Friday, June 28, 2024

 Aer Lingus pilots will not escalate strike as both sides agree to Monday meeting

Pilots at Aer Lingus are staging strike action (Artur Widak/PA)




By Gráinne Ní Aodha and Cate McCurry, PA

Aer Lingus pilots have decided not to escalate their industrial action as both sides have agreed to attend the Labour Court on Monday.

A further 122 flights have been cancelled next week as the bitter industrial dispute rumbles on, causing disruption to thousands of passengers.

The pilots union was in the middle of discussing whether to escalate their industrial action when the invite to a meeting at the Labour Court was issued.

The airline’s management accepted the invitation, as has Forsa, a parent union of the pilots group Ialpa.

Ialpa president Captain Mark Tighe said the executive meeting had formally accepted the invite to the Labour Court at 2.30pm on Monday.

He said he was not aware if the meeting would be in the same room as Aer Lingus management.

Play
Unmute

Hundreds of pilots are expected to attend the strike at Aer Lingus’ management offices on Saturday, which starts at 5am.

The strike and an indefinite work-to-rule action has resulted in more than 270 flights being cancelled, affecting thousands of passengers.

The additional cancellations bring the total to almost 400.

Aer Lingus said those services, from Wednesday July 3 and Sunday July 7 inclusive, were being made to “protect as many services as possible”.

“These cancellations will be implemented today, and details will be communicated to impacted customers. Details of the services impacted are set out on the Travel Advisory page of aerlingus.com,” it said.

“These customers will be given the option to change their flights for free, to claim a refund or voucher.

“Aer Lingus fully understands the anxiety being experienced by customers given the uncertainty caused by Ialpa’s industrial action and is giving impacted customers as many options as possible.”

Representatives from Aer Lingus and Ialpa had met for negotiations aimed at resolving the bitter dispute on Thursday but after five hours of intensive talks both sides emerged saying they had not reached an agreement.

Ialpa said that chances of an additional strike were high after talks broke down.

The work-to-rule began on Wednesday, with pilots refusing to work overtime, accept changes to set rosters or take on out-of-hours management requests.

Mr Tighe said he had told the company on Thursday that they were willing to discuss figures below their request of 24%.

“The reply to that from the company was that they were not willing to move from their position, that anything over and above 12.25% would be funded through productivity,” he said.

Asked about his mandate to discuss productivity, Mr Tighe said: “The company has said we don’t have a mandate to discuss productivity and we should go get one. The correct statement is, our mandate is not to discuss productivity. Our membership is clear.”

Asked if there will need to be further weeks of flight cancellations before there is a resolution, Mr Tighe said that the union is exercising their workers’ rights and the company is “digging in”.

Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke said: “I would appeal, in the most strongest terms, to both sides of this dispute to get around the table, work out their differences because every single industrial relations dispute is resolved.

“And it is resolved through compromise.”

Aer Lingus has said it is willing to offer pay increases of 12.25% or above if “improvements in productivity and flexibility” are discussed.

Chief corporate affairs officer Donal Moriarty said on Thursday that the airline “engaged constructively” in discussions with Ialpa and Forsa.

How Algeria Became a Home to Africa’s Guerrillas, Anti-Fascists and Liberators

After fighting for its independence, the country exported its ideology — and arms — across the continent


is a French-Algerian journalist and fiction writer
June 28, 2024
Illustration by Joanna Andreasson for New Lines Magazine



“The Algerian army made me a man,” declared Nelson Mandela as soon as he landed in Algiers on May 16, 1990, choosing the country that had introduced him to armed resistance as his first stop on his diplomatic tour after being released from prison in South Africa. Barely out of the plane and still inside Boumediene Airport, the revolutionary figure spoke of the influential time he spent in the training camps of the Algerian National Front of Liberation (FLN) in 1962, where, alongside fighters from the FLN’s armed wing, he learned about the ideology — and practicalities — of leading a war of liberation. Mandela would reflect fondly on his time with the FLN in his 1994 memoir, “Long Walk to Freedom,” despite it being the main reason he would be branded as a “terrorist” when arrested and sent to prison that summer.

Mandela’s recollection of Algeria’s support for the African National Congress (ANC) testified to the crucial but forgotten role the country played in Africa’s decolonization throughout the 1960s. At the start of the decade, the newly born North African state was signing its independence after winning what The New York Times called “the cruelest colonial war of the modern epoch.” As many as 1.5 million Algerians died in the eight-year conflict, instigated by the FLN with independence as its central aim. The war itself was riddled with guerrilla warfare and war crimes; the political turmoil it caused in France forced the undoing of the Fourth Republic.

But the successful armed struggle for independence enabled Algeria to position itself as the spearhead of African liberation and the champion of pan-African unification. A foreign policy focused on providing material and political support to every African liberation movement propelled Algeria to the forefront of a nascent postcolonial order overflowing with optimism and idealism for a new Africa — free, anticolonial and revolutionary.

“Well before we won independence, our country was conscious of its responsibility toward the peoples engaged in struggles against colonialism like we were,” Ahmed Ben Bella declared in his first public address as prime minister of the independent state of Algeria during the Nov. 1, 1962, celebrations held to mark the anniversary of the FLN’s insurrection. His speech was punctuated by thunderous troops marching, the sheer number of which garnered a telling comment from Tunisia’s foreign minister: “There are arms enough in this country to supply all of Africa.”

Within a year, Ben Bella had successfully supplied such cross-continental material support. His first action was to transform Algiers into a host city welcoming any liberation movement, guerrilla group, anti-fascist organization, opposition party or exiled revolutionary seeking refuge, training or help. By the end of 1963, more than 80 organizations found safe haven in the capital city, including representatives from colonized countries across the continent: Namibia seeking independence from Germany; South Africa from Dutch settlers; and Angola, Mozambique and Cape Verde from Portugal. All were given villas and official buildings — vacated by the French a year prior — to live in and work from, a monthly stipend and passports to travel to international conferences for diplomatic work, as well as weapons and supplies to train their militants. Seven hundred South African freedom fighters were training in Algerian camps to learn the FLN’s guerrilla-style warfare, 60 Congolese cadres were interning in the FLN’s government to learn about revolutionary politics, and all officers from the Canary Islands’ independence movement were training in Algerian military schools.

The capital city that had been destroyed by French troops during the 1957 Battle of Algiers was now sheltering every aspiring revolutionist and exiled militant. In its streets brewed radical, subversive theories and hope for a new order led by a free, united Africa. Stephane Hessel, a French diplomat stationed in Algiers, would explain this utopia in his memoir: “Dissidents from every authoritarian regime in the Southern Hemisphere flocked to Algiers to devise the ideology that came to be known as ‘Third Worldism.’ It rejected the inertia of Western civilization and counted on the new youth of the world, who sought to liberate themselves once and for all.”

Home to some of the most famous revolutionary fronts in the world, from the ANC to the Black Panthers, Algiers was baptized the “Mecca of Revolution” in 1967 by Guinean nationalist militant Amilcar Cabral who, speaking with a journalist, declared: “Take your pens and write: Muslims go on pilgrimage to Mecca, Christians to the Vatican, revolutionaries to Algiers.”

Algeria’s bloody efforts to wrench itself from French control became a clarion call to so many movements, which saw their own struggle reflected in its fight for independence. “The situation in Algeria was the closest model to our own,” wrote Mandela in his memoir, “in that the rebels faced a large white settler community that ruled the indigenous majority.”

Algeria’s unwavering dedication to African liberation followed its 132-year struggle against French occupation and colonization. In 1830, France invaded Algiers to distract public opinion from the failing Bourbon monarchy and a divided, roiling country. After 41 years of war, France declared Algeria a metropolitan department, reducing natives to second-class subjects devoid of any citizenship status while French settlers moved en masse to what they deemed their new territory. The resulting order was upended when the FLN launched a series of violent attacks across Algeria on Nov. 1, 1954, after decades of thwarted legal resistance.

The seed of Algeria’s radical solidarity with other colonized states was planted during the next seven years of war by the FLN’s prime theorist, Frantz Fanon, an Afro-Caribbean former psychiatrist living in Algiers. Fanon, who was born in the French overseas department of Martinique, had been responsible for the psychiatric care of patients distressed by the French army’s routine use of torture and the consequences of a century of subjugation. He used the Algerian experience to theorize liberation: To him, Algeria was demonstrating to the world that independence could be seized only by force, never gifted.

To publicize the Algerian cause across Africa, Fanon led the FLN’s delegation to join heads of African nations at the All-African Peoples’ Conference, hosted by Ghana, in 1958. There, he included Algeria in a long list of African countries choked by the hand of Euro-American imperialism. Fanon upheld Algeria as a “guide territory” where “the rot of the [colonial] system … the defeat of racism and the exploitation of man” was at stake. In his 1964 book, “Toward the African Liberation,” he eloquently described the FLN’s pan-African mission: “Having carried Algeria to the four corners of Africa, we shall return with all of Africa towards African Algeria, towards the north, towards Algiers, continental city, and launch a continent upon the assault of the last rampart of colonial power.”

By the time independence was declared, the FLN’s liberating action against a colonial state, which had reportedly displaced 2 million Algerians into surveillance camps and killed 1 million people, had won the country admiration, moral authority and a long list of supporters among African heads of state. Because Algeria had gained recognition as the first African country to win its independence by means of force, it became natural for the FLN to advocate for the country’s responsibility to help other African nations win back their freedom.

In every speech, Ben Bella would highlight Algeria’s “duty toward our African brothers,” defining brotherhood not by blood or ethnicity but by degree of revolutionary zeal and the commonality of a history of suffering under colonialism. “The Africans expect a great deal from us. We cannot let them down,” Ben Bella stated in a public address, explaining that “Africanism [is] deeply embedded in the [Algerian] popular consciousness.”

To achieve Africa’s unity, mending the ideological divide that split the continent was a first necessity. While radical states like Algeria, Sudan, Congo-Brazzaville and Guinea believed in a pan-African project achieved through revolutionary means, more conservative states still had ties to Western governments and were distrustful of revolutionary rhetoric. To rally them, Algeria promoted the use of force as a tool of liberation. As ardent defenders of armed resistance, the FLN argued for the necessity of violence as underlined by Fanon in his final study of the Algerian war, “The Wretched of the Earth”: Occupation being a violent phenomenon imposed through violent means, the colonized had no choice but to take back the initial violence and force it upon the occupying powers in order to break it.

Through Fanon’s philosophy, the FLN successfully rallied supporters of nonviolent resistance to its cause, like Ghanaian Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah, whose commitment to nonviolence dwindled after the FLN’s visit in 1958. Similarly, following his initial time in Algeria, Mandela concluded that “South Africa ruled by the gun could only be liberated with use of force,” despite years of having believed that peaceful liberation was possible. Colonialism “understands only the language of force and violence,” Ben Bella would explain. “We tell our South African brothers that hunger strikes and demonstrations will get you nowhere.”

With the African political limelight increasingly occupied by radical states, the continental city of Algiers established as the mecca of revolutionaries, and the FLN military camps full of African resistance figures, the pan-African unity and revolutionary solidarity Algeria had dreamed of leading was taking shape. One event in April 1963 would propel it to greater heights — the creation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The new intergovernmental institution was the first of its kind, designed as a continental equivalent to the United Nations, free from Western influence and oversight.

A month later, the largest African Union festival was organized to celebrate the founding of the OAU, which opened its doors in Addis Ababa. The choice of Ethiopia as a host was immensely symbolic: It was the only country in attendance that was never under the yoke of colonialism. The festival welcomed 32 African countries and upheld culture and art from every corner of the continent to give concrete expression to African unity and identity.

There, Algeria took the stage, front and center, and for Ben Bella, it was time to talk of blood. “We have spoken of a development bank. Why haven’t we spoken of a bank of blood to come to the aid of those who are fighting in Angola and elsewhere in Africa?” the Algerian president declared in one of his many flamboyant speeches. “We have no right to think of eating better when people fall in Angola, Mozambique, in South Africa. But we have a ransom to pay. We must accept to die together so that African unity does not become a vain word.” He continued, “Let us all agree to die a little … so that the people still under colonial rule may be free.”

Impassioned and charismatic, Ben Bella never missed an opportunity to take the mic and call for collective responsibility. Yet his enthusiasm was not without a patronizing tone and risked giving rise to a cult of personality. Struck by the talk of martyrdom and the belligerent imagery conjured, one attending journalist recorded, “I do not think that I have ever had such a profound sense of African unity as when I listened to Ben Bella, tears in his eyes, visibly moved, urging his listeners to rush to the assistance of the men dying south of the equator.”

Melodramatic as they were, the speeches from the Algerian contingent did produce tangible measures — the OAU festival concluded with the creation of a Liberation Committee and an African Battalion tasked to come to the aid of revolutionary and liberation movements in need of weapons, money or militants. The committee’s role was to coordinate support among states and consolidate newly won independence by fostering cooperation across the continent.

Through the committee, Algeria started to advocate for African solutions to African problems. In 1963, Ben Bella blocked British military aid meant to be sent to Tanganyika (now Tanzania) to resist armed mutiny and provided arms to Prime Minister Julius Nyerere instead. The goal was to maintain sufficiency within the continent and avoid being indebted to the West.

While Ben Bella rebuked Western states for their interventions in Africa, he did not hesitate to come to the aid of Latin American and Middle Eastern movements. He defied the embargo to meet with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, welcomed a delegation of the Venezuelan National Liberation Front, inaugurated an embassy and an African-American center for the Black Panthers in central Algiers, and opened the first office abroad for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s Fatah.

These actions quickly attracted the ire of the American press. To The New York Times, Ben Bella was bordering on hubris — the paper painted Algeria as being “proud to the point of arrogance,” criticizing the government’s constant need to “meddle in the affairs of others.” The criticism did not stop Algeria from continuing to export its support for radical movements internationally, choosing to let its diplomatic ties with America and Britain fray and leaning toward non-Western countries instead. It was a decisive choice in the context of a Cold War that drew lines between pro-Soviet and pro-Western blocs.

But transnational revolutionary solidarity and unity was a heavy demand to ask of a continent the size of Africa. Although the first half of the 1960s brimmed with limitless possibility and galvanizing talks, application of the policies set in place by the OAU was lukewarm at best. Conservative African states continued trading with Portugal and South Africa despite the embargo enforced by Algeria, and too many did not meet their mandatory financial contribution to the Liberation Committee. Meanwhile, liberation movements began to grow frustrated by conservative states’ efforts to constrain their activities and the Liberation Committee’s constant oversight. To some, the committee had become a stifling authority rather than the intended facilitating institution.

During a decade when a new international order was rapidly taking shape, African states’ had to prioritize consolidating their own statehood. Ghana’s idea of African federalism was shut down soon after being promoted — a weakening of the nation-state was not a price African countries were ready to pay to establish pan-African unity.

Simultaneously, African solidarity was used as a tool to serve national sovereignty. The FLN’s own colorful speeches about Algeria’s duty and responsibility toward colonized peoples conveniently fed into the country’s heroic myth of resistance, one forged in this period to heighten nationalism and delineate national identity. In 1963, Ben Bella summoned and used revolutionary pan-African fervor to cement its borders and discredit Morocco’s territorial claims after the monarchy launched a military offensive to gain control over a portion of Algeria’s Sahara region. To garner the African community’s overwhelming sympathy and support, the Algerian government made a case highlighting Morocco’s alliances with the United States and France. “This aggression is a battle between progressive republic and conservative monarchy, between revolution and imperialism,” proclaimed Ben Bella. Morocco’s King Hassan II was thus isolated and was one of the only African heads of state who did not attend the OAU’s festival in Addis Ababa.

Domestically, Ben Bella’s international appeal and Algeria’s leadership role in Africa came with dire consequences. Kabyle separatist movements paid the price of a policy that upheld a unified national identity at all costs and that refused to accept ethnic diversity and the culture of the Amazigh people indigenous to Algeria. Many Algerians criticized Ben Bella as a hubristic president who preferred fixing the world’s problems instead of focusing on Algeria’s grim socioeconomic realities.

Ben Bella’s dream of Algeria as the social leader of the “Third World” was brought to an abrupt end in June 1965 after his right-hand man, Houari Boumediene, orchestrated a military coup against him. The event triggered outrage across Africa. The heads of many states had woven threads of affinity with the outspoken and charismatic Ben Bella, and his ouster was regarded as an unforgivable betrayal. Following the coup, the ties that held radical African countries together unraveled and the diplomatic relations with revolutionary leaders soured.

Boumediene, in his first address to the nation, did attempt to reaffirm Algeria’s principle of unconditional support to revolutionaries: “The riches of the third world have served the interests of the rich nations. It is time for those nations to understand that economic colonialism — like political colonialism before it — must vanish.” Yet the personal relationships that Ben Bella had forged never fully transferred to Boumediene.

Throughout the 1960s, the “country of a million martyrs” proved its dedication to anticolonial solidarity by giving substance to African unity and support to liberation movements. But unifying the continent and holding it together proved to be an ambitious project that failed to take into account the inner divisions and contentions of Africa’s nascent independent states. By the beginning of the 1970s, domestic upheavals and the demands of a growing capitalist order got the better of Algeria’s revolutionary idealism and its left-leaning, radical foreign policy.

The last gasp of utopia in Algiers came with the 1969 Pan-African Cultural Festival, which brought together singers, artists and intellectuals from every African country and diaspora to perform in the name of African unity and revolutionary consciousness. There, dissidents and revolutionaries from the continent mingled with the likes of poet and author Maya Angelou and the Black Panther leader Stokely Carmichael in between sets by famous Tuareg musicians and Nina Simone.

On a hot July night, the South African singer Miriam Makeba took to the stage at the main stadium to perform some of her greatest anthems to freedom. Makeba, who had become stateless after South Africa revoked her citizenship for criticizing the regime and calling for an arms embargo at the U.N., had been granted Algerian citizenship several years earlier. “I am honored to have the nationality of a country that did so much for the liberation of Africa,” she said at the time.

As the heat settled and the crowd buzzed, Makeba raised the microphone to her lips; her strong, pure voice rang out as she sang, in the Algerian dialect, “Ana hourra fi al-Jazair, watani, umm al-shaheed” — “I am free in Algeria, my homeland, the mother of martyrs.”

Opinion: Did Hawaii just pave the way for court enforcement of California’s climate promises?


A roadside memorial for victims of last year’s Maui wildfire. Thirteen young Hawaiians sued the state in an effort to ensure officials meet pollution targets meant to mitigate such disasters.
(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

By Cara Horowitz and Evan George
June 28, 2024 

This week, 13 young Hawaiian plaintiffs were set to take the state’s Department of Transportation to trial for failing to make real headway on reducing planet-warming pollution. Instead, on the eve of their court date, the youths inked a groundbreaking settlement with Hawaii’s governor and ushered in a new phase of climate litigation.

The resulting deal will accelerate Hawaii’s progress toward a zero-emission transportation system, and it could serve as a road map for other advocates looking to gain ground on urgent climate goals.

Several states — including Alaska, Florida, Utah and Virginia — face similar lawsuits by young people over their alleged failures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike their red-state counterparts, officials in ocean-blue Hawaii have tried to lead on climate. They have crafted ambitious laws to mitigate climate change, setting long-term targets for reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

In addition to a statewide 2045 carbon neutrality target, the state Legislature enacted a 2030 emissions reduction goal and aimed specifically to decarbonize the transportation sector, the largest source of climate emissions in Hawaii. The state’s 2050 sustainability plan promises a transition of the entire state fleet to zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

But ensuring implementation of such promises is hard — and made that much harder by a lack of intermediate targets along the way to distant goals. The Hawaii plaintiffs argued that state officials have ignored their own goals by failing to take meaningful steps to reduce climate emissions from transportation sources. They contended that the state thereby breached its constitutional duty to protect natural resources from climate change and disasters such as last year’s unprecedented Maui wildfires. Their lawsuit alleged that the defendants “impaired and infringed upon youth plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment, including the right to a life-sustaining climate system.” 

In that way, the Hawaii lawsuit focused not on a wholesale failure to adopt meaningful climate policies but on nitty-gritty questions about follow-through. The issue at trial would not have been whether officials made good laws but rather what happened after they did. In an age of proliferating climate pledges in liberal-leaning states such as California, New York and Hawaii, it’s a profound and important question.

The resulting settlement answers that question by providing benchmarks for a greenhouse gas reduction plan that will be overseen and enforced by a court through 2045 or until Hawaii achieves its zero-emission goal, “whichever is earlier.”

Under the agreement, the state must set interim decarbonization targets for the transportation sector in 2030, 2035 and 2040; report annually on its progress toward those targets; reform elements of the Transportation Department’s planning and budgeting to align them with the state’s climate goals; and spend millions of dollars in the short term on low-carbon infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations and bike lanes. The settlement also creates new leadership positions within the department charged with addressing climate change.

The settlement is far from a panacea. For example, it saves for another day the question of exactly how ambitious Hawaii’s interim decarbonization targets should be.

Nevertheless, the deal is trailblazing in a few ways. First, “it shows other governments the benefits to working with youth, not against them,” said Andrea Rodgers of Our Children’s Trust, one of the public-interest law firms that represented the plaintiffs. “This is the first time a government has decided to do that.” 

As their lawsuit noted, the plaintiffs — surfers, divers, spearfishers and regenerative farmers among them — have suffered climate anxiety, disruption of traditional ways of life and, in some cases, destruction of their homes. Without even stepping foot in court, they more or less won the measure of justice they were seeking.

By deciding to settle with the youths rather than go to trial, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green (yes, Green is his real name!) set a higher bar for what can be accomplished by a state leader who takes climate change and its consequences seriously. It’s a dramatic contrast with climate change deniers such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The outcome also offers a template for others seeking to ensure that climate pledges are realized. That can be hard work. As Hawaii’s government maintained before the settlement, long-term climate goals provide few footholds for today’s litigants. A 2045 carbon neutrality goal, for example, creates a host of challenges by failing to specify which sectors must reduce emissions, by how much and by what dates. But the big-picture question of how to ensure that long-term climate goals have teeth could not be more important.

Democratic-controlled states such as California have acted as climate policy bellwethers partly by enacting ambitious climate goals. Now we have an example of how to turn such lofty pledges into court-enforced action to decarbonize a critically important sector.

This case serves as a resounding endorsement of the courts’ capacity to address climate change. Many defendants facing climate lawsuits — notably including Hawaii officials in the earlier stages of this case — often protest that climate change policy should be made by legislatures, not judges. This landmark settlement demonstrates that the courts can hold decision-makers accountable if they fail to live up to their promises.

Cara Horowitz is the executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. Evan George is the institute’s
Mauritania's leading opposition figure and anti-slavery activist denounces youth unemployment

Presidential candidate Biram Ould Dah Ould Abeid takes part in a rally among his supporters, ahead of the presidential election end of the month, in Nouakchott, Mauritania

Copyright © africanews
By AP 
MAURITANIA


Mauritanians head to the polls on Saturday in an election which shines a spotlight on the country’s deep divisions, as incumbent President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani seeks a second term amid a regional security crisis and ongoing allegations of human rights abuses taking place in the country.

Ghazouani, from an Arab Mauritanian family, is a former army chief who came to power in 2019 following the first democratic transition in the country’s history.

Last year, his El Insaf party scored a crushing victory in the legislative election, taking 107 of the 176 seats in the National Assembly.

Though Ghazouani is widely expected to win the election, his main opposition is Biram Dah Abeid, a Black anti-slavery activist who has accused him of gross mismanagement of the country. Abeid says Ghazouani has cultivated a culture of “corruption, the pillage of wealth, and repression of the population” ahead of his last campaign rally on Thursday.

“The population is hungry. The population is thirsty. Unemployment has ruined the youth. This is why the youth have emigrated in the thousands or tens of thousands,” he said.

Abeid says he is against the agreement Mauritania holds with the European Union to crack down on migration to Europe, calling it an agreement “that will serve neither the European Union, nor Mauritania.”

Mauritania’s agreement with the EU and similar agreements with North African countries have been criticized for alleged human rights abuses against migrants that have occurred under them.

Mauritania is no stranger to human rights abuse accusations, as it was the last country in the world to abolish slavery in 1981. But the practice continues, human rights groups said, with around 149,000 people in modern slavery in this nation of less than 5 million, according to the 2023 Global Slavery Index.

“Slavery is a central question in Mauritania,” Abeid said from his party headquarters in the capital Nouakchott.

“Given the status of slavery in society, the status of a slave, the status of a free man, and especially the status of the men who hold these slaves. It’s ingrained in Mauritanian values, which is why slavery continues to plague Mauritania in such a massive way,” he said.

Abeid himself is descended from slaves. His grandmother was a slave “until her death,” he said, and his father later married a slave and saw his wife and their two children sold before his eyes.

“My father was driven by the fight against slavery and he left this legacy. I promised him that I would fight against slavery all my life, and that is what I am doing,” he said.
PALESTINE ON THE BALLOT IN THE UK ELECTIONS


In Britain, mass mobilisation in support of Palestine stands to pose a real threat to the two-party duopoly. 
LOREDANA SANGUILIANO/SHUTTERSTOCK.

NEW INTERNATIONALIST
28 June 2024
Hamza Yusuf

As droves of voters turn their backs on major political parties over Gaza, Hamza Yusuf looks at how Palestine is shaping the UK elections and beyond.


Britain heads to the polls next week to vote for the preferred choice of government and prime minister. The Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer are widely expected to win.

But after 14 years of Conservative Party rule, what should be widespread enthusiasm for a Labour government has ostensibly been replaced with a reluctance to vote for the party; namely for its stance throughout Israel’s vicious assault on Gaza.

Eight months into Israel’s bombardment, almost 2 million Palestinians have been internally displaced, 70 per cent of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed and Human Rights Watch have concluded Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war as it emerges that at least 200,000 children are showing symptoms of malnutrition. The death toll is approaching 40,000.

Israeli officials pledged to carry out a campaign characterised by ‘damage not accuracy’ and made firm their commitment to reduce Gaza to ‘a city of tents’. When precisely that was achieved, they proceeded to bomb those tents.

And yet throughout, Israel has been able to rely on unstinting support in Westminster. The UK abstained three times on United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding calls for a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak categorically said he wanted Israel to win the war.

The Labour Party, rather than offer an alternative and push for Israel to be held to account for a litany of war crimes, instead ensured a consensus of zealous support in Westminster for Israel’s systematic ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

As Israel’s defence minister Yoav Gallant imposed a total siege on Gaza, Starmer insisted Israel had the ‘right’ to deprive more than two million Palestinians of water, electricity and power. The collective punishment of Palestinians that he endorsed is a crime under international law.

Yet Starmer was not the anomaly. Senior Labour politician Emily Thornberry repeatedly failed to provide an answer when asked on BBC Newsnight if Israel’s policy of cutting off food and water to Gaza was within international law, opting to reinforce that the state has the right to defend itself. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, failed to condemn the forced evacuation of Palestinians, also a war crime.

The Labour Party, rather than offer an alternative and push for Israel to be held to account for a litany of war crimes, instead ensured a consensus of zealous support in Westminster for Israel’s systematic ethnic cleansing of Gaza

Then the Labour leadership instructed the party in November to vote against a ceasefire, even as the death toll in Gaza had already surpassed 11,000. Despite the International Court of Justice saying it’s plausible Israel has committed genocidal acts in Gaza, Starmer stil refuses to countenance the term.

‘END THE TWO-PARTY DUOPOLY’


The Labour leader’s apparent indifference to Palestinian suffering is at odds with the strength of feeling among the public. Polling shows a sizable chunk of the public not only support a ceasefire but also back suspending arms sales to Israel.

A glimpse into the electoral consequences of the Labour Party refusing to recognise and reflect this urgency for Gaza has already been discernible. In the recent local elections in May, celebrations of Labour progress were tempered by the concerns of a loss of votes tracing back to Gaza, something the party’s campaign chief was forced to admit.

And this may just be the start. There is a slate of independent candidates who are running in the general election to deliver a firm message that the Labour Party’s championing of the mass slaughter of Palestinians is a non-negotiable red line. This, along with a growing anti-Labour sentiment from a cross-section of society, could prove a fatal combination as the party seeks that landslide majority the polls are anticipating.

Leanne Mohamad is a British Palestinian human rights activist, now standing as an independent candidate against shadow health secretary Wes Streeting, a staunch supporter of Israel, in Ilford North. Speaking exclusively to New Internationalist, her message is unambiguous: ‘It’s time to end this two-party duopoly. People tell me on the doorstep that a vote for the Labour Party is a vote for the genocide party and I’m standing to show a different politics is possible. Where we speak truth to power, where we stand up for the rights of Palestinians unconditionally.’

‘There is no going back,’ she adds. ‘These politicians, and especially the Labour Party, don’t get to enable the annihilation of Gaza and then make a few mealy-mouthed statements thinking we’ll forgive and all will be forgotten.’

That warning is one that appears to have registered within the Labour Party. It briefed activists saying it ‘needs help’ defending some seats previously considered ultra safe. Indeed, blocs usually loyal to Labour, from students, to progressives to Britain’s small but significant Muslim population are all looking for alternative political homes.

'People tell me on the doorstep that a vote for the Labour Party is a vote for the genocide party and I’m standing to show a different politics is possible'

The Muslim Vote is a volunteer-led organization mobilizing Britain’s Muslims at the grassroots level to ensure votes go to proudly pro-Palestinian independent candidates. ‘The democratic system is broken,’ their spokesperson outlined to New Internationalist. ‘Both political parties have provided unstinting support to Israel in the ongoing genocide. When you have two dominant parties that see eye to eye and remain defiantly at odds with what the public want, then naturally people look elsewhere for alternatives. That’s why we’re not endorsing any Labour candidates. We believe in serving and empowering the 99 per cent, not the 1 per cent.’

STARMER’S WOBBLY SEAT


Even the seat of the Labour leader himself may not be safe. Andrew Feinstein, an anti-racist campaigner and former MP in the South African government under Nelson Mandela, is standing as an independent against Starmer in his London seat of Holborn and St. Pancras.

‘Starmer is emblematic of our sclerotic, mendacious and corrupt politics,’ he tells New Internationalist. ‘Standing against him provided the opportunity to highlight the nature of how broken our politics has become and offer an alternative to those complicit in the greatest crime since World War Two.’

Meanwhile, Labour’s newly released manifesto includes a commitment to recognize a Palestinian state. But Feinstein suggests it’s too little too late and deliberately vague: ‘It actually regresses the previous Labour position on Palestinian statehood and pushes for an undefined peace process whilst granting Israel a veto on it.’

‘This is a capitulation to Israel’s demands, even as it continues to commit a genocide. A genocide for which Starmer has become an apologist. These people don’t represent us. It’s never been clearer that a mass-based, inclusive democratic movement is needed,’ he adds.

The Labour Party did not respond to a request for comment.

‘NEVER BIDEN’


The apathy among some voters for the mainstream parties coupled with a determination to strive for a different kind of politics isn’t exclusively confined to Britain either. As the presidency election looms in the United States, polls show Joe Biden is trailing Donald Trump in key battleground states. A significant percentage of those who cast their votes for Biden last time don’t plan to do so this time.

It was on Biden’s watch that the US flooded Israel with weapons, approving more than 100 different military arms sales. When Israel attacked so-called ‘safe areas’ sheltering displaced Gazans in Rafah, the apparent ‘red line’ for Biden, it was US-made munitions that were used as Palestinian babies were decapitated and bodies were charred.

For many, it makes voting for Biden unpalatable. The hashtag #NeverBiden has erupted and campaigns have emerged to give disillusioned citizens an alternative option at the ballot box: voting for ‘uncommitted’.

Spearheaded by mobilization in Britain and the US, a memo is spreading that appears unequivocal: voters won’t be tricked into backing representatives that have been complicit in a genocide, and are keen to create new people-powered movements to counter them.
NGOs seek Dutch export ban for jet parts that may go to Israel

June 28, 2024 

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators demanding arms embargo on Israel, gather at a railway line at Pelham Avenue and Osler Street during a protest in Toronto, Ontario, Canada on April 16, 2024. [Mert Alper Dervış – Anadolu Agency]


Lawyers for rights groups asked a Hague court, on Friday, to order the Dutch state to block all exports of F-35 fighter jet parts which might end up in Israel, including parts sent to the United States to build fighter planes destined for the Israeli army, Reuters reports.

The court case, started by rights groups including the Dutch arm of Oxfam, flows from another district court ruling in February that the Netherlands cannot send F-35 parts to Israel over concerns the jets could be involved in breaking international humanitarian law in the war in Gaza.

According to the rights groups’ lawyers, the Dutch state stopped direct export of parts to Israel but continues to deliver fighter jet parts to the US and other countries which are then sent on or used in planes destined for Israel.

“The state must actively prevent that parts from the Netherlands reach Israel via a detour,” lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld said.

Lawyers for the Dutch state told the court on Friday that the rights groups had a flawed interpretation of the earlier court ruling, and the legal end destination of component parts was the country where production takes place, not the country where a final product may end up.

“In these deliveries the United States (is) the end destination” as understood by European regulation, lawyer Reimer Veldhuis said, adding that the Netherlands was complying with the earlier court order.

It is not yet clear when The Hague Court will rule on the request.

READ: Intel stops $25bn investment in Israel — ‘Biggest victory yet,’ says BDS campaign
Pro-Palestine students face threat of expulsion from Australia university

June 28, 2024 

Pro-Palestinian students hold a sit-in in Melbourne on May 15, 2024 at Melbourne University’s Arts West building, which the students have temporarily renamed as “Mahmoud’s Hall” after Mahmoud Al Haq, a prospective University of Melbourne student, who died in Gaza.
 [MARTIN KEEP/AFP via Getty Images]

Several students at the University of Melbourne in Australia face suspension or expulsion for participating in pro-Palestine solidarity activities.

The student group Unimelb for Palestine announced on X that the university administration issued notices of alleged misconduct against 19 students.

The group stated that the administration used evidence from CCTV footage and location tracking via the university’s internet connection to identify students, in what they say is a violation of their privacy.

In a petition urging the university to reverse its measures, Unimelb for Palestine wrote: “University of Melbourne have threatened pro-Palestinian students and staff who are peacefully protesting at Mahmoud’s Hall with serious repercussions including, but not limited to, misconduct, enrolment sanctions and possible termination.”



“We, the community, condemn these threats and intimidation made by the University of Melbourne to these brave students and staff, who have been peacefully calling for disclosure and divestment of the University of Melbourne’s ties to weapons manufacturers supplying Israeli Occupation Forces,” the petition continues.

“This only proves the political motivation behind these allegations and

@UniMelb attempt to punish students for challenging its weapons ties,” the group added on X.



Read: 450 Palestinian schoolchildren killed by Israel ahead of high school exams: Education Ministry