#Cabinet Committee on Security

[defencecapital]

20 Years Of India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Does Delhi Need To Reset Its Nuke Policy With Growing Economic & Military Might

By N. C. Bipindra for EurAsian Times India officially declared itself a nuclear weapons state in May 1998 following the ‘Shakti’ nuclear tests in the Rajasthan desert, popularly called Pokhran-II. But it spelled out its official nuclear doctrine for the first time publicly in January 2003 through a media statement issued by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) after a meeting of the Cabinet…

[merisarkar]

Govt Approves Nuclear Submarines and MQ-9B Drones for Military

Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) clears Nuclear Submarines, MQ-9B drones: New Delhi, India – The Indian government has given the green light for two major defense procurements: the indigenous construction of nuclear-powered attack submarines and the purchase of 31 MQ-9B remotely piloted aircraft from the US defence and aerospace giant General Atomics. These acquisitions will significantly…

[defencestar]

India Approves Nuclear Submarines and MQ-9B Drones

India Cabinet clears Nuclear Submarines, MQ-9B drones: New Delhi, India – The Indian government has given the green light for two major defense procurements: the indigenous construction of nuclear-powered attack submarines and the purchase of 31 MQ-9B remotely piloted aircraft from the US defence and aerospace giant General Atomics. These acquisitions will significantly bolster the capabilities…

[contemplatingoutlander]

The House GOP is a circus. The chaos has one source.

Republicans spent two years sabotaging the U.S. House. Another two years would be ruinous.

Dana Milbank does a masterful job of describing just how dysfunctional the House GOP members have been in the past two years.

This is a gift🎁link for the entire article. Below are some highlights:

The Lord works in mysterious ways. Six weeks after his improbable rise from obscurity to speaker of the House in late 2023, Louisiana’s Mike Johnson decided to break bread with a group of Christian nationalists. [...] “I’ll tell you a secret, since media is not here,” Johnson teased the group, unaware that his hosts were streaming video of the event. Johnson informed his audience that God “had been speaking to me” about becoming speaker, communicating “very specifically,” in fact, waking him at night and giving him “plans and procedures.” [...] Today, Johnson’s run looks anything but heaven-sent. In the first 18 months of this Congress, only 70 laws were enacted. Calculations by political scientist Tobin Grant, who tracks congressional output over time, put this Congress on course to be the do-nothingest since 1859-1861 — when the Union was dissolving. But Johnson’s House isn’t merely unproductive; it is positively lunatic. Republicans have filled their committee hearings and their bills with white nationalist attacks on racial diversity and immigrants, attempts to ban abortion and to expand access to the sort of guns used in mass shootings, incessant harassment of LGBTQ Americans, and even routine potshots at the U.S. military. They insulted each other’s private parts, accused each other of sexual and financial crimes, and scuffled with each other in the Capitol basement. They screamed “Bullshit!” at President Joe Biden during the State of the Union address. They stood up for the Confederacy and used their official powers to spread conspiracy theories about the “Deep State.” Some even lent credence to the idea that there has been a century-old Deep State coverup of space aliens, with possible involvement by Mussolini and the Vatican.

The above article was adapted from Dana Milbank's (2024) book: Fools on the HILL: The Hooligans, Saboteurs, Conspiracy Theorists, and Dunces Who Burned Down the House.

[See more below the cut.]

And this is on top of the well-known pratfalls: The 15-ballot marathon to elect a speaker, the 22-day shutdown of the House to find another speaker, the routine threats of government shutdowns and a near-default on the federal debt that hurt the nation’s credit rating. They devoted 18 months to a failed attempt to impeach Biden, which produced nothing but Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly displaying posters of Hunter Biden engaging in sex acts. One “whistleblower” defected to Russia, another worked with Russian intelligence and is under indictment for fabricating his claims, and still another is on the lam, evading charges of being a Chinese agent. As soon as Biden withdrew his candidacy, they promptly forgot their probe of Biden’s “corruption” and rushed to launch a new series of investigations into Kamala Harris (over her record on border security) and Tim Walz (over his military service and “cozy relationship” with China). After a number of failed attempts, they did impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (the first such action against a Cabinet officer since 1876) without identifying any high crimes or misdemeanors he had committed; the Senate dismissed the articles without a trial. House Republicans created a “weaponization committee” under the excitable Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), but it was panned even by right-wing commentators when it produced little more than a list of conspiracy theories from the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. They lapsed repeatedly into fits of censure resolutions, contempt citations and other pointless acts of vengeance. In all of its history, the House had voted to censure one of its own members only seven times; in the two weeks after Johnson became speaker, members of the House tried to censure each other eight times. [...] In lieu of consequential legislating, they passed bills such as the Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act and the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards (SUDS) Act. On the House floor, the Republican majority suffered one failure after another, even on routine procedural votes. Seven times (and counting), House Republicans voted down their own leaders’ routine attempts to begin floor debates — something that hadn’t happened once in the previous 20 years.

[racefortheironthrone]

I can get why it was created, but why does Department of Homeland Security still exist?

A combination of bureaucratic inertia and lack of political will. For the former, a lot of civil servants’ careers and influence depends on the existence of DHS as a Cabinet department. Even if the major functions of DHS would continue just as they have always done (the dirty secret of DHS is that the coordination and information-sharing that was the rationale for creating the department in the wake of 9/11 never actually happened and that most DHS agencies do their own thing like they did before the reorganization), a lot of high-up and middle managers would be at risk of losing their jobs or their power measured in terms of budget and manpower - so those folks are going to fight any attempt to de-establish the department with everything in their power.

Likewise, over on the political side, there’s a strong incentive to do nothing. Not only would a vote to reorganize DHS be controversial just in terms of generating lots of winners and losers, but it’s also a vote that could be easily characterized as “soft on national security,” and a lot of politicians would have to answer difficult questions about why they had voted to reauthorize or approve DHS funding in the past. Politicians don’t like having to admit to mistakes, and it’s easy to characterize a change of mind as “flip-flopping.” Finally, politicians also stand to lose power in this scenario - no DHS means no Homeland Security committee positions, means no DHS contracts and lobbyists to raise money off of. And so it goes.

[vaporize-employers]

What Would a Replacement Nominee Mean for US-Israel Policy?

US-Israel policy under Kamala Harris would probably resemble that of the current administration. First thing’s first, Harris would have to decide whether to retain Biden’s trusted foreign policy advisors, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Keeping two of Biden’s key staffers would suggest a continuity in US foreign policy. That said, even if Harris decided to shake up her cabinet and introduce fresh faces, her policies are not likely to diverge from those of her would-be predecessor. Harris would likely continue Biden’s work to reach a hostage/ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas while maintaining ironclad support for Israel’s security, a position that she held even before the current war. During the 2020 election cycle, Harris promised that any administration she serves would continue unconditional security assistance to Israel despite disagreements with Israeli leaders. Harris’s experience as a US Senator from California also offers a glimpse into what her policies toward Israel might hold. Speaking in front of the American Jewish Committee, then Senator Harris reflected on her time serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, telling the crowd that she “will do everything in [her] power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense.” Like many of her colleagues in Congress, Harris consistently rejected external efforts to apply pressure on Israel to reach a peace agreement. In 2017, Harris cosponsored a Senate resolution that objected to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned Israel for its expansion of settlements and disregard for a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines. While Harris said she opposed any Israeli effort to unilaterally annex the West Bank, the Senate resolution explicitly objected to the Security Council’s condemnation of Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied territory. Harris also gained attention for her stance on Israel in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election when she came out in opposition of S.1, otherwise known as the “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019.” The bill provided for security assistance to strengthen Israel’s military, among several other provisions. Notably, Harris was one of 22 Democrats who voted against the bill “out of concern that it could limit Americans’ First Amendment rights.” Though not a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel, Harris expressed concern over S.1’s authorization to state and local governments to demand that contractors declare that they do not support BDS or settlements in the West Bank. A review of her previous positions on Israel and Palestine suggests that a Harris presidency would likely spell a continuation of Biden-era policies. Harris has shown a commitment to support Israel while exhibiting a willingness to use a more critical tone in public on occasion. For a Harris presidency to offer a radically different policy approach would be quite a surprise, and it is more than likely that there would be few substantive policy changes under her leadership.

Arab Center Washington DC, Jul 17, 2024

[mariacallous]

On Sunday, June 9, Israeli minister Benny Gantz, a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet and Netanyahu’s main putative challenger for the position of prime minister, resigned from the government along with his fellow party member Gadi Eisenkot. The resignation comes at an awkward time for the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden, which has been making a significant effort to promote a cease-fire and hostage release deal, proposed by Israel, outlined by Biden in a speech on May 31, and adopted by the U.N. Security Council as Resolution 2735. Gantz and Eisenkot, major proponents of such a deal within the Israel war cabinet, are now out of decisionmaking circles. Should Hamas’s leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, accept the deal, which he has not so far, Netanyahu would now have heightened political incentive to balk at his own proposal. But the resignation may also serve to catalyze political changes in Israel that may hasten a change of leadership, something the Biden administration would welcome. While there is no guarantee that Gantz’s resignation will bring Israel’s elections any closer, it was a necessary step for any major political change.

The Israeli war cabinet is formed

As the details and magnitude of the October 7 terrorist attack became clear, there were immediate calls in Israel for a national emergency government that would include centrist opposition leaders alongside Netanyahu. Israelis shared a sense of historic crisis and were prepared for a major war. The official leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, offered to join the cabinet, but he demanded that Netanyahu exclude Betzalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, two far-right ministers, from his security cabinet. Netanyahu refused, with the rationale that after the emergency government eventually dissolved, he would have lost his base. It was an early sign that politics would continue to play a substantial role in the prime minister’s decisions, even in the depths of the crisis.

Gantz, the other major opposition leader, joined the cabinet nonetheless, satisfied instead by the creation of a “mini” war cabinet that excluded the two far-right ministers from the management of the war.

In the Israeli system, the prime minister is not the commander in chief of the military. Rather, the cabinet serves in that role, as a committee, with most powers bestowed on a smaller security cabinet (formally, the “ministerial committee for national security affairs”) of which Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are members. Netanyahu and Gantz thus formed an ad-hoc forum, the mini-war cabinet, with three official members: Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant of Netanyahu’s own Likud party, and Gantz. They were joined by three observers, Eisenkot; Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s confidante and former ambassador to the United States; and Aryeh Deri, the most veteran minister and leader of the Shas party. Notably absent were the far-right ministers.

Resignations and consequences

Gantz and Eisenkot joined the emergency cabinet on a temporary basis, for the duration of the war’s initial phases, and with the public expectation that they might resign by the end of 2023 or early 2024. Months past that, their resignations now have implications for Israeli policy and politics.

By May, as tensions with the Biden administration over Israel’s Gaza strategy had grown, Gallant publicly called out Netanyahu and criticized the latter’s lack of strategy for what Gaza might look like after Hamas. Without defined strategic goals, no operational or tactical objectives could succeed. Gallant demanded that Netanyahu state that he does not plan for a return to Israeli occupation, as existed before the Oslo II Accords of 1994. This dramatic challenge to Netanyahu also created an opening for Gantz.

In May, Gantz finally signaled his intent to resign. He laid out conditions for his staying in the government and set an ultimatum that he would leave if they were not met, which Netanyahu rebuffed the same day. In policy terms, his most notable demand echoed Gallant, demanding that Netanyahu elucidate the beginning of a strategy for the day after in Gaza.

Gantz, Gallant, and Eisenkot are all retired generals with a long, shared history in the military. Ganz is the former chief of staff of the military, a high-profile role that is more influential in Israel than the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in the United States, for example. As the only lieutenant general in the Israeli military and the commander of everyone in uniform, the chief of staff commands a great deal of attention from a public who face, in theory, universal conscription. When Gantz was appointed to the top military post in 2011, he was, in fact, the second choice of the cabinet. Netanyahu, the prime minister at the time, and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak had preferred Gallant, who was considered more hawkish on Iran, but was disqualified by a public committee due to ethical concerns. Eisenkot was appointed as Gantz’s deputy in 2013 and eventually succeeded him at the top military post. 

Now in government and civilian clothes, the former generals were at times allies in the war cabinet, despite representing different parties. Their demand for strategic thinking about the day after also reflected their desire to see some role, even if limited, for the secular, West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) in Gaza, which Netanyahu has rejected. The centrist ministers’ departures weaken that prospect, possibly strengthening the hands of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who would prefer to see the collapse of the PA altogether.

Elections are not imminent … probably

The resignations also had political motivations. Gantz has led Netanyahu in the polls ever since October 7, but his lead has narrowed significantly. If elections were held today, polls now suggest the possibility of an inconclusive election, though still with a clear advantage to the opposition. If these were the results of the next election, Gantz would need to cobble together a coalition reminiscent of the coalition headed by Lapid and Naftali Bennett, an act of political acrobatics that only held together for slightly over a year.

Elections are not scheduled for over two years, however. Even with Gantz’s resignation, Netanyahu’s original coalition, which consists of 64 out of 120 members of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, still holds a clear majority. It could fracture in different scenarios, but none of them is very likely in the short term.

First, with Gantz’s and Eisenkot’s resignations, centrist Likud members, such as Gallant, may opt to defect and try to replace Netanyahu. This would be a very risky move for them politically, but it may become more likely if demonstrations against the government, already growing, return to the large scale that Israel had seen before October 6. Gantz’s presence in the government, and especially the war’s continuation, made the environment less conducive to such public pressure until now.

Netanyahu’s far-right partners may also bring about his downfall if he veers to the center. In particular, they have already warned that should Hamas accept the cease-fire and Netanyahu move forward with the deal (a “surrender,” as Smotrich termed it), they would topple the government. This, of course, makes such a scenario less likely.

Finally, there is a small chance that Netanyahu’s Haredi partners, who are the most conservative religiously but not the most hawkish in terms of national security, might destabilize his coalition. Haredi men are exempt from military service, due to political maneuvering, a highly emotive grievance for the majority of Jewish Israelis who do serve, especially in a time of war and bereavement. With the Supreme Court now demanding a legislative basis for the exemption, Netanyahu’s coalition is struggling to put one in place. Seeing a political opening, Gantz made conscription, in some form, one of his central demands of Netanyahu. Should such a legal standing not be found, the Haredim may follow through on their threats to resign, though they are unlikely to get a better deal with another prime minister later, and so have incentives to remain.

One final option remains: Netanyahu could call for elections himself if he found an opportune moment or excuse. Netanyahu has identified his opposition to a Palestinian state as a winning ticket in a population traumatized by October 7 and loath to take any security risks in negotiations with Palestinians. Netanyahu would hope to portray himself as the one man able to withstand international pressure on Palestinian sovereignty. He will undoubtedly hope to return to the theme of his recent election campaigns, portraying himself as being “in a league of his own” in global diplomacy. One opportunity for a campaign image of Netanyahu on the global stage will come soon, currently scheduled for July 24, when he speaks before a joint session of Congress.

[tieflingkisser]

Al Jazeera office raided as Israel takes channel off air

Israel's government has moved to shut down the operations of the Al Jazeera television network in the country, branding it a mouthpiece for Hamas. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the cabinet agreed to the closure while the war in Gaza is ongoing. Police raided the Qatari broadcaster's office at the Ambassador hotel in Jerusalem on Sunday. Al Jazeera called claims it was a threat to Israeli security a "dangerous and ridiculous lie". The channel said it reserved the right to "pursue every legal step". Israel's Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said equipment had been taken in the raid. A video posted by the minister on X shows police officers and inspectors from the ministry entering a hotel room. A BBC team visited the scene, but was prevented from filming or going into the hotel by police.

[...]

The shut down of Al Jazeera in Israel has been criticised by a number of human rights and press groups. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) said they had filed a request to the country's Supreme Court to issue an interim order to overturn the ban. The group said that claims that the broadcaster was a propaganda tool for Hamas were "unfounded", and that Sunday's ban was less about security concerns and more to "serve a more politically motivated agenda, aimed at silencing critical voices and targeting Arab media". The Foreign Press Association (FPA) urged the Israeli government to reconsider its decision, saying the shut down of Al Jazeera in the country should be "a cause for concern for all supporters of a free press". The FPA said in a statement that Israel now joins "a dubious club of authoritarian governments to ban the station", and warned that Mr Netanyahu has the authority to target other foreign outlets that he considers to be "acting against the state". The Committee to Protect Journalists' (CPJ) Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna echoed the same concerns, saying: "The Israeli cabinet must allow Al Jazeera and all international media outlets to operate freely in Israel, especially during wartime." The UN's Human Rights office also called the Israeli government to reverse the ban, posting on X: "A free & independent media is essential to ensuring transparency & accountability. Now, even more so given tight restrictions on reporting from Gaza." Foreign journalists are banned from entering Gaza, and Al Jazeera staff there have been some of the only reporters on the ground.

[ausetkmt]

White Supremacists Top Domestic Terror Threat, Officials Say

Top law enforcement officials say the biggest domestic terror threat comes from white supremacists.

“The department is taking a new approach to addressing domestic violent extremism, both internally and externally,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas told senators.

Mayorkas and Garland Testify on ‘Violent’ Domestic Extremism

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas testified to senators about the threat of domestic terrorism and extremism, which they both said is often racially or ethically motivated.

“Combating domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism has long been a core part of the Justice Department’s mission. Immediately upon its founding more than 150 years ago, the department pursued white supremacists who had sought to deny newly freed slaves their rights under the Constitution, including the right to vote. Unfortunately, the horror of domestic violent extremism is still with us. Indeed, the F.B.I. assessed that 2019 was the deadliest year for violent domestic extremism since 1995.

In March of this year, the intelligence community, in a report drafted by D.H.S., the F.B.I. and the National Counterterrorism Center, under the auspices of the Director of National Intelligence, assessed that domestic violent extremists pose a elevated threat in 2021. And in the F.B.I.’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.” “The terrorism-related threats we face as a nation have significantly evolved since the department’s creation in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The threat landscape is now more complex, more dynamic and more diversified. Today, racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists are the most likely to conduct mass casualty attacks against civilians and anti-government or anti anti-authority violent extremists, specifically militia violent extremists, are the most likely to target law enforcement, government personnel and government facilities.

The threats posed by domestic violent extremism are often fueled by false narratives, conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric spread throughout social media and other online platforms.”

Published May 12, 2021Updated June 15, 2021

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas told senators on Wednesday that the greatest domestic threat facing the United States came from what they both called “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.”

“Specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race,” Mr. Garland told the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The cabinet secretaries’ comments reflected a dramatic shift in tone from the Trump administration, which deliberately downplayed the threat from white supremacists and similar groups, in part to elevate the profile of what former President Donald J. Trump described as violent threats from radical left-wing groups.

Last year, a former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence branch filed a whistle-blower complaint in which he accused the department of blocking a report about the threat of violent extremism and described white supremacists as having been “exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent targeted attacks in recent years.”

Mr. Mayorkas told senators on Wednesday, “The department is taking a new approach to addressing domestic violent extremism, both internally and externally.”

As Mr. Garland and Mr. Mayorkas testified before the Appropriations Committee, former members of the Trump administration told the House Oversight Committee that Mr. Trump’s false claims to have won the 2020 election had fueled the domestic terrorism threat, a point many Republican lawmakers have rejected. Earlier on Wednesday, House Republicans ousted Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming from her leadership position for publicly pushing back on Mr. Trump’s claims, in the latest sign of Mr. Trump’s continued hold on the party.

While the Justice and Homeland Security Departments have long been involved in countering violent extremism inside the country, Biden administration officials have said the Jan. 6 pro-Trump riot at the Capitol showed an urgent need to focus more on domestic extremism.

Senate Republicans did not share that focus on Wednesday and instead grilled Mr. Garland and Mr. Mayorkas on border security issues.

The top Republican on the committee, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, said that Democrats were politicizing the issue by describing violent domestic extremists as coming from the far right. He equated the Capitol riot to the protests against police violence last summer, and asked Mr. Garland why the Justice Department seemed to be prioritizing pursuing the perpetrators of the Jan. 6 attack over those who looted shops and attacked law enforcement during racial justice protests.

Mr. Garland said that “if there has to be a hard hierarchy of things that we prioritize,” the Jan. 6 attack would be at the top because it most threated democracy.

“I have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol,” Mr. Garland said, calling it “an attempt to interfere with the fundamental element of our democracy, a peaceful transfer of power.”

“That does not mean that we don’t focus on other threats and that we don’t focus on other crimes,” he said.

The Justice Department is leading the investigation into the Jan. 6 riot and has arrested more than 430 people across the country, Mr. Garland said. Prosecutors have begun informally negotiating plea deals, while some defendants have been fighting the charges.

Both Mr. Garland and Mr. Mayorkas said that the threat of domestic extremism had significantly changed because of online communications, particularly via encrypted apps, and the proliferation of increasingly lethal weaponry.

[girlactionfigure]

ISRAEL REALTIME - "Connecting the World to Israel in Realtime"

◾️MINISTRY SHUTDOWN… The Finance Ministry is recommending the shut down of 6 Israeli government ministries to recover budget to fund the war.  They are Diaspora Affairs, Jerusalem Affairs, Heritage, Settlement and National Missions, Regional Cooperation, and Social Equality.  No decisions on this recommendation yet.  In a related move, the Attorney General ruled that non-war-related coalition funds would be frozen.

◾️HOSTAGE FAMILIES BEG KNESSET TO NOT ADVANCE DEATH PENALTY… for terrorists.  Their representative said the life of hostages “is in the balance” with “a sword at their necks,” and pleads with MK Ben Gvir and committee chairman MK Tzvika Fogel not to advance the sensitive legislation at this time.  “If you recognize us, please remove this from the agenda; if you have a heart, please do not say we are representing the people who murdered our loved ones.”  Fogel said, “I am hinting that Hamas is trying to exploit you, yes. And I’m not hinting it, I’m saying it openly.”  The hostage forum said ““The discussion at this time endangers the lives of our loved ones, without promoting any public purpose.”

In reply, MK Limor Son Har was in tears during the debate saying: “20 years ago when my husband was murdered I didn't shout enough. The head of the terrorist squad that killed so many stood in court and gave a speech: "You are a weak nation, we are strong. We will wait until all our prisoners are released." And he was right, he was released in the Shalit deal together with Sinwar (the current head of Hamas in Gaza). So, I didn't shout enough. The blood of the 1,200 murdered is on my hands.”

(Amit Segal, Ch. 12 comments) This law has no chance of moving forward without the government's support. So what's the point of this fight that only makes Sinwar (Hamas leader) happy?  Coalition Chairman Ofir Katz:  A bill on the death penalty for terrorists will not be put to a vote in the plenary session before discussion and approval by the security cabinet.

◾️BIRANIT BASE (IDF, LEBANON BORDER)… The Biranit IDF base by the Lebanon border was targeted by 2 very-large rockets this morning.  Both missed but threw up huge plumes of smoke and started forest fires.  The Lebanese channels were gleeful assuming mass destruction from the explosive plume.  

IDF SAYS… IDF artillery struck in several locations in Lebanon. A number of launches were then identified from Lebanon into Israeli territory in the areas of Arab al-Aramshe, Biranit and Bar'am. No injuries were reported.  As a result of the launches toward the area of Biranit, a fire broke out. IDF and Israel Fire and Rescue Services are at the scene.

◾️NORWAY MEDIA - ISRAEL STARTED THE WAR… (by massacring itself?)  Dagbladet is the Nordic nation's third most circulated newspaper and, according to its report,  Israel is the one that started the war. This bit of news is accompanied with many photos, documenting the hardships Palestinians inside Gaza face as they head south together with accusations from Gaza civilians reported by Hamas reporters working for the paper that Israel is shooting civilians on the safe passage route - another common Hamas trope. (Ynet)  After much pressure, the article headline has been adjusted to add “in response to the terrorist attack on October 7”.

🔹WILL WE FORGET what was done to our brothers on October 7, and to our hostages after?  THE MEMORY of the Holocaust is fading with the lives of those who saw it.  WHO will speak for the murdered babies of October 7 if we refuse to see it?  Do not turn away, do not ignore, do not go about your lives.  We will witness, we will speak for the murdered.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Michael de Adder

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 30, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 31, 2024

Today, according to Clare Foran, Manu Raju, and Morgan Rimmer of CNN, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told his Republican colleagues that he will not bring forward the bipartisan immigration bill senators have been working on for months, calling it “absolutely dead.” 

Although Johnson insisted in November that border security was so crucial that he wouldn’t bring up aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and Gaza until such legislation was attached to it, Trump has made it clear he wants immigration and border security left on the table for him to use as an issue in his run for the presidency.

Instead of addressing border security through legislation, House Republicans instead are moving forward with their plan to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. They wrote articles of impeachment even before holding hearings. Today, members of the House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing to mark up those articles, which claim that Mayorkas committed high crimes and misdemeanors because he allegedly breached the public trust and refused to enforce immigration law. 

In all our history, only one cabinet officer has been impeached. William Belknap, whose eight years as secretary of war under President U. S. Grant had been marked by ostentatious displays of wealth and apparent kickbacks from army contracts, was charged with corruption in March 1876 just hours after he tearfully handed Grant his resignation. 

The House charged Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” The Senate agreed that it had jurisdiction to hold an impeachment trial even for a former government official, for an officer should not be able to escape justice simply by resigning. After hearing more than 40 witnesses, a majority of senators voted to convict Belknap on each of five charges, but no vote reached the necessary two-thirds threshold for conviction, and he was therefore acquitted. 

Almost 150 years later, the impeachment of Mayorkas would be the second effort to impeach a cabinet member. Yet there is no suggestion that Mayorkas has done anything but try to implement the law, even as the administration has repeatedly asked for more funding to make it possible for him to do his job.

In the hearing today, Representative Seth Magaziner (D-RI) noted that “across the system, we are at and above capacity, and so, what should the secretary do? The secretary, because he has not received the funding to provide adequate detention capacity, has to use his judgment for who to detain and who to release. That is not illegal. It is certainly not impeachable. And it is the exact same kind of discretion that every other director before him has used. In the last two years of the Trump administration, 52% of migrants apprehended at the southern border were released, not detained…. Nearly a million people. I did not hear my Republican colleagues trying to impeach the secretary or acting secretary under the Trump administration during those years. But here they are, trying to impeach Secretary Mayorkas for doing the exact same thing.”

Rather than passing the laws the country needs, the extremist Republicans appear to be determined to tee up an issue on which Trump can run for president in 2024. House speaker Johnson has demanded “ZERO” illegal crossings into the U.S., but this is a standard that no previous homeland security secretary has met because it is impossible to wall off every single means of entering this country by water, air, or land. And—despite Republicans’ false claims that Biden has established “open borders”—immigrants were more likely to be released into the country during Trump's term than during Biden’s. 

What is going on here is an attempt of the extremist Republicans to undercut the administration by attacking a key cabinet officer not for actual misbehavior but on policy grounds.  

There is no chance the Senate, dominated by Democrats, will convict Mayorkas even if the House, with its razor-thin Republican majority, impeaches him, but the extremist minority in the House that is going after him is attempting to set a precedent that a minority can stop the government from functioning. 

The cost of that obstruction has been clear in domestic politics over government funding, but it has now become a global issue over the question of U.S. support for Ukraine. Johnson had said he would not bring forward a bill to provide supplemental funding for Ukraine unless it included measures for increased border security; now his rejection of a bill to provide that border security threatens Ukraine aid. 

Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion by Russia, but the struggle there is larger than one between two countries: it is the question of whether the rules-based international order put in place after World War II will survive, or whether the world will go back to a system in which stronger countries can gobble up less powerful ones. 

Military aid for Ukraine is widely popular among Americans and among American lawmakers, who recognize the larger questions at stake. But extremist Republicans are siding with Trump, who has made his preference for Russia and its autocratic leader over Ukraine clear. The realization that a few extremist Republicans are scuttling Ukraine aid has prompted officials from both parties to warn of the consequences if the U.S. stops providing support to Ukraine.

In Foreign Affairs today, Central Intelligence Agency director Wililam Burns noted that the war has weakened Putin’s Russia significantly. Aid to Ukraine has amounted to less than 5% of the U.S. defense budget, “a relatively modest investment with significant geopolitical returns for the United States and notable returns for American industry,” he wrote.

“For the United States to walk away from the conflict at this crucial moment and cut off support to Ukraine would be an own goal of historic proportions,” Burns said. The secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Jens Stoltenberg, has been in Washington, D.C., this week, urging Republicans to back the aid, if only on the grounds that most of the money appropriated goes to support jobs in the U.S. 

The man behind the extremists, Trump, was in the news today for the fact that the political action committees that back him spent about $50 million covering his legal bills in 2023. That money came from donors and arrived primarily in the months after the 2020 presidential election, when Trump lied that he had actually won the election and needed financial support to challenge the results.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Alex Thompson at Axios:

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have become key players in the early planning for a second Trump administration's transition team, and would focus on vetting potential officials and staffers for ideology and loyalty, campaign aides and close allies to their father tell Axios. Why it matters: Neither brother would officially run Donald Trump's transition team, but they'd take a lead in making sure government jobs are filled by Republicans aligned with Trump's vision for the party, the sources said.

Don Jr.'s goal "is to keep the John Boltons of the world outside a second Trump administration," a person close to him told Axios, referring to Donald Trump's hawkish former national security adviser who wrote a bestselling book lambasting the former president.

The big picture: The brothers are stepping into the roles as their father is frustrated by other Republican groups such as the Heritage Foundation claiming they are leading the charge on scrutinizing the backgrounds of possible appointees.

The groups' aim has been to pre-vet potential contenders for Cabinet-level and lower staff positions to aid Donald Trump's desire to remake the government in his image — without the resistance he faced from career civil servants and some Republicans during his presidency.

Those efforts have included former Trump aides who could be in a future administration. Trump campaign advisers believe the groups can be helpful but have been infuriated as the Biden campaign has used the groups' policy papers to attack the campaign.

Last November, top Trump aides Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement that "any personnel lists, policy agendas, or government plans published anywhere are merely suggestions. Policy recommendations from external allies are just that—recommendations."

Reality check: Even if they're annoyed, it will be hard for the Trump brothers or the campaign to be broadly effective without drafting off the outside groups' work.

Zoom in: This isn't the first time that Trump has deployed family members to key positions to ensure loyalty throughout the GOP.

After Trump took control of the Republican National Committee recently, Eric Trump's wife, Lara, became co-chair of the RNC.

@axios reports on Trump brothers Eric and Donald Jr. as "loyalty czars" for their dad's potential transition team in the event of their win in the November election by vetting appointees' loyalty to the MAGA cult's vision of the GOP.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The real scandal is overclassification

The fact that every president and VP has a garage or filing cabinet or shoebox full of classified documents isn't (merely) evidence of political impunity - it's also the latest absurd turn in the long-running true scandal: the American epidemic of overclassification and excessive secrecy.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/30/i-come-to-a-land-downunder/#but-id-have-to-kill-you

Thousands of American bureaucrats have unilaterally classified tens of millions of unremarkable documents without any legitimate basis for shielding them from public view. Meanwhile, millions of people have "Top Secret clearance" and can view these documents, making a mockery of their supposed secrecy.

Writing for The American Prospect, David Dayen crystallizes the incentives, problems and corruption that we should be paying to, and laments that instead, we're scoring cheap political points about the recklessness of presidents and ex-presidents, heavily salted with paranoid fantasies about the Danger to National Security (TM) posed by letting these docs escape the airless chambers of official secrecy:

https://prospect.org/politics/2023-01-30-president-classified-document-scandal/

Overclassification is a well-documented (ahem) problem, used by bureaucrats to cover up corruption, crimes and incompetence, as well as out of the lazy reflex to declare everything to be secret. This is abetted by members of the vast "Intelligence Community" who have rotated into the private sector and have a lucrative side-hustle as TV talking heads who spin spy-thriller fantasies about the risks of these paper broken arrows.

Dayen points to Senator Moynihan's 1997 report on "Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy," and its conclusion that if you declare everything secret, then nothing ends up being truly secret. It's a brilliant, readable, devastating critique of official secrecy. Nothing has been done about its recommendations:

https://sgp.fas.org/library/moynihan/

In 2016, the House Oversight Committee concluded that 90% of classified documents should not be classified, the same figure that the DoD came up with in its own report, 60 years earlier:

https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/examining-costs-overclassification-transparency-security/

Meanwhile, the Information Security Oversight Office - which oversees classification - keeps ringing alarm bells about overclassification, with 50m+ documents being classified in a typical year. Rather than listen to the ISOO, Congress has cut its staff in half over the past decade. 620 ISOO employees oversee the three million Americans empowered to classify documents:

https://fas.org/irp/congress/2016_hr/overclass.pdf

In 2010, the Washington Post's Dana Priest and William Arkin took stock of the post-9/11 explosion in state secrets in their "Top Secret America" report: "No one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/top-secret-america/2010/07/19/hidden-world-growing-beyond-control-2/

Attempts to liberate classified docs using FOIA requests fail repeatedly, with US agencies returning heavily redacted documents, even blacking out a report on the plans of the "Group of the Martyr Ebenezer Scrooge [to hijack the Christmas Eve flight of] Prime Minister and Chief Courier S. Claus."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/magazine/the-strange-politics-of-classified-information.html

As Dayen says, the talking point from ex-spooks on TV that "overclassification is no excuse for bad document handling," is the equivalent of the old saw that "mass shootings are not the time to talk about gun control." And yet, the press keeps buying it.

Take the Politico op-ed by an ex-FBI spook, who turned the fact that "a foreign leader might like turnip-flavored ice cream into a classifiable scenario," proving that there is no overclassification excuse too absurd to get an airing:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/26/the-wrong-question-about-the-classified-documents-scandal-00079540

[Image ID: A photograph of the Military Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia. Displayed are some captured German records waiting to be boxed.]

[forgot-how-catflap-works]

Meet the ghouls squabbling for power in the race to rule the Tories

Tory MPs are donning their robes and sharpening their sacrificial blades this week as they prepare to ritualistically cull a second candidate from the Conservative Party leadership race. 

Priti Patel was eliminated last week after securing just 11.9% of the vote, which already sounds quite embarrassing, then you do the maths and realise that’s a total of 14 votes. Considering the sheer number of controversies that litter her political career like dog shit in a play park, I’m amazed she didn’t perform better.  

(Formerly of the tobacco industry, Patel voted in favour of overturning the smoking ban because she recognises that mainly poor people use public spaces so, y’know, fuck ‘em.) 

Patel resigned as Home Secretary in 2017 after attending up to a dozen private, unsanctioned meetings with Israeli officials where departmental business was discussed while she was on holiday.

This gross breach of the ministerial code wasn’t enough to prevent her from being reinstated to the position under Boris Johnson’s government, where she dedicated herself to ruthlessly targeting asylum seekers, lobbying for pharmaceutical companies during the height of COVID, and bullying her staff. 

Next up on the chopping block appears to be Mel Stride MP who narrowly escaped elimination last round with a whopping 16 votes. 

(Launching his campaign, Stride said the Tories need to “build trust with the electorate again", presumably so they can get right back to abusing it.)  

Mr Stride served as Financial Secretary to the Treasury in Theresa May’s cabinet, when he spearheaded the controversial loan charge policy which – as of January 2024 – has been linked to ten suicides. He was then elected as chair of the Treasury select committee, effectively securing himself a position where he was the one responsible for scrutinising his own dastardly deeds and, unsurprisingly, finding nothing to be concerned about. 

Former Minister of State for Security Tom Tugendhat limped a single vote ahead of Stride in the first round. Tugendhat is notable only in how boring he is, and hasn’t even breached the ministerial code once (that we know of). Total amateur. His strategy appears to be to fly below the radar, presumably in the hope the other candidates will destroy each other and he can rule over the ashes. 

(Having already lost one leadership race to Liz Truss of all people, Tugendhat looks like a surefire bet to lose another.) 

A former soldier, Tugendhat holds some classically conservative positions like increased military spending, opposition to the European Court of Human Rights and wanting a cap on immigration but these days that’s a mild salsa. He appears moderate compared to the others, and lacks the brain rot and crypto-fascist brainworms that UK conservatives have been steadily importing from America over the last decade. The most interesting thing about him is that he had to change his campaign slogan because the acronym spelled TURD. 

Now we’re done with the dregs, let's take a look at the front runners starting with weed smoking, Warhammer playing, porn enjoyer James Cleverly. That makes him sound much more interesting than he is. Having previously filled both the Home and Foreign secretary positions, Cleverly has long had leadership aspirations.  

(Cleverly once had to apologise for an “ironic joke” about spiking his wife’s drink with rohypnol during a Westminster reception, apparently being both a weird creep and not understanding the definition of irony.) 

Another paint-by-numbers Tory, he stirred up a fuss a few years ago by saying that gay football fans should show "a little bit of flex and compromise" when visiting Qatar for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. He added that it was "important when you're a visitor to a country that you respect the culture of your host nation." Cleverly it seems considers a seven year prison sentence for being gay little more than a cultural quirk rather than something queer football fans might have legitimate concerns over. Basically saying reign it in lads, no need to be homo in public. 

Landing in second place during the last vote is former Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch who claimed in a speech last year that transgender people could transition “too easily”. This is supported by the fact that waiting times for an initial assessment are as high as seven years in some parts of the country, so that definitely tracks. Badenoch clearly knows what she is talking about. 

(Speaking on the Spectator podcast, Badenoch said the Tories need to “stop acting like Labour”. I can only assume she misinterpreted the narrowing ideological gap between Labour and Tories as a softening in her party’s ranks rather than a calcification of right wing leanings in Westminster.) 

Characterised as an “anti-woke” politician, she has also supported conversion therapy for trans people. Speaking like someone who has never actually heard themselves talk, she also claimed that providing gender affirming care for trans kids was a “form of conversion therapy” intended to turn gay kids trans. It’s ironclad reasoning and, as a trans dyke, I value above all else the perspective of a cisgender, hetrosexual woman in all matters relating to queer issues. If anyone is going to lay down the law on who gets to be gay and in what way, it should be her. 

Badenoch bravely announced during a recent campaign video that she was unafraid of fictional character Doctor Who. Furthermore, as a woman of colour, she believes that Britain is not institutionally racist, so we can all stop worrying about that now. What a relief, I was starting to get really concerned about it. You know, what with all the institutional racism that’s been going around. But turns out that was a false alarm, which is probably why she also said “I don’t care about colonialism”. 

Badenoch came out swinging on the subject, making claims broader than my fat ass in order to minimise the brutality of Britain's well-documented colonial history. 

"There was never any concept of 'rights', so [the] people who lost out were old elites not everyday people,” she said in some leaked WhatsApp messages. It’s a relief to know that the three million people who died in the 1943 Bengal Famine were all elites. 

Lego figure cosplayer Robert Jenrick is the current frontrunner, having secured 28 votes in the first round. Jenrick served as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government under Boris Johnson where he dedicated himself to pulling political favours for luxury property developer and Tory party donor Richard Desmond. The move allowed Desmond to avoid paying a community council levy of £40 million which could have been used to fund schools and health clinics. 

(Courting the far right voters who flocked to Reform in the last election, Jenick resigned from his position as immigration minister, saying the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda didn’t go far enough.)

Grenfell United, the pressure group dedicated to securing justice for the victims of the Grenfell fire refused to meet with Jenrick in 2020, saying: "Your perceived focus on the interests of property developers over the needs of an impoverished local community has soured our opinion of you.” 

Jenrick also served as Minister of State for Immigration where he took aim at the greatest threat to our nation: unaccompanied asylum seeking children. During a visit to an intake centre in Kent last year he reportedly told staff to paint over a mural depicting cartoons and animals, saying it was a “law enforcement environment” and “not a welcome centre”. 

Finally, someone had the courage to put those kids in their place. If they wanted to experience even a single moment where they felt safe, or like they weren’t completely alone in this terrifying and hostile world, they shouldn’t have crossed the bloody channel should they? They need to learn that actions have consequences, unless of course you’re a Tory politician then you can basically just get away with whatever and certainly not have your political ambition stymied in the slightest. That would be unfair.  

With such political titans in the running, Labour should be quaking in its boots. This gaggle of ghouls is among the finest we could hope for, and the fact that they each crave power enough to run the highest office in the land should in no way concern anyone. As the old adage goes: Power corrupts, but only if you’re a little bitch. 

Which of these unscrupulous, foreigner hating, homophobes will proceed to the next round? Tory MPs will be casting their vote today in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, and trim the eligible candidates down to four. 

This three month slog is only just beginning, so buckle your pants because we have to put up with this fucking circus until November.

[usafphantom2]

India approves development of the 5ª generation 'AMCA' fighter

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 03/07/2024 - 20:03in Military

In a significant move, the Indian Cabinet Security Committee approved the fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) poaching project to be executed by the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO).

With an estimated cost of approximately US$ 2 billion, the project will be carried out by the Aeronautical Development Agency of the Defense Research and Development Organization. The goal is to develop poaching and its associated technologies in collaboration with several public and private sector entities. The plan includes the construction of approximately five prototypes within a period of about five years.

According to sources, the project will involve the production of the prototype by industry players, including the public sector company Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

AMCA ??

As CCS Chaired by PM Modi Clears India Stealth Fighter Jet Program. The total Program cost would be Rs 15,000 Cr & total 5 Prototype will be built in 5 Years with first Proto Roll out in 3 Year

All the Tech required for it already built & devloped.

— Vivek Singh (@VivekSi85847001) March 7, 2024

The government has actively sought the development of national technologies in the defense sector.

The Ministry of Defense predicts that the fifth-generation aircraft project will create numerous employment opportunities and may result in substantial commercial contracts worth millions of dollars for Indian companies. This initiative is expected to generate large-scale employment opportunities.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian Air Force has significantly strengthened its support for Indian fighter aircraft projects. This is evidenced by the government's acquisition of more than 200 light combat aircraft and the approval of engines for the LCA Mark-2 project.

The introduction of the AMCA into operational functions is expected to begin after 2030. The two initial squads are planned to be equipped with GE-414 engines, while discussions are underway for the co-development of more powerful engines for the subsequent squads.

India is expected to introduce more than 200 of these advanced fifth-generation fighters, which will also contribute to the country's ability to develop future generations of jet fighters in the domestic market.

Source: ANI

Tags: Military AviationHAL - Hindustan Aeronautics LimitedHAL AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft/Advanced Medium Combat AircraftIAF - Indian Air Force/Air Force of India

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

IMAGES: Romania organizes integrated training exercises for allied fighters

07/03/2024 - 16:00

MILITARY

AERALIS reveals common core fuselage model at DIMDEX in Doha

07/03/2024 - 14:00

FIDAE

Crews and aircraft of the Chilean Air Force will be deployed at FIDAE 2024

07/03/2024 - 13:00

BRAZILIAN AIR FORCE

FAB releases music video and documentary in honor of the C-130 Hercules

07/03/2024 - 12:00

HELICOPTERS

Germany will receive its entire new fleet of 60 CH-47F helicopters in eight years

07/03/2024 - 11:00

ARMAMENTS

USAF about to test ARRW hypersonic missile in the central Pacific

07/03/2024 - 09:30

homeMain PageEditorialsINFORMATIONeventsCooperateSpecialitiesadvertiseabout

Cavok Brazil - Digital Tchê Web Creation

Commercial

Executive

Helicopters

HISTORY

Military

Brazilian Air Force

Space

Specialities

Cavok Brazil - Digital Tchê Web Creation

[anarchywoofwoof]

January 11, 2023 9:15 AM EST

Whereas worldwide temperatures have increased by an average of 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, in Israel and the surrounding areas, average temperatures have risen by 1.5°C (2.7°F) between 1950 and 2017, according to the Israeli Meteorological Service, with a forecasted increase of 4°C (7.2°F) by the end of the century. Meanwhile, rising sea levels—projected by Israel’s Environment Ministry to be as high as a meter by 2050, according to a new investigative report by Haaretz newspaper—threaten to obliterate Israel’s famed beaches, damage its desalination plants and undermine the sewage and drainage systems of many coastal cities. In the densely populated Gaza strip, where 2.1 million Palestinians are crammed into 365 square km (141 sq. mi.), sea level rise means a loss of precious real estate as well as saltwater intrusion into an already overtaxed aquifer.

...

In an arid region already threatened by desertification and declining precipitation, one would think that the looming climate catastrophe would catalyze a powerful climate movement. Instead, the whole thing is largely an afterthought. Climate made barely a ripple in the recent Israeli election, and in Palestinian politics, it has been sidelined by the government’s justified preoccupation with, well, Israeli occupation. In forming his new cabinet, Netanyahu replaced a vetted environmental protection minister with the former chairperson of the Knesset’s Labor, Welfare and Health Committee, who is widely considered to be more palatable to his ultra-conservative allies in the new government.

...

The problem, says Majdalani, is that both Palestinians and Israelis are so focused on the politics of their current existence that they can’t plan for future threats. The late Palestinian-American social commentator and literary critic Edward Said once dismissed environmentalism as “the indulgence of spoiled tree huggers who lack a proper cause.” That sentiment still lingers, Majdalani says, casting climate activism as secondary to establishing a fully independent Palestinian state. “The average Palestinian wakes up in the morning worrying about how to get to work without crossing a checkpoint. Their priority is the [Israeli] occupation. For the Israelis, it’s security, the sense that there is a dangerous enemy on the other side that needs to be controlled.” Dror Etkes, an Israeli activist who campaigns against the growing number of illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian controlled West Bank, says that Palestinians are given little choice but to focus on the immediate threat. “Of course climate change is important. It’s going to influence life here enormously. But when you’re almost drowning, you don’t have the time to think about anything else. You just want to keep your head above the water.”

...

Meanwhile, the power imbalance between Jewish Israelis—even those who are politically left-wing—and Palestinians promotes fears among Palestinian climate activists that cooperation could be misinterpreted as “normalizing” relations before the conflict is resolved. It’s a situation that Majdalani, of EcoPeace, has frequently faced in her own activism. “There’s this pervasive sense of ‘we don’t cooperate with the occupier, it’s not the right political environment.’ But if we wait for the right political environment, we will lose more land. We will have more people suffering water shortages, more farmers leaving their farms, and the crisis will continue.” Meanwhile, progress on the two-state solution has effectively stalled under a far-right government that opposes any efforts to create a viable Palestinian state. If the expansion of Israeli settlements on what is supposed to be Palestinian land in a two-state future continues at the same pace, says Etkes, the anti-settlement activist, “[Climate change] might not even be a Palestinian problem in 30 years, it might just be a purely Israeli one.”