#access control systems uk

[tektronixtechnology]

The system works by using a camera to capture an image of a person's face and then processing it through an AI algorithm to identify the person. The algorithm compares the image to a database of known faces and determines whether the person is authorized to access the building or not. If the person is authorized, the system will automatically unlock the door for them.

Access Control System Abu Dhabi

Access Control System uae

Access Control System Dubai

Access Control System in Abu Dhabi

Access Control System Saudi Arabia

Access Control system

access control system suppliers in uae

access control system suppliers in Abu Dhabi

biometric access control system dubai

biometric access control system alain

access control system devices

access control system devices Dubai

access control system devices Abu Dhabi

access control system devices in Bur Dubai

access control system in sharjah

access control system installation

access control system installation Dubai

access control system installation Abu Dhabi

access control system installation in Alain

[transandrobroism]

notes/replies on that last post (about Florida moving to ban all HRT for adults) suggest it was struck down by a judge, which is a relief obviously. but i do wanna pick up on the response being "set up DIY networks for HRT! organise and help each other!" which is cool and all but... as the latest reblog comment points out, T is a controlled drug.

some quick and dirty googling confirms testosterone is a Schedule III controlled drug in the USA, with most legal sources suggesting possession and/or distribution of Schedule III drugs is a 3rd degree felony. conviction can mean up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. crucially, in Florida (where this law was intended to come into force), selling or distributing a Schedule III drug to minors pushes it up to a 2nd degree felony with a harsher fine/sentence.

i make this point because the response to HRT being restricted is often some variation of "mutual aid DIY network" or just flat suggesting DIY to people as the solution. which is cool if you're on estrogen, but possessing testosterone without a prescription is a literal felony in the USA. T is also a controlled drug in the UK, where trans people face long waiting lists for HRT - it's not illegal to possess T for personal use, but it is illegal to get them sent to you from abroad (importing a controlled drug) and to give them to other people (supply). to legally get T you need a prescription from a doctor.

in a hostile transphobic environment there is no guarantee that prosecuters will decide not to charge trans people for DIYing HRT. "set up DIY networks" for transmascs basically translates to "set up an illegal drug ring".

this is a form of transphobia that affects transmascs but does not affect transfems. it also affects nonbinary and intersex folks seeking or using testosterone HRT. in fact it could potentially impact some nonbinary trans folks worse because the medical gatekeeping around trying to transition as nonbinary is already an uphill struggle.

it is not easy for those of us on T to just DIY it and fuck the system. without a valid prescription our HRT becomes a banned illegal steroid that can land us in serious legal trouble if we get caught, especially if we're distributing it to other people as part of a mutual aid setup. i know we're all very "be gay do crime" for the memes but we are talking about an actual factual go-to-jail-irl crime here.

the fact that our HRT is an illegal drug unless prescribed by a doctor is a form of transandrophobia that affects trans men, transmascs, nonbinary people on masculinising HRT, and intersex people who want or need testosterone. it means that:

we cannot DIY transition without committing a crime, and have to weigh up that risk when considering DIY as an option

setting up a mutual aid testosterone DIY network is even more of a crime, especially if you want to use it to help trans teens

we are thus more dependent on placating medical practitioners and convincing them to prescribe us HRT

we will always be more impacted by any moves to restrict or delay access to HRT because we don't have an easy, legal DIY option

when access to HRT is limited for transphobic reasons, the DIY option comes at much higher risk

where access to HRT is severely delayed (as it is in the UK by years-long waiting lists), it is easier for transfems to start DIYing while they wait than it is for transmascs to do the same thing. in fact in the UK they've started selling estrogen HRT over the counter for menopause, so here if you want to start estrogen DIY all you have to do is get a cis lady friend to ask a pharmacist for menopause treatments. if you wanna start T you have to go on the fucking dark web (I'm exaggerating but... not a lot)

none of this is intended to suggest that transfems don't experience medical transphobia or gatekeeping and this isn't a "trans men have it worse universally across the board" post. there are undoubtedly some areas where it's harder to be transfem. however, this is one area where it is clearly and demonstrably harder to be a trans man. i am pointing this out because i keep seeing people saying that transmascs have it easier or there's no systemic or structural transphobia targeting trans men or we only ever experience misdirected misogyny or whatever. here is your proof that that is not true. this is a form of structural and systemic transphobia that impacts trans men and not trans women. and there is no possible world in which you can argue that testosterone being a controlled drug is somehow misogyny.

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week

1. ‘It was an accident’: the scientists who have turned humid air into renewable power

Greetings, readers! Welcome to our weekly dose of positivity and good vibes. In this edition, I've gathered a collection of uplifting stories that will surely bring a smile to your face. From scientific breakthroughs to environmental initiatives and heartwarming achievements, I've got it all covered.

In May, a team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst published a paper declaring they had successfully generated a small but continuous electric current from humidity in the air. They’ve come a long way since then. The result is a thin grey disc measuring 4cm across.

One of these devices can generate a relatively modest 1.5 volts and 10 milliamps. However, 20,000 of them stacked, could generate 10 kilowatt hours of energy a day – roughly the consumption of an average UK household. Even more impressive: they plan to have a prototype ready for demonstration in 2024.

2. Empty Office Buildings Are Being Turned Into Vertical Farms

Empty office buildings are being repurposed into vertical farms, such as Area 2 Farms in Arlington, Virginia. With the decline in office usage due to the Covid-19 pandemic, municipalities are seeking ways to fill vacant spaces.

Vertical farming systems like Silo and AgriPlay's modular growth systems offer efficient and adaptable solutions for converting office buildings into agricultural spaces. These initiatives not only address food insecurity but also provide economic opportunities, green jobs, and fresh produce to local communities, transforming urban centers in the process.

3. Biden-Harris Administration to Provide 804,000 Borrowers with $39 Billion in Automatic Loan Forgiveness as a Result of Fixes to Income Driven Repayment Plans

The Department of Education in the United States has announced that over 804,000 borrowers will have $39 billion in Federal student loans automatically discharged. This is part of the Biden-Harris Administration's efforts to fix historical failures in the administration of the student loan program and ensure accurate counting of monthly payments towards loan forgiveness.

The Department aims to correct the system and provide borrowers with the forgiveness they deserve, leveling the playing field in higher education. This announcement adds to the Administration's efforts, which have already approved over $116.6 billion in student loan forgiveness for more than 3.4 million borrowers.

4. F.D.A. Approves First U.S. Over-the-Counter Birth Control Pill

The move could significantly expand access to contraception. The pill is expected to be available in early 2024.

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved a birth control pill to be sold without a prescription for the first time in the United States, a milestone that could significantly expand access to contraception. The medication, called Opill, will become the most effective birth control method available over the counter

5. AIDS can be ended by 2030 with investments in prevention and treatment, UN says

It is possible to end AIDS by 2030 if countries demonstrate the political will to invest in prevention and treatment and adopt non-discriminatory laws, the United Nations said on Thursday.

In 2022, an estimated 39 million people around the world were living with HIV, according to UNAIDS, the United Nations AIDS program. HIV can progress to AIDS if left untreated.

6. Conjoined twins released from Texas Children’s Hospital after successfully separated in complex surgery

Conjoined twins are finally going home after the pair was safely separated during a complex surgery at Texas Children’s Hospital in June.

Ella Grace and Eliza Faith Fuller were in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for over four months after their birth on March 1. A large team of healthcare workers took six hours to complete the surgery on June 14. Seven surgeons, four anesthesiologists, four surgical nurses and two surgical technicians assisted with the procedure.

7. From villains to valued: Canadians show overwhelming support for wolves

Despite their record in popular culture, according to a recent survey, seven in 10 Canadians say they have a “very positive” view of the iconic predators. 

Here's a fascinating video about how wolves changed Yellowstone nat'l park:

----

That's it for this week :)

This newsletter will always be free. If you liked this post you can support me with a small kofi donation:

Support this newsletter ❤️

Also don’t forget to reblog.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The Cass Report is fatally flawed in its methodology, and as a result, its recommendations are harmful. Speaking on behalf of TransActual, Keyne Walker said: “It undermines the legal competence of both children and adults to access medical treatment and dismisses almost all existing clinical evidence on trans people’s healthcare by applying impossible evidence standards which, if applied to other medicines would invalidate more than three quarters of the existing treatments used in paediatric care which, like puberty blockers, are currently being prescribed off-label.” The report’s primary conclusions rest on excluding 98% of the relevant evidence on the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and hormones for lack of blinding and controls. What this means is that they require studies in which some patients are given the treatment, and others are unknowingly given placebos. This is not only a clear breach of medical ethics and monstrous suggestion, but also impossible due to the obviousness of the impacts of puberty blockers and hormones.  The report also strays far beyond its scope and competence in recommending a review of adult services and in suggesting that young people ought to stay under the care of children and young people’s services until the age of 25. The latter is based on highly questionable understandings of brain development which have been repeatedly debunked as an oversimplification of the constant changes in human neurology over the course of our lives.  This recommendation, especially in a context of an already broken system of care for both adults and children, has the potential to have a significant negative impact on the lives and wellbeing of trans people in the UK.  Underpinning this report is the idea that being trans is an undesirable outcome rather than a natural facet of human diversity. This is clear not only from the recommendations but also from the exclusion of trans researchers from the design of the review process and the links individual members of the research team have to anti-trans groups, which the Cass team were warned about. Download the full briefing

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive! (<-follow this link to access more than 1,000 news and opinion articles about covid and more!)

By Dr. Merrilee Fullerton

The U.K. COVID Inquiry is creating a much-needed push to update Infection Prevention & Control (IPAC) guidelines with respect to the predominant mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

COVID has finally begun to be acknowledged as an airborne disease, but policy hasn't kept up on the issue of aerosol spread, including how to deploy HEPA, UVC, masking protocols and other measures. Successful mitigation hinges on accurately identifying the mode of transmission as early as possible and clearly communicating appropriate guidance.

It’s not that washing hands is bad or should be stopped. It’s just that it shouldn’t be the main message or relied upon to address the transmission of COVID in a meaningful way.

Thorough updating of Public Health and IPAC guidelines with new scientific knowledge surrounding airborne spread is required along with more room for critical thinking and speed during responses to outbreaks of infectious disease such as COVID.

Accurately identifying the mode of transmission is not just an academic exercise. It is key to mitigating death, disease, and disability related to COVID as well as avoiding the massive toll on productivity and the economy that this disease has taken.

There are pivotal lessons to be learned through the U.K. COVID Inquiry which has been ongoing for a couple years, but it has only recently reached Module 3: The Impact of the COVID Pandemic on Healthcare Systems of the U.K. Included in this are issues surrounding transmission mechanisms and Long COVID.

Much can be learned from the U.K. Inquiry. Our Canadian experiences responding to COVID had many parallels to those of the U.K. Countries around the world were similarly impacted since most were following the advice and guidance produced by the World Health Organization which consistently repeated — erroneously — that COVID was not airborne.

The U.K. has proven to be transparent about peeling back the layers of Public Health measures and delving into scientific misunderstandings with respect to the spread and potential mitigation of SARS-CoV-2. The U.K. COVID Inquiry is being chaired by retired judge Baroness Heather Hallett who promised the inquiry would be thorough and fair. Lady Hallett has already provided the first report of the inquiry indicating “fatal strategic flaws” and calling for an overhaul of the national civil emergencies system with ten recommendations, including “a radical simplification of civil emergency preparedness and resilience systems.”

She also recommended external teams should regularly challenge groupthink on the principles, evidence and advice on emergency plans. An important point in the Executive Summary is as follows:

"Advisers and advisory groups did not have sufficient freedom and autonomy to express dissenting views and suffered from a lack of significant external oversight and challenge. The advice was often undermined by ‘groupthink’.”

This is a relatable point as I refer to Chapter 4 in my book, notably pages 74 to 83, where I describe the challenges I experienced in conveying my concerns about SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic, including the risk and likelihood of COVID being an airborne disease.

A major independent report by expert witness Professor Clive Beggs was provided to the Inquiry for Module 3. Beggs’ report is essential reading for anyone interested in the COVID pandemic response and future pandemic planning. See below for a series of excerpts highlighting the most significant findings.

Meanwhile, in Canada, instead of calling for a national inquiry into our own COVID response, the federal government has created another agency. On Sept. 24, 2024, federal Ministers of Innovation, Science and Industry, and Health announced the launch of Health Emergency Readiness Canada (HERC).

The official announcement outlined key features of HERC once it is operational:

Integrated decision making to build life sciences capacity

Strengthened partnerships with industry, academia and international counterparts

The development and maintenance of a Canadian industrial game plan to mobilize research and industry in the event of a health emergency

World-leading innovation to advance next-generation technology platforms

Sounds nice, but how about accurate and timely identification of the main mechanism of transmission and being open to hearing from highly qualified people who disagree rather than engaging in groupthink?

Critical thinking and swiftness are not often features of expanding bureaucracies and, too often, people within large bureaucratic structures must go along to get along to move up the hierarchy. Different perspectives may be seen as a nuisance, or even adversarial to the bureaucracy's stated aims. The ability to be agile in response to rapidly changing circumstances is critical, even foundational, but it's wholly unaddressed by grafting yet another agency onto our suite of existing agencies.

Recall that in 2004 a previous federal health agency was created with a mission to promote and protect the health of Canadians in response to the 2003 SARS crisis: PHAC.

The Public Health Agency of Canada was created to provide “clear federal leadership on issues concerning public health and improved collaboration within and between jurisdictions.” SARS-CoV-2 and the massive multi-year COVID pandemic, which is still ongoing, puts much doubt on PHAC’s ability to do what it was designed to do.

How about another agency then? And no information regarding costing or the additional staff.

HERC is intended to “bridge the gap between research and commercialization, meaning Canadians could get faster access to most relevant and effective vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and other products, including when they need them the most."

Faster access is certainly important, but will another layer of bureaucracy really speed up access and do what Health Canada and PHAC could not?

Health Canada was relatively slow in approving much-needed rapid antigen tests for COVID early on, when other countries had already done so. It’s hard to believe that slow bureaucratic processes will become faster with even more bureaucratic processes.

---

Dr. Merrilee Fullerton is the former Ontario Minister of Long-Term Care. Her book chronicling her time in politics, including the events surrounding Ontario's early pandemic response, can be read here.

---

I leave you with a series of excerpts from the UK COVID-19 Inquiry Module 3 concerning significant points from Professor Beggs' report. I expect Baroness Hallett will have recommendations pertaining to the airborne nature of COVID-19 and the failure of Public Health and IPAC to appropriately address the virus' mode of transmission.

Page 24, paragraph 54 and 55:

“While primarily focused on SARS-CoV-2, the discussion here is equally applicable to other respiratory viruses, such as influenza, as well as to TB. Historically, this subject has been largely neglected by the mainstream IPC community, with the result many misconceptions and erroneous ‘facts’ have crept into scientific literature, (culminating) in the WHO and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) denying in 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 could be transmitted by the airborne route. Therefore, in order to learn lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic, it is important to understand how infectious respiratory particles behave once they have been exhaled into room air."

"... this affords the opportunity for NPIs, such as improved room ventilation and air cleaning, to reduce the viral load and thus mitigate the risk of transmission.”

Page 36, Fomite and contact transmission of respiratory viruses, “Key findings:"

-It was assumed ... that contact transmission was a major contributor to transmission, but there was little evidence of this from studies of other respiratory viruses.

-Evidence for the effectiveness of handwashing in Covid-19, influenza and other respiratory viruses is mixed, showing only modest benefits.

-Transmission through the air is likely more important than contact routes, though occasional contact transmission is also possible.

-The assumption that contact routes are a major contributor to transmission was flawed, and led to many IPC policy-makers, practitioners and researchers requiring a higher standard of causal evidence to accept that airborne transmission was occurring than they required for contact transmission.

Page 41, paragraph 105:

“... evidence largely does not support the historical assumption that the contact and fomite routes make a major contribution to the transmission of respiratory viral infections. Indeed, the authors of the two 2011 PIP reports on influenza both concede this ... stating: "Since the role of hands in the transmission of influenza has actually never been demonstrated, one may hesitate to attribute a great proportion to this pathway.'"

"... it is surprising that at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the default assumption amongst the IPC and public health professionals was that the fomite and contact routes made a major contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission ... the first confirmed epidemiological association between surface contamination and the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 did not emerge until 2023 ...”

Page 46 and 47, paragraph 115 and 118:

"Many medical and IPC professionals have misconceptions regarding the nature and behaviour of infectious respiratory aerosols. These misconceptions are historical, widely accepted and often repeated in medical textbooks and in scientific papers, despite being factually incorrect."

"While the historical controversy surrounding droplets and aerosols might appear rather academic, in reality, the misconceptions held by the medical community on this subject had a far-reaching impact on the preparedness of the UK and the world for the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as on the IPC measures adopted and the PPE used."

"... IPC advice issued in the UK (and overseas) during 2020 and much of 2021 focused on prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the droplet, contact and fomites routes, rather than through aerosols."

Page 112, selected Recommendations:

- "i. A more multidisciplinary approach should be taken to future pandemic preparedness by the UK Government, including but not limited to hospital IPC. This should specifically include scientific advice from experts in the physical sciences ..."

-"iv. ... In particular, the duration of time that someone is exposed is of critical importance and should be acknowledged in guidance."

-"vi. There is a need for further multidisciplinary research to better understand how air and infectious aerosols move around hospital wards, so that appropriate strategies and standards can be developed for hospital ventilation systems to mitigate the transmission of infection."

"vii. There is a need for robust evidence and guidelines on the deployment of portable supplementary air cleaning devices (both HEPA and UVC devices) in hospitals, before and during the next pandemic. The evidence base in support of portable HEPA devices, in particular is reasonably strong."

"ix. ... guidelines need to consider the risks posed by patients and HCWs with regard to Covid-19 and influenza on general wards and in non-clinical areas such as waiting and staff rooms, so that prescribed ventilation regimes fulfil their role in the hierarchy of IPC controls to ensure that viral loads in the room air are maintained at safe levels.

"They also need to consider the role that CO2 monitoring might play in ensuring that day-to day ventilation rates in clinical and non-clinical spaces are maintained at appropriate levels."

[thefisherqueen]

I came across the surname Baskerville in a text completely unrelated to Sherlock Holmes (in a book about wild camping), and it's gives some really interesting insight into the history and present state of UK inherited titles and landownership so thought I would share!

'William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066 and then made himself king. It was like any other invasion of conquest, in any other time or realm. King Harold the Second was dead. Long live the King. Life goes on. But there was a difference. New laws saw all of the land seized by the Crown - a relatively unique development in the history of conquest. Sasxon barons were replaced by the Norman lords and their allies. The Domesday Book - the most definitive land registery document every devised - was produced on William's orders in 1086 to identify the new owners and their land holding and what they might owe, in tax, favour and loyalty, to the king: the sovereign Landlord.

Landownership had worked broadly in the same way ever since our ancestors abandoned the nomadic life, and took up the shovel and plough about 10.000 BC. What the Normans changed in Britain was the communal right of access over the land. That system of non-communal access is still very much in force today amoung the modern-day descendents of the Normans. Which is why William's 1086 census - the Domesday Book (and its modern version, the Land Registry) - remains so important. It serves as a legal document that established ownership by the legal holder of the title.

My research into where I could roll out a sleeping bag today meant looking at landownership. I discovered that very little had changed sinde the Norman invasion. Just 0,6 per cent of the population still owns 50 per cent of the British land, and most of this elite are the descendants of the 11th-century Norman aristocracy.

A report - "Who owns Britain?' - by Country Life magazine in 2010 was said to be the most detailed survey of its kind in over 100 years. The research claimed that just 1200 aristocrats and their families own 20 million of Britain's 60 million acres of land. The top private landowner in Europe was the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, who owned 240.000 acres in England and Scotland. Research by the London School of Economics in 2013 claimed that the Normans who conquered England - with surnames Baskerville, Darcy, Mandeville and Montgomery - still dominate the student rolls for Oxford and Cambridge universities, still make up a large proportion of the elite that holds the prime positions in professions such as medicine, law and politics. They also control a good number of the political agencies, public bodies and charitable organisations that oversee rules regulating land management and access.

But 1066 was about more than Saxon lords losing their holdings. It was how it affected the peasants that mattered most. The common rights over common lands like Sherwood Forest and the Kentish Weald were gone. Those rights included the right to roam over woodlands, marshes, moors and coasts of many common areas; to graze animals, collect wood for fuel, tools and buildings, to eat fruits, to collect water from rivers and streams, to catch fish and generally to do all the things that made it possible to live off the land."

From: Wild camping. Exploring and sleeping in the wilds of the UK and Ireland, by Stephen Neale, page 29

I've been to the UK several times for hiking trips, and I remember being puzzled by the system of access to nature at first. It is quite bewildering to be just walking on a perfecty good path, only to suddenly find it fenced off, with aggressive signs warning walkers to KEEP OUT!!! Why are hikers treated with so much suspicion even in areas famous for its good hiking? And what do you mean by Right of Way? How come there's major roads and motor cross terrains within a national park? (turns out they are largely privately owned). Myself, I've never been shy to climb the occasional wall or fence, and pitch my tent somewhere even on private lands. I consider it my own gentle way of resisting the very idea of private property, which creates so much inequality. I've never yet faced any trouble for it, by the way. Turns out land owners have little desire to actually hike on their lands, especially in rain or cold or darkness, and the people who work for them are usually not payed enough to care about a lonely hiker who is causing no disturbance or damage whatsoever xD

[ms-hells-bells]

The practice of men and women sharing hospital rooms violates human rights and should be prohibited, a group of academics argues.

In a paper just published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, the researchers outline how mixed-gender hospital rooms go against the fundamental human rights of personal security and dignity.

Lead author Dr Cindy Towns, of the University of Otago, Wellington, says placing male and female patients in the same room “compromises the safety of female patients and threatens the dignity of all patients”.

“Risk of rights violations and subsequent harm is exacerbated by the high rates of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairment experienced by people in hospital wards.

“New Zealand needs to immediately adopt specific national policies prohibiting mixed-gender hospital rooms and mandating public reporting of breaches,” she says.

Despite being prohibited in the United Kingdom for more than a decade, the practice is common and increasing in New Zealand.

Previous research by the group showed mixed rooms were common in a major New Zealand public hospital – in the more than 160,000 admissions analysed, 48 per cent were affected by mixed-gender rooms. The prevalence also increased over the eight-year period studied, and disproportionately affected vulnerable older adults.

Health system reviews, patient surveys and media reports in Australia and the UK have highlighted increased distress and fear of assault among women in mixed-gender rooms.

“Being forced into a room with men when unwell and vulnerable – often separated by only a curtain – may be traumatising to many women, even if the perception of threat or danger isn’t realised. It’s not surprising that the practice has been a frequent topic of complaint in feedback from patients, their families and the staff who care for them.

“Mixed-gender rooms breach the psychological safety of these patients, but this is avoidable by changing bed management practices,” Towns says.

The researchers argue that hospitals need to be designed with single-occupancy rooms as the standard of care.

“The majority of patients prefer having their own room. It allows for visitor access without disturbing other patients, improves infection control and enhances the disclosure of private health information.

“It would also enable more respectful care for gender-diverse patients who may not identify with a male or female gender binary.”

Because redesigning or rebuilding hospitals would take time, even if support and financing were obtained, the researchers argue the best approach to respect patient rights and reduce harm is single-gender rooms.

“Male and female patients express a preference for single-gender rooms. For female patients, this preference is associated with fear of violence while for male patients it is expressed as general concern and discomfort.

“Respecting these preferences is essential to maintain patient dignity during their hospital stay.”

[milfstalin]

There is much concern that Elon Musk’s Starlink intends to provide satellite internet coverage to the United States following the failure of its Red Sea “Operation Prosperity Guardian” alliance to curb Yemen’s pro-Palestinian front.

This conversation has gained traction since the company’s announcement on 18 September that it would launch services in Yemen after months of informal contracts with the Saudi-backed government in Aden. The timing of this announcement raised eyebrows, especially as it coincided with Israel’s terrorist attacks in Lebanon, involving exploding pagers and walkie-talkies.

[...]

The announcement that Yemen would be the first country in West Asia to have full access to its services surprised many – particularly because the US embassy in Yemen was quick to praise the move as an “achievement” that could unlock new opportunities.

[...]

The rival Sanaa government, under which most of Yemen’s population lives, was quick to warn that the Starlink project may threaten Yemen and its national security. Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of Ansarallah’s political bureau, criticized the US embassy’s stance, which he says:

"Confirms the relationship between the launch of Starlink and the war launched by America on Yemen, which threatens to expand the conflict to the orbits of outer space for the first time in history."

[...]

In March, the Financial Times reported that the US and UK faced intelligence shortfalls in their Red Sea campaign, particularly around the capabilities of the Ansarallah-aligned forces’ arsenal. This intelligence gap underlined the west’s need for a reliable spy network, and Starlink’s role in this context raises serious questions.

A Reuters report revealed that SpaceX had signed secret contracts with the US Department of Defense aimed at developing a spy satellite system capable of detecting global threats in real-time.

[...]

Another concerning aspect is the involvement of Israel. Israel’s spy satellites, OFEK-13 and OFEK-14, are reportedly linked to Starlink’s satellite network. SpaceX, as a third party, may provide critical guidance and intelligence to these satellites, further enhancing Tel Aviv’s surveillance capabilities in the region. This connection between Starlink and Israeli intelligence efforts has heightened fears in Yemen that the satellite network will be used to undermine the country’s security and sovereignty.

Currently, Starlink services are available primarily in Yemeni areas controlled by the Saudi and UAE-led coalition, although roaming packages allow temporary access in other regions. This has prompted concerns about data security, privacy, and the spread of misinformation, as unrestricted satellite internet bypasses local government control.

[...]

Moreover, cybersecurity risks are particularly troubling, as the network might be exploited for dangerous purposes, including facilitating terrorist activities like bombings. The presence of a global satellite internet service that bypasses local regulations raises concerns about its potential to disrupt local internet infrastructure.

Starlink could also introduce unfair competition to local provider Yemen Net, further marginalizing the national telecom provider and hindering local development efforts.

[...]

Dr Youssef al-Hadri, a right-wing political affairs researcher, shared his views with The Cradle on the recent events in Lebanon and the ongoing electronic warfare involving the US and its allies. According to Hadri, intelligence agencies operating in areas under the control of the Sanaa government face challenges in detecting the locations of missiles, drones, and military manufacturing sites.

This shortfall became even more apparent after a major intelligence operation exposed a long-running spy cell in Yemen, with activities spanning across multiple sectors.

From the risk of espionage to the undermining of local telecom providers, the implications of Starlink’s operations extend far beyond providing internet access – they could become a vehicle for foreign influence and control.

[...]

3 Oct 2024

[queer-crip-grows]

Right-to-buy council houses without specifically only releasing housing that already had a replacement built was of the most notable ways of the *many* that Thatcher et al screwed the UK.

I’d love to have a law put in place that landlords either have to sign contracts to provide housing under council house-type contracts with rent controls to people on housing benefit etc, or sell to the local council at compulsory purchase prices.

Same for all the houses not being lived in - use to house people under contractual controls, or have to sell to the council housing central fund.

Personally I’d start converting all the office units that are no longer needed because so many people are working remotely now into housing too.

Same for the huge city centre shops - I’m not sure if the pattern repeats elsewhere, but I live near Glasgow and the city centre has basically died since Covid. No one is renting the huge retail stores and the place is full of unhoused folk, which is a fucking scandal. So convert them into housing; let the buildings see use, and let those folks get off the streets. Pets and kids specifically allowed too - get families out of one-room shelters and into proper homes of their own.

I’ve heard that there would be issues putting in water infrastructure, but given the place is literally crumbling already and usage in so many areas is so low that having workers digging up the streets to install water lines wouldn’t cause enormous disruption, the time to do this is *now*. Build rainwater catchment and purification systems on roofs too - we get so much rain in the UK it’s kind of ridiculous not to use it! Some of that could go directly to drip irrigation in gardens, but plenty could go right into the houses/flats too. And of course this would provide tons of jobs in construction, architecture, planning etc etc.

Install gardens and green spaces around the place while you are doing this - offer some at low rent, or to buy cheaply, to market gardeners, but specifically put spaces in for communal gardens with the idea of offering allotments and encouraging people to grow their own food.

Put solar panels on every roof and integrate spaces for smaller wind turbines amongst the houses too. Huge storage batteries in basements to make the new blocks as low-footprint and self-sufficient as possible power-wise.

It would be a *fantastic* opportunity to create genuinely accessible housing - office buildings and shops already have lifts and wide corridors ideal for wheelchairs and other mobility devices, so keep that in the design when creating housing. There is a hidden epidemic of houselessness amongst disabled people and older folk with mobility needs, so create low-rent council housing that specifically fits those needs there.

It would regenerate the areas - all the smaller shopfronts not suitable for housing conversion would fill up with people offering the things people in residential neighbourhoods need, with a guaranteed payer base. People on low incomes *use* all of their incomes on necessities, so small businesses selling those necessities will do well. Offer small businesses low rents to provide those necessities. Any that don’t fill up, offer to charities and use for council staff offering the aid and advice people transitioning into housing actually *need*.

Carers are generally low-paid - so this would be an opportunity to offer them cheap housing close to a huge client base in the new accessible housing. No need for low-paid, mostly-female workers to dash constantly between clients in cars. They could walk to work and walk in between clients, who would also no longer be trapped in inaccessible homes, so people who are not actually bedbound would hopefully be less housebound.

Put rooms in the blocks for communal and co-op activities to reduce isolation - with the lifts and wide corridors, even people who are functionally housebound are likely to be able to make it to a room in their own building, and even quite young children could get to those places safely on their own if their parents are working. Wraparound childcare, paid and informal, near where folks actually live.

City centre areas that are now largely dead other than unhoused people, with limited and decreasing zero economic activity taking place and a decreasing incentive for businesses to set up there rather than in out-of-town retail parks people need to drive to, would become vibrant communities with every incentive for businesses to set up there, particularly for the small businesses that still employ the majority of people.

It wouldn’t take a lot to extend this model to transform those out-of-town business parks that are currently largely empty either; nothing says the businesses that are still there would need to move, and they would have a huge new pool of potential employees living within easily walkable distance, though there would need to be oversight to make sure places like Amazon didn’t attempt to buy them up and turn them into company housing. There would need to be a little more investment to provide green transport links like electric buses and trains so that it would be easier for small businesses to move in to provide services, but given the tax income that would result and the reduction in pollution the investment would probably pay itself back within a decade or so.

[mariacallous]

On Monday, the UK saw the closure of its last operational coal power plant, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, which has been operating since 1968. The closure of the plant, which had a capacity of 2,000 megawatts, brought to an end to the history of the country's coal use, which started with the opening of the first coal-fired power station in 1882. Coal played a central part in the UK's power system in the interim, in some years providing over 90 percent of its total electricity.

But a number of factors combined to place coal in a long-term decline: the growth of natural-gas-powered plants and renewables, pollution controls, carbon pricing, and a government goal to hit net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

From Boom to Bust

It's difficult to overstate the importance of coal to the UK grid. It was providing over 90 percent of the UK's electricity as recently as 1956. The total amount of power generated continued to climb well after that, reaching a peak of 212 terawatt hours of production by 1980. And the construction of new coal plants was under consideration as recently as the late 2000s. According to the organization Carbon Brief's excellent timeline of coal use in the UK, continuing the use of coal with carbon capture was given consideration.

But several factors slowed the use of fuel ahead of any climate goals set out by the UK, some of which have parallels to the situation in the US. The European Union, which included the UK at the time, instituted new rules to address acid rain, which raised the cost of coal plants. In addition, the exploitation of oil and gas deposits in the North Sea provided access to an alternative fuel. Meanwhile, major gains in efficiency and the shift of some heavy industry overseas cut demand in the UK significantly.

Through their effect on coal use, these changes also lowered employment in coal mining. The mining sector has sometimes been a significant force in UK politics, but the decline of coal reduced the number of people employed in the sector, reducing its political influence.

These had all reduced the use of coal even before governments started taking any aggressive steps to limit climate change. But, by 2005, the EU implemented a carbon trading system that put a cost on emissions. By 2008, the UK government adopted national emissions targets, which have been maintained and strengthened since then by both Labour and Conservative governments up until Rishi Sunak, who was voted out of office before he had altered the UK's trajectory. What started as a pledge for a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 now requires the UK to hit net zero by that date.

These have included a floor on the price of carbon that ensures fossil-powered plants pay a cost for emissions that's significant enough to promote the transition to renewables, even if prices in the EU's carbon trading scheme are too low for that. And that transition has been rapid, with the total generations by renewables nearly tripling in the decade since 2013, heavily aided by the growth of offshore wind.

How to Clean Up the Power Sector

The trends were significant enough that, in 2015, the UK announced that it would target the end of coal in 2025, despite the fact that the first coal-free day on the grid wouldn't come until two years after. But two years after that landmark, however, the UK was seeing entire weeks where no coal-fired plants were active.

To limit the worst impacts of climate change, it will be critical for other countries to follow the UK's lead. So it's worthwhile to consider how a country that was committed to coal relatively recently could manage such a rapid transition. There are a few UK-specific factors that won't be possible to replicate everywhere. The first is that most of its coal infrastructure was quite old—Ratcliffe-on-Soar dates from the 1960s—and so it required replacement in any case. Part of the reason for its aging coal fleet was the local availability of relatively cheap natural gas, something that might not be true elsewhere, which put economic pressure on coal generation.

Another key factor is that the ever-shrinking number of people employed by coal power didn't exert significant pressure on government policies. Despite the existence of a vocal group of climate contrarians in the UK, the issue never became heavily politicized. Both Labour and Conservative governments maintained a fact-based approach to climate change and set policies accordingly. That's notably not the case in countries like the US and Australia.

But other factors are going to be applicable to a wide variety of countries. As the UK was moving away from coal, renewables became the cheapest way to generate power in much of the world. Coal is also the most polluting source of electrical power, providing ample reasons for regulation that have little to do with climate. Forcing coal users to pay even a fraction of its externalized costs on human health and the environment serve to make it even less economical compared to alternatives.

If these later factors can drive a move away from coal despite government inertia, then it can pay significant dividends in the fight to limit climate change. Inspired in part by the success in moving its grid off coal, the new Labour government in the UK has moved up its timeline for decarbonizing its power sector to 2030 (up from the previous Conservative government's target of 2035).

[beardedmrbean]

EU’s proposed Chat Control law has become a bone of contention between members of the bloc. First proposed by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson in May 2022 as part of bloc’s push to combat child sexual abuse online, the framework of the bill has now come under fire, earning itself a derisive term “Chat Control”. 

France, Germany and Poland have particularly refused to accept a clause that allows for mass scanning of private messages by breaking end-to-end encryption. Some tech companies, along with trade associations, and privacy experts have all vehemently opposed the regulation. 

On the other hand, Interior Ministers of Spain and Ireland have supported the proposal. Separately, a network of organisations and individuals, advocating for children’s rights in Europe, have lashed out at EU leaders for failing to tackle child sexual abuse online. 

What are the concerns of those against the proposal?

Scanning end-to-end encrypted messages has remained a controversial issue. That’s because there is no way to do this without opening risky backdoors that can be accessed by third parties who can exploit the vulnerability, in turn ending the promise of end-to-end encryption.

Tech firms that treaded the encryption bypassing path have have often been made to retreat. In 2021, Apple announced NeuralHash, a feature that could automatically scan iCloud photo libraries of individual devices for child sexual abuse material, or CSAM. Employees and activist groups expressed concerns over the loss of privacy. A year later, Apple said it had abandoned the initiative. 

Another looming issue the iPhone maker recognised in the process was how authoritarian governments could potentially misuse the feature by using it as a tool to target individuals who oppose the regime.

Erik Neuenschwander, Director of user privacy and child safety at Apple, admitted this in a note saying, “It would […] inject the potential for a slippery slope of unintended consequences. Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types.” 

When brining in a similar clause through the UK’s Online Safety Bill, lawmakers attempted to make way for client-side scanning of private and encrypted messages. The proposal was postponed after receiving pushback from encrypted messaging app owners like WhatsApp and Signal. The duo threatened to leave the UK if such a law was passed. In its final stages, in September, 2023, the House of Lords considered the potential security threat that the clause would bring saying it would not implement scanning until it was “technically feasible.” 

What is the status of EU’s Chat Control law?

On June 30, a new draft of the proposal is set to be be reviewed. Legislators have now left the idea of scanning text messages and audio, and are instead targetting shared photos, videos and URLs with an adjustment to appease the naysayers. 

Another tweak in the making could be people’s consent in sharing material being scanned before being encrypted. But this compromise has been largely called out as a farcical one. A report by Euractiv which has been confirmed by internal documents show that if a user refuses the scanning, they will simply be blocked from sending or receiving images, videos and links hardly leaving them with a choice.

Despite these measures, EU’s enforcement of such regulations have seen exemptions to the rule. In November 2023, the European Commission reportedly published a proposal to amend the regulation on a temporary derogation of the E-Privacy Directive against CSAM. Under the regulation, specific online communications service providers were allowed to sift through or scan messages to detect, report and remove online child sexual abuse material or CSAM and content that solicits children. The regulation is set to expire in early August . The initial plan on the table was to simply extend this regulation for another three years. But, according to media reports, plans for further extensions were stalled in February this year.

Meredith Whittaker, President of Signal app called the measures to assuage concerns as “cosmetic”, and has signed a joint statement along with a group of over 60 other organisations like Mozilla, Proton, Surfshark and Tuta, voicing out her concerns. Whittaker has echoed her earlier warning saying Signal will leave the UK rather than undermine end-to-end encryption. 

A blog, co-authored by Riana Pfefferkorn, a research scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory and Callum Voge, director of government affairs and advocacy at the Internet Society, notes, ”If government surveillance is a concern in an established democratic entity like the EU, what hope is there for beleaguered democracies like Turkey, India and Brazil, much less autocracies?”

[heresylog]

do you have pokemon sleep?

No, I collected snippets of their privacy policy. I was very uncomfortable with them collecting this data about my sleep habits.

5. WHO WE MIGHT SHARE YOUR INFORMATION WITH

In connection with the purposes and on the lawful grounds described above, we will share your personal information when relevant with third parties such as:

(f) Ad network. Service providers that deliver information to you via ad network system regarding Pokémon's current or future products and services (Adjust KK, based in Japan, and its subcontractors, such as Adjust GmbH, Lease web Germany GmbH, Lease web Netherlands B.V., and Leaseweb USA, Inc., based in Germany, Netherlands, and USA).

(g) Other third parties (including professional advisers). Any other third parties (including legal or other advisors, regulatory authorities, courts, law enforcement agencies and government agencies) based in the UK, USA, Japan, and other countries/regions to enable us to enforce our legal rights, or to protect the rights, property, or safety of our employees, or where such disclosure may be permitted or required by law.

We, and others, use cookies, web beacons, device IDs, and other tracking mechanisms to ensure that you get the most out of our App. Cookies are small amounts of information in the form of text files which we store on the device you use to access our App. Cookies and other tracking mechanisms, such as device IDs, allow us and others, to monitor your use of the software, simplify your use of our App, and to help us and others associate the mobile devices you use, your activities across websites, and your browsers for advertising purposes.

7.2 Our website may contain content and links to other sites that are operated by third parties that may also operate cookies and other tracking mechanisms. We do not control these third-party sites or their tracking activities, and this Privacy Notice does not apply to them. Please consult the terms, conditions, and Privacy Notice of the relevant third-party site to find out how that site collects and uses vour information and to establish whether and for what purpose it uses cookies.

8. HOW WE LOOK AFTER YOUR INFORMATION AND HOW LONG WE KEEP IT FOR

8.1 We use appropriate technological and operational security measures to protect your information against unauthorized access or unlawful use.

8.2 We will retain your information for as long as is appropriate to provide you with the services that you have requested from us or for as long as we reasonably require to retain the information for our lawful business purposes.

[probablyasocialecologist]

This is The Farming Left: these land workers share a politics, united by the concept of food sovereignty: the right to control of local food systems, which originated with farmers in the Global South. ‘We’re talking about equitable access to resources to enable localised food supplies’, explains Fernandes. These organisations are tackling the challenges of access to land in an unequal landscape: the Ecological Land Cooperative, for example, purchases large plots and obtains planning permission for dwellings before parcelling them up into affordable smallholdings.  The Kindling Trust in Manchester is also seeking to foster a new generation of agroecological farmers. The Trust, which was established in 2007, has a veg box scheme and a community garden, and also offers training to new entrants, but there has always been a long-term plan to establish a cooperative farm. Since raising over a million pounds from more than six hundred investors last year, the Trust is looking to purchase a 120-acre farm in the Manchester area. ‘We want people to feel ownership in whatever way they get involved’, explains co-founder Chris Walsh. Whether they are founding members, workers, investors, or tenants, they will all be represented equally on a governing board.   There ‘is a need for a rural radicalism’ of this kind, argues Chris Smaje, farmer and author of A Small Farm Future (2020). ‘It’s about trying to de-commodify land and take it out of speculative ownership’, he explains. For Smaje, who plans to purchase a 20-acre plot to be divided up among several small-scale farmers, the goal is ‘to build a land-based community’ and ultimately ‘generate more of what we need within our own communities’.  While the radical agrarian community in the UK pales in comparison to the strength of conservative farming interests, this fight for land – and the right to use it – is happening on a global scale. The international peasants’ movement is connected through the 200-million strong La Vía Campesina, linking groups such as Brazil’s Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), or ‘Landless Workers’ Movement’, which has, since the 1980s, been occupying land to their counterparts across the world. The world’s farming Left is a David to big agribusiness’s Goliath, the latter having been bolstered by states, major international institutions, and the liberalising of global political economy since the Second World War. From Zapatistas to Scottish crofters, the peasants’ movement is fighting to turn the tide on our social and ecological future before it is too late.

[mixotrophics]

Recently, a copy of Alpines & Bog Plants by Reginald Farrer fell into my hands (thank you, antiquarian bookseller). At first I thought it would be botany but it is actually a mix of hobbyist naturalist & horticultural anecdotes.

It’s a first edition, published in 1908 -- remarkably well kept, pretty obvious spotting & foxing and one plate appears to be detaching from the spine. The book is remarkably poetic, but it would be free verse with binomial nomenclature, which I haven’t seen before,

The dedication is an excerpt from Hippolytus by Eurypides, roughly (according to my friend who studies classics): “For you, lady, I bring this plaited garland I have made, gathered from an inviolate meadow, a place where the shepherd does not dare to pasture his flocks (except rabbits), where the iron scythe has never come;” In Hippolytus this is spoken to Artemis, but in this case the dedication is to Farrier’s mother which is heartwarming :) Here I will note that the idea of “nature” as something undisturbed (ungrazed, unharvested) is central to the colonial conceptualisation of ecology and has contributed to the forceful removal of indigenous peoples from their land (and the subsequent loss of biodiversity, as humans are not separate from nature and we can play an important role in ecosystems) Not calling Eurypides or this book inherently bad/colonial (more on the book & colonialism later) but this idea is def present in modern ecology and colonialism and important to highlight when present.

The book is full of black&white photographic plates which have held up really well for being over a century old. The plates themselves are beautiful:

The photographs were taken in Farrer’s own garden. Little snapshots of the past :)!!

The text content of the book is quite intriguing and not all good, definitely carries heavy cultural baggage as does modern Western biology in general. I will preface this by saying I have absolutely not battled my way through this book, but I have read sections. there is a definite 1900s-Englishman tone in all the ways that can mean. part of that is most certainly a degree of both xenophobia and orientalism. When venerating the beauty of the wilderness and of Japanese/Chinese garden design, there is obvious othering in the language used & Farrer is dismayed at the effects of cultural transmission (this is most notably in European gardens attempting to mimic the artistic style of east Asian gardens but using the “wrong” plants, usually European plants rather than importing non-native varieties that are more “authentic”). Farrer was deeply in love with Asian biota and was notable for collecting plants to bring back to Europe, and while I cannot speak on Farrer’s techniques specifically, such practices are deeply intwined in racism and colonialism. In many cases, economic systems & resulting hardships forced on other cultures by Europeans allowed them to exert control over certain groups, stripping them of agency and employing them to extirpate “uncooperative” groups. I haven’t found anything re:Farrer in this context but it is essential to place the entire book within this context!!

However the majority of the book is Farrer describing gardening as well as his travels to collect plants for propagation in the UK (notably he died while on one such plant-collection travel). Apparently (& corroborated by the preface) the plants he searched for were ones that would grow well in the UK w/o much care, to make having a cool garden more accessible regardless of income. so if a plant needed extensive care and things like hothouses, it was not his priority.

The way he describes plants is vaguely anthropomorphised in a generally appealing way, trying to make the reader appreciate the plant for things such as hardiness and robustness, which I suppose would align w/ the idea of making gardening easier. also in the sense that the robustness is tied in with beauty as well, as these features are of course not opposed to one another.

I may snoop through this book further to see anything else , we will see.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Water is essential for all life on Earth. But one-third of the world’s population do not have access to a supply of safe drinking water (a situation that is worsening). A third of all deaths in the world are the results of water-borne diseases. Water is a limited but endlessly renewed resource; its pollution, mismanagement and overuse by corporations, governments and people (turned into ‘consumers’ in a world that is not of their making) threaten to turn a global crisis into a long-term planetary disaster. The Vice-President of the World Bank, Ismail Seregeldin, stated in 1995 that “the wars of the next century will be over water… by the year 2025, the amount of water available to each person in the Middle East and North Africa will have dropped by 80% in a single lifetime”.

Disputes and Wars

40% of the world’s population depend on water from a neighbouring country. Over 200 large rivers are shared by two or more countries. In modern times the existence of vast cities, irrigated agriculture and the demand for hydro-electric power have led countries to claim or steal water resources once used by others. The cutting up of river systems by state boundaries has aggravated the problems of responding to floods. The political and engineering structures that bring economic power and political control to national and international elites also threaten lives and livelihoods. One reason for Turkey’s refusal to grant autonomy to the Kurds is the importance of water resources in eastern Turkey. Attempts to divert the sources of the River Jordan in South Lebanon and the Golan Heights provoked the Israeli-Arab War of 1967. Following this, Israel began to appropriate water supplies to support new settlements and supply towns and industry in Israel proper: Israel annually pumps 600 million cubic metres of water (over 30% of its supply) from aquifers that lie wholly or partly under the West Bank. 115 million cubic metres are allocated to the 1.4m West Bank Palestinians and 30m to 130,000 Jewish settlers; the rest (455 million cubic metres) goes to Israel. West Bank Palestinians have been barred from digging new wells or renovating old ones since 1967. Egypt offered Israel 400m cubic metres of fresh water a year to settle its conflict and assist the Palestinians; but there is still no agreement over water for the West Bank. There is a continuous threat of water wars in South Asia between India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Large-scale deforestation upstream results in increasingly widespread flood disasters below. Punjab water was an important contributory factor to the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. Hindu nationalism has been fuelled by the unfair distribution of India’s water to the Sikh Punjab and led to the storming of the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984.

Modern wars depend on the destruction of the civilian population’s means of life and livelihood. In 1991 in Iraq, for example, the deliberate destruction of power supplies by bombing and war created a huge health problem. Over 90% of sewage treatment plants were disabled with huge amounts of untreated domestic and industrial sewage being pumped into rivers, creating an increase in water-borne diseases. Agricultural production was slashed by the breakdown of the electrically powered irrigation network. Before the Gulf War Iraq produced 30% of its food. Prior to the US-UK assault on Iraq in 2003, the figure was 10–15%.

[warningsine]

Nine months of war between Israel and Hamas have brought nothing but misery. Over 38,000 Palestinians have lost their lives in the extensive Israeli airstrikes and ground invasion. New dioramas of gore and obliteration, like mediaeval apocalypse imagery, have spread across social media. Reports of potential ceasefire and hostage and prisoner exchange deals stretch cruelly over many months. At the time of writing, there is still no agreement. 

As a Palestinian—although fortunate enough to be living in the UK, and not Gaza—I’ve felt both overwhelmed and terrified since last October. Not just by the suffering of innocent Palestinians crushed beneath the Israeli war machine, but also by the suffering of innocent Israelis massacred and kidnapped from their homes and at a music festival on 7th October.

Most of Gaza’s 2.3m residents have been forced to evacuate their homes due to the ongoing conflict. Most now live in encampments among the wreckage. The borders with Egypt and Israel remain closed. There has been no mass evacuation of civilians as there was in recent wars in Ukraine or Syria, although a few Gazans have been able to bribe Egyptian authorities to let them out into the Sinai. The price is extortionate—thousands of dollars per person.

A survey conducted last month by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) found that 80 per cent of Gazans report a family member of theirs has been killed or injured in this war. The same survey found that 36 per cent of Gazans are unable to secure sufficient food for themselves and their families—although this is an improvement on the situation three months ago, when, according to a previous poll, 55 per cent of Palestinians in Gaza were unable to do so. 

More than 50 per cent of Gaza’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged; schools, universities, hospitals, and clinics have been devastated. The war has overloaded what remains of the healthcare system. The situation is critical. A large portion of the population is still struggling to access fundamental necessities like food, water, and medical care. Children have starved to death due to famine. 

Across the scattered diaspora, Palestinians are despairing. The present war is another calamity heaped atop a long list of catastrophes that have befallen our nation in the past century. On social media, there is a widespread sense of injustice and mourning at the deaths and displacement of civilians, and the destruction we are witnessing. But the sadness of diaspora Palestinians cannot compare to the dreadful reality of those living in Gaza.

There are limitations to carrying out polling in a war zone. Conducting systematic interviews of displaced, homeless people is difficult. In Gaza, respondents might not trust the interviewer, presuming them to be gathering intelligence for Hamas or Israel. Individuals with unconventional views may fear—with good reason—that expressing their views publicly carries a grave risk. They could be accused of being a traitor or collaborating with Israel.

But the existing polling does gives us some sense of Palestinian public opinion in the West Bank and Gaza. In the same PCPSR survey, support for Hamas’s attack against Israel remains high—with 67 per cent of Palestinians claiming it was the right decision, though there has been a decrease in support among respondents in Gaza. The PCPSR is careful to point out that this support does not necessarily mean agreement with the war crimes committed by Hamas; it is a reflection of recognition that the 7th October attack has brought attention to the Palestinian cause. The poll also found that 61 per cent of Palestinians want Hamas to remain in control of Gaza, a possibility rejected as a non-starter by Israel and the US. Hamas, for its part, stated in November last year that it intends to repeat the October 7th massacre until Israel is destroyed, and a new Palestinian state—led by Hamas—is founded between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea.

Of course, Hamas does not represent all Palestinians. There are many dissenting voices across the population, and other political parties. Earlier this year, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Palestinian-American activist, wrote that “Many Gazans like me despise Hamas but are too scared to speak out.... I have seen thousands of Gazans expressing a loathing for Hamas on social media, criticising its failures to govern properly and provide electricity, employment and peace.”

The Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership in the West Bank has not joined Hamas’s war efforts against Israel. Instead, the PA is trying to achieve legitimacy for the Palestinian people via a strategy of diplomacy and recognition through international institutions such as the UN. The strategy has borne fruit—144 of the UN’s 193 member states now recognise Palestine, most recently Spain, Norway, the Republic of Ireland and Slovenia, though the survey found support for dissolving the PA at 60 per cent. The new British government so far has stopped short of committing to such recognition.

Reflecting a growing diversity of opinion, last month’s poll shows that support for continuing the strategy of armed struggle has dropped significantly. While in December 63 per cent of those surveyed supported armed struggle, in June it was 54 per cent. And the numbers are rising in support of negotiations and non-violent resistance, too—from 20 per cent and 13 per cent respectively in December, to 25 and 16 per cent last month.

What do Palestinians want? According to the polling, 47 per cent prioritise ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as the capital. This is something of a return to form. In a 2018 poll, a large majority of Palestinians expressed a willingness for compromise to reach a deal—two thirds of Gazans were willing to give up the possibility of any kind of right of return to Israel in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state.

Indications that support for a two-state solution is resurgent carry hope for a renewed peace process once this war is over. Perhaps such a process could even provide a foundation for mutual coexistence, economic development and the righting of injustices. The truth is that the pre-7th October status quo of military occupation, checkpoints, blockade, Israeli settlers rampaging across the West Bank and Palestinian statelessness was never going to be sustainable. But rather than debating and relitigating the strategic errors of the past and the failures of previous negotiations, Palestinians—and Israelis—need to embrace any opportunity for de-escalation. 

As is repeated to the point of cliché, neither Palestinians nor Israelis are going anywhere. Palestinians are a deeply resilient people. The fabric of our culture—our foods, our keffiyehs, our distinctive dialect of Arabic—will survive long into the future. And as best as I understand it, Israelis are a deeply resilient people too, with Jews having survived the Holocaust, centuries of anti-Jewish pogroms, and multiple wars with their Middle-Eastern neighbours—Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians. 

Israelis and Palestinians have deep historical roots in the land; they have a strong sense of national identity, and a desire for self-determination. These don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Over the past century there have been opportunities for de-escalating the violence and building living side-by-side in peace. The tragedy is that they have been missed.