Electric school buses may yield significant health and climate benefits, cost savings

HARVARD T.H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Key points:

• Replacing an average diesel school bus from 2017 with an electric one may result in $84,200 in health and climate benefits—including fewer greenhouse gas emissions and reduced rates of mortality and childhood asthma—per individual bus.
• Those benefits may increase to $247,600 per individual electric school bus replacing a diesel bus from 2005 or earlier in a large metropolitan area.
• While the benefits of replacing diesel vehicles with electric ones are well known, this is the first study to specifically quantify the health and climate benefits of replacing diesel school buses with electric ones—a transition that has begun but that researchers say could be accelerated.

Boston, MA—Replacing diesel school buses with electric school buses may yield up to $247,600 in climate and health benefits per individual bus, according to a new study by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The researchers found that these benefits—including fewer greenhouse gas emissions and reduced rates of adult mortality and childhood asthma—and their associated savings are strongest in large cities and among fleets of old (2005 and before) buses.

The study will be published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on May 20, 2024.

While the health and climate benefits of switching from diesel vehicles to electric ones are well established, this is the first study to specifically quantify how electric school buses can improve human and planetary health.

“Research on air pollution and climate change should strive to quantify health benefits,” said senior author Kari Nadeau, John Rock Professor of Climate and Population Studies and chair of the Department of Environmental Health. “Our findings can inform policymakers that greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are reduced by implementing solutions like electric vehicle use. Our data offer strong evidence that accelerating the ongoing transition to electric school buses will benefit individual, public, and planetary health.”

There are about half a million school buses in use in the U.S. and a substantial portion are older, highly polluting diesel buses. Switching to electric buses is a difficult decision for local, state, and federal officials as they are expensive and the health benefits are not well known.

To quantify how diesel and electric school buses impact the climate, the researchers compared the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted from diesel school bus tailpipes and from electric school buses’ electricity generation and battery production. To assess the buses’ health impacts, the researchers compared how their respective emissions contribute to fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5), which is linked to adult mortality and the onset of childhood asthma.

The study found that replacing an average diesel school bus in the U.S. fleet in 2017 with an electric one resulted in $84,200 in total benefits per individual bus. Each electric school bus emitted 181 fewer metric tons of carbon dioxide than its diesel counterpart, amounting to $40,400 worth of climate benefits. Meanwhile, each electric school bus was associated with $43,800 in health savings, from less air pollution and reduced rates of mortality and childhood asthma.

The study also found that electric school buses’ health benefits vary depending on location and the age of the diesel bus being replaced. Large metropolitan areas—defined as those with a population of more than one million—derive the most significant health benefits from electrifying fleets of school buses, given the larger number of people whose air quality is improved. The researchers calculated that, in a large city, replacing a 2005 diesel school bus with an electric bus would achieve $207,200 in health benefits per bus.

“In a dense urban setting where old diesel buses still comprise most school bus fleets, the savings incurred from electrifying these buses outweigh the costs of replacement,” Nadeau said. “Not to mention how the tangible benefits of electric school buses can improve lives—especially for racial minorities and those living in low-income communities who are disproportionately impacted by the everyday health risks of air pollution.”

Nadeau and her co-authors noted that the study did not tackle one important question: how electric school buses impact children’s exposure to in-cabin air pollution while riding the bus. Additional research into this topic could further inform policy decisions.

Ernani Choma, research associate in the Department of Environmental Health, and Lisa Robinson, senior research scientist and deputy director of the Center for Health Decision Science, were co-authors.

“Adopting electric school buses in the United States: health and climate benefits,” Ernani F. Choma, Lisa A. Robinson, Kari C. Nadeau, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 20, 2024, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2320338121

Visit the Harvard Chan School website for the latest news, press releases, and multimedia offerings.

###

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health brings together dedicated experts from many disciplines to educate new generations of global health leaders and produce powerful ideas that improve the lives and health of people everywhere. As a community of leading scientists, educators, and students, we work together to take innovative ideas from the laboratory to people’s lives—not only making scientific breakthroughs, but also working to change individual behaviors, public policies, and health care practices. Each year, more than 400 faculty members at Harvard Chan School teach 1,000-plus full-time students from around the world and train thousands more through online and executive education courses. Founded in 1913 as the Harvard-MIT School of Health Officers, the School is recognized as America’s oldest professional training program in public health.

---

JOURNAL

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

DOI

10.1073/pnas.2320338121 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Adopting electric school buses in the United States: health and climate benefits

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

20-May-2024

The ‘dead internet theory’ makes eerie claims about an AI-run web.

The Conversation
May 20, 2024 

Shrimp Jesus (Shutterstock AI Generator)

If you search “shrimp Jesus” on Facebook, you might encounter dozens of images of artificial intelligence (AI) generated crustaceans meshed in various forms with a stereotypical image of Jesus Christ.

Some of these hyper-realistic images have garnered more than 20,000 likes and comments. So what exactly is going on here?

The “dead internet theory” has an explanation: AI and bot-generated content has surpassed the human-generated internet. But where did this idea come from, and does it have any basis in reality?



An example of a shrimp Jesus image on Facebook with no caption or context information included in the post. Facebook

What is the dead internet theory?

The dead internet theory essentially claims that activity and content on the internet, including social media accounts, are predominantly being created and automated by artificial intelligence agents.

These agents can rapidly create posts alongside AI-generated images designed to farm engagement (clicks, likes, comments) on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. As for shrimp Jesus, it appears AI has learned it’s the current, latest mix of absurdity and religious iconography to go viral.

But the dead internet theory goes even further. Many of the accounts that engage with such content also appear to be managed by artificial intelligence agents. This creates a vicious cycle of artificial engagement, one that has no clear agenda and no longer involves humans at all.

Harmless engagement-farming or sophisticated propaganda?

At first glance, the motivation for these accounts to generate interest may appear obvious – social media engagement leads to advertising revenue. If a person sets up an account that receives inflated engagement, they may earn a share of advertising revenue from social media organisations such as Meta.

So, does the dead internet theory stop at harmless engagement farming? Or perhaps beneath the surface lies a sophisticated, well-funded attempt to support autocratic regimes, attack opponents and spread propaganda?


While the shrimp Jesus phenomenon may seem harmless (albeit bizarre), there is potentially a longer-term ploy at hand.

As these AI-driven accounts grow in followers (many fake, some real), the high follower count legitimises the account to real users. This means that out there, an army of accounts is being created. Accounts with high follower counts which could be deployed by those with the highest bid.

This is critically important, as social media is now the primary news source for many users around the world. In Australia, 46% of 18 to 24-year-olds nominated social media as their main source of news last year. This is up from 28% in 2022, taking over from traditional outlets such as radio and TV.

Bot-fuelled disinformation

Already, there is strong evidence social media is being manipulated by these inflated bots to sway public opinion with disinformation – and it’s been happening for years.

In 2018, a study analysed 14 million tweets over a ten-month period in 2016 and 2017. It found bots on social media were significantly involved in disseminating articles from unreliable sources. Accounts with high numbers of followers were legitimising misinformation and disinformation, leading real users to believe, engage and reshare bot-posted content.

This approach to social media manipulation has been found to occur after mass shooting events in the United States. In 2019, a study found bot-generated posts on X (formerly Twitter) heavily contribute to the public discussion, serving to amplify or distort potential narratives associated with extreme events.

More recently, several large-scale, pro-Russian disinformation campaigns have aimed to undermine support for Ukraine and promote pro-Russian sentiment.

Uncovered by activists and journalists, the coordinated efforts used bots and AI to create and spread fake information, reaching millions of social media users.


On X alone, the campaign used more than 10,000 bot accounts to rapidly post tens of thousands of messages of pro-Kremlin content attributed to US and European celebrities seemingly supporting the ongoing war against Ukraine.

This scale the influence is significant. Some reports have even found that nearly half of all internet traffic in 2022 was made by bots. With recent advancements in generative AI – such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT models and Google’s Gemini – the quality of fake content will only be improving.

Social media organisations are seeking to address the misuse of their platforms. Notably, Elon Musk has explored requiring X users to pay for membership to stop bot farms.


Social media giants are capable of removing large amounts of detected bot activity, if they so chose. (Bad news for our friendly shrimp Jesus.)
Keep the dead internet in mind

The dead internet theory is not really claiming that most of your personal interactions on the internet are fake.

It is, however, an interesting lens through which to view the internet. That it is no longer for humans, by humans – this is the sense in which the internet we knew and loved is “dead”.

The freedom to create and share our thoughts on the internet and social media is what made it so powerful. Naturally, it is this power that bad actors are seeking to control.

The dead internet theory is a reminder to be sceptical and navigate social media and other website with a critical mind.


Any interaction, trend, and especially “overall sentiment” could very well be synthetic. Designed to slightly change the way in which you perceive the world.

Jake Renzella, Lecturer, Director of Studies (Computer Science), UNSW Sydney and Vlada Rozova, Research Fellow in Applied Machine Learning, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Strike over Olympics bonuses disrupts Paris trains

Agence France-Presse
May 21, 2024

The strike caused major disruption, including huge traffic jams in the capital region (Dimitar DILKOFF/AFP)

Drivers and ticket inspectors on Paris commuter trains launched a one-day strike on Tuesday to pressure management over bonuses for the Olympics this July and August, leading to criticism of union tactics.

Drivers walked off the job on most RER and other commuter lines, which are used daily by millions of workers living in the capital's suburbs, causing major delays and huge traffic jams.

"I left two hours earlier than normal to make sure I was on time," restaurant worker Anne-Sophie Collier told AFP and she arrived in central Paris on Tuesday morning after an uncomfortable journey on a packed train


Unions representing workers across the public sector have launched strikes or are threatening to in order to demand extra pay or support for having to work over the July 26-August 11 Games, which fall during the traditional summer holiday in France.

Police, air traffic controllers, Paris rubbish collectors, central government employees, metro drivers and firefighters have all made pay demands, with the government under pressure to prevent disruption spoiling the event.

Workers at the national mint, which is producing the medals, have also been on strike, but management insists that production remains on track.

"It's intolerable that a few privileged people are able to take France hostage very, very regularly," senior Republicans senator Bruno Retailleau told Sud Radio, echoing criticism from many right-wing and far-right lawmakers over Tuesday's walk-out.

"The right to strike is constitutional, but so is the right to have minimum public services," he added.

Tuesday's strike came one day ahead of a roundtable between train drivers on the SNCF network and management to discuss Olympics bonuses, with the stoppages seen as a pressure tactic.


Several unions representing workers at Paris airports also announced a strike on Tuesday but the stoppages appeared to have had little impact.

"All flights will be able to operate," a spokesman for the airport operating company told AFP.

Palestine: a UN non-Member Observer State

By Cameron Hunt

May 19, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


The Security Council meets before voting on a resolution concerning a ceasefire in Gaza at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)


On 10 May 2024, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution A/RES/ES-10/23 in which it expressed “deep regret and concern that, on 18 April 2024, one negative vote by a permanent member of the Security Council [UNSC] prevented … the Council recommending the admission of the State of Palestine to membership in the United Nations”; for which reason the UNGA decided, of its own initiative, to authorize “the participation of the State of Palestine in the sessions and work of the General Assembly and the international conferences convened under the auspices of … the United Nations”.

Given the stipulation in Article 4 of the UN Charter that “The admission of any … state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council”, and given that precisely such a recommendation was vetoed by the USA in the UNSC most-recently on 18 April 2024 – as acknowledged in the UNGA Resolution itself – it was indeed a very liberal reading of the UN Charter by the UNGA in support of its decision to grant “additional rights and privileges of participation” to “the State of Palestine”; absent any initial recommendation from the UNSC to do so. This is in fact the only liberal interpretation of the UN Charter I have seen by the UNGA – in two decades – to overcome the perverted use of vetoes in the UNSC by those with an arrogant disregard for the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the UN’s 193 Member States.

The Israeli Ambassador of course spoke out against this latest UNGA Resolution – which had 143 votes in favour, 25 abstentions and only 9 votes against (Argentina, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, United States) – making explicit reference to this very same liberal interpretation of the UN Charter: “With today’s vote, you’re totally bypassing the Security Council in violation of the Charter”. He went on to make the point that UN Membership is only open to “peace-loving States”, yet in his interpretation, “The Palestinians are the exact opposite of peace-loving. They have only tried to destroy Israel”. The same Israeli Ambassador declared in recent weeks that “The UN, the organization founded to prevent Nazi ideology from spreading, has committed itself to reinforcing modern-day Nazi Jihadists… breaking the Guinness World Record for rewarding terror, the UN now, in complete violation of its charter, is considering to force the establishment of a Palestinian terror state”.

Interestingly, the USA’s Ambassador made exactly the same effort to confuse and conflate the issue of ‘Palestinian Statehood’ with the subject of ‘Palestinian membership of the UN’: “our vote does not reflect opposition to Palestinian Statehood”. “Instead, it is an acknowledgment that Statehood will come only through a process that involves direct negotiations between the parties”; whilst also noting “his country’s commitment to intensifying its engagement with the Palestinians and the rest of the region to advance a political settlement that will create a path to Palestinian Statehood and subsequent UN membership”. These comments, along with the Israeli Ambassador’s recent reference to “the establishment of a Palestinian terror state”, can both be easily demonstrated as distortions of historic proportion. The subject of the UNGA Resolution was instead: “the admission of the State of Palestine to membership in the United Nations”.

In the real world, the existence of the “State of Palestine” – as it was once again referred to by the UNGA in its Resolution – has been a legal fact under international law since 1988. The State of Palestine was proclaimed by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, and by 2003 was recognized by over 114 states: only 93 states had diplomatic relations with Israel at that time. To this we can of course add UNGA Resolution A/RES/67/19 of 29 November 2012, in which the UNGA granted “Palestine non-member observer State status” in the UN Organization.

It is also perhaps worth making the point that the International Criminal Court (ICC) – one of two international courts currently reviewing Israel’s ongoing behaviour in the context of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – only has jurisdiction in cases when “A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court”. This is of course exactly what happened in January 2015 when the president of the ‘Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute’ of the ICC “welcomed the deposit by the State of Palestine of the instruments of accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”. The legal existence of the State of Palestine has been well established for decades: talk of a ‘Two-State Solution’ to the conflict has been no more than pointless theatre for decades, and a “vision” that Palestinian membership of the UN will do nothing at all to advance.

Unlike the ICC, whose membership is only open to “States”, in the case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations” – “All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice”: precisely why South Africa has been taking the lead at the ICJ in the place of the ‘State of Palestine’ which is not yet, as already discussed, a (full) member of the UN.

It is worth returning to the words of Israel’s Ambassador who correctly declared that UN Membership is only open to “peace-loving States”, and to discuss the remainder of the same sentence from Article 4 that he understandably omitted: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations”. As such, UN membership is not automatically open to “peace-loving states”; those same states must also “accept the obligations contained in the present Charter”.

One such obligation can be found in Article 25 of the Charter: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. This is of course why UNSC resolutions are ALWAYS binding (irrespective of the additional distortions attempted by the USA’s Ambassador in suggesting otherwise; much to the chagrin of legal scholars).

The list of UNSC resolutions completely ignored by Israel today is so vast, it is difficult to place an accurate number on them. Given this, if we consider only the most recent UNSC resolution on the conflict – UNSC Resolution 2728 of 25 March 2024 – we read that the UNSC: “Reiterating its demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law”, (1) “Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”, and (2) “Emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip … in line with international humanitarian law”.

Anyone that has been following the situation in Gaza since that date knows that Israel is in flagrant breach of both of these – binding – demands of the UNSC. As such, it is eminently provable that the State of Israel is in violation of Article 25 of the UN Charter, given its manifest contempt for “the decisions of the Security Council”: and this since – at least – the adoption of historic UNSC Resolution 242 on 22 November 1967, which after “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, demanded the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” of June 1967 (at which point in time, many argue, the occupation of Palestine officially started).

The UNGA must continue down the path it took on 10 May 2024. It is for the UNGA – never the UNSC – to decide which states “accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations”: before those states can be accepted as members of the UN. And it was UNGA Resolution 273 of 11 May 1949 that – erroneously – judged that “Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations”. This, with the benefit of 75 years of retrospection, we can now see was an ineffable error of judgement by the UNGA.

Anyone that reads the UN Charter knows that there is currently only one solution: the UNGA must revoke operative Paragraph 1 of its Resolution 273 immediately, and must ask the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion on the consequences for the ongoing participation of Israel at the United Nations: membership, after all, only being available to “peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter”. The UNGA must not lose its newly-found creativity, or we risk losing the UN as a whole; just as we lost the ‘League of Nations’ (UN version 1.0).

 

United Nations must fast-track Palestine’s UN membership – Mary Lou McDonald, SINN FEIN

19th May 2024Leave a Commenton United Nations must fast-track Palestine’s UN membership – Mary Lou McDonald

World leaders have failed the people of Palestine, turning the other way as Israel has murdered tens of thousands, displaced hundreds of thousands, and left an entire population facing famine and starvation.

Mary Lou McDonald

Sinn Féin Leader Mary Lou McDonald has said that last week’s historic vote at the United Nations general assembly must now lead to the fast-tracking of Palestine’s long overdue membership of the UN without any further delay.

She added her hope that the vote would mark a step-change in how world leaders hold Israel to account for its brutality of the Palestinian people, and that the Irish government must now fulfil its decade-old mandate to recognise the State of Palestine.

Speaking last Friday, Teachta McDonald said: “International recognition of the State of Palestine is a long time coming. Today’s vote at the United Nations General Assembly to endorse full Palestinian membership of the UN reflects the will of the overwhelming majority of the international community. World leaders have failed the people of Palestine, turning the other way as Israel has murdered tens of thousands, displaced hundreds of thousands, and left an entire population facing famine and starvation.”

“If international institutions such as the United Nations, and indeed the European Union, are to have any credibility, then the voice of the Palestinian people must be heard, and the brutality of the Israeli regime held to account. The United Nations must therefore fulfil the mandate it received at today’s general assembly, and fast-track Palestine’s membership. Today must also mark a step-change in how world leaders hold Israel to account, and the Irish government has a role to play in acting decisively and using every avenue available to help bring about a ceasefire.”

“Ireland must therefore recognise the state of Palestine without any further delay. It is now a decade since the Dáil unanimously supported a Sinn Féin motion to recognise the state of Palestine, and it is a stain on successive governments that ten years later they have failed to do so. The Irish government must also end its obstruction of Sinn Féin legislation that would divest Irish taxpayers’ money from Israeli companies in occupied Palestine, make a meaningful declaration in the ICJ Genocide case against Israel without further delay, expel the Israeli ambassador, enact the Occupied Territories Bill and increase pressure to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement.”

“We are a small nation but Ireland punches above our weight when it comes to our influence on the world stage. We must use every available opportunity to help bring about a ceasefire and help build a lasting peace.”

---

• This piece originally appeared in the Sinn Fein News Bulletin on 17 May 2024.

UK

FEATURED

Government must cooperate with ICC Netanyahu arrest warrants – and end arms sales to Israel now!

20th May 2024Leave a Commenton Government must cooperate with ICC Netanyahu arrest warrants – and end arms sales to Israel now!

“This is seismic. The government has to immediately make clear it will fully support this process and halt arms sales to a state whose leader is facing prosecution as a war criminal.”

Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign

By Matt Willgress

Today, in a challenge to those who have played down the Israeli government’s genocide and human rights abuses in Gaza, International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan announced he would be seeking the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netenyahu, and Defence Secretary Yoav Gallant, for war crimes.

The statement included charges for starvation of civilians as a method of warfare; wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; wilful killing or murder; intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population; extermination and/or murder, including in the context of deaths caused by starvation; persecution; and other inhumane acts. All are war crimes under international law. 

Campaigners were quick to stress the unprecedented nature of the charges. Ben Jamal of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said “this is seismic. The government has to immediately make clear it will fully support this process and halt arms sales to a state whose leader is facing prosecution as a war criminal. Failure to do so makes clear, the UK  does not support Human Rights Law and is happy to aid and abet violations of it”.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament were similarly clear, saying “with the ICC seeking arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the British government must immediately stop its support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza”. The peace campaign called for an immediate arms embargo.

In parliament, left MPs joined campaigners in calling for an end to the arms trade with Israel.

Zarah Sultana said “when you read [the news of the announcement], remember that the UK government has aided and abetted Netanyahu’s war crimes: from legitimising his brutal bombardment of Gaza, to supplying weapons to the Israeli military. That must now end. Our government must support the ICC and stop arming Israel.”

Similarly, Nadia Whittome MP told Twitter that “under international law, the UK has a responsibility to ensure it’s not complicit in war crimes. With the ICC seeking an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, there can be no more turning a blind eye.”

“We must demand a ceasefire and stop arming the Israeli government now.”

Others insisted that the government must support the ICC in its attempt to prosecute Israel’s Prime Minister and Minister of Defence. Jeremy Corbyn argued that “the ICC’s arrest warrant is a sobering wake-up call for political leaders who have aided and abetted crimes against humanity. The UK government must give its full support to the ICC and end arms sales to Israel.”

“We will carry on campaigning for a just and lasting peace”.

Beth Winter added that the “UK Govt must declare and demonstrate its support for this process. That must mean suspending arms sales licensing to those accused of directing attacks against civilians”

Building on calls to respect the jurisdiction of the court, Richard Burgon, also highlighted that the independence of the ICC following the ruling needed to be defended:

“Now the International Criminal Court is seeking arrest warrants, our Government must condemn threats and attempts to undermine the independence of the Court.”

“And it must do all it can to support the Court in ensuring accountability and justice for the victims of these crimes.”

Levelling criticism at not only the government but the Labour frontbench, Momentum told Twitter/X “Labour cannot back the ICC as it works towards the arrest of Israel’s prime minister for ongoing war crimes while continuing to support the arming of the Israeli state”. 

Their remarks echo a strong statement from Mish Rahman, a member of Labour’s NEC, who said “the genocidal maniacs Netanyahu and Gallant are criminals for crimes against humanity. Sunak and the UK must now stop assisting criminals.”

Today’s dramatic announcement from the ICC underscores the need to continue to demonstrate for an immediate, permanent ceasefire, an arms embargo on Israel, and the recognition – and liberation – of Palestine. Let’s continue to join the demonstrations and renew the call for a free Palestine! 

---

• You can read the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s full response, published on Labour Outlook here.

UK Government must act in response to applications for arrest warrants issued by ICC Prosecutor – Palestine Solidarity Campaign

20th May 2024Leave a Commenton UK Government must act in response to applications for arrest warrants issued by ICC Prosecutor – Palestine Solidarity Campaign

“This groundbreaking action by the ICC Prosecutor must finally trigger a fundamental shift in the British government’s attitude towards Israel.”

By the Palestine Solidarity Campaign

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has consistently made clear that international law must be the framework within which we judge acts of violence and their legitimacy. International law makes it clear that the deliberate killing of civilians, hostage-taking and collective punishment are war crimes. International law also enshrines the right of a people to resist oppression and military occupation. 

On Monday 20 May 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan KC, applied for arrest warrants to be issued for three senior Hamas leaders and two senior Israeli government ministers – the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defence.  

In his statement, Mr. Khan makes clear that the investigation is continuing. These applications for arrest warrants must only be the start. It is notable and disappointing that there is no mention of the occupation or other aspects of Israel’s system of apartheid such as the abundant evidence of torture of Palestinian prisoners by Israel. These omissions speak to the political context in which the ICC operates. Nonetheless, this decision is seismic and carries significant implications for the British government. 

Whereas Hamas is proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Britain, the British government actively supports the Israeli government in various ways including through the ongoing export of weapons. This groundbreaking action by the ICC Prosecutor must finally trigger a fundamental shift in the British government’s attitude towards Israel. 

It is already a disgrace that Britain continues to export weapons to Israel at a time when Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). To refuse to halt arms sales now, when that means putting weapons into the hands of senior Israeli government leaders who stand personally accused of directing war crimes including murder and extermination, intentional attacks against a civilian population, starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, and other crimes against humanity, would be utterly obscene.  

The British government must give its full support and cooperation to the ICC and ICJ to carry out their work. 

Moreover, last month 1100 lawyers, academics, and retired judges, including the former President of the Supreme Court Baroness Hale, signed an open letter and legal opinion to remind the British government of its obligations under international law, which require it to take, amongst others, the following five actions: 

1. to work actively and effectively to secure a permanent ceasefire in Gaza; 
2. to take all available measures to ensure safe access to and delivery of the essentials of existence and medical assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, including confirmation that UK funding to UNRWA will continue with immediate effect; 
3. to impose sanctions upon individuals and entities who have made statements inciting genocide against Palestinians; 
4. to suspend the provision of weapons and weapons systems to the Government of Israel; and 
5. to suspend the 2030 Road Map for UK-Israel bilateral relations and negotiations towards an enhanced trade agreement and to initiate a review into the suspension of the UK’s bilateral trade agreement with Israel and consider the imposition of sanctions. 

It is long past time for the government to take these steps. If it fails to act it will make clear that it does not support International Law and is happy to aid and abet its violators. Meanwhile, we will continue all our actions to demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire, an end to the arms trade with Israel, and justice for the Palestinian people. 

Ben Jamal, PSC Director, said: “This action by the Prosecutor of the ICC has profound implications for the UK government, which must make clear that that it fully supports the ICC process and immediately halt arms sales to a state, the leader of which faces indictment for war crimes. Failure to do so will undermine any lingering suggestion that the UK supports International Law and render it further complicit in aiding and abetting serious violations of that law.”

On the ICC’s Announcement of Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas’ Leadership

By John Whitbeck

May 20, 2024

Source: Counterpunch


Karim Khan, chief prosecutor, International Criminal Court. Photo: ICC.


It had been widely anticipated that, to maintain any institutional respect, the International Criminal Court would have to indict some Israeli leaders, unavoidably including Prime Minister Netanyahu, in connection with the Gaza genocide and that, for balance, it would choose to indict at least one Hamas leader at the same time.

Its announcement Monday of applications for five arrest warrants and the strong language of its announcement, particularly coming from a British Prosecutor who had previously been suspected of being totally subservient to the British government, is excellent news.

However, it offered three surprises:

(1) ANNOUNCING APPLICATIONS FOR ARREST WARRANTS

It is normal ICC practice to announce the issuance of arrest warrants only after the court’s judges have approved them on the basis of an application from the Prosecutor.

This was the procedure followed last year when the court announced the issuance of arrest warrants for President Putin and for Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights.

The decision to announce these applications for arrest warrants prior to their formal approval may have been motivated by a sense that the conditions under which the people of Gaza are striving to survive are deteriorating so rapidly and horrifically that there is no time to waste and by a hope that announcing the applications now might have a positive impact on the decisions of relevant decision-makers for whom arrest warrants are not yet being sought but could be sought later.

(2) NOT SEEKING AN ARREST WARRANT AGAINST GENERAL HALEVI

When rumors of imminent ICC indictments started swirling several weeks ago, three Israeli leaders were cited as targeted — Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Gallant and General Herzi Halevi, Chief of General Staff of the IDF. Arrest warrants are now being sought only against Netanyahu and Gallant.

The Prosecutor may be hoping that not indicting General Halevi or other top military officers for the time being while stating explicitly that his office “will not hesitate to submit further applications for warrants” if conditions are met might encourage them, in their own self-interests, to try to rein in their poltical leadership and to wind down or even wind up Israel’s genocidal assault against the people of Gaza.

(3) SEEKING AN ARREST WARRANT AGAINST ISMAIL HANIYEH

It was widely reported at the time that Hamas Political Bureau head Ismail Haniyeh and other members of the external leadership of Hamas had no advance knowledge of the October 7 operation, which makes attributing “criminal responsibility” to Haniyeh for the events of that day surprising.

It is possible that, in the hope of mitigating American fury and the publicly threatened American retaliation for any indictments of Israelis, the Prosecutor thought it desirable to seek arrest warrants for more Palestinians than Israelis. Within Gaza, Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif are the only widely recognized personalities to whom responsibility might be attributed. Hence, perhaps Haniyeh was added to achieve the desired Palestinian majority.

In these circumstances, it is possible that the court’s “independent judges” might show their independence by not issuing an arrest warrant against Haniyeh, which should not upset the Prosecutor if he was adding Haniyeh primarily to achieve a Palestinian majority.

If an arrest warrant were to be issued against Haniyeh, he might, with good reasons to hope for an acquittal, choose to turn himself in to the court and, thereby, to set a good example for (and contrast to) Netanyahu and Gallant.

Indeed, Sinwar and Dief might at least be tempted to do likewise if they could find a way to be safely extricated from the Gaza Strip.

Since October 7, their future has offered only martyrdom — and not necessarily a quick and easy one. They may well be reconciled to martyrdom or actively seek it, but they could also view the chance to live out their natural lives and to defend themselves and their acts on the basis of the right of an occupied and oppressed people to self-defense against perpetual occupation and oppression and on the basis of 10/7 Truth as a viable and even attactive alternative.

It has also been widely reported that Netanyahu is personally obsessed with killing Sinwar and Deif and determined to pursue his assault against Gaza until he achieves that goal.

If that goal were to become impossible because Sinwar and Deif had successfully turned themselves in to the court, thousands of lives might be saved.

John V. Whitbeck is a Paris-based international lawyer.

Netanyahu is guilty—and so are his backers

There is no equivalence between the oppressor Israel and Hamas

United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant (Wikicommons/ Chad J. McNeeley)


Tuesday 21 May 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER

Issue 2906

Extermination, murder, starvation of civilians, wilfully causing great suffering and intentionally directing attacks against civilians. These are the crimes levelled at Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant by Karim Khan (see right).

He is the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Khan said that he has “reasonable grounds to believe” that both Israeli ministers “bear criminal responsibility” for war crimes and “crimes against humanity” committed in Gaza. They used acts of starvation, murder as a war crime and intentionally directed attacks against civilians “as part of a common plan” to “collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza”.

Khan is now seeking an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant. The list of crimes won’t be a surprise for many. We’ve seen the evidence of Israel’s genocide for more than seven months, even if our leaders have tried to ignore them. But the charge of war crimes by the ICC is still a devastating blow for Israel.

The ICC is the only permanent international court that can prosecute war criminals for crimes against humanity. And its actions have enraged the West. Khan revealed that “a senior leader” told him the ICC “is built for Africa and for thugs like Russian president Vladimir Putin”—not for the West and its allies.

Predictably Netanyahu repeated slurs about antisemitism. He said that Khan was “callously pouring gasoline on the fires of antisemitism that are raging across the world”. The outrage against Netanyahu is stacking up, even if the ICC will not punish him for all his crimes.

To show “balance” Khan said the court would also push for the arrest of three Hamas leaders. But the ICC accusing Netanyahu of war crimes is a big moment. It will make it easier for pro-Palestine activists to argue in workplaces, schools and universities that the Israeli state is guilty of genocide.

And by implication the ICC’s charges are also an indictment of Israel’s Western allies. If Netanyahu is guilty of murder, extermination and deliberate starvation of civilians, so are those who arm and fund Israel. That includes Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak—and Keir Starmer. And for all their recent claims to be holding back the Zionist state, the West has rushed to defend Netanyahu.

President Joe Biden said, “The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous.” He added that what is happening to the Palestinians “is not genocide”. Then he said, “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

Palestine resistance behind Israeli cabinet splits

Biden is an apologist for murder. But he is right that there is no equivalence between the Israeli state and Hamas. Hamas hasn’t levelled vast sections of Israeli cities with bombs. It hasn’t closed off checkpoints and border crossings to intentionally starve civilians to death. It hasn’t systematically tried to destroy all healthcare infrastructure or targeted health care workers.

It hasn’t held Gaza under siege for 17 years in an open-air prison. And Israel has—so far— murdered at least 35 Palestinians for every Israeli that Hamas killed on 7 October. The Palestinian resistance is fighting in reaction to the brutality that Israel has used against their people for more than 76 years. There is no equivalence between Israel—the oppressor— and Hamas—an expression of an oppressed group fighting back.

UK

Michael Gove smears SWP as antisemitic because we oppose Israel

The Tory minister targeted socialist groups in an attempt to witch-hunt the Palestine solidarity movement


Tuesday 21 May 2024 

SOCIALIST WORKER

Issue 2906


Tory minister Michael Gove claimed the SWP and other socialist groups were antisemitic (Picture: Simon Walker)

In a desperate effort to slur the Palestinian movement—and in advance of new attacks on the right to protest—the Tories claim that socialist groups are antisemitic.

Michael Gove said on Tuesday that “the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party” are antisemitic in the mould of the fascists.

It’s a disgusting smear. Being against Israel does not mean you hate Jews. Large numbers of Jews in Britain and elsewhere have joined the marches in solidarity with Palestine in recent months.

Anti-Zionism—opposing the racism of the Israeli state and its genocidal actions—is opposition to colonialism and imperialism. It is a recognition that liberation for the Palestinians requires an end to a state-based on ethnic cleansing and murder.


If Gove wants to find real antisemites, he should look to himself and his colleagues. The Hungarian government of Viktor Orban pushes antisemitic conspiracy theories. The Tories welcome Orban to Downing Street.

Far right supporters of Donald Trump marched in 2017 chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” Trump supported them—and yet the Conservatives rolled out the red carpet for Trump and most of the cabinet hope Trump will be president again.

And Gove has a long track record of Islamophobic views and associations. This includes leading the government’s role in the Trojan Horse affair, when it was falsely alleged that an extremist takeover of schools in Birmingham was under way.

He wrote a book called Celsius 7/7 in which he highlighted the “threat of Islamism”’. And he was a founding member of the Henry Jackson Society, a pro-imperialist and Islamophobic outfit.

The mass movement for Palestine is shaking ruling classes everywhere. They sense that Israel is now exposed to hundreds of millions across the world as guilty of genocide. They fear that their Zionist watchdog in the Middle East is on increasingly shaky foundations.

Whenever Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu is under attack, he peddles the vile lie that the criticism is antisemitic. The Tories are now doing the same. They confected the same fakery against Jeremy Corbyn when he was Labour leader.

Socialist Worker and the SWP are proud to be anti-Zionists—and to fight antisemitism and all forms of racism.

The best response to Gove is to keep building the movement for Palestine, to escalate the protests, student encampments and workplace actions, and to argue for a revolutionary socialist solution to capitalism and imperialism.

UK

Islington North selection in Jeremy Corbyn’s seat: Who is standing, and will Corbyn run as an independent?

Daniel Green & Tom Belger

 21st May, 2024,

© Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com:

The deadline has now passed for aspiring candidates to apply in the selection process in former party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency of Islington North.

Corbyn, who had served as the Labour MP for the seat since 1983, was suspended from the party in 2020 over this response to a report into antisemitism in the Labour Party.

He was later blocked from standing as a Labour candidate at the next general election last year after a motion by the national executive committee.

Applications for candidates to replace him opened last week, and a ballot will open later this week. A Labour candidate is expected to be in place by June 1.

Two candidates swiftly announced their intention to stand; writer and transport campaigner Christian Wolmar and journalist Paul Mason.

Meanwhile LabourList understands Sem Moema, a Hackney councillor and London Assembly Member for Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest, has also thrown her hat in the ring.

Economist Shreya Nanda, who works for the Social Market Foundation think tank, has also applied. So has Harry Spencer, with a campaign website to boot.

There’s been speculation about whether councillor Praful Nargund will run too; he wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Speaking to LabourList after his bid to become the Labour candidate in Islington North, Mason said: “What’s made me want to stand is it’s crunch time in British politics. The Labour government that is about to take power will have one chance to convince millions of people who are sick of politics, who are sick of being financially insecure and powerless, that we can make a difference.

“I think, with my experience as a journalist and a campaigner over many decades, I can go into Parliament and represent the people of Islington North in that parliamentary Labour Party in a way that says ‘let’s deliver for you’.”

Meanwhile writing for LabourList in February, Wolmar said he can offer expertise in transport matters as a Labour government works to recreate a renationalised railway.

He said: “I have the strength and experience to stand up to the expected hostility from some of Corbyn’s supporters. It will be a fierce contest, but one in which I am qualified to participate.”

Nanda told the Islington Tribune she would prioritise campaigning for housing and economic justice, making the case for greater investment in public services.

“I’ve seen the impact of austerity and I’ve struggled as a young person seeing that nothing works in this country,” she told the paper.

“I grew up here. I use local public services and I’ve seen the impact of tight government finances. [Being local] makes me able to speak to that.” Nanda has the backing the Labour Housing Group.

Spencer’s website promises “no politics, just solutions”, and says he has experience running multiple businesses.

He is endorsed by Labour Business chair Hamish Sandison, and says his priorities include protecting the most vulnerable, major police investment and “ruthlessly” focusing on improving public services and improving education.

The selection process has already sparked controversy in some corners of the party, as the national executive committee, rather than by the local party, will conduct shortlisting and the hustings will take place online only.

John McDonnell, who served as Shadow Chancellor under Corbyn, has called on Labour to respect the wishes of party members in Islington North and be allowed to “select the candidate of their voice – and that includes Jeremy Corbyn”.

Kate Dove, chairwoman of left-wing organisation Momentum, also said members should be free to select Corbyn as their Labour candidate if they wish. “Labour members in Islington North should decide if they want Jeremy to continue as their Labour candidate, not Keir Starmer’s Westminster clique. Democracy demands it.” 

Will Jeremy Corbyn run as an independent candidate?

Corbyn has still not made his intentions explicitly clear.

But he said last year after members locally passed a motion backing him: “I have spent the past 40 years campaigning alongside my community for a mass redistribution of wealth, ownership and power. That is what I’ll continue to do.”

He then told The Observer: “Forty years ago, I made a promise to my constituents that I would always stand up for democracy and justice on their behalf. In Islington North, we keep our promises.”

Growing fury locally & across movement at Starmer’s Islington stitch-up

17th May 20242 Commentson Growing fury locally & across movement at Starmer’s Islington stitch-up

“Islington North CLP’s call for democracy – & fight against yet another stitch-up – has received widespread support across the movement.”

By Matt Willgress, Labour Outlook Editor

Above the heads of – and against the democratically expressed wish of – Islington North CLP, Keir Starmer and co. have announced a timetable to put in place a new Labour candidate for MP in the constituency, which will end on June 1.

In response, the Islingon North Constituency Labour Party Officers have issued a statement saying, “We support [Keir] Starmer’s statement that “Local Party members should select their candidates for every election. We ask that local democracy be respected & that we be able to choose our prospective parliamentary candidate from amongst any Labour Party member in good standing.”

Their call for democracy and fight against yet another stitch-up has received widespread support across the movement, including from former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell who said Jeremy Corbyn should be allowed to be a candidate, “The wishes of the Labour Party members of Islington North should be respected & they should be allowed to select the candidate of their voice & that includes Jeremy Corbyn, who has given his life to representing his community.”

In an interview, on the Today Podcast Zarah Sultana MP replied to the question “Do you think Keir is wrong about Jeremy Corbyn?” by saying, “Yes, I do,” and adding that “Jeremy and Diane {Abbott] …have devoted their life to the labour movement, have represented the Labour Party for decades, worked day-in, day-out to improve the lives of ordinary working class people. When they are not allowed back into the Labour Party but others like Natalie Elphicke are, that message is incredibly concerning.”

Outside of Parliament, the Labour Assembly Against Austerity (who initiated the 70k+ strong petition calling for Jeremy Corbyn to have the whip restored,) expressed clearly that the members should be allowed to decide.

Meanwhile, Momentum Chair Kate Dove said: “Jeremy Corbyn has loyally represented the people of Islington North for over 40 years and remains a Labour member of more than 50 years. His own local party voted unanimously to express support for Jeremy and assert their right to choose their own Parliamentary candidate. Labour members in Islington North should decide if they want Jeremy to continue as their Labour candidate, not Keir Starmer’s Westminster clique. Democracy demands it.”

Further MPs to add their voices growing swell of discontent included Mick Whitley MP who said, “Members in Islington North have a right to choose who should represent them, and that should include Jeremy,” also saying that “The Labour Party is a broad enough church to accept Tory ERG members but not our former leader?”

He added, “Enough with these factional stitch ups. Let members decide.”

Beth Winter MP also spoke out.

Giving a voice from Islington North, speaking to ‘Labour Outlook’ a local Labour Party member and trade union delegate said, “Many Islington North members are confused and angry about the recent announcement that the national Labour Party had taken over the selection of a Labour Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for their constituency.

This comes after the CLP, as a whole, came together to run a very effective Mayoral campaign for Sadiq Khan, despite being denied its own access to Organise. The only access was through Labour Party employees.  During the campaign a significant amount of long standing and active members, who did not necessarily agree with their MP on all issues, were very concerned about the democratic deficit in the manner in which the CLP was being treated. The recent announcement will have exacerbated this feeling.

Without access to Organise, it is very difficult to explain what is now happening but, where local members can be contacted through friendship or community networks, it is being explained that:

Islington North CLP members have been informed that the National Executive Committee (NEC) has opened its own form of parliamentary candidate selection procedure for Islington North.   There was no prior consultation with Islington North’s democratically elected CLP officers or delegates. Trade union and ward and affiliated organisation delegates to the General Committee will not be able to seek the views of those who elected them to represent them, as there is no recognition of the need to respect the democratic processes and timetables of trade unions or affiliated organisations. The National Party has suspended the use of Organise, its own Labour Party communications system, within Islington and therefore members are prevented from meeting together to discuss nominations or candidates in wards.

The national party has delayed triggering any selection in Islington North, despite the fact that the significant size of the Labour majority indicated that this should have been undertaken many months ago.

The selection process has been truncated to a mere couple of weeks and will take place on line with a short listed selected by the NEC and not the members of Islington North. This alone contradicts a previous statement by Kier Starmer that “Local Party members should select their candidates for every election.

The proposed process does not respect for local democracy upon which the Labour Party was founded and  that it says will be central to its messaging for the forthcoming General Election. The CLP was not asked whether it would depart from the established procedure under which it could choose its own prospective parliamentary candidate from amongst any Labour Party member in good standing, shortlisted by the members of Islington North. An undemocratic selection process is likely harm the Labour Party’s efforts to defeat the conservatives and to achieve the real change this country and our communities in Islington North desperately need.”

Islington North – let local members decide!

“Local party members should select their candidates for every election.”

Keir Starmer in 2020

17th May 2024Leave a Commenton Islington North – let local members decide!

By Ben Hayes, Islington North CLP member & Labour Outlook

Figures from across the labour movement responded to the London Regional Labour Party’s announcement of a timetable for candidate selection in Islington North (less than a month long and with the regional office, rather than the constituency party, deciding the shortlist of candidates) by demanding the democratic rights of local members are respected and highlighting the hypocritical nature of the current approach from the national leadership.

A statement from Officers of Islington North CLP highlighted Keir Starmer’s previous comments that “Local party members should select their candidates for every election” whilst running to be Leader, and called for all party members to be eligible for selection (which would include incumbent MP and Labour member Jeremy Corbyn):

Numerous other MPs echoed the call for a democratic choice by local members, including MP for Hayes & Harlington and former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell:

Cynon Valley’s Beth Winter also emphasised the call for a transparent and fair selection process.

And MP for Birkenhead Mick Whitley highlighted the absurdity of a situation whereby MPs from the right of the Conservative Party are welcomed into the PLP whilst a former Labour leader is excluded:

This was also pointed out by Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana in an interview with The Today Podcast: “Jeremy and Diane (Abbott), both of them have devoted their life to the labour movement, have represented the Labour Party for decades, worked day-in, day-out to improve the lives of ordinary working class people. When they are not allowed back into the Labour Party but others like Natalie Elphicke are, that message is incredibly concerning.”

Chair of Momentum Kate Dove joined those calling for Islington North Labour Party members to have the final say, rather than a “Westminster clique”

Jeremy Corbyn supporting Islington Hands Off Our Public Services (IHOOPS.)