good, and good to us, that's what matters to me,” Johnson said. “Yes, of course, to a lot of people, it's exciting because she’s Black and she's the first woman. But I'm not looking at it."

Possible weaknesses for Harris

To win in November, Harris’ team will trying to limit the extent to which Trump can run up his vote totals among white and male voters, groups that have leaned toward Republicans in recent elections. Currently, about half of men have a negative view of Harris. About 6 in 10 white men have an unfavorable view of her. White men without a college degree, a group that has traditionally made up Trump’s strong base of support, are especially likely to say they have an unfavorable view.

Harris is seen more positively by white women, particularly those with a college degree. About 6 in 10 white women with a college degree view her favorably, compared to about 4 in 10 without one. Overall, white women are split on her: 49% have a favorable opinion and 46% have a negative one.

Views of Harris have been fairly steady among older adults. About half of adults older than 60 have a positive view of her. That’s generally in line with the 46% she had with this group in June.

Brian Mowrer, a newly retired 64-year-old in Mishicot, Wisconsin, who was a staunch Republican until voting for President Barack Obama in 2012, plans to vote for Harris in November. He likes Biden and had felt he could do the job for another term, but he was ultimately glad Biden withdrew from the race when it became clear his electability was shrinking.

“I think it's great that Biden stepped down and that they chose Kamala Harris,” he said. “Well, I would probably support any Democrat at this point.”

Mowrer is motivated by ensuring Trump does not have an opportunity to nominate more conservative justices to the Supreme Court, as he worries about further losing the separation between church and state in the U.S. He also cares about electing someone who will defend access to abortion, which he sees as a personal freedom issue. He believes Harris will focus on both issues.

“I think she’s very good. She presents very well. I think she’s very authentic,” he said. “The policies, or at least the things she's talking about wanting to do, that is along the lines of what I’ve been thinking needs to be done.”

___

The poll of 1,164 adults was conducted August 8-12, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Linley Sanders, The Associated Press

SPACE

Why Hasn’t Starliner Returned?



Photo: NASA


Critical Questions by Clayton Swope
Published August 19, 2024
Remote Visualization

On June 5, 2024, an Atlas V rocket launched Boeing’s Starliner on its first crewed mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Though it successfully docked with the station, Starliner exhibited anomalies related to its propulsion systems, raising concerns about whether the spacecraft could safely return astronauts to Earth. At the time of writing, NASA has yet to decide whether to send its two-person crew home on the capsule or another spacecraft.

Q1: How did NASA get here?

A1: In the 1990s, five nations agreed to collaborate on building the ISS, the first component of which was launched in 1998. Two years later, the first ISS crew members arrived on a Russian Soyuz capsule. For the next 11 years, Soyuz and the U.S. Space Shuttle ferried ISS crew members from the United States and Russia, as well as other international partners, between Earth and the station. Anticipating the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011, NASA sought to develop a new U.S. capability to transport astronauts to the station, establishing the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) to provide commercial transportation services.

In 2014, NASA certified two operators—SpaceX and Boeing—for crewed missions. SpaceX carried out the first crewed CCP flight to the ISS in 2020. Before this crewed mission, SpaceX had completed an uncrewed test flight of its Dragon capsule in 2019. To date, SpaceX has successfully conducted eight crewed missions to the station. Boeing’s first crewed Starliner capsule launched to the ISS on June 5, 2024, having previously conducted two uncrewed test flights—the second flight being necessary because the first was only a partial success.

Currently, the two astronauts and Starliner launched on June 5 remain at the space station, though the mission was originally planned to last around 10 days. Due to a number of technical issues, at least one of which was known while Starliner sat on the launch pad, NASA has repeatedly extended the mission as it has tried to gain a better understanding of the risk facing the astronauts and the spacecraft on Earth reentry.

Q2: What are the issues affecting Starliner?

A2: In late May 2024, while United Launch Alliance (ULA) addressed a malfunctioning valve in the Atlas V rocket intended to carry Starliner into space, Boeing discovered a helium leak in 1 of the 28 reaction control system (RCS) thrusters on Starliner’s service module. After additional analysis, NASA, Boeing, and ULA ultimately agreed to proceed with the launch, concluding that the leak did not pose an unacceptable risk to the mission. On June 5, Starliner successfully launched into orbit.

Once in space, engineers detected additional helium leaks in the service module’s RCS thruster system, bringing the total number of helium leaks to five. On top of the helium leaks, Starliner experienced other on-orbit propulsion anomalies, with 5 of the 28 service module’s RCS thrusters failing at various times as the spacecraft prepared to dock with the ISS. Eventually, engineers were able to reset and restart 4 of the 5 malfunctioning thrusters. With all but one of the service module’s RCS thrusters operational, NASA gave approval for Starliner to dock with the ISS on June 6.

Once docked with the station, per standard procedures for Starliner, engineers closed off the valves to the helium tanks, preventing further leaks. Since June 6, NASA and Boeing have attempted to isolate, replicate, and understand the issues affecting the thruster system, conducting ground testing with an RCS thruster at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility. Two separate rounds of on-orbit firings for Starliner’s 27 operational service module’s RCS thrusters, checking performance and helium leak rates, have also occurred since the spacecraft docked with the station.

Even with the leaks, NASA and Boeing assess that Starliner would have enough helium to return to Earth. Additionally, officials note that the 27 working RCS thrusters on the service module operated within expected parameters during the most recent on-orbit testing on July 27. However, NASA officials have yet to make a final decision on when—and how—Starliner’s astronauts will return home. NASA has stated that it is considering returning the crew as part of the next SpaceX Dragon mission to the ISS, which would likely not return until February 2025.

Q3: How do these malfunctioning components fit together?

A3: Starliner is made up of two main components: a crew module, which returns to Earth, and a service module, which is only used in space and burns up upon reentry into Earth’s atmosphere. The crew module has 12 RCS thrusters used for orientation during reentry. The service module has 28 RCS thrusters—a different model from the RCS thrusters used on the crew module—as well as 20 orbital maneuvering and attitude control (OMAC) thrusters and four launch abort engines.

Under normal operations, Starliner is designed to use both the service module’s RCS thrusters and OMAC engines at different phases of the undocking and maneuvering sequence to position the spacecraft on a trajectory for the crew module to reenter the atmosphere and safely return to Earth.

Only the service module’s RCS thrusters, used for maneuvering in orbit and during a high-altitude abort, have experienced anomalies during Starliner’s current mission. While it remains unclear how these thruster malfunctions relate to the helium leaks, both issues are specific to the service module, not the crew module. Coincidentally, two of the service module’s RCS thrusters as well as two OMAC engines and one of the crew module’s RCS thrusters malfunctioned during the second uncrewed test flight of Starliner in May 2022. NASA has stated that it worked with the RCS thruster manufacturer to develop a contingency plan requiring only four of the service module’s RCS thrusters for a successful reentry.

Q4: What options does NASA have for Starliner?

A4: Senior NASA officials do not currently agree on next steps, with some uncomfortable with the risks associated with sending astronauts home on Starliner. To date, NASA has had time to make its assessment and decision. The long-term performance of Starliner’s batteries was originally expected to limit the length of time the spacecraft could operate, but so far the batteries have been successfully recharged by the space station, buying more time for analysis. At this point, NASA has not made clear what else it can do to gain more confidence, as it has already spent weeks trying to replicate what’s happening on Starliner with the test RCS thrusters at the White Sands Test Facility. However, NASA has noted it will decide how to proceed by the end of August 2024 to prepare for upcoming missions to the ISS.

Ultimately, NASA’s decision will reflect its assessment of the safest way to return the two Starliner astronauts to Earth, though it will also take into account concerns about the ISS itself should the spacecraft experience certain thruster malfunctions as it moves away from the station. A number of officials who will make key decisions on Starliner, both at NASA and Boeing, had some role in the events leading up to the disintegration of Columbia and loss of her crew in 2003. As NASA contemplates how to send the two Starliner astronauts currently on the ISS, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, back home, those events in February 2003 likely cast a heavy shadow on decisionmakers. This leaves NASA with a difficult question: Should it send the astronauts home on Starliner or save two seats for them on the return flight of the next Dragon mission, scheduled to launch in September 2024 and return in February 2025?

If NASA decides to send Wilmore and Williams back on a SpaceX capsule, it could send Starliner home uncrewed, assuming Boeing is able to upload software to facilitate an autonomous undocking from the space station. This approach would allow NASA and Boeing to validate the results of their testing and assumptions made over the last two months, since they have been assessing Starliner’s leak and thruster issues. From a system-testing standpoint, a successful return of the capsule without a crew gets NASA and Boeing the same data it would get from a successful return with a crew. While inconvenient, an uncrewed Starliner return would minimize risk to human life, using the Dragon capsule—with an established safety record under its belt—to bring Wilmore and Williams safely home. But no option carries zero risk—the backup plan would leave the two astronauts for a few days without a way to evacuate the station in an emergency after Starliner undocks and before the next Dragon arrives.

In 1965, astronaut Gus Grissom, who lost his life in the Apollo 1 tragedy, said, “the conquest of space is worth the risk of life.” Today, however, there is no reason to take that risk. With Columbia, there was no viable backup option to transport the Space Shuttle crew home. The orbiter did not have enough fuel to reach the ISS. The dynamics are entirely different today with Starliner. Though no option is risk free, there is another way to send the two astronauts home, with the main downside being a possible reputational blemish to Starliner’s manufacturer, Boeing. Arguably, for the future successes of Starliner and American crewed spaceflight, as well as for Wilmore, Williams, and their families, that is a price worth paying.

Clayton Swope is the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.



Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2024 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

French left splits again after Mélenchon calls for Macron’s impeachment

Fresh spat in the left-wing New Popular Front alliance is good news for the Macron camp, which hopes to benefit from a fragmented opposition.


Contrary to Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s claim, the impeachment procedure has very little chance of succeeding. 

| Victoria Valdivia/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

August 19, 2024
By Giorgio Leali and Anthony Lattier

POLITICO EU

The French left is divided, again.

Part of the French left is embarrassed by radical firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s call to impeach President Emmanuel Macron, showing that France’s left-wing alliance is not as solid as it pretends to be.

This new spat within the New Popular Front alliance, which came first in snap elections last month, is good news for the Macron camp, which hopes to benefit from a fragmented opposition.

Over the weekend, Mélenchon — founder of the France Unbowed movement — and his garde rapprochée once again urged Macron to appoint Lucie Castets as prime minister. Castets is the preferred candidate of the pan-left alliance that gathers Mélenchon’s party along with Socialists, Greens and Communists.

But this time they added a threat.

If Macron doesn’t give in to their demands, the parliament should launch an impeachment procedure as “the refusal to recognize a legislative election and the decision to ignore it constitute a reprehensible breach of the elementary requirements of the presidential mandate,” Mélenchon wrote in a piece published in La Tribune, which was co-signed by party heavyweights such as Manuel Bompard and Mathilde Panot.

Contrary to Mélenchon’s claim, the impeachment procedure has very little chance of succeeding, experts say, not least because it would need to be endorsed by two-thirds of MPs in both houses of the French parliament.

But the proposal has had at least one practical effect — of weakening the left wing and putting its divisions under the spotlight.

All the other parties were quick to dismiss Mélenchon’s call. Even the entourage of prime minister candidate Castets distanced themselves from the impeachment threat, telling POLITICO that it was “an initiative of the France Unbowed, not of Lucie.”

On Monday, which happened to be Mélenchon’s birthday, Greens leader Marine Tondelier dismissed the impeachment call and warned against the risk that the left-wing “polyphony should not become a cacophony.”

While Socialist leader Olivier Faure also distanced himself from Mélenchon’s impeachment call, some within his party are increasingly warning against the extreme positions of the France Unbowed movement.

The squabble over the impeachment proposal has re-ignited internal bickering after the three parties managed to find some unity as they rallied behind Castets as common candidate for prime minister. The three parties were set to go together as a joint political force to consultations that Macron will hold at the Elysée Palace on Friday to form a new government.

But that unity is now in danger. “If the Unbowed don’t abandon this idea, we can’t go to the Elysée together to see a president whose impeachment they are calling for,” said Hélène Geoffroy, which heads a minority group within the Socialists.

In the meantime, Macron’s allies are rubbing their hands, hoping to capitalize on divisions among their left-wing opponents.

“It doesn’t strengthen them” going into Friday’s Elysée meeting, said a person close to the French president who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “When you disagree on something as essential as the Constitution, how can you imagine governing together?”

In the past, Macron has implicitly dismissed the possibility that Castets could become prime minister and instead called for a broader alliance including his own camp.

French politics was put on hold during the Paris Olympics: the country still doesn’t have a government more than one month after outgoing Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and his ministers resigned. They remain as a caretaker administration. An outgoing minister predicted that the new government could be appointed after the Paralympic Games, which are taking place in Paris until Sept. 8.