Biden Administration Offers 'Concern,' But Refuses to Condemn Israeli Raids

The Biden administration says it "doesn't share Israel's position" on criminalizing 6 Palestinian NGOs, but also won't criticize Israel following a military raid on the organizations.


MICHAEL ARRIA

August 22, 2022 by Mondoweiss

On August 18 Israeli forces carried out an overnight raid on the offices of seven Palestinian civil society organizations in the occupied West Bank. Armed soldiers stole documents, damaged property, and welded the office doors shut.

Six of the seven targeted groups (Al-Haq, Addameer, Defense for Children International – Palestine, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, The Bisan Center for Research and Development, and the Union of Palestinian Women's Committees) had been designated as terrorist organizations by the Israeli government in October 2021. Israel has never provided any public evidence to back up these allegations and classified documents obtained by +972, Local Call, and The Intercept show that the accusations are dubious.

Shortly after Israel designated the groups as terrorists, they presented the Biden administration with what they claimed to be "unequivocal" intelligence against the Palestinian NGOs. "We receive detailed information from the Israeli government," State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters at the time. "We appreciated the consultation. We're reviewing the information that they provided us."

That was ten months ago, but the Biden administration has still not made a public conclusion about the evidence. At an April 2022 State Department briefing Price reiterated the same sentiments from October and did not indicate that they were any closer to reaching a verdict. "We have received detailed information on that very question from our Israeli partners, and it's something that we're continuing to review," he said. "We received detailed information from our Israeli partners on the basis for their designation. We're taking a very close look at that ourselves."

At yesterday's briefing Price was hit with a barrage of questions from the AP's Matt Lee and Al Quds' Said Arikat about the raid. Price expressed "concern" about the raids and said the administration was awaiting information about situation from its Israeli partners, the reporters asked why it hadn't released a statement about the evidence from October and why people should expect them to assess any new evidence in a timely manner. Lee told Price that the administration seemed to be in a "perpetual state of limbo."

"We have not seen anything that has caused us to change our position," Price eventually admitted, which marks the first time that the administration has acknowledged that it doesn't share Israel's position on the issue. However, Price refused to disagree with the Israeli government directly, much less accuse them of lying.

"So you don't believe the Israelis' information?," asked Lee at one point.

"Intelligence information is always information that is the subject of analysis and different parties can read information differently," responded Price. "They can perceive of threats differently. Our own analysis heretofore of the information that was provided last year has not caused us to change our approach to these organizations."

When Price was asked why the administration is simply voicing concern, instead of condemning the raids, he curiously referenced October evidence. "I think the fact is that our Israeli partners..took an action..to designate these organizations as so-called 'terrorist organizations', said Price. "What we've seen publicly, what they've conveyed privately in recent hours, is that there's an appropriate basis for the actions that they have taken. It will be a matter of urgency for us to review the basis for that information."
U.S. complicity

On Twitter some pointed out that the Biden administration helped facilitate the raids via their inaction in regards to the original intelligence. "To be clear, while this is the furthest the U.S. government has come, it still falls very short of where it needs to be," wrote the Palestinian-American political analyst Yousef Munayyer. "Their equivocation for months emboldened Israel to raid these offices today. When will the US finally condemn these actions, how much further does Israel have to go?"

"The Biden Admin has had Israel's 'evidence' for almost a year," wrote Foundation for Middle East Peace president Lara Friedman. "It clearly knows this 'evidence' is BS—otherwise there is zero doubt they would have validated Israel's designations/designated the groups themself. But knowing the evidence was BS, they appear to have taken the politically & morally cowardly approach of staying silent—an approach that amounts to foreign policy gross negligence/complicity."

"Make no mistake: This is a Chekov's gun situation," she continued. "Israel put the gun on the table last October. The Biden Admin saw that gun and decided to do nothing to pressure Israel to remove it. Now, the Biden Admin cannot claim surprise when Israel aims/fires that gun at Palestinian human rights defenders."

A few Democratic House members also called Biden to act. "I am upset by the latest attacks by the Israeli army on Palestinian human rights groups," tweeted Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN). "Silencing human rights defenders is an attempt to avoid accountability. I reiterate calls from myself and my colleagues that the Biden administration immediately condemn this repression."

"Once again the IDF has launched a chilling attack on Defense for Children International-Palestine, a human rights organization supporting Palestinian children," wrote Rep. Betty McCollum. "The Biden administration must condemn these efforts to silence groups advocating for Palestinian human rights and civil society."

Last year McCollum introduced a resolution calling on the administration to condemn Israel's "authoritarian and antidemocratic" repression of the human rights groups.

© 2021 Mondoweiss

MICHAEL ARRIA is the US correspondent for Mondoweiss and the author of Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC.

Letter to Biden Administration Following Israel's Recent Actions Against Palestinian CSOs

August 22, 2022

President Joe Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Mr. Antony J. Blinken
Secretary of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Mr. Biden and Mr. Blinken,

We write in connection with the Israeli government's actions against seven leading Palestinian civil society organizations, confirming the decision to outlaw the activities of six of them, raiding their offices, and issuing closure orders against them. The Israeli Shin Bet subsequently targeted the leaders of at least two of these organizations in further acts of intimidation and harassment. These actions are an assault on the basic human rights of Palestinians to assemble and organize freely and an example of the Israeli government's weaponization of "counter-terrorism laws" in its relentless attacks against civil society activists. Despite repeated demands from governments and human rights organizations around the world, Israel has offered no credible evidence to support its allegations against these groups, and as a result, nine European Union (EU) states and Norway have rejected Israel's claims and continued to support the organizations.

The U.S. government's failure to censure Israel's human rights violations while continuing to provide it with matchless military and political support is understood as US acquiescence to these actions, and clearly the Israeli government feels empowered to repress Palestinian civil society with impunity. To demonstrate its stated commitment to human rights and the protection of civil society, the U.S. government should take immediate steps to support the Palestinian civil society organizations by meeting with representatives of the groups, openly rejecting the Israeli designations, demanding that Israel reverse its designations, and suspending military assistance to Israel so long as its systematic abuses of Palestinians, including this latest attack, continue.

On August 18, Israeli authorities raided the offices of seven prominent Palestinian civil society organizations, seizing documents, printers and computers, welding the doors shut, and issuing closure orders against the organizations. The organizations that were issued closure orders are: Defense for Children International – Palestine, Al Haq; Addameer; Bisan Center for Research and Development; Union of Agricultural Work Committees; Union of Palestinian Women's Committees; and Health Work Committees. This follows the Israeli government's move last year to outlaw the groups, designating them as "terrorist" organizations under Israeli law, and as "unlawful associations" under military law, which it applies in the occupied West Bank. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz's confirmed many of these designations on August 17, though several groups still have a pending challenge against the 'terrorism' designation. On August 21, the Shin Bet interrogated Khaled Quzmar, General Director of DCI Palestine, for two hours and contacted Shawan Jabarin, General Director of Al-Haq, to threaten him, order Al-Haq to cease its activities and demand he come in for interrogation. 

Following the initial designation on October 22, 2021 of the groups as "terrorist" organizations and in November 2021 as "unlawful associations," Israeli officials engaged in a political campaign to convince European and American officials that they had evidence against the organizations that supported the allegations against them. In November 2021, the Associated Press and +972 Magazine reported that a leaked 74-page document, apparently prepared by Israel's Shin Bet internal security agency, was shared with European governments in May 2021. In July 2022, nine EU states – Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden – said that they received "no substantial information" that justified the Israeli claims and that they would continue their financial support to the organizations. When announcing this decision, the nine countries stated, "No substantial information was received from Israel that would justify reviewing our policy towards the six Palestinian NGOs. In the absence of such evidence, we will continue our cooperation and strong support for the civil society in the OPT."

U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price acknowledged on November 4, 2021 that an Israeli delegation had presented information about the designations to U.S. officials and stated that the U.S. authorities would carry out an assessment and make its own determination. Since then, despite some Congressional support to the Palestinian organizations and Congressional rejection of the Israeli claims, as well as a joint statement by UN experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, calling for the resumption of funding to the six organizations, the Biden administration remained silent. On August 18, 2022, Price stated: "We are concerned about the Israeli security forces' closure of the six offices of the Palestinian NGOs in and around Ramallah today. We have reached out to the Israeli government, including at senior levels, including here from Washington as well as our embassy in Jerusalem, for more information regarding the basis for these closures." According to the Guardian, a classified CIA report found that there was no credible evidence against the organizations.

At the same time, the U.S. government has continued to provide the Israeli government with billions in military support. Notwithstanding the overwhelming record of Israeli human rights abuses, President Biden reiterated the United States' "ironclad" support for Israel during his trip to Israel and the West Bank in July 2022, and refused to meet with the Palestinian organizations despite calls from U.S. civil society organizations for him to do so.

Israel's labeling of these Palestinian organizations as "terrorist" and the campaign to use evidence that has been roundly discredited could also undermine legitimate and lawful global efforts to respond to terrorism. In their April 2022 letter, UN Experts explained how Israel's actions abuse such efforts, stating:

The United Nations has been very clear that the drafting and application of anti-terrorism laws have to be rigorously consistent with international law and human rights protections, including the principles of legal certainty, necessity, proportionality, the rule of law and non-discrimination. We are deeply disturbed by Israel's apparent misuse of anti-terrorism legislation to attack some of the leading civil society organisations in Palestine. Such misuse must be rejected and countered.

By its silence and inaction to condemn Israel's actions against the Palestinian organizations while continuing to provide unconditional U.S. military and political support to Israel, the Biden Administration is effectively acquiescing to repressive attacks on Palestinian civil society. In addition to the threat against individual Palestinian human rights defenders, this could have devastating consequences for the marginalized communities these organizations serve, including women, children, farmers, and poor families.

We, the undersigned organizations, urge the Biden Administration to take immediate action and make public its promised but long delayed assessment of the Israeli evidence and to follow the lead of its European counterparts in explicitly rejecting Israel's baseless designation of these groups as "terrorist" and "unlawful associations." The administration should demand that Israel reverse its determinations and cease all punitive actions against them, and President Biden should instruct the U.S. Ambassador in Jerusalem, Tom Nides, to meet publicly with representatives of the targeted organizations. Finally, the Administration should suspend military assistance to Israel so long as its systematic abuses of Palestinians, including this latest attack, continue.

Signed:

• Adalah Justice Project
• AJP Action
• American Friends Service Committee
• American Muslims for Palestine
• Center for Constitutional Rights
• Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
• Human Rights Watch
• Jewish Voice for Peace Action
• MENA Rights Group
• US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
• Virginia Coalition for Human Rights 

‘Not directly a matter for US’: State Dept on terror charges against Imran Khan

This is a matter for the Pakistani legal and judicial system, says Ned Price when asked to comment on cases against PTI chairman

August 23, 2022

United States Department of State spokesman Ned Price.

 Photo: AFP/file

ISLAMABAD: Terming the terrorism case against PTI Chairman Imran Khan a “matter for the Pakistani legal and judicial system", US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price refused to comment on the issue.

During a State Department press briefing, the spokesperson was asked if he had any reaction to the charges that were brought against former prime minister Imran Khan under an anti-terrorism law because of a speech that he made where he spoke about two senior police officials and a female judge, Ned Price replied that they were aware of the reports about the charges.

“This is a matter for the Pakistani legal and judicial system,” he said, adding that it is not directly a matter for the United States, and that’s because they do not have a position on one political candidate or party versus any other political candidate or party.

Related Stories

Even apology may not save Imran: Justice Shaiq Usmani 

Imran receiving conflicting advice in contempt case

The US spokesperson maintained that they support the peaceful upholding of democratic, constitutional, and legal principles in Pakistan and around the world.

The PTI chairman is facing a terrorism case over the controversial remarks he made during a rally in Islamabad staged to show solidarity with Shahbaz Gill who was arrested after a sedition case was filed against him.

The PTI has alleged that Gill was subjected to torture during detention, however, the Islamabad Police have denied such allegations.

The Islamabad High Court has also issued a contempt of court notice to the PTI chairman over his remarks against the judge.

What We Know About Imran Khan, Pakistan’s Former Prime Minister

Mr. Khan’s party has had a comeback since he was ousted this year. He’s now facing charges of violating a terrorism law after he threatened to sue government officials.

Imran Khan at a rally in Lahore, Pakistan, this month.

Credit...Arif Ali/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Vivek Shankar
Aug. 22, 2022

Pakistan faces a political flash point after the police filed terrorism charges this weekend against Imran Khan, the former prime minister who has staged an improbable comeback after his ouster earlier this year.

The conditions that precipitated Mr. Khan’s fall — rising prices of food, the country’s heavy debt and the loss of the military’s support — have only worsened under the current government. In July, residents of Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous state, showed their displeasure by handing Mr. Khan’s party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, a sweeping victory in local elections.

Buoyed by that success, Mr. Khan has renewed his call to hold general elections earlier than planned. But the government, Mr. Khan and his allies say, has responded with a crackdown on him and his party in a bid to prevent him from returning to power. Mr. Khan on Sunday blamed Pakistan’s powerful military, which once backed him.

Authorities have yet to arrest Mr. Khan. He was granted a form of bail on Monday, which is allowed in Pakistan before an arrest is made.

Here’s what you need to know about the situation in Pakistan:

Mr. Khan is accused of intimidating government officials.

In a speech on Saturday, the former prime minister threatened to sue police officers and a judge involved in the case of a senior aide, Shahbaz Gill, who Mr. Khan said was tortured while in police custody. Officials have denied those claims.

After Mr. Khan’s speech, a complaint was filed with the police, accusing him of trying to intimidate the country’s judiciary and police force, local news media reported. A case was registered against Mr. Khan under Pakistan’s terrorism law, but it is not clear whether there is an arrest warrant or what the exact charges are.

 

Police officers Monday in Islamabad at a checkpoint on a road leading to Mr. Khan’s home.

Credit...Anjum Naveed/Associated Press

Mr. Khan has not yet responded publicly to the charges.

Leaders of his party have vowed to take to the streets if he is arrested.

Mr. Khan’s aide, Mr. Gill, was detained after he called for military officers to defy orders from the top brass. The popular cable television channel on which Mr. Gill made those comments, ARY News, was forced off the air. Over the weekend, Pakistan’s media regulator ordered television channels to stop carrying Mr. Khan’s speeches live, saying he was “spreading hate speech.”


Mr. Khan had an atypical rise to political leader.

Born to an affluent family in Lahore and educated at Oxford University, Mr. Khan rose to international prominence in the late 1970s on the cricket pitch. By the time he led Pakistan in 1992 to its only World Cup triumph, he had become a regular in London’s fashionable crowd. In 1995, he married a British heiress, Jemima Goldsmith.

A year later, Mr. Khan tried to parlay his cricket popularity into a political career, establishing his own party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or the Movement for Justice. As a politician, he painted a picture of himself as a reformer offering an alternative to the entrenched political dynasties.

In Australia in 1992, Mr. Khan, center, and his cricket team after their World Cup victory.

Credit...Tony Feder/Getty Images

For over a decade, Mr. Khan struggled to make political inroads and was mocked for his political ambitions. But by 2011, he began drawing hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis to his rallies. Many were energized by a populist message against corruption and American influence.

By then, he had embraced a pious form of Islam and sought to transform his personal image.

After winning the backing of military leaders, Mr. Khan was elected Pakistan’s prime minister in 2018. Many of his rivals accused the military of manipulating the election in his favor — an accusation Mr. Khan and the military have denied. He ushered in a new foreign policy, moving away from the United States and closer to Russia and China.
Mr. Khan’s tenure as prime minister had a premature end.

The global wave of inflation that followed the coronavirus pandemic dealt a severe blow to Pakistan, a country of 220 million people that was already struggling with erratic growth and heavy government debt. The rising cost of food and imports like fuel led to dissatisfaction with Mr. Khan’s handling of the economy.

A dispute with military leaders compounded Mr. Khan’s struggles, and by late last year, his tenure began to unwind. He had sought to place a loyal aide and former spy chief in charge of the army over the objections of the military leadership.

Unloading rice at a market in Karachi in January. Rising food costs during the pandemic led to dissatisfaction with how Mr. Khan was handling the economy. His successor, Shehbaz Sharif, faces a similar challenge.

Credit...Rizwan Tabassum/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

With Mr. Khan appearing to lose the military’s backing, his political rivals became emboldened. They pushed for a vote of no confidence to oust him after he rejected calls to resign. Mr. Khan remained defiant and dismissed the plan for the vote as part of an American conspiracy, without providing any evidence. In a bid to sidestep the vote, he dissolved Parliament and called for new elections.

Mr. Khan’s scorched-earth politics had left him with few friends and little negotiating room. Most of the major opposition leaders had been jailed during his tenure.

Mr. Khan’s opponents said his call to dissolve Parliament amounted to a coup and petitioned the Supreme Court, which overturned his move to dissolve Parliament. In April, Mr. Khan became the first prime minister of Pakistan to be removed in a no-confidence vote. His ouster extended a dubious distinction for the country: Not one of its prime ministers has completed a full term in office.
Mr. Khan staged an improbable comeback.

Even though Mr. Khan was removed from office, he continued to have a significant following in Pakistan. He staged political rallies in which he accused the United States, the military and Shehbaz Sharif, the opposition leader who succeeded him as next prime minister, of conspiring to topple his government. American officials, the military and Mr. Sharif have denied those accusations.

This summer, Mr. Khan proved that he remained a powerful force in Pakistani politics. In July, his party won a sweeping victory in elections in Punjab, a bellwether for national politics. The economic issues that helped lead to Mr. Khan’s fall have also become a problem for the new government.

Supporters of Mr. Kahn’s party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, during a protest in Karachi in June.

Credit...Akhtar Soomro/Reuters

Mr. Sharif has raised electricity and fuel prices as he tries to get the economy back on track. He has also ended some government subsidies to revive a $6 billion bailout plan from the International Monetary Fund that was suspended after Mr. Khan’s administration failed to meet some conditions of the loan.

Buoyed by the victory in Punjab, Mr. Khan renewed his call for the government to hold general elections earlier than 2023, the scheduled date.

Mr. Khan added to his momentum this month when his party also fared well in elections in Karachi, Pakistan’s economic hub.

Vivek Shankar is a senior staff editor on the International desk. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News in San Francisco, Sydney and Washington. @vivshank

A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 23, 2022, Section A, Page 9 of the New York edition with the headline: Rise, Fall and a Potential Return. 

Imran Khan

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Charged Under Terrorism Act
Aug. 21, 2022

Imran Khan Dominates Punjab Vote, Deepening Pakistan Turmoil
July 18, 2022

Days After Ouster, Imran Khan Is Back on the Trail in Pakistan
April 15, 2022

Pakistan Parliament Ousts Imran Khan as Prime Minister
April 9, 2022

Afghanistan: How the UAE-Haqqani link trumped Qatar’s Taliban relationship

 
Abu Dhabi emerged as another broker in Afghanistan to rival Qatar’s influence, as part of a grand strategy to become a key player in Central Asia

Andreas Krieg
22 August 2022 

Afghanistan's minister for refugees, Khalil Haqqani, arrives to attend a gathering held to mark the first anniversary of their return to power in Afghanistan in Kabul on 15 August 2022 (AFP)

It has been a year since the Taliban seized Afghanistan's capital Kabul after two decades of insurgency.

When it became clear that the proxy government of then President Ashraf Ghani had cowardly abandoned the country and its people, US forces and their allies were left in limbo having to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban.

For years the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had framed Qatar’s hosting of the Taliban office as direct support of terrorism

Frantically organised evacuation flights by Nato partners just about managed to extract their uniformed personnel leaving behind tens of thousands of local staff and their families who had shared the burden of the western war effort.

Amid this chaos, Qatar seized the opportunity to make use of the networks it had developed with the Taliban it hosted upon US request since 2010.

Qatar suddenly appeared as the most important broker and facilitator in Afghanistan.

Apart from organising evacuation flights and hosting Afghan refugees, Qatar brokered bilateral deals for its western partners with the insurgents turning governors. It prompted the US and European partners to relocate their Afghan embassies to Doha, making the Qatari capital the new gateway to Afghanistan.

The soft power success for Qatar was all but expected. Its neighbouring rivals - first and foremost the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – for years had framed Qatar’s hosting of the Taliban office as direct support of terrorism.

In 2017 the UAE and Saudi Arabia even went as far as imposing a blockade on Qatar citing among other things, Qatar’s hosting of the Taliban. But when in 2021 Qatar was able to translate its Taliban links into political capital in the West, Abu Dhabi curiously u-turned on its Afghanistan policy and its stance towards the Taliban.
Another broker

A year on from Qatar’s influence coup, Abu Dhabi curiously emerged as another broker in Afghanistan rivalling Qatar’s influence in an increasingly zero-sum manner. Offering refuge to Ghani, the disgraced Afghan president, in the summer of 2021 was just the first move by Abu Dhabi to keep its foot in the Afghan door.

 

Qatar's investment in the Taliban: How much influence does it buy?

Read More »

Since then, Abu Dhabi has re-cultivated personal networks with the Haqqani network – a powerful faction within the Taliban movement that has emerged as the actual kingmaker in Kabul since September 2021.

And unlike Qatar whose leverage over the Taliban is limited to the more pragmatic individuals around the now widely sidelined Mullah Baradar, the UAE have had long-standing ties to the Haqqanis that date back to the 1980s.

The group, founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, had been the most effective fighting force among the many militant factions in the two-decade-long insurgency against the US-led alliance in Afghanistan.

While the more pragmatic members of the Taliban movement forged political plans in the comfort of Qatari exile, the Haqqanis bore the burden of war in a relentless insurgency against the West. Thus, against Qatar’s hope to see the pragmatists seize key positions in the new Taliban government, it was hardly surprising that the most powerful factions of the movement – the Haqqanis – would take over key portfolios in the new Afghan government.
A power shift

Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of the network’s founder, became the interior minister controlling key portfolios of internal security and intelligence. It shifted power away from those Taliban who had lived in Qatar for many years and who mostly originated from the Kandahar region.

Abu Dhabi has been eager to cultivate their own networks close to the new kingmakers in Kabul

The ascent of Sirajuddin, who is still on the FBI’s most wanted list, coincides with the decline of Qatari influence over Taliban policies. Many of the formerly Qatar-based Taliban were sidelined in favour of actors who are closer to the tribal networks of northeastern and southeastern Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi has been eager to cultivate their own networks close to the new kingmakers in Kabul.

Since the early 1980s all the way through the 2000s, the Haqqani network relied on the UAE as a hub for money laundering and recruitment. Through front companies and a network of trusted Afghan expats, the Haqqanis had built a solid infrastructure in the UAE to finance their operations transforming this Taliban subgroup into the most effective fighting force of the insurgency.

While the Emirates responded to US pressure in 2014 to blacklist the Haqqani network, operations were likely just driven underground with some commentators speculating that the informal money laundering operations of the Haqqanis through the Emirates never stopped.


Personal affection with the UAE was so deep that the network’s founder Jalaluddin took an Arab wife from the Emirates with whom he had at least one son, Sirajuddin, the current Taliban minister of interior. Sirajuddin is believed to have spent extensive periods in the Emirates visiting his mother, learning Arabic and interacting with foreign recruits.

In January 2017 a bomb killed the UAE ambassador and four other Emirati diplomats in Kandahar – an event believed to be executed by Haqqani proxies that put a dent in relations between the UAE and the Haqqanis even if the attack likely did not target the UAE diplomats.
Up for grabs

However, with influence in Afghanistan up for grabs amid great power competition over the central Asian country, the UAE reengaged in Afghanistan in 2021 through humanitarian aid following the takeover of the Taliban.

Afghanistan: Can the Taliban survive the year ahead?

Read More »

According to several sources in Kabul, the UAE embassy systematically engaged key proteges of the Haqqani network in their tribe’s eastern Afghan heartland of Khost and Loya Paktia.

UAE diplomats have allegedly built close relations with Khost’s provincial governor who is also believed to be a personal friend of Sirajuddin Haqqani. Other sources claim that the UAE embassy also bonded with Sirajuddin’s personal assistant over the past year.

As Qatari-Turkish negotiations with the Taliban over managing Kabul airport broke down earlier this year over Qatari and Turkish demands to keep running airport security, the UAE had the networks in place to lobby Sirajuddin’s Ministry of Interior to take over the contract. Unlike its competitors, Abu Dhabi did not put any conditions on the contract, allowing the Haqqani network to run airport security.

In the end, a UAE-based consortium, GAAC, won the bid marking a victory for the UAE in its competition with rival Qatar. More so, as Central Asia has become a key ground for the UAE’s mercantile network-building and Sino-Emirati collaboration, it makes sense for Abu Dhabi’s ambitions to become a key Chinese interlocutor in the region.

After all, unlike Qatar, which acted as a widely impartial mediator in the conflict, for the UAE, Afghanistan is right at the heart of their mercantilist grand strategy of connecting logistical nodes and supply chains in Central Asia – something the Haqqani network now running the Taliban is happy to benefit from.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Dr. Andreas Krieg is an assistant professor at the Defence Studies Department of King's College London and a strategic risk consultant working for governmental and commercial clients in the Middle East. He recently published a book called 'Socio-political order and security in the Arab World'.

Iran stresses nuclear disarmament of US, pressure on Israel

TEHRAN, Aug. 23 (MNA) – Iran UN envoy Majid Takht Ravanchi called for a real commitment

 to nuclear disarmament by the United States and a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

Speaking at the Tenth NPT Review Conference on Tuesday, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi share Iran’s deep concern about the NNWS regarding the lack of progress in the implementation of nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments.

Here is the full statement:

Mr. President, 

I would like to thank you and your team for all your efforts in steering the Conference. My delegation has contributed constructively to the discussions and draft reports. However, regrettably, due to some imbalanced contents of draft reports, none of them garnered consensus. We share the deep concern of the NNWS regarding the lack of progress in the implementation of nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments. Three weeks of intense negotiations reveal that the NWS does not have the determination and political will to accept any concrete commitments or timetables, benchmarks, or targets that are required for making progress in our negotiations on the nuclear disarmament pillar.

My delegation underlines that the positions of the nuclear weapon States echoed and supported by the so-called umbrella states, including their attempt to replace nuclear disarmament with nuclear risk reduction are contrary to their explicit legal obligations concerning nuclear disarmament.

I would like to add that establishing a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction is long overdue after the consensual adoption of the resolution in 1995. To implement this resolution, the 2010 Review Conference adopted by consensus a detailed plan of action and agreed that the Secretary-General and the co-sponsors of the 1995 resolution, in consultation with the States of the region, convene and exert their utmost efforts to ensure the success of a conference in 2012 that was to be attended by all States of the Middle East, on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. However, after delays in convening the Conference, at the first, second and third sessions of the Preparatory Committee, in 2012, 2013, and 2014, the NAM and regional countries warned that any further delay in convening the 2012 conference would seriously jeopardize the overall implementation of the conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions and would represent a major setback in that regard.

We are firmly convinced that the Conference was postponed indefinitely because of the US’ opposition and this has been the persistent policy of the US to turn a blind eye to the nuclear arsenals of the Israeli regime while not supporting the convening of the Conference.

Now, we expect the current Conference to reject the impediments to convening the conference. The failure to convene the conference in 2012 contradicts and violates the collective agreement of the States parties contained in the conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions adopted by the 2010 Review Conference and contravenes the letter and spirit of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East.

Despite the lack of required inclusivity and transparency in developing the SB II draft report, once again we reiterate our main proposals in this regard and would like to emphasize that any document without embracing the ideas contained in our proposals, any glimpse of consensus will be faded away. In accordance with our proposals which are fully consistent with the NAM positions, the Conference, inter alai, Expresses concern about the lack of progress towards the implementation of the 1995 resolution and the 2010 action plan on the Middle East; and Calls upon Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and eliminate its entire stockpile of nuclear weapons;

It Reaffirms that the accession of Israel to the Non-Proliferation Treaty without precondition and further delay and the placement of all of its nuclear activities and facilities under the comprehensive IAEA safeguards is essential in realizing the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East and the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East;

It Expresses its strong support for the other process launched by the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction convened by the Secretary-General, pursuant to General Assembly decision 73/546, to elaborate a legally binding treaty on the establishment of the zone on the basis of consensus;

The full text of our proposals will be submitted to the Secretariat of the Conference.

ZZ/PR

Iran renews call to compel Israel to destroy its nuclear weapons stockpile

23 August، 2022

New York, SANA- The US should adhere to its commitments towards nuclear disarmament and the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, Iran’s Ambassador and Permanent representative to the United Nations, Majid Takht Ravanchi said.

Takht Ravanchi’s remarks came during the Tenth Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which is being held in New York.

“The Zionist entity must abandon its nuclear arsenal, completely destroy its stockpile of nuclear weapons, and accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty without further delay or any preconditions,” Takht Ravanchi was quote by Iranian IRNA news agency as saying.

He noted that subjecting all nuclear activities of the Zionist entity under the comprehensive safety measures of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is necessary in order to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

Ruaa al-Jazaeri

US Polio Outbreak Linked to The Oral Vaccine, Revealing Its Risks

The risk of a polio outbreak from the oral vaccine has caused countries to start to move away from distributing the oral form of the vaccine, but it remains the cheaper and easier option.

By Maria Cheng • 

AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary
 A health worker gives an oral polio vaccine to a girl on a street in Lahore, Pakistan, June 27, 2022. 

For years, global health officials have used billions of drops of an oral vaccine in a remarkably effective campaign aimed at wiping out polio in its last remaining strongholds — typically, poor, politically unstable corners of the world. Now, in a surprising twist in the decades-long effort to eradicate the virus, authorities in Jerusalem, New York and London have discovered evidence that polio is spreading there. The source of the virus? The oral vaccine itself.

For years, global health officials have used billions of drops of an oral vaccine in a remarkably effective campaign aimed at wiping out polio in its last remaining strongholds — typically, poor, politically unstable corners of the world.

Now, in a surprising twist in the decades-long effort to eradicate the virus, authorities in Jerusalem, New York and London have discovered evidence that polio is spreading there.

The original source of the virus? The oral vaccine itself.

Scientists have long known about this extremely rare phenomenon. That is why some countries have switched to other polio vaccines. But these incidental infections from the oral formula are becoming more glaring as the world inches closer to eradication of the disease and the number of polio cases caused by the wild, or naturally circulating, virus plummets.

Since 2017, there have been 396 cases of polio caused by the wild virus, versus more than 2,600 linked to the oral vaccine, according to figures from the World Health Organization and its partners.

“We are basically replacing the wild virus with the virus in the vaccine, which is now leading to new outbreaks,” said Scott Barrett, a Columbia University professor who has studied polio eradication. “I would assume that countries like the U.K. and the U.S. will be able to stop transmission quite quickly, but we also thought that about monkeypox.”

The latest incidents represent the first time in several years that vaccine-connected polio virus has turned up in rich countries.

Earlier this year, officials in Israel detected polio in an unvaccinated 3-year-old, who suffered paralysis. Several other children, nearly all of them unvaccinated, were found to have the virus but no symptoms.

In June, British authorities reported finding evidence in sewage that the virus was spreading, though no infections in people were identified. Last week, the government said all children in London ages 1 to 9 would be offered a booster shot.

In the U.S., an unvaccinated young adult suffered paralysis in his legs after being infected with polio, New York officials revealed last month. The virus has also shown up in New York sewers, suggesting it is spreading. But officials said they are not planning a booster campaign because they believe the state's high vaccination rate should offer enough protection.

Genetic analyses showed that the viruses in the three countries were all “vaccine-derived,” meaning that they were mutated versions of a virus that originated in the oral vaccine.

The oral vaccine at issue has been used since 1988 because it is cheap, easy to administer — two drops are put directly into children's mouths — and better at protecting entire populations where polio is spreading. It contains a weakened form of the live virus.

But it can also cause polio in about two to four children per 2 million doses. (Four doses are required to be fully immunized.) In extremely rare cases, the weakened virus can also sometimes mutate into a more dangerous form and spark outbreaks, especially in places with poor sanitation and low vaccination levels.

These outbreaks typically begin when people who are vaccinated shed live virus from the vaccine in their feces. From there, the virus can spread within the community and, over time, turn into a form that can paralyze people and start new epidemics.

Many countries that eliminated polio switched to injectable vaccines containing a killed virus decades ago to avoid such risks; the Nordic countries and the Netherlands never used the oral vaccine. The ultimate goal is to move the entire world to the shots once wild polio is eradicated, but some scientists argue that the switch should happen sooner.

“We probably could never have gotten on top of polio in the developing world without the (oral polio vaccine), but this is the price we’re now paying,” said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “The only way we are going to eliminate polio is to eliminate the use of the oral vaccine."

Aidan O’Leary, director of WHO's polio department, described the discovery of polio spreading in London and New York as “a major surprise,” saying that officials have been focused on eradicating the disease in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where health workers have been killed for immunizing children and where conflict has made access to some areas impossible.

Still, O'Leary said he is confident Israel, Britain and the U.S. will shut down their newly identified outbreaks quickly.

The oral vaccine is credited with dramatically reducing the number of children paralyzed by polio. When the global eradication effort began in 1988, there were about 350,000 cases of wild polio a year. So far this year, there have been 19 cases of wild polio, all in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Mozambique.

In 2020, the number of polio cases linked to the vaccine hit a peak of more than 1,100 spread out across dozens of countries. It has since declined to around 200 this year so far.

Last year, WHO and partners also began using a newer oral polio vaccine, which contains a live but weakened virus that scientists believe is less likely to mutate into a dangerous form. But supplies are limited.

To stop polio in Britain, the U.S. and Israel, what is needed is more vaccination, experts say. That is something Columbia University's Barrett worries could be challenging in the COVID-19 era.

“What’s different now is a reduction in trust of authorities and the political polarization in countries like the U.S. and the U.K.,” Barrett said. “The presumption that we can quickly get vaccination numbers up quickly may be more challenging now.”

Oyewale Tomori, a virologist who helped direct Nigeria’s effort to eliminate polio, said that in the past, he and colleagues balked at describing outbreaks as “vaccine-derived,” wary it would make people fearful of the vaccine.

“All we can do is explain how the vaccine works and hope that people understand that immunization is the best protection, but it’s complicated,” Tomori said. “In hindsight, maybe it would have been better not to use this vaccine, but at that time, nobody knew it would turn out like this.”


Copyright AP - Associated Press

Exclusive: Iran has dropped some demands for nuclear deal - U.S. official

By Steve Holland and Arshad Mohammed - 

FILE PHOTO: Illustration shows Iran's and U.S.' flags© Reuters/DADO RUVIC

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran has dropped some of its main demands on resurrecting a deal to rein in Tehran's nuclear program, including its insistence that international inspectors close some probes of its atomic program, bringing the possibility of an agreement closer, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Monday.

The United States aims to respond soon to a draft agreement proposed by the European Union that would bring back the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that former President Donald Trump abandoned and current President Joe Biden has sought to revive.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that although Tehran has been saying Washington has made concessions, Iran has dropped some of its key demands.

"They came back last week and basically dropped the main hang-ups to a deal," the official said.

"We think they have finally crossed the Rubicon and moved toward possibly getting back into the deal on terms that President Biden can accept," the official added. "If we are closer today, it's because Iran has moved. They conceded on issues that they have been holding onto from the beginning."

Iran's foreign ministry had no immediate comment.

Iran had already largely relented on its demand that the United States lift its designation of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) entity, the official said.

"We said under no circumstances would we do that. They continued to push it. A month ago they started to soften that core demand and said you can keep the (FTO) designation but we would like lift it from a number of companies affiliated with the IRGC. We said 'no we're not going to do that,'" he added.

Iran also wanted a guarantee that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would close investigations involving unexplained traces of uranium.

Related video: Iran steps up its nuclear programme after US sanctions

Duration 3:10 View on Watch

"Iran wants guarantees that the IAEA would close all of them. We said we would never accept that," the official said.

The IAEA board of governors in June overwhelmingly passed a resolution criticizing Iran for failing to explain the presence of uranium traces at three undeclared sites.

The official said that gaps remain between the United States and Iran and that "it could take a little longer" to come to a final agreement, if one is possible.

"We’re studying Iran’s response now and we'll get back to them soon," the official said.

Earlier, State Department spokesman Ned Price said there was no guarantee a deal can be struck, saying "the outcome of these ongoing discussions still remains uncertain as gaps do remain."

Washington would have to lift some sanctions under the terms of the agreement, but U.S. officials say returning to the deal is crucial to preventing a nuclear crisis in the Middle East.

"If we get this deal, yes, we do lift some sanctions, but Iran has to dismantle its nuclear program," the official said.

All this comes at a time when Iran is thought to have enough enriched uranium to - if further purified - build multiple weapons, and is closer than ever to being able to produce them, the official said.

The nuclear deal between Iran and world powers appeared near revival in March after 11 months of indirect U.S.-Iran talks in Vienna.

But negotiations broke down over obstacles such as Iran's desire to remove the Revolutionary Guards from the FTO list.

Iran has also demanded the United States guarantee that no future U.S. president would abandon the deal. Biden cannot provide such ironclad assurances because the deal is a political understanding rather than a legally binding treaty.

A second official said that under full implementation of the deal, the IAEA would be able to resume a comprehensive inspections regime that could detect any Iranian effort to pursue a nuclear weapon covertly. Much of this monitoring would remain in place indefinitely.

This official also said Iran would be prohibited from enriching and stockpiling uranium above very limited levels, denying it the material required for a bomb.

In addition, the official said, Iran would not be permitted to have any of the 20% and 60% enriched uranium that it is stockpiling today; advanced centrifuges Iran is operating would be stopped and removed, including all of the centrifuges at its fortified underground facility at Fordow.

"Strict limits on Iranian enrichment would mean that even if Iran left the deal to pursue a nuclear weapon, it would take at least six months to do so," the official said.

(Reporting By Steve Holland and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Mary Milliken and Gerry Doyle)

Factbox: Alexander Dugin advocates a vast new Russian empire

AUGUST 22, 2022
By EU Reporter Correspondent


Russian politologist Alexander Dugin gestures as he addresses the rally 'Battle for Donbas' in support of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, in Moscow, Russia, 18 October, 2014.

Darya Dugina, the daughter of ultra-nationalist Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin, was killed in a suspected car bomb attack outside Moscow on Saturday evening (20 August). Acquaintances of Dugina said the car she was driving belonged to her father and that he was probably the intended target.

Who is Alexander Dugin?

- Dugin, 60, has long advocated the unification of Russian-speaking and other territories in a vast new Russian empire, which he wants to include Ukraine.

- In his 1997 book, The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia, Dugin was fiercely critical of US influence in Eurasia and called for Russia to rebuild its own authority in the region and advocated breaking up the territory of other nations.

- That book featured on army reading lists, but there is no indication that Dugin has ever had direct influence on Russian foreign policy.

- Dugin's influence over President Vladimir Putin has been a subject for speculation, with some Russia watchers asserting that his sway is significant and many calling it minimal. He has no official ties to the Kremlin.

- The United States imposed sanctions on Dugin in 2015 for being "responsible for or complicit in actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine".

- In a statement in March, the U.S. Treasury said his Eurasian Youth Union actively recruited individuals with military and combat experience to fight on behalf of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic in eastern Ukraine.

- "Dugin controls Geopolitica, a website that serves as a platform for Russian ultra-nationalists to spread disinformation and propaganda targeting Western and other audiences," the US Treasury said.

- In 2015, Dugin was quoted as saying by gazeta.ru that his being added to the U.S. sanctions list was "unprecedented" and that sanctions were being imposed for "intellectual activity that breaks no laws".

- Dugin did not immediately respond to questions emailed to him on Sunday at an address listed on the website of the International Eurasian Movement that he founded.

- Dugin's 1997 book increased his prominence. In the early 1990s, he co-founded the National Bolshevik Party (NBP), which espoused vehemently anti-centrist views and whose largely red flag featured a black hammer and sickle at its centre.

- Dugin left the NBP around a decade before it was declared an "extremist organisation" in 2007 and its activities banned in Russia.

- He went on to found political and social movements centred on staunchly anti-Western ideas for the future of Eurasia.

- Dugin worked a brief stint as chief editor of Tsargrad TV, a pro-Kremlin, Christian Orthodox channel owned by businessman Konstantin Malofeev. Malofeev was sanctioned by the United States and European Union in 2014 over accusations that he funded pro-Moscow separatists fighting in Ukraine, something he denies.

- Writing on Tsargrad's website in May, Dugin said Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine required immediate, "patriotic reforms".

- He wrote that a "new, eternal, true and profound Russia" needed to be established to attract the people of Ukraine.

- "Ukraine can become an integral, organic part of this," he wrote. "Ukrainians must understand that we are inviting them to create this new, great power. As well as Belarusians, Kazakhs, Armenians, but also Azerbaijanis and Georgians, and all those who not only were and are with us, but also will be."

Ukraine not 'criminal state,' had nothing to do with Moscow car bombing: Official

Kyiv had nothing to do with killing of daughter of Putin ally Alexander Dugin, says Ukrainian presidential adviser

Jeyhun Aliyev |22.08.2022

Daughter of Putin ally Alexander Dugin killed in car explosion

ANKARA

Ukraine is not a “criminal state” like Russia, and so had nothing to do with the weekend killing of a relative of one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s allies, according to a top Ukrainian official.

Darya Dugina, the daughter of political scientist Alexander Dugin, was killed in a car explosion on the outskirts of Moscow late Saturday.

"I want to emphasize that Ukraine had nothing to do with this,” Mykhailo Podolyak, Ukraine's senior presidential adviser, told local channel ICTV on Sunday.

"They don’t understand that we’re not a criminal state like Russia," he added, adding that blaming Ukraine for the incident is probably meant to justify the drafting of more soldiers for Russia’s war against its western neighbor, now in its sixth month.

In recent years Moscow has been accused of being behind the assassinations of Russian critics and defectors abroad, including the near-deadly poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in 2018 in Salisbury, England.

On Saturday’s incident, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova pointed to what she called Ukraine’s "policy of state terrorism."

Reports claim that Darya Dugina’s father, called "Putin's brain," was the intended target.

Russia’s Investigation Committee said that the bombing “was planned in advance and committed on order” and that authorities are investigating.

Born in 1992, Dugina, like her father, was involved in journalism, philosophy, and political science.

Magistrate Judge To Tesla Buyer Suckered Into Paying Extra For ‘Full Self-Driving’ That Isn’t Full Self-Driving: Next Time Read The Fine Print

Overhype

from the never-trust-a-huckster dept

Mon, Aug 22nd 2022 - Mike Masnick

For many years now, Tesla has referred to its various driver assistance tools as “full self-driving” and then acted shocked and surprised when people point out that it’s nowhere near what any normal human being would consider “full self-driving.” That, of course, hasn’t stopped Tesla boss Elon Musk from repeatedly promoting Full Self-Driving and insisting that it was going to truly be an autonomous driving setup in the somewhat near future. Lots of experts and officials have vocally complained that the “Full Self-Driving” name is dangerously misleading — and recently, the California DMV has actually filed a complaint against the company, alleging that “Full Self-Driving” is a deceptive practice as it is “untrue or misleading.”

However, Tesla is having somewhat better luck in a case where an actual purchaser of the Full Self-Driving capability, a guy who paid them $6,000 for the “feature” claimed that the company ripped him off in not actually providing anything approaching full self-driving (used colloquially). The guy is not represented by a lawyer (i.e., a pro se case), so it’s already off to a not great start — and the magistrate judge has basically recommended throwing out the bulk of the claims — more or less telling the guy he should have read the fine print before plunking down $6,000 on the dream of “Full Self-Driving.”

There is a very limited part of the case that is allowed to move forward, but effectively this is a win for Tesla. The guy, Joel Young, bought a Model 3 in May of 2019 and paid the $6k for “Full Self-Driving Capability” expecting that his shiny Model 3 would be fully autonomous by the end of the year. That didn’t happen. As the magistrate judge summarizes:

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s description generated false impressions that the vehicle could drive itself without human intervention…. At the time he purchased the vehicle, it could not; it contained driver-assist features but did not have the software necessary for fully autonomous self-driving without human intervention because Defendant had not yet developed this technology….

Notwithstanding the fact that the car could not autonomously drive itself at the time of purchase, communications from Tesla CEO Elon Musk and information on Defendant’s website led Plaintiff to believe that the car would attain these abilities by the end of 2019. Plaintiff cites to a December 19, 2019 tweet by Musk, the contents of the website “[o]n the day that [Plaintiff] responded to [Defendant’s] solicitation via the wires”, and a February 29, 2019 interview between Musk and a money management firm in support of this belief…. Because Plaintiff’s vehicle could not drive itself autonomously without human intervention by December 31, 2019, Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, civil conversion, negligence per se, and fraud.

The problem for Young is that while Musk may pop off and say overly optimistic nonsense on the reg, Tesla seems to have hired mostly competent lawyers to avoid exactly these kinds of complaints. Though, to be fair, much of this entire thing could have been avoided if (1) Tesla didn’t refer to its non-self-driving suite of driver assistance tools as “Full Self-Driving” and (2) had, maybe, actually defined “Full Self-Driving” in the contract, which apparently the company… did not do. Even so, the plaintiff’s purported belief that “Full Self-Driving” means fully autonomous is definitely a stretch. The magistrate judge is not impressed.

As alleged in the complaint, the contract does not define the term “Full Self-Driving Capability.” Instead, the term appears on an itemized list of optional features for the Model 3 vehicle that the contract covers. Doc. 1 at 62 (Exhibit A to complaint). In his complaint, Plaintiff includes a word-by-word dictionary definition of “Full Self-Driving Capability”…. This is a legal conclusion that the Court is not required to accept as true and that I recommend the Court not accept.

The context in which the term “Full Self-Driving Capability” is used indicates that the term is used to describe a specific feature of the vehicle. This conclusion is supported by the fact that each word in the phrase is capitalized. Other capitalized phrases in the same section of the contract clearly refer to names for vehicle features rather than their dictionary definitions. For example, it would be difficult to believe that the “Pearl White Multi-Coat” exterior is made of real pearls, as a discrete word-by-word analysis might suggest. Instead, the context makes clear that “Pearl White” is an adjective used to describe a color. The term “Pearl White Multi-Coat,” taken as a whole, is a noun signifying a particular type of vehicle coating. The best way to determine exactly what “Pearl White Multi-Coat” means is to look at a vehicle with this coating or to look at a sample of this coating.

Similarly, the best way to determine what “Full Self-Driving Capability” means is to look at the context in which Defendant uses that term. As Plaintiff notes in his complaint, Defendant’s website provides a description of the term “Full Self-Driving Capability.” This definition includes the “hardware needed in the future for full self-driving” and explains that “[a]s these self-driving capabilities are introduced, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.” … The website also identifies the need for regulatory approval. Id. This description therefore makes it clear that cars with Full Self-Driving Capability are not currently capable of driving themselves without human intervention. Nor does the website provide a date as to when cars with this feature will be capable of driving themselves without human intervention. What the website does make clear, however, is that cars with the Full Self-Driving Capability will have access to software updates necessary to provide self-driving capabilities as they develop and attain regulatory approval. This term is not reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations; its only reasonable interpretation is that it is a name referring to the collection of features described on Defendant’s website.

So… because the website describes Full Self-Driving as a lot less than full self-driving, Mr. Young’s argument that Tesla meant full self-driving isn’t going very far.

The other arguments Young made don’t get very far either. The magistrate judge argues that Elon Musk’s comments in February of 2019 (before Young made his purchase) don’t bind the company either:

First, he cites a February 19, 2019 podcast interview by Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, in which Musk stated, “I think we will be ‘feature-complete’ on full self-driving this year, meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention this year. I am certain of that. That is not a question mark.” …. But the interview, to the extent that it was applicable to Plaintiff’s purchase at all, was superseded by the terms of the contract signed on May 20, 2019. The contract explicitly states, “Prior agreements, oral statements, negotiations, communications or representations about the Vehicle sold under this Agreement are superseded by this Agreement.”

In short: don’t ever rely on anything Elon Musk says about his products. If you purchase something based on those statements, you’re likely to get screwed and the contract protects Tesla, not the buyer.

Young also cited similarly silly comments from Musk from after he purchased the vehicle, but here, the magistrate judge notes, by then, he’d already purchased the car, so he can’t make the argument he relied on those claims to make the purchase decision. Basically: the contract rules everything.

Plaintiff points to Elon Musk’s December 19, 2019 tweet, which was part of a series in which Musk stated, “Tesla holiday software package has FSD sneak preview, Stardew Valley, Lost Backgammon & a few other things”…. Another Twitter user asked Musk whether he could release the software package early and Musk responded, “Needs a few more days of validation, then early access, then wide release”…. But this tweet does not help Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The tweet took place after the contract had been formed, so the tweet cannot have induced Plaintiff into purchasing the vehicle from a simple chronological standpoint. Count I, alleging breach of contract, states that Plaintiff “would not have purchased a 2019 Model 3 at all but for his reasonable and justifiable reliance on Tesla’s repeated, highly specific, and imperative representations about the efficacy of Full Self-Driving Capability, and about its certain delivery before the end of 2019.”… Musk’s tweet, made after Plaintiff signed the contract, therefore could not have influenced Plaintiff’s decision to purchase the Model 3 vehicle.

Where Young is on only slightly more steady ground is in arguing that when he purchased the “Full Self-Driving Capability” package, the Tesla website made some promises. But… he also overstates what those promises actually were. The website did list out what was included in “Full Self-Driving” which is, notably, way less than full self-driving, and then included some other features that it labeled as “coming later this year.” As the recommendation notes, these two lists fall into different categories:

Making all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, by listing the four features in this first category under the heading “Full Self-Driving Capability” and above the sub-heading “Coming later this year”, the website can be fairly read to describe features that existed at the time Plaintiff purchased his vehicle. But, Plaintiff does not allege in his complaint that Defendant breached the contract by failing to provide any of the four features listed in the first category. Further, this page of the website also clearly states, “The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.” … Thus, Plaintiff has no viable complaint that, because these four features did not actually make the vehicle fully autonomous, Defendant breached the contract. Although it likely would be a breach if, for example, Defendant had developed fully autonomous self-driving software and attained the necessary approvals but still refused to provide it to Plaintiff, Plaintiff makes no such allegation.

The story is slightly different for the features that were under the “coming later this year” label — but they didn’t actually promise full self-driving: just automatic driving on city streets and responding to traffic lights and stop sights. And… Tesla’s lawyers made sure the fine print said “the activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions.”

And, so the magistrate judge notes that this is not even a promise that Young would get those features this year, but rather just that the company would make significant progress on those features — and then says there may be a contractual breach related just to that fact, though it’s pretty limited.

Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, and drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, I read Plaintiff’s complaint as alleging that Defendant failed to deliver the two features promised in category two. Although Defendant made no promises as to when its vehicles would be fully automated such that they could operate safely without human intervention, in connection with the $6,000 Full Self-Driving Capability option, it did promise to stay on a certain track; namely, that by year end the Full SelfDriving Capability Plaintiff paid for would at least include recognizing and responding to traffic lights and stop signs and automatic driving on city streets. Allegations that Defendant did not deliver on those two features by the end of the year as promised states a claim for breach of contract.

As such, I recommend that the Court find that the complaint states a claim for breach of contract as to the two features “coming later this year” (recognizing and responding to traffic lights and stop signs and automatic driving on city streets). As to the reminder of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim regarding Full Self-Driving Capability, I recommend that the Court grant the motion to dismiss.

The magistrate judge goes on to recommend rejecting all of the other claims as well.

Basically: yes, Elon Musk may have mislead the many Tesla fans out there, but when you’re purchasing a $60,000 car, you should probably read the details, or ask specific questions, before assuming that you’re actually going to get “full self-driving” rather than a suite of driver assistance tools.

Of course, as the California DMV is noting, the naming itself may be misleading, but (and perhaps this is due to the pro se nature of the plaintiff) this was not well argued in the complaint. The complaint over argued its case by suggesting that Young actually expected a fully autonomous vehicle when Tesla’s fine print was worded to avoid that specific promise.

 

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, breach of contract, elon musk, full self-driving, joel young
Companies: tesla

CONSPIRACY THEORIES GROW

Mossad 'likely' behind Salman Rushdie stabbing, claims Denver professor

Nader Hashemi, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver, said Rushdie's attacker may have been convinced to commit the attack by a Mossad agent.

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
Published: AUGUST 23, 2022 06:38

Author Salman Rushdie gestures during a news conference before the presentation of his latest book 'Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights' at the Niemeyer Center in Aviles, northern Spain, October 7, 2015.

The stabbing of novelist Salman Rushdie last week may have been orchestrated by the Mossad, suggested Nader Hashemi, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver, in a Saturday interview with Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast.

Questioning the timing of the attack, Hashemi highlighted what he believed to be two possible explanations.

Did Iran try to assassinate Salman Rushdie?

Hashemi said that one possibility is that Iran wanted to take vengeance on the United States for the 2020 assassination of IRGC general Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike at Baghdad Airport.

Saudi Arabia’s absence at Arab summit in Egypt raises question

"So one possible explanation," he said, "could be that after the assassination of Iran's top general in January 2020, Qassem Soleimani, Iran was looking to retaliate. And the Department of Justice, a few days before the attack on Salman Rushdie, announced that the Iranian [Islamic] Revolutionary Guard Corps were seeking to assassinate Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. So this could be one possible explanation. They couldn't go after Pompeo and Bolton, in other words, the IRGC couldn't go after those high-value targets so they chose a soft target such as Salman Rushdie. Perhaps, possibly, we don't know."

Was Israel's Mossad behind the stabbing of Salman Rushdie?

Another possibility, Hashemi said, adding that he believes this is more likely, is that Rushdie's attacker, Hadi Matar, had been convinced to commit the attack by a Mossad agent masquerading as an IRGC operative or supporter.

A New Jersey police officer and a plain-clothed police officer exit the building where alleged attacker of Salman Rushdie, Hadi Matar, lives in Fairview, New Jersey, US, August 12, 2022. (credit: EDUARDO MUNOZ / REUTERS)


"That so-called person online claiming to be affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran could've been a Mossad operative."Nader Hashemi, Director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver


"The other possibility, which I actually think is much more likely, is that this young kid Hadi Matar was in communication with someone online who claimed to be an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps member or supporter and lured him into attacking Salman Rushdie and that so-called person online claiming to be affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran could've been a Mossad operative."

Why would the Mossad attack Rushdie?

Hashemi went on to suggest that Israel's motive for carrying out a false flag operation would be to galvanize opposition to the ongoing efforts of world powers to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement.

"Israel has taken a very strong position against reviving the Iran nuclear agreement," he said. "We were in very sensitive negotiations, like an agreement was imminent, and then the attack on Salman Rushdie takes place. I think that's one possible interpretation and scenario that could explain the timing of this at this moment during these sensitive political discussions related to Iran's nuclear program."