Brazil’s Citrosuco Threatens Force Majeure on Some Orange Juice Supplies

Dayanne Sousa
Mon, July 24, 2023 


(Bloomberg) -- Brazil’s Citrosuco, one of the world’s top orange juice producers, warned it may need to declare force majeure on supplies to some clients after disease and rainfall damaged crops.

In a July 17 letter sent to clients and seen by Bloomberg, the company said it was being “severely affected” by greening disease and rain that flooded farms. It added it won’t be able to ensure supplies at the volumes and prices previously agreed.

Citrosuco confirmed the contents of the letter, which it said was sent as a warning to some clients who had contracts for delivery earlier this year. In a statement to Bloomberg on Monday, the company added the communication was part of specific commercial negotiations.

While the letter stated “supply performance is currently prevented by force majeure, until further notice,” the company said it had not taken the actual legal step associated with invoking force majeure, a clause companies usually enforce when an unforeseen event, such as a fire or natural disaster, prevents them from complying with a contract.

Citrosuco’s letter is a reminder of just how tight global orange juice markets are. Brazil ships almost four of every five cups of orange juice consumed globally, according to data by the US Department of Agriculture, and Citrosuco is part of a group of three major juice companies — including Sucocitrico Cutrale LTDA and Louis Dreyfus Co. — that is responsible for most exports from the country.

Orange juice futures reached a record high Monday, rising by the exchange limit of 10 cents early in New York trading. Greening disease, which is spread by an infected insect and causes trees to produce unusable fruit, was responsible for decimating Florida’s orange groves.

Bloomberg Businessweek

TRADING PLACES 

ORANGE JUICE SALE ON WALL ST TRADING FLOOR

Adobe’s $20 Billion Figma Deal Faces EU Probe, Adding to Global Scrutiny

Samuel Stolton
Mon, July 24, 2023 


(Bloomberg) -- Adobe Inc.’s $20 billion takeover of design startup Figma Inc. is on course for an in-depth investigation from European Union merger regulators, adding to growing global scrutiny of the deal dubbed by Adobe’s boss as “transformational.”

Adobe won’t propose remedies to fix potential competition concerns, meaning an in-depth investigation from the EU’s competition branch is forthcoming, according to two people familiar with the matter.

So-called phase 2 probes add about 90 working days to deal reviews. Regulators typically demand remedies to solve competition concerns but sometimes also decide to give their unconditional approval if initial concerns are shown to be unfounded.

The purchase is a massive bet that more creative work will be done by small businesses and everyday users on the web, a market that Figma has rapidly seized. While Adobe has introduced less-expensive, streamlined products for that audience, most of its offerings are still heavyweight programs aimed at specialists.

A spokesperson for Adobe said that the company continues “to have productive conversations with regulatory bodies worldwide.” Figma didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Adobe, the longtime top seller of software for creative professionals, also faces scrutiny further afield, with the US Justice Department preparing an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the merger, according to people familiar with the matter.

The UK antitrust watchdog already announced on July 13 that it will kick-off a longer review after Adobe didn’t offer remedies to address antitrust issues. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority will issue its findings by Dec. 27.

The deal comes as Adobe adds generative AI features throughout its products. The company last month unveiled enterprise-level subscriptions for the new tools, which include legal assurance against copyright claims. As part of the forecast, Adobe raised the revenue projection for its Digital Media unit, which includes Photoshop and other creative software.

--With assistance from Katharine Gemmell.

 Bloomberg Businessweek

Iranian judges diagnosed 3 female actors with mental illnesses for not wearing hijabs in public, prompting outrage

Joshua Zitser
Updated Mon, July 24, 2023 

Women stand under an Iranian flag during a rally in support of the hijab on July 12, 2023.

Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Iranian judges diagnosed three female actors with mental illnesses after they refused to wear hijabs, per reports.


They must attend psychiatric centers for treatment as part of their court sentencing, per RFE/RL.


The ruling caused outrage among psychiatrists, who wrote an open letter criticizing the move.

Judges in Iran have handed down diagnoses of mental illnesses to three famous Iranian female actors for refusing to wear hijabs, RadioFranceEurope/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported.

Azadeh Samadi, Leila Bolukat, and Afsaneh Bayegan recently appeared in public without headscarves, a violation of Iran's strict rules on modesty.

Women who refuse to wear a hijab in public in Iran can face up to two years in prison, though repeat offenders can expect to spend more time behind bars if proposed legislation passes.

Bayegan, a veteran actor who wore a hat instead of a hijab to a film ceremony, was handed a two-year prison sentence, as well as a ban on travel and using the Internet, on July 19.

She was also ordered to undergo mandatory psychological treatment for what was described by judges as an "anti-family personality disorder" — a condition that is not recognized by any major Western medical bodies, per RFE/RL.

Samadi, 44, was given a similar medical order.

Tehran's Criminal Court ordered on July 18 that she must visit psychiatric centers every two weeks to be treated for an "anti-social disease," RFE/RL reported, citing Iranian media.

Samadi was detained after wearing a hat instead of a hijab at a funeral. Though she was not given prison time, she was denied access to her phone for six months and had all of her social media accounts shut down.

Bolukat, 42, who was previously handed a sentence of six months in prison, with a further ban on professional activities for two years, was also diagnosed by judges with a mental illness, per RFE/RL.

Her punishment comes after she posted images of herself without a hijab on social media, the news outlet reported.

Iran's strict hijab laws have inspired major protests over the past year, sparked by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini last September.

Iran's major psychiatric bodies pushed back on this latest move, with the heads of four psychiatry boards going public with their criticism in an open letter to Iran's judiciary chief, RFE/RL reported.

"The diagnosis of mental disorders is within the competence of a psychiatrist, not a judge," the letter said, per the news outlet. "Just as the diagnosis of other diseases is in the competence of doctors, not judges."

Calling the diagnoses "unscientific and strange," the open letter demanded that authorities amend the sentences against the three women, according to RFE/RL.

Chevron Considers Lithium Production in Latest EV Bet by Big Oil

Mitchell Ferman and Kevin Crowley
Mon, July 24, 2023 


(Bloomberg) -- Chevron Corp. is considering opportunities to produce lithium that would be used in electric vehicle batteries, Chief Executive Officer Mike Wirth said in a Bloomberg interview.

Extracting lithium fits with the “core capabilities” of a company like Chevron that has deep experience producing oil and gas, Wirth said on Sunday, without providing details of specific plans.

Earlier in July, Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods said the energy giant is exploring opportunities to produce lithium. The price and availability of lithium is crucial to whether EVs can scale up.

The lithium interest from US oil majors contrasts with their counterparts in Europe, which have been more aggressive in certain energy-transition areas like wind, solar and power services. US companies have focused on adjacent areas of their fossil fuel business such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and lithium. Chevron itself has made clear it has no plans to invest significantly in big wind and solar projects, saying the returns are low and the competition is too high.

Chevron, originally scheduled to report quarterly results this Friday, posted better-than-expected earnings as output in the Permian Basin soared to a record and also said it waived the mandatory retirement age of 65 for Wirth. Shares climbed 2.9% as of 11:02 a.m. in New York trading Monday.

A Strange Invisible Line Has Always Run Through Indonesia. Scientists Finally Know Why.

Tim Newcomb
Mon, July 24, 2023 

Patchareeporn Sakoolchai - Getty Images

The Wallace Line runs through Asia and Australia, and shows an incongruity in the dispersion of animal species on either side.


Researchers have known about the differences in the animals for over 150 years, but have only just now released a theory as to why they exist.


Colliding continents could be to blame for some animal species failing to adapt to changing climates.

The imaginary Wallace Line in Southeast Asia and Australia isn’t so fictional for the differing animal species living on either side. The line—named after British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace—serves as a boundary, and each side of that boundary plays host to very different types of animals.

For over 150 years, scientists didn’t have an explanation as to why the line exists. Why would two regions in close geographic proximity have such different animal populations? For example, why does a koala live in Australia, but not in the Philippines? Or, why can we find kangaroos in Papua New Guinea (and Australia), but not in Malaysia? And why do some animals buck that trend, like the enjoyably named kookaburra, which can be seen throughout both Asia and Australia?

Now, we may finally have an answer. A new paper published in Science claims that, tens of millions of years ago, shifting plate tectonics forced a dramatic swing in Earth’s climate and produced what have come to know as the Wallace Line.

According to the biologists at The Australian National University and ETH Zurich, the Wallace Line was caused by Australia breaking away from Antarctica millions of years ago, drifting north, and ramming into Asia.

“That collision gave birth to the volcanic islands that we now know as Indonesia,” Alex Skeels of Australian National University says in a press release. The creation of the Indonesian islands produced stepping stones for animals from Asia to reach New Guinea and northern Australia.

But the research still shows that far more groups of Asian animals made the move to Australia than vice versa. That’s why the researchers believe the Wallace Line answer comes from more than just moving Earth, but in a climate change shift. The team says that when Australia broke free from Antarctica, a dramatic climate change came with it. This cooled and dried continents and led to a mass extinction event.

“When Australia drifted away from Antarctica, it opened up this area of deep ocean surrounding Antarctica which is now where the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is,” Skeels said. “This dramatically hanged Earth’s climate as a whole. It made the climate much cooler.”

Somehow though, according to the latest theory, Indonesia remained relatively warm, wet, and tropical. So, Asian animals that were well-adapted to and comfortable in the conditions could easily hop from Asia to Australia. “This was not the case for the Australian species,” Skeels said. “They had evolved in a cooler and increasingly drier climate over time and were therefore less successful in gaining a foothold on the tropical islands compared to the creatures migrating from Asia.”

That migration pattern still plays out in today’s distribution of species. “If you travel to Borneo, you won’t see any marsupial mammals, but if you go to the neighboring island of Sulawesi, you will,” Skeels said. “Australia, on the other hand, lacks mammals typical of Asia, such as bears, tigers, or rhinos.”

Millions of years of climate history, the authors claim, could help predict which species can better adapt to the modern world’s changing environments.

Opinion
Our time is up; global warming requires activism now

William Culbert
Sun, July 23, 2023 

Global warming is misunderstood by many people, and the politicization of the issue has made it even more difficult to explore potential solutions.

William Culbert

The world population is expected to peak as early as the 2040s or, by any estimate, the end of the century, but this alone will not help us survive as a species. The rich world’s disproportionate use of carbon-based energy needs to change.

To become carbon neutral by 2050, in addition to being off fossil fuels, we would have to remove 1,850 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere annually. “Decarbonizing” the air with industrial processes is expensive and at best will remove only 4 million tons annually with the industrial facilities that have been proposed in the United States.

Cultivating forests is far more efficient. Under the best scenarios, if we were to ween off fossil fuels immediately, we would still have high levels of carbon in the atmosphere for centuries.

But we don’t have centuries.

As much as 40% of sea level rise is the direct product of the thermal expansion of water and not related to melting ice on the continents. But this latter issue is perhaps much worse than once thought.

Over the next 1,000 years the collapse of the Western Antarctic ice sheets is expected to raise sea levels more than 10 feet. But new Harvard research suggests that as the bedrock supporting the ice rebounds from the decreasing weight, it may displace even more water, raising sea levels another 3 feet.

Forty percent of the world’s population lives within about 60 miles of the ocean. According to The Economist, only about 13% of the world’s coastal areas might be amenable to efforts to protect them, but 65% would have no chance.

Some large industrial coastal cities like several in Eastern China would be particularly affected. Most were previously farmland with rapidly shrinking water tables. Industrialization with construction of skyscrapers and the elimination of wetlands is causing these cities to sink rapidly. Shanghai, with a population of 26 million, will be in great danger in the coming decades.

The heat from a changing climate alone may be enough to kill us. Europe experienced almost 62,000 additional heat-related deaths last year. In three decades, 100 million Americans can expect at least a day with a heat index of 125 degrees. This could have the potential to kill rapidly, and the process is insidious.

The world has had five mass extinctions in the last 500 million years that have each resulted in the extinction of most of the plant and animal species on earth. Some estimates suggest that 99.9% of all species that have lived on earth are now extinct. A quarter of all existing species are now threatened with extinction, and the process is increasing rapidly. If we lose 80 specific ones that are mostly microscopic, food production could be devastated, resulting in mass global starvation.

Humans and all other mammals have evolved from the few opossum-sized hibernating creatures that were able to survive the meteor strike that killed most dinosaurs. All birds and some reptiles evolved from dinosaurs.

Global warming may be just another mass extinction for the planet and life will go on, but it will surely represent the end of humans.

It should be the focus of all of us to delay the process as long as possible. It is not enough to do this by living a life with a low carbon footprint. Everyone needs to become a political activist.

William Culbert is an Oak Ridge resident and retired physician.

This article originally appeared on Oakridger: Our time is up; global warming requires activism now

'As long as we have AC': Phoenix heat shows gap between US rich, poor

Romain FONSEGRIVES
Sat, July 22, 2023 

Rosalia Licea (L) and neighbor Wendy Salinas pose on July 20, 2023 near the remains of a neighboring mobile home recently destroyed in a fire, during a record heat wave in Phoenix, Arizona 

(Patrick T. Fallon)

Melanie Floyd took her kids to the zoo in Phoenix in the morning, when temperatures in the heat wave roasting the city and much of the US southwest were still bearable.

Standing before a turtle exhibit, she downplayed this extreme weather event in a world grappling with climate change.

"As long as we have AC and as long as everyone is making smart choices," this stay-at-home mother aged 32 told AFP, "staying hydrated, going in the shade, staying cool, not overexerting themselves, I think it's tolerable."

At her home it is, indeed, nice and cool. She keeps the air conditioning between 75 and 78 degrees Fahrenheit (23 and 26 degrees Celsius) so she can look after her kids, aged two and six, comfortably as they play with coloring books and crafts.


Outside, day after day for more than three weeks, the temperature in Phoenix is surpassing a hard-to-fathom 110F.

The heatwave affecting much of the southwest and southern United States -- including the record temperatures in Phoenix -- is igniting debate on how fast global warming is moving.

For Floyd, this particular weather event is no big deal.

"You have to fluctuate as the weather fluctuates, so you have to be flexible with it," Floyd said.

In this desert city many people that spoke to AFP expressed similar views about the rising frequency of brutally dangerous heat as global warming caused by human activity grinds on: One must learn to live with it.

- Living without AC -

For many of them life is a series of mad dashes from offices to restaurants to shops, all with air conditioning cranked up good and frosty.

In the city center and well-to-do suburbs, people do not think twice about leaving their car running while they get out to do an errand, so as to keep it cool for when they come back.

But in less wealthy areas, heat like this is another thing altogether.

"If the temperatures go on like this, many people will not be able to cope," said Rosalia Licea, 37, who is raising five kids on her own.

She lives in a mobile home park where most of the trailers are from the 1950s. Early in this heat wave her air conditioning broke down.

For two days the temperature inside their mobile home hit 97F. The whole family had to take refuge in the room of the eldest child, which had a window AC unit. One of the smaller kids started having headaches.

Licea, who hails from Mexico, works several low-paying jobs to make ends meet. She does not have the $2,000 it would cost to buy a new AC system.

So she came up with a makeshift solution: spend $800 to fix the broken one.

"I had no choice, what with my kids," she said. "It was the priority, more than buying groceries or paying my rent."

Even with the new motor in the old AC unit, one of the air conduits is broken so the cold does not reach her living room. That is something else she will have to pay to have fixed.

- AC going full blast -

Licea tried but failed to qualify for aid offered by the city or some utility companies for people to upgrade their air conditioning units.

A study in 2022 by Arizona State University found that while mobile homes make up five percent of all housing in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and its suburbs, they account for 30 percent of indoor heat-related deaths in the city.

"It is easy to say 'we can adapt' when you have access to everything," Licea said. "It is different for us."

A fire broke out some days ago at her mobile home park, where the residences are hooked up directly to electrical pylons through shoddy connections.

One mobile home was destroyed. The fire is believed to have started because of an electrical overload, with washing machines, dryers, fridges and full-blast air conditioning all operating at once.

After 19 years in Arizona, Licea lives in fear of an electrical short circuit. So she mainly prepares salads for meals and tries to avoid turning on the lights to keep her electricity consumption, and the temperature, as low as possible.

"If I could move to a state that is not so hot I would do it," Licea said.

rfo/dw/bfm

‘We are winning’: Are US Jews who oppose Israeli settlements finally getting somewhere?

Chris McGreal in New York
Mon, July 24, 2023

Photograph: Yuki Iwamura/AFP/Getty Images

Mike Levinson has been pushing back for 40 years and finally thinks he might be getting somewhere.

Related: West Bank medics given bulletproof vests after ‘rise in attacks by Israeli forces’

“There’s a change and the politicians see it. I think it scares them,” said Levinson, holding a sign demanding “Stop Israeli settler violence” as he marched through New York on Thursday.

“There’s a tremendous change going on in the American Jewish community. There are a lot of Jews, especially young people, who are not so quick to automatically and unconditionally support everything that Israel does. People are accepting the fact that it’s OK to be Jewish and criticise Israel.”

Levinson, a Jewish New Yorker, began protesting against Israeli government policies during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. It’s been a long and often lonely road since then as he has sought to get his fellow Americans to pay attention to decades of Israeli occupation, military assaults on the West Bank and Gaza, and the unrelenting expansion of Jewish settlements.

People are accepting the fact that it’s OK to be Jewish and criticise Israel
Mike Levinson

Through it all, however, support for Israel in Washington has remained largely undiminished.

Nothing much looked to have changed last week as Democrats and Republicans alike feted Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, during his address to Congress. The Democratic leadership distanced itself from a boycott by some progressive representatives and joined the pile-on against Pramila Jayapal, chair of the influential Democratic Progressive Caucus, after she called Israel a “racist state” before rowing back to say she meant that its government is pursuing “outright racist policies”.

The Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, made a pointed defense of Israel while congressional Republicans quickly engineered a resolution declaring “Israel is not a racist or apartheid state”. All but 10 members voted for it.

The New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg described the backlash against Jayapal as a “hysterical overreaction” from Democrats and Republicans alike “demonstrating that, no matter how far Israel veers from liberal democratic norms, when it comes to American politics, it’s still protected by a thick lattice of taboos”.

But for all that, Levinson was upbeat as he marched last Thursday in support of proposed state legislation to block New York charities from funding illegal Israeli settlements. He said opinions about Israel have been shifting for years as increasing numbers of ordinary Americans, Jewish and not, see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the prism of civil rights.

“I hear it from them. They see social media, they’re checking out information coming from the Middle East. They don’t have to rely on the mass media here any more. They’re more sceptical about what they hear from the politicians and mainstream Jewish groups,” he said.

The Israeli president, Israel Herzog, is applauded by the US vice-president, Kamala Harris, and the speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, on 19 July. 

Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA

Opinion polls suggest Levinson is right. A Gallup survey earlier this year found that for the first time more Democrats were sympathetic to the Palestinians than the Israelis by a margin of 11%, a significant shift from a decade ago.

In 2021, a Jewish Electorate Institute poll found that 58% of American Jewish voters support restrictions on US military aid to prevent Israel using it to expand West Bank settlements. One-third agreed that “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is similar to racism in the United States” and one-quarter said that “Israel is an apartheid state”, numbers that shocked some Jewish community leaders.

Part of the shift has been driven by social media and the wide circulation of videos such as Israeli assaults on Gaza and the West Bank, the large-scale forced removal of Palestinians from the South Hebron hills, and armed Jewish settlers rampaging through Palestinian towns.

In addition, the repudiation by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of a Palestinian state, and far-right members of his latest government openly advocating annexation, have undercut Israel’s longstanding defense that its policies are a response to terrorism. That has given traction to claims by Israeli and foreign human rights groups that Israel has imposed a form of apartheid on the occupied territories.

But protesters in New York on 20 July in Manhattan’s Herald Square who were protesting against Israeli settlements had no illusions that evolving public opinion is going to translate into a change in policy in Washington any time soon.

Rosalind Petchesky, a retired political science professor at the City University of New York whose family fled anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, was also marching on Thursday. She said that some politicians were uncertain how to respond to the gap between the strong pro-Israel instincts of Washington and the views of some of their constituents.

Mainstream Democratic leaders get a lot of money from these groups and billionaires that support Israel, and that gives them power

Rosalind Petchesky

“Their response to Pramila Jayapal is a sign of weakness in the sense that they feel threatened because they’re exposed. But the mainstream Democratic leaders care about 2024 and get a lot of money from these groups and billionaires that support Israel, and that gives them power. So as long as that’s true, we are fighting an uphill battle. But we are going to win,” she said.

One way forward, said Diala Shamas, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights who joined the demonstration, is to focus on aspects of Israeli policies that are hard to defend.

American politicians mostly support Israel in the broadest terms, often referring to shared democratic values with the US and speaking up for Israel’s “right to defend itself”. But it is harder to justify individual Israeli policies, particularly over the settlements.

“It is, of course, an uphill battle to climb,” said Shamas. “But we know that the numbers are moving towards consensus around opposition to Israeli settlements. When you actually look at the demands of this campaign, they are the most uncontroversial from a legal standpoint. So those who oppose it have to actually say that they actually think that it’s OK to aid and abet war crimes.”

Still, it’s one thing to win support and another to get voters to care enough about an issue that it has political impact.

The challenge was clear in Herald Square. As the protesters chanted “We are winning”, New York shoppers mostly walked by without paying attention. Except for a man who stopped and started explaining to his son who the settlers are.

White House blasts Israel for passing sweeping judicial changes with 'the slimmest possible majority'

Brent D. Griffiths
Mon, July 24, 2023 

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks to mayors from across the country during an event at the East Room of the White House on January 20, 2023 in Washington, DC. President Biden hosted mayors who are attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting at the White House to discuss bipartisan achievements.

Alex Wong/Getty ImagesMore

The White House expressed concern after Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling coalition jammed through judicial reforms.


Biden has made it repeatedly clear that he wants Israel to reach a consensus on an issue that has led to an uproar.


The Netanyahu-backed reforms passed after a three-month pause failed to yield a compromise.

The White House on Monday condemned Israel parliament for passing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's preferred sweeping judicial reforms that sparked protests throughout the country, a further sign of how President Joe Biden is trying to exert his own influence from afar.

"It is unfortunate that the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

Jean-Pierre stressed that Biden remains a "lifelong friend of Israel," but it made it clear that the White House is not backing down from its months of nudging Netanyahu to cool his push for reforms amid public outrage.

"As a lifelong friend of Israel, President Biden has publicly and privately expressed his views that major changes in a democracy to be enduring must have as broad a consensus as possible," she said in the statement.

The White House's newest statement won't come as a surprise. Biden reiterated his views to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman ahead of the vote.

Netanyahu's coalition unanimously passed the reforms that would limit the Supreme Court's authority after the opposition parties walked out in protest. Protestors tried to block roads leading to parliament in a final vein attempt before the vote took place.

Israel's justice minister Yariv Levin and other right-wing leaders have viewed the proposal as a necessary way to rein in judges that they view as having asserted too much power. While critics have pointed out that Netanyahu is pursuing a way to weaken Israel's judiciary at the same time he faces an ongoing corruption trial.

The fierce reaction to Netanyahu's plan has led to an increasingly tumultuous moment. According to The Times, more than 10,000 military reservists are threatening to resign. Israel's largest labor union is considering a call for a national strike.

Netanyahu previously paused his push for an overhaul for three months after an earlier public outcry. He and the opposition were unable to reach a deal, leading to Monday's vote.

The tensions between Biden and Netanyahu come at a time when progressive lawmakers are increasingly skeptical over Israel's rightward push. The disagreements over how to approach the US ally served as a backdrop to Israeli President Isaac Herzog's address to Congress, which a handful of Democratic lawmakers opted to boycott.

Business Insider

This Is the End of the U.S.-Israel ‘Special Relationship’


David Rothkopf
Mon, July 24, 2023 

Photo Illustration by Kelly Caminero / The Daily Beast / Getty

America’s special relationship with Israel has, for the foreseeable future, come to an end.

Many will deny this. Many will hope it is not so. But the damage that has been done cannot be easily undone. A relationship built on shared values cannot be easily restored once it is clear those values are no longer shared.

For years, Israel made the case that it was America’s essential ally in the Middle East because it was the only state in the region that was a democracy—not a theocracy or an autocracy like all its neighbors.

Why Pramila Jayapal Was Right to Call Israel a ‘Racist State’

That is no longer the case.

While most of the blame for this turn of events must go to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing coalition of Jewish nationalists, some falls on America’s leaders who, to varying degrees, for years refused to acknowledge Israel’s drift toward authoritarianism or, for that matter, its serial abuses of millions of the people who lived within the borders it controlled.

As recently as a week ago, only nine people in the U.S. Congress dared stand up to the lie that Israel was not a racist state. This despite decades of denying fundamental human rights to Palestinians in territories over which it asserted power simply because they were Palestinian.

The chorus of American leaders who regularly promised Israel’s leaders we would be with them (no matter what they did) invited Netanyahu and the thugocracy he assembled around him to do their worst. The Israeli leaders knew there was no price to pay. They knew that American aid would keep on coming. They knew American leaders would apologize for or cover up their crimes, block the U.N. from taking action against them, and maintain the myth that they were democratic when becoming less and less so.

A demonstrator wearing a mask depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes part in a sit-in to block the entrance of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem on July 24, 2023.
Menahem Kahana / Getty

It is, of course, galling and revealing that it took the most baldfaced assault on the democratic rights of Jewish Israelis ever to get awareness of the decay within the Israeli polity to the level it is today.

Part of that is due to the natural and warranted support that has long existed for Israel due to its origins as a refuge for Jews escaping the horrors of the Holocaust, and seeking a homeland from which they could control their own destiny. Part of this is due to the fact that Israel was created to be a democracy, built around ideals much like those on which the U.S. was founded. Part of this is due to the fact that Israel was a valued ally during the Cold War, a potent counterforce to Soviet friends in a vital region of the world.

I Was Canceled for Criticizing Israel

We must also acknowledge that part of the support for Israel was due to the political influence of its supporters among the American electorate, from Zionist Jews to evangelical Christians. Some among these supporters have been particularly effective in making any wavering of support by political leaders seem toxic. This was accomplished via multiple means, but among these were the establishment of bright red lines, such as the argument that failing to support the government of Israel’s ethno-nationalist policies was tantamount to antisemitism.

Politicians in both U.S. parties therefore failed to offer sufficient criticism to Netanyahu as he bulldozed Palestinian settlements or changed Israel’s laws to shift the country in a more theocratic direction.

Even when Netanyahu, frustrated that his support from Democrats was not enthusiastic enough, became overtly partisan—embracing the GOP and, in particular, the MAGA GOP—this continued. Those who criticized Israel were ostracized and condemned. Trump offered Bibi a blank check and in exchange was offered a subway station and a settlement named after him.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks with former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Kobi Gideon / Getty

In recent months, as Netanyahu sought to change Israel’s laws to eviscerate the power and independence of its Supreme Court, while the Biden administration offered stronger and stronger words to warn the Israeli government away from such action, no major changes were made in U.S. plans to continue to provide billions of dollars of military and other forms of aid to Israel. Promises from Netanyahu that (to Israeli observers) were clearly lies were accepted.

Meet Israel’s Version of Marjorie Taylor Greene

More recently, this tolerance of outrageous behavior was seen to fray further when—in the wake of outright lies by Netanyahu about the nature of Biden’s support for him—the U.S. president took the extraordinary step of reaching out to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman to help him communicate the truth of what he had said to the Israeli prime minister, so that Bibi could no longer continue to twist Biden’s words as he had been doing.

But with the passage of the first part of Netanyahu’s plan to strip away the powers of the Israeli Supreme Court, it must be clear that the lies were lies, that the intent is undeniably anti-democratic, that we no longer share the values we once celebrated with Israel, and that the relationship must be reassessed.

Strikingly, some stalwart supporters of the traditional U.S.-Israel relationship, like former U.S. ambassadors to Israel Martin Indyk and Daniel Kurtzer, have said what was previously unthinkable: That the U.S. must consider stopping the provision of military aid to Israel.

They are right. We must consider it. We must, as Tom Friedman has argued in The Times, must use our special history with Israel in support of democracy in that country.

But we need to recognize that Israeli politics have changed, and that while hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets to protest the actions of the Netanyahu coalition, the damage that has already been done is likely to be compounded. More aggressive actions to settle the occupied territories using force are likely to follow. More blows against Israeli democracy are likely to follow. Even if the protests gain further momentum, divisions within Israeli politics are likely to remain for a long time to come.

America’s leaders must recognize that the policy of biting their tongues when Israel’s government brutalizes Palestinians‚ or when it has telegraphed its coming attacks on its own democracy—has been a failure.

Stronger steps were called for earlier. Stronger steps are called for now.

Aid to Israel cannot be a blank check. It must be driven by U.S. interests. And currently, the Netanyahu government (which also sat on the fence when the U.S. called for support in Ukraine) is not acting in those interests.

Shockingly, one senior U.S. government official said to me recently that as the U.S. pursued normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, it was the Israeli government rather than that of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (also known as MBS—a leader with whom they have had bad blood), that was proving the more difficult with which to deal.

U.S. political leaders must finally tune out the specious argument that opposing the actions of a racist Israeli government contemptuous of international law and fundamental human rights is somehow antisemitic. No one is doing more damage to the legitimacy of the state of Israel than the current Israeli government. No one is a greater threat to the state of Israel than Netanyahu and his coalition.

The only way to revive the “special relationship” is to establish that the U.S. and Israel are actually bound together by genuinely shared values. We must be clear about what that means and about the concrete costs of failing to re-establish those values as guiding principles of the Israeli government.

We must also recognize that it means protecting the rights not only of Israeli Jews but of Palestinians, as well, of making democracy and the transparent rule of law available to all who live within the borders—not just of the state of Israel but of the territories over which it exerts its authority. Because giving the Israeli government license to abuse the rights of Palestinians is part of what sent the message that we would tolerate the other abuses they have subsequently committed.

We must also recognize that Netanyahu hopes (and perhaps believes) that he can restore the special relationship by waiting for Donald Trump to be reelected. He knows that a Trump administration would not only be as contemptuous of democracy as he is, but it would be seeking to implement similar policies, in part because Trump (like Netanyahu) shares the desire to use power as a way of avoiding jail time for past crimes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives for a hearing at the Magistrate's Court in Rishon Lezion on January 23, 2023.
Abir Sultan / Getty

Of course, the consequence of a restoration of ties based on the further debasement of the principles on which both governments were once founded would mean something much worse than the end of an international relationship. It would mean a devastating blow to democracy and the rule of law worldwide. It would be a catastrophe for both nations and the planet.

We have come to this dangerous moment by failing to acknowledge and actively work to stop the enemies of our values, our standing, and our security. Given the stakes and the precariousness of the current situation in both countries, we must use every legal lever available at our disposal to undo the damage that has already been done and to stop further erosion at the foundations of our societies.

The Daily Beast.

U.S. Confronts Tight but Turbulent Relationship With Israel

Peter Baker and Lisa Lerer
Mon, July 24, 2023 

President Joe Biden, right, meets with President Isaac Herzog of Israel in the Oval Office on Oct. 26, 2022. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)

Long before moving into the White House, President Joe Biden compared the relationship between the United States and Israel to that of close friends. “We love one another,” he said, “and we drive one another crazy.”

The United States and Israel are currently in one of those driving-each-other-crazy phases of their usually tight but often turbulent 75-year partnership.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s quest to rein in the judiciary has become the latest point of contention as he pushed the first part of his package through the Israeli parliament Monday, defying widespread protests and repeated expressions of caution from Biden.

What makes this moment different is that the rift has nothing to do with the foreign policy and national security matters that typically provoke disagreement, like arms sales, Iran’s nuclear program, territorial claims or the long-running push to forge peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, it concerns a strictly domestic issue inside Israel, namely the balance of power and future of freedom in the one historical bastion of democracy in the Middle East.

The friction among friends has complicated cooperation in other areas where the two allies have common interests. For months, Biden refused to invite Netanyahu to Washington, which prevented at least some meetings between lower-level officials. The president relented last week and agreed to get together at some as-yet-unspecified time and place in the United States this year. But he then felt compelled to issue two public statements making clear that he had not changed his mind about Netanyahu’s drive to limit the power of the courts even as the prime minister is on trial for corruption.

The debate about the prime minister’s plan, which drew hundreds of thousands of protesters into the streets of Israel over the weekend in the latest of months of demonstrations, has spread to the Jewish community in the United States as well, at a time when rising partisanship has threatened to undermine American support for Israel.

“People who are left of center are worried or more upset about it overall than people who are right of center,” said Nathan Diament, executive director for public policy for the Orthodox Union, one of the largest Orthodox Jewish organizations in the country.

“There are many people in the American Orthodox community whose view on the substance is sympathetic or supportive to the reforms,” he added, noting that his community leans more politically conservative, “but nonetheless are worried about the divisiveness that the process has caused.”

Still, he and other longtime advocates and analysts said they remained confident that the relationship between the United States and Israel would endure. After a liberal Democratic congresswoman called Israel a “racist state,” the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution declaring the opposite was true. Only a handful of Democrats boycotted last week’s address to a joint meeting of Congress by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, and most of the rest gave him a standing ovation.

Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the fight over the judicial plan was “the clash of the century” within Israel, but it did not really affect relations with the United States in a profound way. “It’s a bit of a controversy lite,” he said. “In historical terms, this doesn’t begin to rank as a U.S.-Israel crisis.” Instead, he said, “this really is a fight within the family.”

The United States and Israel have had one of the world’s most intimate partnerships since the Jewish state was founded in 1948 and recognized minutes later by President Harry Truman. But conflict has been in the DNA of the relationship from the start. Every president — even the most outspoken supporters of Israel — has quarreled with Israeli prime ministers at one point or another.

Despite recognizing Israel, Truman refused to sell the new state offensive arms, as did his two successors. Dwight Eisenhower forced Israeli forces to withdraw from Egypt after the Suez crisis of 1956. Ronald Reagan was incensed by Israeli lobbying against his high-tech aircraft sale to Saudi Arabia. George H.W. Bush was so opposed to Israeli settlement plans that he suspended $10 billion in housing loan guarantees.

Netanyahu has been at the heart of many disputes in the last few decades. When he was deputy foreign minister, his public criticism of the United States in 1990 prompted an angry Secretary of State James Baker to bar Netanyahu from the State Department. Once Netanyahu became prime minister, Bill Clinton was so turned off after their first meeting in 1996 that he asked aides afterward, “Who’s the superpower here?” using an expletive for emphasis.

Barack Obama and Netanyahu, never warm, grew even more estranged when the Israeli leader delivered an address to a joint meeting of Congress to lash out at U.S. efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran. Even Donald Trump, who bent over backward to give Israel virtually everything on its geopolitical shopping list, finally broke with Netanyahu, first over a disagreement about annexation and later over the Israeli’s congratulations to Biden for winning the 2020 election.

Biden’s relationship with Netanyahu has been scratchy going back years. Biden once said that he had given a picture to Netanyahu with an inscription using his nickname: “Bibi, I don’t agree with a damn thing you say but I love you.” As vice president, Biden was undercut during a visit to Israel by a settlement announcement. But Biden later insisted that he and Netanyahu were “still buddies.”

In some ways, Biden’s approach to Israel has been different from those of his modern predecessors. While he has reaffirmed American support for a two-state solution to the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians, Biden is the first president in decades not to pursue peace talks, a recognition that there is no short-term prospect for success.

That by itself should have been a relief to Netanyahu, who has long resented American pressure to make concessions to the Palestinians. But Netanyahu has been outspoken in his criticism of Biden’s effort to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with Iran, while Biden has called Netanyahu’s cabinet “one of the most extreme” he had ever seen.

The judicial changes have been the latest sore point. When Vice President Kamala Harris addressed a celebration of Israel’s 75th anniversary at the country’s embassy in Washington last month, just two words in her speech describing shared values — “independent judiciary” — prompted Foreign Minister Eli Cohen to snap that she had not even read the plan. Yair Lapid, the opposition leader, recently lamented that because of Netanyahu “the United States is no longer our closest ally.”

For all that, Satloff said he did not believe Biden was “looking for a fight” with the Israeli leader — leading to last week’s invitation. “My sense is the administration came to the conclusion that this tactic of withholding a presidential meeting had run its course,” he said.

Nonetheless, Biden does not think much of the judicial restructuring package, going so far as to summon Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, to the Oval Office last week to say that Netanyahu should “seek the broadest possible consensus here.” He offered another statement to Axios on Sunday, saying that “it looks like the current judicial reform proposal is becoming more divisive, not less.”

Aides insist Biden is not trying to engineer a specific outcome in an ally’s internal politics. National security adviser Jake Sullivan said the president was simply offering “judicious but straightforward” counsel.

“It’s not about us dictating or lecturing,” Sullivan said in a brief interview after an appearance last week at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. “It’s about us believing deeply that the bedrock of our relationship is our common democratic values.”

Other Democrats likewise said it was appropriate to weigh in with a friend. The enormous street protests “should be a cautionary note to elected leaders in Israel and I hope will give them pause,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., a close Biden ally.

But some Republicans faulted Biden for intervening in a domestic issue. “Maybe he knows more about the judicial system and he feels comfortable about telling the Israeli people what they should do,” said Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. “I don’t think that’s appropriate any more than they should be telling us how we should vote on the Supreme Court here.”

In the American Jewish community, the issue has not generated the same passion seen on the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

“The people who were very engaged in the Jewish organizational world were certainly activated by the proposed judicial reform, but I don’t think this gripped broadly the American Jewish community,” said Diana Fersko, senior rabbi at the Village Temple, a Reform synagogue in Manhattan.

Fersko, the author of a book about antisemitism that will be released this summer, said the issue is complicated and noted deep differences between Israeli and American societies. “I don’t think the Jewish American community needs to be overly involved in this,” she said. “But I do think we need to have a deep belief that the state of Israel will find a path forward.”

c.2023 The New York Times Company

After 29 Weeks of Protest, Israel Passes Landmark Legislation That Will Test Its Democracy

CONFIRMING ISRAEL AS A ZIONIST STATE

Yasmeen Serhan

TIME
Mon, July 24, 2023 

Protestors draped in the Israeli flags stand together during

Protestors draped in the Israeli flags stand together during a rally. Tens of thousands of demonstrators have gathered in Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities to voice their opposition to the judicial overhaul plans proposed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Credit - Eyal Warshavsky—SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Thousands of Israeli protesters descended on the streets of Jerusalem for a third consecutive day on Monday as the country braced for a crucial vote on legislation that would significantly weaken the authority of its Supreme Court. The legislation, which passed 64-0 after the opposition lawmakers left the Knesset in protest, marks the government’s first victory in its seven-month effort to enact the controversial legislation, which critics say could bring Israel to the brink of autocracy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to curb the power of the judiciary—and, in turn, remove the sole administrative check on his far-right government’s power—has been the subject of 29 consecutive weeks of mass protest. As many as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators converged on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv over the weekend to voice their opposition to the upcoming vote. Their calls for Netanyahu to halt his judicial overhaul plans were echoed by military reservists, businesses, and even U.S. President Joe Biden. Netanyahu, who spent the weekend in the hospital following a pacemaker operation, refused to back down.

Alon-Lee Green, the national co-director of the Arab-Jewish grassroots movement Standing Together, has been among the demonstrators ever since he helped launch the inaugural protest on Jan. 7. He spoke with TIME on Friday about how the protest movement came to life and why Monday’s vote is a decisive moment for Israeli democracy. His account of the last 29 weeks has been edited for length and clarity.

The movement I am part of is called Standing Together, which is a Jewish and Arab movement in Israel fighting for democracy and equality and peace and social justice. It’s very much on the left side of the political spectrum.

And we’ve been very much involved in different struggles in the last few years, mainly for equality inside Israel, a deeper democracy also for the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, and all around the question of the occupation and peace and settlements.

During the five cycles of elections that we witnessed and participated in these last three years, we took the role of encouraging the Arab Palestinian minority to get out and vote. And we also pushed the political system to be more inclusive.

Then we came to this last election in November, and we couldn’t expect results this bad. It’s like the right wing—not even the right wing, but the extreme right wing in Israel—won the lottery. They managed to get out so many of their base to vote and to really increase their voting percentage Meanwhile, the left-wing Jewish parties, Meretz, did not pass the electoral threshold. The Arab national movement, Balad, also did not pass.

So eight full seats of the left-wing side of Parliament have been erased and that gave more proportional representation to the right. It led to the result that some people like Zvi Sukkot, a new MP who is one of the most extreme settlers in Israel, got into Parliament. The party of Itamar Ben-Gvir got five seats and the most extreme fascist settlers have 14 seats together in the Parliament. That was scary.

We saw that negotiations in December between Netanyahu’s ruling Likud and the far right over forming a new coalition, a new government, involved more and more scary demands like annexing part of the West Bank, like putting secret supervision on Arab teachers in Israel, and attacking the rights of the Palestinians living in Israel, the rights of women, the rights of the LGBTQ community. When the government reached a coalition agreement, we said “this is scary, we need to resist the new settler government,” and we called a demonstration on the seventh of January.

That was the first demonstration. We cooperated with a lot of different organizations. It started to gain speed and we were going out on the streets to show that we are still here even though the main discussion at this moment was that people are going to leave Israel from the liberal and left camp. The main discussion was of fear.

Two days before the first demonstration, the Minister of Justice Yariv Levin held a press conference and he declared the new judicial reform and then a lot more forces from the political center joined this movement. And that’s how the first demonstration exploded, with 30,000 people on the street. But honestly, it also had a lot of tension because the main organizer of it was a movement that also addressed the occupation. Many who decided to join the protests after Levin’s press conference announcing the judicial reform said, “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Don’t mix the reform and the settlers. We don’t want to talk about the occupation now.” Still, the first protest had four Palestinians on the main stage during that night of demonstration. It also had a woman from the strictly Orthodox Haredi community on the stage, and it was very clear about anti-racism, anti-occupation. And then, starting from the second protest, those messages were no longer the mainstream messages of the protest.

Read More: Why Israel’s Democratic Reckoning Has Barely Begun

This is one of the biggest protests in Israel’s history. It has people in the tens of thousands and sometimes more than 150,000 people week after week after week. At some moments of the protests—like the night of the firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant because he demanded Netanyahu to stop with the judicial overhaul—people started flooding the streets, shouting, “Go out of your houses, there is a demonstration, go to the Kaplan Street, go to Kaplan!” And you saw that from every building on the street. I was one of those people. I left my house, I saw from the next building people leaving and then from the other building and the other. And it started to be like literal rivers of people that were connecting in the bigger streets to a bigger river and then we got to Kaplan and we were tens of thousands of people in a spontaneous moment that felt electrifying. We blocked one of the main highways of Israel and we stood there the entire night. It will be remembered as a historic moment in Israel.

The government has a lot to lose if they will not take advantage of their lottery win, the election results. It does feel for the government, for a lot of MPs and the parties of the coalition, that it’s not something to waste; it’s not something to let go of. I think that is driving them very strongly forward and it’s very scary to see.

Things have come to a head in the last four days in Israel. Last Monday, the government voted on a law that bans students in Israel that are coming from the Palestinian minority in Israel to wave a Palestinian flag. If you are a student and you wave a Palestinian flag, you’re not entitled to study in any academic institute in Israel. You are not entitled to receive an academic degree in Israel. And if you studied abroad, your degree from abroad will not be acknowledged by the Israeli state. And that was voted on on Monday and it passed two days ago in Parliament with the support of the government. That’s the preliminary voting—there’s still two more votes to go, but they actually pushed it forward.

Then, the other day, it was declared by the government that Arab teachers are going to get the supervision of the secret service and also they’re going to extend this program now so that every person who wants to become a teacher in Israel will have to undergo supervision of the secret service of Israel.

Another thing they did this week is to say that any request for child support from a woman to a man has to go through the rabbinical court, which means that if you want to get divorced, the man has the power to tell you to drop the request for child support. You cannot divorce without it in Israel; you need to get the support of the man. It’s a very bad law.

This is just one week in Israel. So if the government will see that they have the power to push through this judicial reform, despite hundreds of thousands of people on the street, the economic and financial elite fighting against them, they will feel that they have a lot of power to push the other things that they want to do. It’s a very scary moment.

It feels as though Israel stands at a historic crossroads. It feels like the very basic agreement between the state and its citizens has been broken. On Friday, we saw that 1,200 pilots from the Air Force of Israel declared that they refuse to continue their service. And what they described is that the very basic agreement; the very basic feeling that what they give and what they get in return has been broken.

The general feeling is that there is a very big thing that has been broken and cannot be restored.

Israeli startups act to relocate over judicial shakeup, survey finds

 Israelis launch "Day Of Resistance" against judicial overhaul


By Emily Rose
Sun, July 23, 2023

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Nearly 70% of Israeli startups have taken action to relocate parts of their business outside Israel, a survey released on Sunday by an Israeli non-profit organisation on the government's planned judicial overhaul found.

The survey by Start-Up Nation Central sought to measure the economic impact plans by the hard-right coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that would restrict the Supreme Court's powers to strike down legislation.

For months, demonstrators have held mass street protests against the plans they say they threaten Israeli democracy by removing a check on executive power.

Business groups have also cited the proposed changes as the reason for a 70% drop in tech fundraising in the first half of the year.

Israel's tech sector is a growth driver, accounting for 15% of economic output, 10% of jobs, more than 50% of exports and 25% of tax income. But institutional investors have not been a big part of its success, with most investment coming from venture capital funds.

The survey, completed by professionals representing 521 companies, said 68% of Israeli startup companies "have begun taking active legal and financial steps, like withdrawing cash reserves, changing HQ location outside Israel, relocation of employees and conducting layoffs."

Additionally, 22% of companies said they have diversified cash reserves outside Israel and 37% of investors say companies in their portfolios have withdrawn some of their cash reserves and moved them abroad.

"Concerning trends like registering a company abroad or launching new startups outside Israel will be hard to reverse," said Start-Up Nation Central CEO Avi Hasson.

The survey was released as lawmakers began debating a bill that would prevent the Supreme Court from quashing legislation on the grounds of manifest "unreasonableness".

(Reporting by Emily Rose; editing by Barbara Lewis)

Tech warriors in the battle for Israel’s democracy




Erel Margalit
Sat, July 22, 2023 

Israel is a country that has battled for its existence and survival since Day 1.

Having fought multiple wars and living with ongoing threats, Israelis are now in a fierce battle for their democracy. This battle is not fought with tanks or guns but with the power of unity, protest, and the determination to protect the very essence of their nation.

Last week, hundreds of thousands poured onto the streets across the country in response to the Netanyahu government’s passage, and in a first Knesset reading, of the “reasonableness bill,” which will severely restrict judicial review of decisions made by the cabinet, government ministers, and other elected officials.

The bill is part of a contentious legislative package advanced by the hardline Netanyahu coalition that aims to radically overhaul Israel’s independent judiciary and curb checks and balances on political power. This week, the government plans to bring the bill for its final votes.

And our unequivocal answer is, “NO.”

We at JVP and the entire Israeli high-tech sector, whose members went out in droves to protest, alongside doctors, teachers, members of the military reserves, pilots, special forces units, and people from all walks of life, are saying no to dictatorship and yes to democracy.

Often, in the history of countries, there are key moments of real, existential crisis that demand answers on values.

In addition to their contributions to Israel's economy, the tech community recognizes the vital role that democracy and societal openness play in fostering innovation, invention, and creativity. These values are the very foundation of the national spirit that drives the country's success on the global stage. As a result, the high-tech sector has joined forces with other industries to stand united in the defense of democratic principles that have allowed Israel to flourish.

We refuse to let our hard-fought freedoms be undermined by a government seeking to consolidate power and erode the principles that have made Israel a beacon of democracy in the region.

What Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has found in many of us are warriors. Just like we have been warriors on the front lines, we are also warriors in this battle for democracy. We understand that the strength of a nation lies not only in its military might but also in its commitment to upholding the values of justice, equality, and freedom. We will not stand idly by as these values are threatened.

With last week’s mass demonstrations and more protests planned this week, Israelis from the center, the left, and the moderate right convey a powerful message to Netanyahu and his far-right partners: The judicial overhaul he and they are trying to lead is unacceptable and will not be allowed to pass. We refuse to let Israel slide down the dangerous path of illiberal governance witnessed in countries like Poland and Hungary. Our country's strength lies in its vibrant democracy, where the rule of law prevails and every citizen's rights are protected.

In a country with such strong societal bonds and with so many people who have sacrificed and paid heavy prices, we can’t let this government hijack the judicial system and transform Israel from a proud, hard-earned liberal democracy into something we no longer recognize.

For Israelis, democracy and societal openness are the very fundamental conditions of innovation, invention, and creativity. It is our national spirit.

The collective determination to defend democratic principles reflects the deep societal bonds and the belief that preserving democracy is vital for the continued success and prosperity of the nation.

Technology and innovation — for JVP and many in the high-tech sector and other industries — have been instrumental in fostering cooperation and partnerships with other tech and business ecosystems, not just in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, but also in the Middle East. Countries like the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan have become allies in the pursuit of technological progress and economic growth.

We cannot let everything we built be destroyed by a government intent on harming Israel’s independent judiciary, a cornerstone of every democracy. The high-tech sector, along with various other industries, stands united in its commitment to safeguard the democratic values that have propelled Israel's success on the global stage.

Just as they have been warriors on the front lines of technological advancement, they are now warriors in the fight to protect their nation's democratic soul. The determination to overcome this existential crisis and uphold the core values that define Israel's identity and strength is a testament to the resilience and unity of the Israeli people. This pivotal moment calls for a resolute stance on the values that have shaped the country's history, and it is one that will shape its future.

We are going to overcome this, and the people who are trying to derail democracy today will be gone tomorrow. Often, in the history of countries, there are key moments of real, existential crisis that demand answers on values.

For Israel, this is one of those moments.

Indian Tycoon Jindal’s JSW Steel Scouts for Global Coal Mining Assets

IMPERIALI$M HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALI$M

Swansy Afonso
Mon, July 24, 2023 

Jsw Steel Names Swayam Saurabh As CFO, Designate

(Bloomberg) -- JSW Steel Ltd. is on the lookout for coal assets globally as the tycoon Sajjan Jindal-led mill seeks to tie up raw material supplies for its expansions in India.

India’s top producer of the alloy has plans to scale up its capacity to 50 million tons by the end of the decade. The Mumbai-based firm has been scouring mining resources locally and in other countries to avoid supply shocks and price risks. It is said to be considering bidding for a stake in the coal unit of Vancouver-based Teck Resources Ltd., Bloomberg reported earlier this month.

The quest for more natural resources comes as the country boosts its investments in building infrastructure, such as roads and airports. Local steel makers have lined up big expansion plans to meet the consumption growth. JSW’s search for coal assets also comes at a time when India is trying to cut its dependence on the thermal variety of the fuel to hit its net zero goal by 2070.

“We are looking at some coking coal assets internationally, whether it is Australia or Canada,” as some of the global miners have put their assets for sale or divestment, Joint Managing Director Jayant Acharya said in a interview. “We are looking at Canada options, which is not only Teck but there are some other mines as well,” he said on Monday, without providing further details.

“Our focus on raw material security is one of our strategies as we want to have backward integration,” Acharya said.

JSW’s two new coal mine projects in India are expected to start production in the next two-and-a-half years, Acharya said. The mill has also snapped up six iron ore mines locally in recent state auctions as the company is targeting to raise it captive raw material linkage to 75% of its needs from 45% now, he added.

“As our capacity expands, it’s important to add iron ore resources, otherwise this ratio will go down,” he said. JSW will continue to participate in more iron ore auctions, Acharya said.

While JSW’s focus will be on brown-field expansions for its steelmaking capacity, the company will also be looking at inorganic growth. The firm has expressed its initial interest to acquire state-run NMDC Ltd.’s steel plant.


Among other projects, mining assets linked to Vedanta Ltd.’s steel plant may be more interesting for JSW rather than the mill itself, Acharya said. Anil Agarwal’s company recently began a strategic review of its steel business.

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

U$A

Yellow Avoids Teamsters Strike but Bankruptcy Isn’t off the Table

Glenn Taylor
Mon, July 24, 2023


Yellow Corp. averted a threatened strike by 22,000 Teamsters-represented workers on Sunday, after the less-than-truckload (LTL) company agreed to extend healthcare benefits for employees at the firm’s YRC Freight and Holland divisions. But even with a strike out of the equation, the trucking giant is still at risk of going bankrupt.

Central States Pension Fund will pay more than $50 million it owed in worker benefits and pension accruals to the union employees. The fund’s board of directors initially suspended the benefits when Yellow had first missed a July 15 deadline to make its healthcare and pension payments to the fund.

The new agreement gives Yellow 30 days from Sunday to pay its bills. The Teamsters in a statement said that they understand the company will make the payment by Aug. 6.

Union brass, which is already embroiled in a high-profile contract negotiation with UPS which could lead to a potential strike on Aug. 1, met with Yellow representatives Sunday night in Washington, D.C. to review the current contract.

Although this represents a major win for Teamsters employees, which comprise most of the company’s 28,800 workers, the future of the company remains in doubt amid reports of companies diverting freight to other carriers.

At the end of June, Yellow reported having more than $100 million in cash holdings, but said it could run out of cash by mid-July. It recently had to secure a waiver from lenders that allows its finances to drop below predetermined levels tied to its loans.

One logistics academic believes the market can bear a worst-possible outcome for Yellow.

“They will most likely go bankrupt or reduce their operations significantly, but there is sufficient capacity in the market to absorb the freight,” Dr. Chris Caplice, executive director at the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, told Sourcing Journal on Monday.

Walmart and The Home Depot have pulled their business from Yellow in recent weeks, Reuters reported, and Twitter commentary seems to confirm this development. Yellow CEO Darren Hawkins said in a February earnings call that the company’s retail clients “tend to be very large shippers.”



Sourcing Journal reached out to Walmart for comment. The Home Depot declined comment.

Earlier this month, Uber’s freight division said it paused sending shipments to Yellow.

Dr. Thomas Goldsby, professor and Haslam Chair of Logistics at the University of Tennessee’s Global Supply Chain Institute, told Sourcing Journal that major clients like Walmart still have options if reworked their Yellow relationship.

“Walmart operates one of the world’s largest private fleets, so they have the luxury of deciding, ‘What are we going to control ourselves?’ And then for the freight that’s not so economic for them, they’ll go to the market,” Goldsby told Sourcing Journal. “To some extent, your domain, if you will, is going to be defined based on size.”

Goldsby said major retail networks likely will continue to shift volume to both LTL, which includes shared trucking space with other shippers, and full truckload (FTL) carriers, which are exclusively shipping goods from one customer.

“If I was doing the calculus, first of all, LTL is usually not your first choice anyway,” said Goldsby. You’re going to be trying to divert as much as you can via full truckload. But it’s a good option, if you’re not going to be filling up that truck, or your frequencies are not that great. It’s great to have that option.”

Estimates suggest that Yellow controls up to 10 percent of the total U.S. LTL market, according to TD Cowen. Echoing Caplice’s comments, Goldsby noted that the strength in capacity, also indicating that LTL is far less consolidated as a whole than the small parcel industry, where UPS has a 24 percent share of total volume shipped. This makes a potential bankruptcy less of a wider national concern than the impact of a possible strike.

“Particularly right now, with trucking prices down, it’s a good time to say, ‘Hey, big truckload carrier, we’re thinking about shipping more business to you.’” Goldsby said. “Depending on what sector you find yourself, you may be able to avoid LTL almost entirely.”

Yellow’s detente with the Teamsters doesn’t meant the tension is gone completely. The trucking firm’s $137.3 million lawsuit accuses the Teamsters of preventing the LTL company from implementing the second phase of its One Yellow restructuring plan.

Under this plan, Yellow would consolidate its four LTL operating companies and close some terminals to slash costs. While Yellow accuses the Teamsters of breaching their collective bargaining agreement, the union alleges a restructured Yellow would risk union jobs.