​​​​​​​Urgent need for action now for increasing threat from invasive alien species

Team of around 90 international experts calls for collaboration across borders and within countries

UK CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY

 

IMAGE: 

QUAGGA MUSSELS CAN SPREAD RAPIDLY, OUTCOMPETING NATIVE MUSSELS, AND BLOCK WATER PIPES.

view more 

CREDIT: JN STUART

While invasive alien species have long been recognised as a major threat to nature and people, urgent action now is needed to tackle this global issue. This is the critical evaluation by the 88 authors, representing 101 organisations from 47 countries, of ‘Curbing the major and growing threats from invasive alien species is urgent and achievable’ published in Nature, Ecology & Evolution, including lead author Professor Helen Roy from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Exeter.

Focused on the main findings of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) thematic assessment report on invasive alien species and their control*, the paper also highlights that the impacts of invasive alien species observed today are likely to underestimate the magnitude of future impacts. Also, the interactions among biodiversity drivers are key as no driver acts in isolation.

Co-chair of the IPBES IAS assessment and lead author, Professor Helen Roy from the UKCEH and the University of Exeter, said: “The paper brought together the entire expert team of the IAS assessment, with this diverse group spanning many disciplines with perspectives from around the world drawing the same conclusion about the need for urgent action on the major and growing threat of invasive alien species.

“With the number of invasive alien species set to rise, the IPBES invasive alien species assessment provides the evidence-base and options to inform immediate and ongoing action. To achieve this there is a need for collaboration, communication and cooperation, not only across borders but within countries.”

Professor Peter Stoett from Ontario Tech University, co-chair of the IPBES IAS assessment, added: “Interdisciplinarity is key to the success of IPBES assessments. It was wonderful to see social science and humanities experts interacting with invasion biologists and other natural scientists, in a community-building process that will inform policy decisions moving forward.”

The threats posed by invasive alien species are expected to continue to rise. Every year, approximately two hundred new alien species are now being introduced globally by human activities to regions they had not been recorded before. Even without the introduction of new species by human activities, already established alien species will continue to naturally expand their geographic ranges and spread into new countries and regions, with many causing negative impacts. Simple extrapolations from the impacts of invasive alien species observed today are likely to underestimate the magnitude of future impacts.

Interactions among drivers of biodiversity loss are amplifying biological invasions with no driver acting in isolation. Climate change is a major driver facilitating the establishment and spread of invasive alien species into previously inhospitable regions. For example, climate warming is enabling aquatic and terrestrial invasive alien species to establish and spread poleward, including into the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Also, in some mountainous regions, climate change, acting together with other drivers of biodiversity loss, has allowed invasive alien species to extend their ranges into higher elevations twice as fast as native species.

The IPBES invasive species assessment provided the first comprehensive synthesis of evidence globally concluding that the threat of biological invasions is major but can be mitigated with urgent cross-sectorial cooperative and collaborative action. Co-developing management actions with multiple stakeholders including government and private sector stakeholders, and Indigenous Peoples and local communities will be critical to achieving success in addressing biological invasions.

Aníbal Pauchard, co-chair of the IPBES IAS assessment and Professor at the University of Concepción, Chile, highlights the importance of inclusion within the assessment: “This is not only the most comprehensive global assessment on invasive alien species to date, but also the selection of experts and the evidence gathering was done under the highest standards of inclusivity, resulting in a report which provides critical insights for all stakeholders.”

Coordinating bodies such as the Non-Native Species Secretariat can ensure effective collaboration among diverse stakeholder groups. Indeed, management actions in response to incursions of the Asian hornet (Vespa velutina) in the UK have involved multiple stakeholders coming together to ensure rapid flow of information following detection of the species leading to effective control of nests.

The paper recognises that the engagement of the general public through awareness raising campaigns, education and community science platforms also contributes to establishing shared responsibilities in managing biological invasions. Community science initiatives, supported by digital identification tools are important for the rapid detection of invasive alien species. Records submitted by the public through the Asian Hornet Watch app in the UK are making a major contribution to Vespa velutina (Asian hornet) early warning and rapid response.

Paper information

Helen Roy et al. 2024. Curbing the major and growing threats from invasive alien species is urgent and achievable. Nature, Ecology & Evolution. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-024-02412-w

Media enquiries

For interviews and further information, please contact Simon Williams, Media Relations Officer, UKCEH. Email simwil@ceh.ac.uk or call +44 (0)7920 295384.

Notes to Editors

*The IPBES report on the Thematic Assessment on Invasive Alien Species and their Control (published in September 2023) is the first comprehensive global review of the status, trends, drivers, impacts, management, and governance challenges of biological invasions. It provides unequivocal evidence of the major and growing threat of invasive alien species alongside ambitious but realistic approaches to manage biological invasions.
Find out more at ipbes.net/ias

About the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology is a world-leading centre for excellence in environmental sciences across water, land and air. The Centre has a long history of investigating, monitoring and modelling environmental change. Its 500+ scientists provide the data and insights that researchers, governments and businesses need to create a productive, resilient and healthy environment. 

The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology is a strategic delivery partner for the Natural Environment Research Council, part of UK Research and Innovation.

www.ceh.ac.uk / @UK_CEH / LinkedIn: UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

---

JOURNAL

Nature Ecology & Evolution

DOI

10.1038/s41559-024-02412-w 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Systematic review

ARTICLE TITLE

Curbing the major and growing threats from invasive alien species is urgent and achievable’

 

City of Alameda Halts Climate Tech Experiment Aboard a WWII Carrier

The Cloud-Aerosol Research Instrument aboard USS Hornet (UW Marine Cloud Brightening Program)

PUBLISHED JUN 6, 2024 11:25 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

The City Council in Alameda, California has put an end to a scientific experiment aboard the WWII carrier USS Hornet, a museum ship permanently berthed at Old Alameda Point. 

Last year, a team of researchers from the University of Washington and funders at nonprofit SilverLining arranged to use the deck of the Hornet to test a cloud-brightening machine - a device designed to emit aerosols that promote water droplet formation and create reflective white clouds, partially shielding a small area from the sun's heat. Their plan was to put the small nozzle-like device aboard Hornet, run it for up to a year and collect data on how well it worked outside of the lab. As a test-size model, it is not expected to have measurable local effects, and its emissions are below the minimum threshold for environmental permitting.

However, some of Alameda's citizens objected to the testing, for two separate reasons. First, some residents expressed concern that the mist could have health effects. In early April, the city of Alameda ordered the experiment paused until it had further information on the impact on health and safety. After a brief period of research, the city managers determined that the tests did not post any measurable risk to the health of the surrounding community or wildlife, since the contents of the device's spray were naturally-occurring and similar to seawater. 

The second reason is more complex, and reflects a matter of disagreement in the environmental community. Cloud brightening is a form of geoengineering - a deliberate intervention to slow down warming, whether or not humanity stops emitting large amounts of carbon. Some climate action groups oppose geoengineering on principle, arguing that it creates an excuse for inaction on carbon and uses up funding that could be spent on developing green energy alternatives. It could also have unpredictable consequences for natural ecosystems. 

Researchers in the geoengineering field argue that it may be needed as a backup if the world's nations fail to follow through on their Paris commitments, and could help mitigate the impact of an already-changing climate on the developing world. If used at massive scale - for example, on thousands of oceangoing vessels - it could have a meaningful global impact. 

This week, the Alameda City Council decided that it would not be taking any chances with the project. On Wednesday morning, the five council members voted to prohibit further testing aboard USS Hornet, despite the report from their staff advising that the process was safe. Among other issues, the council was concerned that its members had never been informed, and that local leaders found out about the project after the fact from media reports. 

"Was it intentional? Was it an oversight?" Alameda Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft said, speaking to the East Bay Times. "The experiment was shrouded in secrecy, then it turns out it was in a controversial field."

Project leaders have denied any attempts at secrecy, and they emphasized that they had set up the test in an open, public space - USS Hornet, which they described as "unparalleled in its potential to increase access and equitable engagement for all people." 

 

Hornets found to be primary pollinators of two Angelica species

New research overturns the conventional belief that Angelica species do not have a primary pollinator

Peer-Reviewed Publication

SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, THE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO

 

IMAGE: 

A JAPANESE GIANT HORNET VESPA MANDARINIA VISITING THE INFLORESCENCE OF ANGELICA DECURSIVA TO FEED ON NECTAR

view more 

CREDIT: MOCHIZUKI 2024

Researcher Ko Mochizuki of the University of Tokyo discovered that two species in the genus Angelica are pollinated primarily by hornets. This overturns the conventional belief that Angelica species are “generalists,” meaning that there is not one primary pollinator but a variety of species. As hornets are rarely primary pollinators, the discovery also impacts future ecological research and conservation efforts. The findings were published in the journal Ecology.

White, small, open, secretes nectar and produces pollen: these are the kinds of flowers that many types of insects can reach and are attracted to. Most of the plants in the carrot family, Apiaceae, fit this description perfectly. As such, the species in this family are considered to be generalists. In extreme cases, over 100 different insect species visit their flowers. Not so with Angelica decursiva and Angelica hakonensis, two species in the genus Angelica in the family.

“I observed a fierce visitation by hornets for the first time in 2015 in Nagano Prefecture,” Mochizuki recalls, “and then again in 2018 in the Nikko Botanical Garden where they were feeding on the nectar of the inflorescences of A. decursiva and A. hakonensis. Since it was a dogma that species in the family Apiaceae are generalists, this observation motivated me to investigate if the two Angelica species were pollinated predominantly by hornets.”

Confirming the hunch was a stepwise process. First, Mochizuki returned to the Nikko Botanical Garden to quantify the numbers and types of "visitors" to the flowers. Then, he captured some visitors to check the amount of pollen stuck to their bodies to verify whether it would be enough for pollination. Finally, he conducted an experiment in which he covered some flowers with a mesh that blocked the hornets and some flowers with a mesh that blocked all insects, with a third group of flowers remaining uncovered as the control group. All three of these methods showed that hornets were the most numerous species that visited the flowers.

“Nevertheless, excluding hornets resulted in seed production higher than expected. I think excluding the hornets allowed other visitors to gather on the flowers. Especially considering that I had previously observed hornets hunting and killing other insect visitors when they encountered each other on the inflorescence,” Mochizuki explains.

Science advances by incremental steps. Discovering that hornets are the primary pollinator of certain species is one such incremental step, but the consequences are wide-ranging.

“Hornets are generally considered pests in their native range and problematic invasive species in some areas such as North America. Nevertheless, this study underscores the importance of hornets as pollinators, opening new avenues for research and conservation,” says Mochizuki.

A Japanese yellow hornet Vespa simillima hunting and killing the other visitors when they come upon on the inflorescence of Angelica hakonensis

CREDIT

Mochizuki 2024

A hornet visiting a flower [VIDEO] | 

JOURNAL

Ecology

DOI

10.1002/ecy.4311 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Hunt and pollinate: Hornet pollination of the putative generalist genus Angelica.

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

29-Apr-2024

Three-Day Sanders Institute Event Details the Case: 'Housing Is a Human Right'

"We can't address the housing crisis by chopping the weed off at the top. We have to pull it out by the roots," said one panelist at the intimate event in Los Angeles that looked at the issue from the local, state, and federal level.


Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders and Dave Driscoll of the Sanders Institute on stage during The Gathering, a convening of experts, lawmakers, and advocates focused on the housing crisis. The three-day event took place from April 3 to April 5, 2024 at The Line Hotel in Los Angeles, California.

(Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

LONG READ

JON QUEALLY
Apr 09, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

We want to educate the public. We want to shift the narrative. We want to organize for transformational and lasting change.

Those were the stated goals and repeated themes at the heart of a three-day event in Los Angeles over recent days, a gathering focused on the national housing crisis organized by the Sanders Institute, spearheaded by co-founder Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders and executive director Dave Driscoll.

While the policy discussion around housing has a reputation for being dynamic and complex—especially as an issue that straddles municipal, state, and federal governance—the human story at the center of what it means to have a home or be housed is simple and universal, a thread woven into over a dozen panels, presentations, and keynote speeches by progressive lawmakers, top experts, frontline advocates, academics, and community organizers.

In a conversation with Common Dreams, Sanders and Driscoll explained that everyone who attended the event—kept intentionally small and low-profile—was told that the focus would be on "concrete remedies" and "replicable policies" with the ultimate purpose of informing a national audience about not only how severe the housing crisis has become, but also the concrete ways to address it.

"We believe democracy requires an informed electorate and civil discourse and bold ideas. That's part of our mission," Sanders said. "And the purpose was to come at the housing crisis from many aspects—not all of the aspects, but many of them—with the goal of actionable solutions."

"None of us are very interested in making small incremental change, which might mean building some more affordable housing or supporting this or that initiative. That's not what this is about." —Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders, The Sanders Institute

But why housing? Why now? According to Sanders, the issue is potent politically because it's an issue that is not just about the poor and unhoused, but also central to the working class.

"Everybody knows somebody that has a problem getting affordable housing or just affording their life and having to make different choices," she told Common Dreams. "It's middle-income people, it's everybody having a problem with the housing crisis, and elected officials are getting pressure. Those lawmakers and politicians are hearing it more and more. And we said, okay, now's the time to bring people together around this."

Driscoll targeted private equity, Wall Street investors, and real estate developers that have used their outsized economic and political power to further skew the nation's housing market in search of ever-larger profits, squeezing out low- or middle-income individuals and families in the process.

"It's just another way in which the gap is growing between the rich and the poor and increasing inequality," said Driscoll. "And that needs to stop."

It is powerful interests most of all, says Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), who must be named, shamed, and overcome if any of the progressive solutions championed at the gathering—including rent control, social housing models, community land trusts, more climate-resilient communities, and proven efforts to curb homelessness—are to have any hope of being implemented at the necessary scale.

Weinstein—a driving force behind the event, a supporter of the Sanders Institute, and a major player in California's healthcare and housing political landscape—agrees fully with Sanders and Driscoll that the moment, both in California and nationally, is ripe for an invigorating politics focused on housing.

Rent Control for All

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, presenting at the Sanders Institute event in Los Angeles on Thursday, April 4, 2024. 

(Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

During opening remarks focused on "perpetually affordable housing" and a 2024 ballot initiative in California that would end the state's existing ban on local rent control ordinances, Weinstein said that he has argued for years that "the housing issue was not high enough on the progressive agenda."

"This is a battle for the poor and working-class people in California," Weinstein said of the Justice for Renters campaign, an effort funded by AHF, local unions, and others to see the Justice for Renters Act become law via a ballot measure this year.

"There are 17 million renters in California—that's 45% of the population," he explained. "There are tens of millions more renters across the country. Our primary job as progressives is to improve the lives of people and housing is their greatest need."

If enacted, the law would remove the existing ban on rent control laws in California, encourage expanded rent control at the local level, and curb the power of "predatory landlords" who charge "unfair and unaffordable" rent.

While everyone at the gathering agreed more housing stock is a key part of the solution, Weinstein was among those who emphasized that the biggest obstacle is unaffordability of homes and rental units—a problem attributable to the greed of landlords and the investor class within an economy designed to siphon the wealth of workers into the coffers of the already rich.

"We can't address the housing crisis by chopping the weed off at the top. We have to pull it out by the roots," Weinstein explained. "And high rents are the root cause of the housing affordability crisis. It's that transfer of wealth that's causing the problem. And if we do nothing about rising rents, then nothing else we do in terms of producing housing or other changes will make a difference. If we continue to treat housing as a commodity, we'll never be able to house everyone. It's very similar to healthcare. If we leave it up to the marketplace, we're lost."

With the homeless population in Los Angeles estimated to be over 70,000—in a city of approximately 3.9 million—Weinstein said that L.A. is "not just the homeless capital of this country" but the "homeless capital of the world." This, he lamented, is "truly shameful," but also the reason why California has a vital role to play in showing people that the crisis can be confronted.

As a veteran healthcare advocate and the head of a nonprofit organization focused on AIDS, Weinstein rejected the accusation he sometimes receives from political opponents that he is somehow "out of his lane" by pushing so loudly and aggressively for rent control reforms. One reason that assessment is wrong, Weinstein explained, is that housing is the largest predeterminant of health, which is also why so many at the gathering rallied around the demand that housing be treated like the human right it is.

"But the main reason I'm involved in housing," Weinstein told the audience at the gathering, "is that I feel the same outrage about the housing situation and homelessness today as I did in the 1980s about AIDS, where the benign neglect saw tens of thousands of people die needlessly."

In his remarks, Weinstein stressed the crisis is a result of the most powerful in society refusing to meet the needs of its most vulnerable. But he said the galvanizing potential of housing—and the political potency and opportunities of social uplift embedded in the solutions presented at the conference—must be recognized.

"This is a cry for unity," he said. "Unity behind rent control and unity behind opposing corporate real estate and unity behind housing justice. There's no better time than now."

Putting the Housing Crisis at the Top of the Agenda

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said during the event that Democrats are ready to put housing back at the top of the party's national agenda. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

The sense of urgency felt by attendees of the event was unmistakable.

Speaking at the opening night dinner for the conference, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Los Angeles County, said the creation of the Renters Caucus in Congress last year is a sign that lawmakers are beginning to take housing more seriously at the federal level.

The goal of the new caucus, Gomez said, "is to make sure that the renters agenda is at the top of the Democratic Party agenda." This was a focus of all the members of Congress who attended the gathering in some capacity, including Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), also notable as Jane's husband. Driscoll is their son.

"Housing Should Be a Human Right in the Richest Country in the History of the World"

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass speaking with attendees at the event focused on the housing crisis, where she delivered an opening speech on the issue that focused on both the local battles for housing and, as a former member of Congress, the need for federal action. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who left Congress to provide more local leadership, said she did so because she saw that the rightward political shift at the local government level was set to take the city backward on a numerous fronts, including on the issues of affordable housing, education, and homelessness.

Calling housing "one of the most important issues of our lifetime right now," Bass praised the Sanders Institute's focus on the crisis and for bringing the event to California. "I know that you are going to be the brains behind what we need, which is a national movement," said Bass. "That's the only thing that is going to bring about the type of fundamental change that we need."

"What we need... is a national movement." —Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Speaking after Jayapal—who had told the audience the battle for better housing policy in the United States should be viewed much like the battle for universal healthcare—Bass acknowledged there are things on the housing agenda that will require action by leaders at every level of government.

"But nothing takes the place of the grassroots day-to-day organizing that is needed," she said, "so that we can win what Pramila said: Housing should be a human right in the richest country in the history of the world, just like healthcare should be a human right."

According to Sen. Sanders, who delivered the keynote address and was an active participant throughout, the purpose of the gathering was to get beyond talk in order to get down to the real work of making change.

"Our task is to organize and to educate," Sanders said. "It's easy to come up with rhetoric—which I have done once or twice in my life—but when you're the mayor of a city, you're going to need some concrete plans. How do you do it? You're going to have to bring a lot of smart people together to figure out the best way forward."

Social Housing: A Solution That Works

California Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-25), center, and South San Francisco Mayor James Coleman, right, present on social housing models during the event in Los Angeles on Thursday, April 4, 2024.

 (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

A constant theme at the event was that not only does the housing crisis demand progressive solutions, but the implementation of those solutions are themselves opportunities to revive democracy, increase social cohesion, and expand the public imagination.

In their joint presentation on social housing, California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-25) and South San Francisco Mayor James Coleman, also a Democrat, detailed a vision for "social housing" which aims to demolish preconceived notions that tend to dominate understandings of "public housing" throughout the United States.

When it comes to defining the term "social housing," Lee explained that he likes to "keep it simple." Social housing, he said, "is beautiful, sustainable, and publicly led developed housing that is available to everyone and for everyone."

The idea of universality, he emphasized, is critical in the U.S. context where public housing is typically subsidized housing only for low-income individuals or families. Social housing models across the world provide housing across economic classes, which creates more buy-in from communities and residents.

"There's a very deliberate reason of why we stick to the term social housing," Lee said, "even though it is three letters away from a scary thing that Americans fear." But it is the term used around the world, he explained—both in highly capitalistic economies like Singapore's as well as in the various social democracies of Europe and beyond.

Because it's housing for everyone—the poor, the middle class, and even the upper-middle class—Lee and Coleman explained that "universality" and the lack of means-testing are core components of a model they believe can transform people's understanding of what's possible in this country.

"With social housing," argued Coleman, "you'll see broad spots of the public be able to look at it and say: 'That is quality housing. I want to live there. I want my children to live there and I know I'm going to be paying lower rents than market rate.' And when people start seeing that, then they're going to want to continue to invest in social housing and we won't see the decades of disinvestment that we have seen here in the United States for our public housing program."

In an interview with Common Dreams, Lee offered a parallel example.

"In America," he said, "there is no constitutional guarantee of education, yet every parent will wake up tomorrow not having a single doubt in their mind that their child will go to school." Lee acknowledged not all children go to the same kinds of school, but said that people never doubt that education will be there for their families.

"But there is not the similar sense of options in housing—people don't have that." But they should, he said, and there are models out there—not just abroad but also examples in the U.S.—that show how it could work.

Citing housing construction in the post-war years, Lee said the country has shown it's capable of amazing things when it comes to housing.

"We could end the housing crisis in four years, at true scale," said Lee. "That's why it's really important to prove that this can work at the state level, especially in a state as populous as California. If we prove the concept here, we can show nationally how it can be done."

Like the Housing Crisis, "The Climate Crisis Is Actually a Massive Health Crisis"

Actor and activist Jane Fonda and community organizer Nalleli Cobo speak to the audience at The Gathering. 

(Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

During another session, actor and activist Jane Fonda presented alongside local activist Nalleli Cobo, a cancer survivor who has been fighting the oil industry that operates drilling wells in her urban neighborhood since she was a child.

Cobo, co-founder of the South Central Youth Leadership Coalition and a 2022 Goldman Environmental Prize winner for the activism that she initiated while still a teenager living in South Los Angeles, told the audience that the hard-fought victories she and her allies were able to win against the fossil fuel industry "were made possible because of a frontline community that was historically viewed as silenced, invisible, and disposable finally said: 'Enough is enough. We deserve to open our windows and our home and we deserve to breathe clean air.'"

"This is the largest crisis humanity has ever faced. We're running out of time and we have to fight back." —Jane Fonda

Living her whole life in a home neighboring a fossil fuel operation beset Cobo with health challenges throughout her childhood and ultimately led to a cancer diagnosis. Now three years in remission, she said affordable and healthy housing is something that every single member of society is entitled to.

"They may not be drilling in your community right now, but they can be unless we stand up and fight back," she said.

With nearly 3 million Californians living within a mile or less from oil and gas drilling wells, Fonda championed the courage and determination of Cobo to end this toxic practice, including with a ballot fight in California this year to ban such operations permanently.

"What Nalleli didn't tell you," Fonda told the audience when she took the podium, "is that at age 10 and 11, she and her mother had to be put into a witness protection program because of her organizing in the community to shut the oil well down; that at 19 she had to have a total hysterectomy; that her dream was to be a dancer and now that is no longer possible for her."

People must understand, Fonda said, that "the climate crisis is actually a massive health crisis" for people living in communities made toxic by fossil fuels all over the country and around the world. A cancer survivor in her own life, Fonda said she was told by someone when she threatened to tattoo the phrase "climate emergency" on her bald head if the chemotherapy took her hair that "the cancer community doesn't like to be looped in with other causes."

"Causes?!" she recalled exclaiming in response. "Honey, the climate crisis is not a cause. This is the largest crisis humanity has ever faced. We're running out of time and we have to fight back."

Climate Resilience and Housing Justice

(From left): Author and labor organizer Saket Soni, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Consumer Watchdog's Jamie Court. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

Also on the climate front—which highlighted the intersectional style of the Sanders Institute's gathering—Congresswoman Jayapal joined with author and labor organizer Saket Soni as well as Jamie Court of the California-based Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group, to discuss the linked issues of community resilience amid extreme weather disasters and soaring insurance costs that have arrived hand-in-hand with rising global temperatures.

While Soni in his work has been at the forefront of building up climate resilience in communities for decades—both by helping to mitigate the impact of extreme weather and also working on disaster relief and rebuilding—Jayapal explained that she has a bill in the U.S. House—called the Climate Resilience Workforce Act—that would formalize processes and establish funding to make such work a more integral part of federal, state, and local planning.

Among others, one component of the legislation would be to make sure that people in communities "disproportionately affected by climate change are actually at the table" when federal funds are dispersed.

According to the panel, the increasing impacts of climate change are a key driver of housing costs but nothing will get better without a justice lens through which to see the crisis of housing in an increasingly hotter world that is resulting in more floods, larger fires, and too little accountability for the corporate interests profiting from those extremes.

"In the context of our climate crisis," Soni explained during the panel discussion, "there is an opening for justice that Jayapal's bill is trying to take and that we're all trying to take. There is an opening where resilience is a framework that can accelerate housing justice, justice for the incarcerated, and justice for immigrants. And that's what we should all be trying to do, is look at how resilience is a real majoritarian framework—maybe one of the last ones left in our country—and inside of that there is so much consensus that we can push justice forward in many, many ways."

"There Is a Lot of Potential for Prop 1"

California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom talks with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) during the event in Los Angeles on Thursday, April 4, 2024. 

(Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)

On the state level, California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom arrived at the event to champion the recently approved measure known as Proposition 1, which will, among other things, provide state revenue from a nearly $6.4 billion bond to build and service more treatment beds for those experiencing severe mental health and addiction disorders as a way to curb homelessness across California.

During a panel discussion with Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and California Secretary of Health & Human Services Dr. Mark Ghaly, both Democrats, Newsom said that Prop. 1 would allow for a "strike force" that could better confront the overlapping issues of housing, homelessness, mental health, and substance addiction disorders.

Acknowledging the potential for hyperbole, Newsom said he believes what's contained in the new law "are the most significant" and far-reaching "behavioral health reforms happening anywhere in the United States of America."

While the debate over Proposition 1 was heated in the state, including among progressives who landed on various sides of the initiative, a subsequent panel focused on the implementation mostly landed on the side of cautious optimism for what it could be and what kind of model it might represent.

"There is a lot of potential for Prop 1," said Dr. Margot Kushel, professor of medicine at University of California San Francisco and director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.

"No matter where you stood on it before it passed," Kushel added, "there is a lot of potential now that it's here and we need to exercise that in the right way, which is that we need to be sure that it is used to enable these living-in-the-community, choice-driven, client-driven, but very supportive programs for people who are suffering terribly."

The evidence for what it will take to solve the mental health crisis as it pertains to homelessness, said Kushel, is overwhelming. "You don't need me to do more studies on it," she said, "we actually just need to bring to bear that funding [supplied by Prop 1] to solve some of these really sticky funding issues so that we can create the workforce, sustain the workforce, and create the programming" that will really serve the unhoused population "with dignity" in the communities they live in.

Several researchers presented on the severe impacts that homelessness and housing insecurity have on students and young people, including those in the foster care system. Other presenters described how community land trusts and other innovative housing collaborations, including faith-based initiatives, are providing models that could be replicated nationwide. Separately, a panel focused on the struggle of homeless veterans told the harrowing tale of former U.S. soldiers denied access to housing and care in Los Angeles who remain in a protracted legal fight with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs over land set aside for exactly that purpose.

"We don't suffer from scarcity in this country, we suffer from greed. We have enough money to house people and to create situations where people aren't going to fear for what tomorrow's going to look like." —Rep. Pramila Jayapal

In her reflections as a presenter and participant of the gathering, Congresswoman Jayapal explained to Common Dreams that the event was significant because "it lifted up an issue that" has been central for progressives but too often ignored and neglected by those in the media and within both major political parties.

"We don't suffer from scarcity in this country. We suffer from greed," Jayapal said. "We have enough money to house people, and to create situations where people aren't going to fear for what tomorrow's going to look like."

"We Need to Call Out the System"

Sanders Institute co-founder Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders in Los Angeles on Friday, April 5. "We're talking about transformational change," she said about the event.

 (Photo: J. Queally / Common Dreams)

The germination of the gathering, Jane Sanders explained to Common Dreams in the wake of the three days, was like "peeling back the onion" as one area of focus led to another, and a discussion with one invited expert resulted in the introduction to another.

As she realized the issue of housing was such a "hornet's nest" of intersecting issues, overlapping viewpoints, and innovative thinking, Sanders said it became increasingly clear that was exactly the reason to go forward with the event.

"We're talking about transformational change," she said of the work that she, Driscoll, and their colleagues are doing at the Sanders Institute. "None of us are very interested in making small incremental change, which might mean building some more affordable housing or supporting this or that initiative. That's not what this is about."

The Sanders Institute was initially in founded in 2018 with the goal of extending the energy, ideas, and political movement sparked during Bernie's presidential run in 2016. When the senator decided to run again in 2020, Jane and Dave decided to pause operations and then went into full hiatus when the coronavirus pandemic hit. In this context, holding an intimate housing conference in Los Angeles was conceived as a reawakening for the organization and a chance to let people know the time has now arrived to continue their original mission.

Reflecting on his experience after the gathering had concluded, Driscoll said it had been great to see so many people—whether in government or through an organization or at the grassroots level—having the chance to connect, learn from one another, and hopefully collaborate in the future.

"Sometimes this can be a lonely fight, whether or not you're fighting for housing or you're fighting for healthcare, sometimes you feel like you're not getting anywhere," he said. "But when you bring all these people together like we did over the last couple days, I felt at times a real energy in the room. People felt good about a really tough fight. So I think it inspired and fired people up, and also gave people hope for the future."

While they don't have it pinned down yet—that was the admission of the gathering—the point going forward is to clarify what the progressive agenda on housing should be and help push out to others how that fits into the broader movement for bold and lasting change.

When it comes to the opponents of such transformational proposals—national rent control, expansion of social housing, ending homelessness, or forging the Green New Deal for public housing—Driscoll said it's important that people understand powerful financial interests will fight such ideas with everything they have.

"We need to start calling people out like we did with tobacco money or with oil money," Driscoll said. "We need to start calling people out and saying, you're taking money from big real estate and developers that are causing this harm and stopping this progress." As is true in so many other areas of policy and politics, he said, following the money will be key in the battles to come.

"I don't like to call out individuals," Sanders said, "but we need to call out the system."

"It's a systematic problem that we don't say 'housing is a human right.' That's not shared in a capitalist society," she continued. "Not everybody would agree with that statement. We agree with that statement, but it's not one of those accepted truisms in this country. So what's our goal? That it become one."

 

AI helps to detect invasive Asian hornets

UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

 

IMAGE: 

VESPAI DETECTION PRIOR TO VESPAI ANALYSIS

view more 

CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

Artificial Intelligence can be used to detect invasive Asian hornets and raise the alarm, new research shows.

University of Exeter researchers have developed VespAI, an automated system that attracts hornets to a monitoring station and captures standardised images using an overhead camera.

When an Asian hornet visits, VespAI can identify the species with almost perfect accuracy – allowing authorities to mount a rapid response.

Asian hornets (also known as yellow-legged hornets) have already invaded much of mainland Europe and parts of east Asia, and have recently been reported in the US states of Georgia and South Carolina.

The UK sits at the edge of the European invasion front, and with ongoing yearly incursions there is an urgent need for improved monitoring systems.

“Our goal was to develop something cost-effective and versatile, so anyone – from governments to individual beekeepers – could use it,” said Dr Thomas O’Shea-Wheller, from the Environment and Sustainability Institute on Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall.

“This study tested a prototype version, and the results were encouraging. VespAI shows promise as a robust early warning system to detect Asian hornet ingressions into new regions.”

VespAI uses a compact processor to operate, and remains dormant unless its sensors identify an insect within the size range of a hornet.

If this happens, the system’s AI algorithm activates, analysing the image to determine if it’s an Asian hornet (Vespa velutina), or native European hornet (Vespa crabro). If an Asian hornet is detected, the monitor then sends an image alert to the user, allowing them to confirm the identification.

At present, the UK response strategy depends upon people seeing, identifying and reporting Asian hornets. However, this has some limitations.

“Unfortunately, the majority of reports submitted are misidentified native species, meaning that the responsible agencies have to manually validate thousands of images every year – our system thus aims to provide a vigilant, accurate and automated surveillance capability to remediate this,” said Dr Peter Kennedy, who conceptualised the system.

“In some parts of Europe, detection relies on hornet trapping – but such traps kill a lot of native insects, and do little to impact Asian hornet numbers.

“VespAI does not kill non-target insects, and thus eliminates the environmental impact of trapping, while ensuring that live hornets can be caught and tracked back to the nest, which is the only effective way to destroy them.”

During the project, the system was tested extensively on the island of Jersey, which experiences high numbers of Asian hornet incursions due to its proximity to France.

While this exposed the monitor to both Asian hornets, European hornets and a variety of other insects, VespAI’s detection algorithm successfully distinguished between each of these, even when present in large numbers.

“That’s the benefit of our system – its high accuracy means that it won’t wrongly identify other species, or miss any Asian hornets that visit,” said Dr O’Shea-Wheller.

The research project included both biologists and data scientists from the University of Exeter’s Environment and Sustainability Institute, Centre for Ecology and Conservation and Institute for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence.

This year, the team will begin deploying additional prototypes in collaboration with Defra, the National Bee Unit, the British Beekeepers Association and Vita Bee Health.

With 2023 seeing record numbers of Asian hornet sightings in the UK, the system aims to bolster exclusion efforts at a potentially crucial juncture.

“The proposed device may prove a powerful tool in the early determination of the presence of Asian hornets in an area, and thereby fills an important gap,” said Alistair Christie, Senior Scientific Officer for Invasive Species in Jersey, and part of the collaborative testing effort.

The project was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), part of UKRI.

The paper, published in the journal Communications Biology, is entitled: “VespAI: a deep learning-based system for the detection of invasive hornets.”

VespAI Detection After VespAI analysis

VespAI Bait Station

CREDIT

Peter J. Kennedy

JOURNAL

Communications Biology

DOI

10.1038/s42003-024-05979-z 

ARTICLE TITLE

VespAI: a deep learning-based system for the detection of invasive hornets

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

3-Apr-2024

Oscars Speech Smear Campaign Shows Lying For Israel Is A Good Career Move

By Jonathan Cook

March 14, 2024

Source: Allison Richards - Oscars. Flickr.

Film director Jonathan Gazer’s acceptance speech went viral. But Jewish community leaders know there will be no professional damage for misrepresenting his words

Film director Jonathan Glazer poked a hornet’s nest with his acceptance speech this week as he won an Oscar for The Zone of Interest, a film about the family of Auschwitz’s Nazi commandant who live peacefully inside a walled garden, cut off from the horrors just the other side.

Glazer says the film’s point is not simply to drive home a history lesson. It’s “not to say, ‘Look what they did then.’ Rather, ‘Look what we do now.’”

There could not be pithier summary of the difference between the universal moral impulse found in Jews like Glazer, and the particularist Zionist impulse found in the people who noisily claim to speak for the Jewish community – and are readily given a bullhorn to do so by western establishments.

The first group says, “Never again.” The second group cries, “Never again, unless it serves Israel’s interests.”

And given Israel’s decades-long craving to dispossess the Palestinians of their entire homeland, that second “Never again” is as good as worthless. Palestinians were always in danger of erasure – not just territorially, as happened in 1948 and 1967, but existentially, as is happening now – by a state misleadingly declaring itself to be Jewish.

Universal ethics sidelined

The assumption of many was that the West would never tolerate another genocide being conducted in its name.

How misplaced that certainty was. The West is arming and funding the genocide in Gaza, and providing diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Its commitment to helping Israel carry out mass slaughter is such that many western states have frozen their funding to the UN aid agency UNRWA, which is specifically charged with keeping Palestinians in Gaza fed and alive.

Observers underestimated how far things had shifted. Over many decades, a universal ethics that drew on the lessons of the Holocaust – and solidified into international law – was intentionally undermined, sidelined and replaced by a particularist Zionist “ethics”.

That readjustment happened with the active connivance of western powers, which had no interest in promoting the universal lessons of recent history. For their own self-interested reasons, they preferred the particularist agenda of Zionism. It sat easily with the West’s insistence that its privileges continue: the right to wage wars and steal the resources of others, the ability to trample on indigenous peoples, and the power to destroy the planet and other species.

Ideology for dark times

In fact, Zionism was never centrally about Israel. It is a much broader ideology, rooted in western tradition and tailor-made for the darker times we are entering, in which systems collapse – of economies, of climate stability, of authority – poses new challenges to western establishments.

Zionism started as a Christian doctrine centuries ago, and flourished in the Victorian era among British politicians. It views Jews chiefly as a vehicle to advance a brutal, end-of-times redemption in which they are to be the the main sacrificial victims.

Though less conspicuously today, Christian Zionism still shapes the climate in which today’s politicians operate – as the large number of “Friends of Israel” in both major parties attests. Christian Zionism is the self-professed view too of many tens of millions of rightwing evangelicals in the US and elsewhere.

Whether in its Christian or Jewish incarnations, Zionism was always a “might is right”, “law of the jungle” doctrine, drawing on Old Testament-style ideas of chosen-ness, divine purpose, and rationalisations for violence and savagery. It sits all too comfortably with the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza.

No disgrace or shame

Jewish leaders and influencers in the West who champion more, not less, genocide in Gaza face neither disgrace nor shame. They are not shunned for cheering policies that have entailed so far the slaughter, maiming and orphaning of at least 100,000 Palestinian children. Why? Because they are articulating an Israel-focused version of an ideology that fits neatly with the worldview of western establishments.

For this reason, Jewish influencers lost no time working to smear Glazer as a self-hating Jew by misrepresenting his speech – quite literally by editing out the parts that did not fit their particularist, anti-universal agenda.

Referencing the victims both of October 7 and of Israel’s attack on Gaza, Glazer told the Oscars audience: “Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation that has led to conflict for so many innocent people.”

He was expressly opposing his Jewishness being weaponised in support of a genocide. He was standing apart from many Jewish community leaders and influencers who have weaponised their own Jewishness to justify violence against civilians. He was reminding us that the Holocaust’s lesson is that ideologies must never trump our humanity, must never be used to rationalise evil.

All of which poses a huge threat to those in the Jewish community who have, for years, been precisely weaponising their Jewishness for political ends – in the service of Israel and its decades-old project to remove the Palestinian people from their historic homeland.

The real moral rot

In a moment of pure projection, for example, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, dubbed by media outlets as “the most famous rabbi in America“, castigated Glazer for supposedly “exploiting the Holocaust” and for trivializing “the memory of the 6 million victims through whom he found Hollywood glory”.

Boteach apparently cannot understand that it is he, not Glazer, who has been exploiting the Holocaust – in his case, for decades in the service of protecting Israel from any criticism, even now as it commits a genocide.

Meanwhile, Batya Ungar-Sargon, opinion editor at Newsweek, broke with all journalistic norms to completely misrepresent Glazer’s speech, accusing him of “moral rot” for supposedly disavowing his Jewishness. Rather, as he made all too clear, he was rejecting how his Jewishness and the Holocaust were being hijacked by genocide apologists such as Ungar-Sargon to promote a violent ideological agenda.

The Newsweek editor knows that Glazer’s speech was the most listened to and discussed moment of the Oscars. There are few who read her tweeted comment that had not heard for themselves what Glazer said in his speech rather than the misinformation Ungar-Sargon peddled about it.

Lying about his remarks should have been an act of professional self-harm. It should have been a dark stain on her journalistic credibility. And yet Ungar-Sargon proudly left up her tweet, even as it received X’s humiliating “Readers added…” footnote exposing her deception.

She did so because that tweet is her calling card. It declares her not a talented or careful journalist but as something far more useful: one who will do whatever is required to get ahead. Like Shmuley, she was projecting – in her case, with the accusation of “moral rot”. She was advertising that she lacks a moral compass, and that she is willing to do whatever is needed to advance establishment interests.

Like those who lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there will be no price to pay for these all-too-visible failings, or for promoting a catastrophe for a people whose lives and fate are of no import to the West.

Shmuley and Ungar-Sargon are determined to buttress the walled garden, shielding us from the suffering, the terrors, inflicted by the West just out of view.

These courtiers and charlatans must be shamed and shunned. We must listen instead to those like Glazer trying to tear down the wall to show us the reality outside.

Email

How The Fight Against Antisemitism’ Became A Shield For Israel’s Genocide

Western capitals no longer treat Israel like a state, a political actor capable of slaughtering children, but rather as a sacred cause. So any opposition has to be a blasphemy

By Jonathan Cook

March 7, 2024

Source: Middle East Eye

If you read the establishment media, you might conclude that a serious battle is being waged by Israel and its most ardent supporters to tackle an apparent new wave of antisemitism in the West.

In article after article, we are told how Israel and western Jewish leadership bodies are demanding our concern, and outrage, at a rise in anti-Jewish hate incidents. Organisations such as the Community Security Trust in the UK and the Anti-Defamation League in the US produce lengthy reports on the relentless increase in antisemitism, especially since 7 October, and warn that action is urgently required.

Undoubtedly, there is a real threat of antisemitism, and as ever it comes largely from the far right. Israel’s actions – and its false claim to be representing all Jews – only help to stoke it.

This moral panic is transparently self-serving. It directs our attention away from the pressing, all-too-concrete evidence that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza – one that has slaughtered and maimed many tens of thousands of innocents. 

It redirects our attention instead towards tenuous claims of a deepening antisemitism crisis, one whose tangible effects appear limited and for which the evidence is all too clearly exaggerated. 

After all, a rise in “Jew hatred” is all but inevitable if you redefine antisemitism, as western officials have recently done via the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s new definition, to include antipathy towards Israel – and at the moment when Israel appears, even to the World Court, to be carrying out a genocide.

The logic of Israel and its supporters runs something like this: many more people than usual are expressing hatred of Israel, the self-declared state of the Jewish people. There is no reason to hate Israel unless you hate what it represents, which is Jews. Therefore, antisemitism is on the rise.

This argument makes sense to most Israelis, to its partisans, and to the overwhelming majority of western politicians and career-minded establishment journalists. That is: the very same people who interpret calls for equality in historic Palestine – “from the river to the sea” – as demands for a genocide against Jews.

The singer Charlotte Church, for example, found herself accused of antisemitism by the entire establishment media after a “pro-Palestinian chant” to raise money for Gaza’s children being starved by an Israeli aid blockade. The offending song had included the lyric “From the river to the sea”, calling for the liberation of Palestinians from decades of Israeli oppression. 

At the weekend, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt once again suggested marches calling for a ceasefire were antisemitic because they supposedly “intimidated” Jews. In fact, Jews are prominent at those marches. He was referring to Zionists who excuse the slaughter in Gaza. 

Similarly, in the wake of George Galloway’s overwhelming byelection win “for Gaza” in Rochdale last week, a BBC reporter berated former Labour MP Chris Williamson for using the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions. 

The reporter was worried that the term “might offend some people”, despite the World Court finding the accusation of genocide plausible. 

A ghoulish phenomenon

But the ambition of these Israel zealots runs much deeper than mere deflection. Israel’s leaders and most of its citizens are not ashamed of their genocide, it seems, and neither are their overseas backers. 

If my social media feeds are any guide, the slaughter in Gaza is not discomfiting these apologists, or even giving them pause for thought. They appear to revel in their support for Israel as the world looks on in horror.

Every Palestinian child’s bloodied body, and the outrage it provokes from onlookers, fuels their self-righteousness. They entrench, they do not retreat. 

They appear to be finding a strange reassurance – comfort even – in the wider public’s anger and indignation at the extinguishing of so many young lives.

It mirrors very precisely Israeli officials’ own reaction to the International Court of Justice’s verdict that there is a plausible case Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Many observers assumed that Israel would seek to placate the judges and world opinion by toning down its atrocities. They could not have been more wrong. In defying the court, Israel became even more brazen, as attested to by its horrifying assault on the Nasser hospital last month and its lethal attack on Palestinians scrambling to reach an aid convoy last week. 

Israel’s war crimes – broadcast on every social media platform, including by its own soldiers – are even more in our faces than before the World Court ruling.

This phenomenon needs explaining. It looks ghoulish. But it has an internal logic that shines a light on why Israel has become an emotional crutch for many Jewish people, both inside the country and abroad, as well as for others. 

It is not just that Jews and non-Jews who strongly subscribe to the ideology of Zionism identify with Israel. It runs deeper still. They are utterly dependent on a worldview – long cultivated in them by Israel and by their own community leaders, as well as by oil-grabbing western establishments – that places Israel at the centre of the moral universe. 

They have been drawn into what looks more like a cult – and a very dangerous one at that, as the horrors of Gaza are revealing.

Albatross, not sanctuary

The claim they have internalised – that Israel is a necessary sanctuary in a future time of trouble from the supposedly innate, genocidal impulses of non-Jews – should have come crashing down on their heads over the past five months. 

If the price of reassurance – of having a “just-in-case” bolthole – is the slaughter and maiming of many tens of thousands of Palestinian children, and the slow starvation of hundreds of thousands more, then that bolthole is not worth preserving. 

It is not a sanctuary; it is an albatross. It is a stain. It must go, to be replaced by something better for Jews and Palestinians in the region – “from the river to the sea”. 

So why have these Israel partisans not been able to reach a conclusion so morally self-evident to everyone else – or at least those not suborned to the interests of western establishments? 

Because like all cults, hardcore Zionists are immune to self-reflection. Not only that, but their reasoning is inherently circular. 

Israel, Zionism’s creation, is not in the least concerned with providing a solution to antisemitism, as it professes. Quite the reverse. It feeds on antisemitism and needs it

Israel, Zionism’s creation, is not in the least concerned with providing a solution to antisemitism, as it professes. Quite the reverse. It feeds on antisemitism and needs it. 

Antisemitism is its lifeblood, the very reason for Israel’s existence. Without antisemitism, Israel would be redundant, there would be no need for it as a sanctuary. 

The cult would be over, and so would the endless military aid, the special trading status with the West, the jobs, the land grabs, the privileges and the sense of importance and ultimate victimhood that allows for the dehumanisation of others, not least the Palestinians. 

Like all true believers, Israel’s partisans overseas – who proudly call themselves “Zionists” but are now pressuring social media platforms to ban the term as antisemitic, as the movement’s goals become more transparent – have too much to lose from self- and communal doubt.

The fight against antisemitism means nothing else can take priority – not even genocide. Which, in turn, means no greater evil can be acknowledged, not even the mass murder of children. No bigger threat, however pressing, however urgent, can be allowed to come to the fore.

And to keep the doubt at bay, more antisemitism – more supposed existential threats – must be generated. 

Racism in new garb

In recent years, the biggest difficulty facing Zionism has been that the true racists – on the right, often in power in western capitals – have also served as Israel’s strongest allies. They have dressed up their traditional racist ideologies – that once fed antisemitism, and could again – in new garb: as Islamophobia. 

In Europe and the United States, Muslims are the new Jews. 

Which is ideal for Israel and its partisans. A supposed “global, civilisational war” – ideological cover to justify continuing western domination of the oil-rich Middle East – always places Israel, the regional attack dog, on the side of the angels, firmly alongside the white nationalists.  

Because Israel and its apologists cannot expose the true racists and antisemites in power, they must create new ones. And that has required changing antisemitism’s definition beyond recognition, to refer to those who oppose the colonial domination project into which Israel is profoundly integrated.

In this upside-down worldview, one that prevails not only among Israel partisans but in western capitals, we have arrived at a nonsense: to reject Israel’s oppression of Palestinians – and now even its genocide of them – is supposedly to reveal oneself as antisemitic.

Palestinians dehumanised

This was precisely the position in which Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, found herself last month after she criticised French President Emmanuel Macron. 

Israel has, as a consequence, declared it is banning her from entry to the occupied territories to record its human rights abuses. 

To ascribe antisemitism as Hamas’ motivation is intended to scrub out those many, many decades of oppression

But notably, as Albanese pointed out, nothing has changed in practice. Israel has excluded all UN rapporteurs from the occupied territories for the past 16 years, during its siege of Gaza, so they cannot witness the crimes that foregrounded the attack on 7 October.

Last month, Macron made a patently preposterous statement, though one promoted by Israel and treated seriously by the western media. He described Hamas’ attack on Israel as the “biggest antisemitic massacre of our century” – that is, he claimed it was driven by hatred of Jews.

One can criticise Hamas for how it carried out its attack, as Albanese has done: undoubtedly, its fighters committed many violations of international law that day in killing civilians and taking them hostage. 

Exactly the same kind of violations, we should note in the interests of balance, that Israel has committed day in, day out for decades against the Palestinians forced to live under its military occupation.

Palestinian prisoners, seized by an occupying Israeli army in the middle of the night, held in military jails and denied proper trials, are no less hostages. 

But to ascribe antisemitism as Hamas’ motivation is intended to scrub out those many decades of oppression. It airbrushes out the very abuses faced by the Palestinians that Hamas and the other Palestinian militant factions were established to resist. 

That right of resistance to belligerent military occupation is enshrined in international law, even if the West rarely acknowledges the fact. 

Or as Albanese put it: “The victims in the October 7 massacre were not killed because of their Judaism, but in response to Israeli oppression.”

Macron’s ridiculous remark also wiped out the past 17 years of the siege of Gaza – a slow-motion genocide that Israel has now put on steroids. 

And he did so precisely because western colonial interests – just like Israel’s interests – must rationalise the dehumanisation of Palestinians and their supporters as racists and barbarians, in the West’s pursuit of domination and old-fashioned resource control in the Middle East. 

But it is Albanese, not Macron, now fighting to save her reputation. She is the one being smeared as a racist and antisemite. By whom? By Israel and the genocide-supporting leaders of Europe.

Sacred cause

Israel needs antisemitism. And armed with a ludicrous redefinition adopted by western allies that classifies as Jew hatred any opposition to its crimes – any rejection of its bogus claims of “self-defence” as it crushes resistance to its occupation and its oppression of Palestinians – Israel has every incentive to commit more crimes. 

It is a moral duty to defeat these ‘antisemitism’ warriors and assert our shared humanity – and the right of all to live in peace and dignity

Every atrocity produces more outrage, more resentment, more “antisemitism”. And the more resentment, the more outrage, the more “antisemitism”, the more Israel and its supporters can present the self-declared Jewish state as a sanctuary from that “antisemitism”. 

Israel is no longer treated as a state, as a political actor capable of committing crimes and slaughtering children, but as an article of faith. It is transformed into a belief system, one immune to criticism or scrutiny. It transcends politics to become a sacred cause. And any opposition must be damned as wicked, as blasphemy.

Which is precisely the state to which western politics has devolved. 

This battle against “antisemitism” – or rather, the battle being waged by Israel and its partisans – is to turn the meaning of words, and the values they represent, on their head. It is a fight to crush solidarity with the Palestinian people, and leave them friendless and naked before Israel’s campaign of genocide. 

It is a moral duty to defeat these “antisemitism” warriors and assert our shared humanity – and the right of all to live in peace and dignity – before Israel and its apologists pave the way to an even greater slaughter. 

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Jonathan Cook

British writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His books are Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State (Pluto, 2006); Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto, 2008); and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed, 2008).