Thursday, August 01, 2024

 

Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Tehran after Israel bombs Beirut

Ismail Haniyeh during a video statement marking the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Hamas movement, December 2021. (Hamas Chief Office)

Hamas announced early Wednesday that Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Palestinian faction’s political wing, was assassinated in Tehran, where he was present for the inauguration of the new Iranian president.

The assassination, in Iran no less, marks a major escalation that will likely have regional ramifications and came hours after Israel bombed Lebanon on Tuesday evening, killing three civilians, according to Lebanese state media. Israel claimed that it killed a senior Hizballah figure in the strike, but the Lebanese resistance group had not issued a statement on the matter at the time of publication.

Israel killed multiple members representing multiple generations of Haniyeh’s family in Gaza since October. Several leaders of Hamas have been assassinated by Israel before Haniyeh, only to be replaced and for the organization’s capabilities to grow.

In January, Saleh al-Arouri, the deputy head of Hamas’ politburo, was killed in a strike in Beirut along with several other cadres and commanders with the group.

Two weeks ago, Israel claimed to have killed Muhammad Deif, the secretive head of Hamas’ armed wing, in a strike in Gaza that killed at least 90 Palestinians in an area it had unilaterally declared as a humanitarian zone.

Israel continued to wage attacks across Gaza by air, land and sea amid heavy fighting and ground incursions on Tuesday.

The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said on Tuesday that 37 people had been killed in Israeli attacks over the past 24 hours, bringing the death toll to 39,400 since early October.

The actual number of fatalities is likely much higher, with thousands of people missing under the rubble or their bodies not yet recovered from Gaza’s streets.

The Israeli military withdrew from eastern Khan Younis, the largest city in southern Gaza, on Tuesday following an incursion lasting eight days and forcing another wave of mass displacement from the area.

Palestinians returned to Khan Younis to find evidence of what the government media office in Gaza described as “horrific massacres” for which it demanded international accountability.

“Palestinian rescue workers and civilians collected dead bodies from the streets of the abandoned battle zone, bringing corpses wrapped in rugs to morgues in cars and donkey carts,” Reuters reported.

The government media office said that the bodies of 255 people had been recovered and more than 30 others were missing.

During the incursion, the Israeli military fired on 31 homes with their residents inside, as well as more than 300 other homes and residential buildings.

The military also razed the cemetery in Bani Suheila and its surroundings on the eastern outskirts of Khan Younis:

Nearly all of Gaza under evacuation orders

Israel meanwhile issued new forced displacement orders in al-Bureij, central Gaza, “launching strikes there in apparent preparation for a new raid,” according to Reuters.

“Medics said an Israeli air strike in nearby al-Nuseirat killed 10 Palestinians as they fled from Bureij on Tuesday, and another strike killed four other Palestinians inside Bureij,” the news agency added.

More than 85 percent of the territory of Gaza is under an Israeli so-called evacuation order, the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) said on Monday.

But there is no safe place for people to go, and no assurance of protection for civilians who choose to stay or are unable to evacuate from designated areas.

Repeated displacement is also making it increasingly difficult for organizations, already contending with Israel’s near-total blockade, to provide aid and services to those who were forced to leave their homes with next to nothing.

Palestinians return to eastern Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, after Israeli forces pulled out on 30 July (Omar Ashtawy APA images)

The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said that it was no longer able to restore the functionality of the Gaza European Hospital in Khan Younis after an Israeli evacuation order was issued on 27 July.

The Palestinian Civil Defense warned that overcrowding among displaced people in Gaza, who have insufficient access to water and sanitation, was leading to the proliferation of diseases, including conditions affecting children’s skin.

By early July, the World Health Organization had recorded nearly a million cases of acute respiratory infection, while other illnesses such as diarrhea, acute jaundice and cases of suspected mumps and meningitis, as well as scabies and lice, skin rashes and chicken pox are spreading among the population.

The UN health agency said on Tuesday that it was very likely that polio has infected Palestinians in Gaza after the health ministry in the territory declared a polio epidemic across the coastal enclave on Monday.

Detection of the virus in sewage samples collected in Gaza represents “a setback” against efforts to completely eradicate the disease worldwide, Christian Lindmeier, a World Health Organization official, said on Tuesday.

Al Mezan, a Palestinian human rights group based in Gaza, warned that more than one million children in the territory “are at risk of dying if not vaccinated” for the highly infectious virus.

“To prevent thousands of deaths, the international community must ensure Israel immediately ends its genocide, including the weaponization of water and sanitation facilities,” the rights group added.

According to WHO, the disease mainly affects children under the age of 5 and one in 200 infections “leads to irreversible paralysis.” Five to 10 percent of those paralyzed die “when their breathing muscles become immobilized.”

Collapse of essential systems

With the collapse of Gaza’s solid waste management system, conditions are ripe for the disastrous spread of diseases transmitted through contamination such as polio and hepatitis A – there have been 40,000 diagnosed cases of the latter since October.

Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has seen a drop in polio vaccination rates in Gaza from 99 percent to 89 percent, according to a UNICEF spokesperson. The director of the World Health Organization announced that it was sending more than a million polio vaccines to Gaza to be administered to children “in the coming weeks,” UN News reported.

The virus, “transmitted by person-to-person spread mainly through the fecal-oral route,” according to WHO, is less frequently transmitted through contaminated water or food.

The “can emerge in areas where poor vaccination coverage allows the weakened form of the orally taken vaccine virus strain to mutate into a stronger version,” UN News added.

The vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 “had been identified at six locations in sewage samples collected last month from Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah – two Gaza cities left in ruins by nearly 10 months of intense Israeli bombardment.”

The spread of disease and epidemics is a predictable result of Israel’s genocidal military campaign, if not the intention.

In yet another case of Israeli soldiers destroying civilian infrastructure for no military purpose, soldiers recently recorded themselves detonating Canada well, the main water facility in Rafah, southern Gaza.

The Tel Aviv daily Haaretz reported on Monday that the facility “was destroyed last week with the approval of the commander of the soldiers … but without the approval of senior officers.”

But blaming lower-ranking soldiers may be an attempt to deter international courts scrutiny of more senior military personnel, while the pattern of behavior on the ground indicates that troops are ordered to destroy essential civilian infrastructure for no military purpose – a war crime.

Younis Tirawi, writing for Dropsite News, recounted that Giora Eiland, an adviser to Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant, described in October a strategy to destroy the ability of Palestinians in Gaza to pump and purify water within Gaza.

Monther Shoblak, the head of the water utility in Gaza, told Tirawi that the Canada well facility had remained functional until Israel’s ground invasion of Rafah in early May, as solar panels allowed it to operate despite Israel cutting off the supply of electricity to the territory in October.

Israel destroyed 30 water wells in the south this month alone, and displaced people have been forced to shelter in overcrowded conditions without suitable hygiene infrastructure or access to sufficient clean water, fuel, food and medicine.

The international charity Oxfam said earlier this month that “Israel damaged or destroyed five water and sanitation sites every three days since the start of this war,” reducing the amount of water available in Gaza by 94 percent to a mere 4.74 liters per person – “less than a single toilet flush.”

Israel attacks Beirut

Israel bombed southern Beirut on Tuesday, with its military claiming that it targeted Fuad Shukr, a senior Hizballah commander. Israel said that Shukr was killed but Arabic-language media said his fate remained unknown late Tuesday.

The area around Hizballah’s Shura Council in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of the Lebanese capital was also hit, that country’s state news agency reported.

Lebanon’s health ministry said that a woman and two children were killed, though “the search for more missing persons under the rubble continues.”

The Beirut strike took down a whole residential building, and the scale of destruction may have been intended to reinforce the threats made by Israeli leaders to inflict the same genocidal violence in Lebanon that it has in Gaza.

+The strike in Beirut on Tuesday was an anticipated “retaliation” from Tel Aviv after a projectile killed 12 children at a sports field in Majdal Shams, a city in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights on Saturday. Israel blamed Hizballah but the Lebanese resistance group denied having any connection to the deadly blast.

Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, accused Hizballah of crossing a red line, though it is highly unlikely that the Lebanese resistance group would have deliberately targeted Majdal Shams.

A building targeted in an Israeli strike in the southern suburb of Beirut, 30 July (Bilal Jawich Xinhua News Agency)

Amal Saad, an expert on Hizballah, said that since 8 October, the group “has refrained from targeting Israeli civilians, much less Syrian Druze.”

“The strong support for the resistance movement among this community, which lives under Israeli occupation, makes it illogical for Hizballah to risk striking in this vicinity,” she added.

Targeting civilians, whether Syrian or Israeli, “wouldn’t be strategically beneficial for Hizballah when it would inevitably lead to all out war – a war which Hizballah has been very keen to avoid as demonstrated by its sub-threshold responses to Israeli strikes on Beirut and on civilians” in Lebanon, according to Saad.

She added the group has been careful to “avoid giving Israel any pretext for waging war” but “it’s entirely expected” that Israel would exploit the tragedy “in order to deflect attention away from its daily massacres of Palestinian children” in Gaza.

Not “a single drop of blood”

Majdal Shams residents chanted “murderer, murderer” at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he attempted to visit the site of the deadly strike on Monday.

Syrians reeling from the unprecedented mass casualty event in Majdal Shams issued a statement rejecting “that a single drop of blood be shed under the name of revenge for our children.”

After the deaths in Majdal Shams, Israeli media reported that Netanyahu canceled the exit of around 150 children from Gaza for medical treatment in the United Arab Emirates “for fear of public backlash,” the human rights group Gisha said.

In response to a petition from human rights groups, Israel’s high court on Sunday ordered the government “to inform it of its progress toward implementing a permanent mechanism for the medical evacuation of sick and injured Gazans,” The Times of Israel [reported]((https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-gives-government-7-days-to-come…).

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, announced that “85 sick and severely injured people,” including 35 children, were evacuated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi for specialized care on Tuesday.

“It is the largest medical evacuation since October 2023,” he said, adding that “63 family members and caregivers accompanied the patients.”

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said on Sunday that the ongoing closure of Gaza’s crossings, preventing “the travel of urgent and lifesaving cases,” makes clear “Israel’s commission of genocide against the people of the Gaza Strip.”

“Those who have not been killed by Israel’s war machine are not spared by the complete Israeli siege and closure on Gaza,” the rights group added, “leaving thousands of wounded and sick doomed to certain death.”

Death is all but guaranteed due to Israel’s “deliberate destruction and collapse of the healthcare system and the weakening of its remaining lifesaving resources,” according to PCHR.

Around 14,000 sick and injured patients, most of them children and older people, require care that is not available in Gaza.

PCHR estimates that hundreds of ill people have already died due to lack of access to medical treatment but there are “no statistics available in this regard due to disruptions in official medical monitoring and documentation systems.”

• Article first published in The Electronic Intifada

Maureen Clare Murphy is senior editor of The Electronic Intifada. She can be reached here: @maureenclarem on Twitter Read other articles by Maureen Clare.
Air New Zealand becomes first major airline to drop 2030 climate goals

CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT


July 30, 2024 


Image of Air New Zealand check-in counter at Sydney International Airport in Sydney, Australia, on June 23, 2021. Air New Zealand said on Tuesday it was moving away from 2030 climate change goals. File Photo by Dan Himbrechts/EPA-EFE

July 30 (UPI) -- Air New Zealand announced on Tuesday that it was bailing out of its 2030 science-based carbon intensity reduction targets because it could not meet the goals due to various obstacles.

The carrier said it was currently not realistic to meet the standards in the Science Based Targets Initiative because of the lack of availability of new aircraft, the affordability and availability of alternative jet fuel, and global and domestic regulations policy support

Air New Zealand said those obstacles were simply out of the carrier's control, making it difficult to comply with such climate change goals.

"In recent months, and more so in the last few weeks, it has also become apparent that potential delays to our fleet renewal plan pose an additional risk to the target's achievability," Greg Foran, Air New Zealand CEO, said in a statement.

"It is possible that the airline may need to retain its existing fleet for longer than planned due to global manufacturing and supply chain issues that could potentially slow the introduction of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft into the fleet."

Air New Zealand becomes the first national flag carrier and first major airline to significantly move away from its near-term climate plans previously set for the industry to meet its decarbonization goals.

Air New Zealand had originally said it would be able to reduce its carbon intensity by 28.9% by 2030 compared to its 2019 levels.

"Air New Zealand remains committed to reaching its 2050 net zero carbon emission target," the carrier's board chair Therese Walsh said in a statement. "Our work to transition away from fossil fuels continues, as does our advocacy for the goal and domestic regulatory and policy settings that will help facilitate Air New Zealand, and the wide aviation system in New Zealand m to do its part to mitigate climate change risks."
Most U.S. youth who die by suicide don't have mental health diagnosis

By Dennis Thompson, HealthDay News


Three out of five young people who die by suicide don't have any prior mental health diagnosis, a new study finds. Photo by Adobe Stock/HealthDay News



Three out of five young people who die by suicide don't have any prior mental health diagnosis, a new study finds.

People are missing the telltale signs that children, teens and young adults are troubled in ways that put them at risk for suicide, researchers said.

"Our findings point to the critical need to increase equitable access to mental health screening, diagnosis and treatment for all youth," said researcher Dr. Jennifer Hoffman, an emergency medicine physician with the Children's Hospital of Chicago.

The results also emphasize the need for safe gun storage, given how impulsive young people can be.

Related
Suicides rising among kids ages 8 to 12, especially in girls

There had been no signs of mental troubles in 2 of 3 suicides involving a gun, the most common method among young people in this study, researchers found.

An estimated 22.6 million U.S. children live in households with firearms, and 4.5 million live in homes where guns are put away loaded in unlocked drawers and cabinets, researchers said.

"To reduce the risk of youth suicide by firearms, counseling is needed to encourage parents to store firearms in the home safely. These messages should be delivered in community and school settings, in addition to doctors' offices," Hoffmann said in a hospital news release.

"Secure storage laws, also known as child-access prevention laws, have also been demonstrated to reduce firearm suicide rates, and more states need to enact this type of lifesaving legislation," Hoffmann added.

For the study, published Tuesday in the journal JAMA Network Open, researchers analyzed data on more than 40,000 suicides by youth ages 10 to 24 between 2010 and 2021. The data was gathered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Males, children younger than 14 and young people from minority or ethnic groups were most likely to commit suicide without any prior mental health diagnosis, results show.

To help prevent suicide, parents should touch base with their kids frequently about potential worries or distressing events, Hoffmann said.

"Stressful life circumstances can be risk factors for youth suicide, even in the absence of a mental health diagnosis," Hoffmann said. "It is also important to bring preteens and teens in for a wellness check every year, so their pediatrician can screen for mental health issues."

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis, expert, confidential advice is available 24/7 at the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about suicide prevention.

Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

What Is Cancel Culture, and Is It a Good Thing?


 
 July 31, 2024
Facebook

The ongoing debate about “cancel culture” provides a glimpse into the scope of political polarization in the United States. Opposing sides can’t agree about what it is, who’s doing it to whom, or even whether it exists.

Let’s start with a simple summary: The right rejects any attempt to hold people accountable for ugly or hateful comments, decrying such efforts as cancel culture run amok, Meanwhile, the left argues that cancel culture is not real but merely a creation of right-wing fear-mongering, except when the right cancels liberals and leftists.

There are kernels of truth in those caricatures, but they obscure as much as they reveal. Such snark might be fun, but we need to have less fun in these debates. To make a productive conversation possible, we should start with definitions, which may be boring but increases our chances of understanding each other and minimizes the tendency toward self-righteousness.

There are a variety of terms for the process of disciplining someone for a perceived political or moral offense: shunning (refusing to associate with someone and encouraging others to do the same), canceling (removing someone from a position), or de-platforming (curtailing someone’s ability to speak in some public setting). Who gets canceled and how it plays out will depend on the public visibility of the person, the issue in question, and the power of the people doing the disciplining.

Context and details are crucial. Sometimes people who complain that they have been canceled have simply been critiqued in perfectly appropriate ways by people with whom they disagree. But sometimes people who say they have been canceled have been treated unfairly simply for holding a political position not favored in a group. Some definitional clarity is in order.

Within a political or social group with a mission and shared values, no one doubts that the group should enforce certain ideological baselines. Let’s start with a playful example. Several friends establish a chess club. A person who hates chess (perhaps a fanatical parent harangued this poor child to play constantly, resulting in a pathological anti-chess attitude) joins the club to disrupt others’ enjoyment of the game. No one would say that expelling the chess-hater from the club would be an inappropriate act of canceling, even if the person were an exceptional chess player. The group exists for a specific reason, which poses no threat to anyone outside the group, and disrupting the group serves no positive purpose.

Let’s move to a more realistic example. Imagine a community group is engaged in progressive political organizing on an issue such as militarism, economic justice, or environmental protection. If a member of the group consistently makes racist or sexist comments, should the group discipline or expel the offender? The first step might be to confront the person in a way that seeks resolution—“calling in” (reaching out to the person who has engaged in inappropriate behavior for dialogue) rather than “calling out” (publicly challenging or shaming them). But if the offender refuses to reconsider and argues that views on race and sex/gender are irrelevant to the group’s focus, must the group accept that individual?

It’s difficult to argue for inclusion, on at least two grounds. First, such comments can create a hostile environment that makes it difficult for others to participate. Second, even if the group includes only white men, a racist or sexist politics that accepts hierarchy on those fronts can’t be squared with a progressive challenge to hierarchy and abuse on other fronts. On the left side of the fence, no one tries to offer an intellectual defense of racism or sexism.

Things get trickier in more public realms, especially when the power of governments is in play. In U.S. law, the dominant interpretation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and press provides wide latitude for citizens. But when an individual is acting on behalf of a public institution, where duties are as important as rights, things get murkier.

Should a professor at a public university be disciplined for making openly racist comments in class? Context is relevant, but such comments are likely to create a hostile environment that deprives some students of the education they are there for, and so discipline would be appropriate. If the professor’s comments were subtler, with disagreement over the racist character of the remarks, things get more difficult to resolve. What about a professor who pursues research on intelligence that some people believe to be either overtly racist or motivated by unconscious racism? Again, context matters, but that professor can claim academic freedom.

And then there are the cases from mass media and pop culture. What price should individuals in the public eye pay for actions that are deemed inappropriate in some way?

First, we have to distinguish between inappropriateness and illegal behavior. Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was not canceled for being inappropriate. He was a serial sexual predator who eventually was convicted of rape. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly was dropped by the network after news leaked that he had settled five lawsuits filed by women accusing him of sexual harassment and misconduct. Prosecutors go after criminals. Corporations fire employees who violate work rules or expose the firm to damages for abusive behavior. Behavior that is illegal or creates serious legal liability is well outside discussions of cancel culture.

But other cases are more vexing, sometimes involving actions decades before, sometimes involving jokes that were acceptable in some segments of the dominant culture at the time, or actions that the perpetrator has admitted to and apologized for. Consider these cases: A white politician who appeared in blackface while in medical school, and a male politician accused of making sexist jokes and inappropriate touching while hugging supporters. Neither was accused of holding racist or sexist views in the present or pursuing racist or sexist political agendas. The former (Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia) stayed in office and served out his term without incident. The latter (Al Franken, the US senator from Minnesota) resigned under pressure, a decision that he, along with some who had demanded his resignation, later regretted. Like-minded people can disagree, and in these cases did.

To repeat, context is relevant. When an apology for racist or sexist comments seems sincere, should offenders be treated differently than those who won’t acknowledge wrongdoing? In cases where evidence is not conclusive, how do we balance a desire to protect people from the abusive behavior of others with the need for fairness in fact-finding and deliberation? Given how different people can perceive the same event in very different ways, how do we resolve such disagreements when there is no evidence beyond self-reports? Even when it is widely agreed that the alleged speech or actions are inappropriate, these factors complicate our decision-making processes.

Another set of challenges arise when people don’t agree on whether the statements and actions in question are inappropriate. Sometimes those debates take place in the culture at large, with people on opposite sides of the analysis. Sometimes such debates can also play out within an otherwise unified political group or movement. The question of Confederate symbols is an example of the former; some on the right defend them as “heritage not hate” while almost everyone on the left (myself included) denounce them as expressions of white supremacy. The debate over drag shows provides an opportunity to consider the latter; most on the left endorse drag except for radical feminists (myself included) who view it as a form of cultural appropriation.

This brief exploration isn’t meant to exhaust the topic but rather point out there are rarely simple answers about how social groups should enforce norms. But even if context and complexity mean there are no hard-and-fast rules, we can look for guidelines.

For me, a central question is whether a comment or action is merely offensive or truly oppressive. In a pluralistic society, I expectt to be offended on a regular basis because of conflicting values. But when people’s words and deeds help maintain or deepen systems of oppression, a collective response is justified.

That doesn’t tell us what responses are appropriate in any particular situation, but it can be the start of a conversation. These days, that’s a step forward.

This essay is adapted from It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics, published by Olive Branch Press.

Robert Jensen is an emeritus professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin and a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. He collaborates with New Perennials Publishingand the New Perennials Project at Middlebury College. Jensen can be reached at rjensen@austin.utexas.edu. To join an email list to receive articles by Jensen, go to http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html. Follow him on Twitter: @jensenrobertw


McDonald’s Profits Are Up 31% Since the Pandemic, NPR Tells Us It Is a Victim of Inflation


 
 August 1, 2024
Facebook

Photo by Eshak Angell

I am not joking. A piece on All Things Considered carries the headline on NPR’s website “McDonald’s is losing customers to inflation.” The gist of the piece is that the economy is so bad that people can no longer afford to eat at McDonald’s. Now the company is being forced to lower its prices.

Incredibly, the piece never once mentions the company’s profits. They went from $11.18 billion in the year ending in December 2019, before the pandemic, to $14.69 billion in the year ending in March, an increase of more than 31 percent. That compares to an overall inflation rate of 21 percent over this period.

Rather than being a victim of inflation, McDonald’s was a cause of inflation. The company took advantage of the high demand and supply chain shortages to jack up its profit margins. Now, apparently competitive conditions in the fast-food industry are returning to something like their pre-pandemic state, and the company is being forced to accept more normal profit margins.

Instead of reporting this as a positive development for consumers, NPR presents it as yet one more bad economy story. It would be nice if we could get some reporting from the real world instead of having reporters who insist on writing pieces from the “bad economy storybook” even when they have no connection to reality.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.