Day: February 24, 2024

Members of the Azerbaijani tumbling team have competed in the qualifying rounds of the Trampoline and Tumbling World Cup in Baku, Azernews reports.

Armenia’s Pashinyan meets with French PM Gabriel Attal  ARMENPRESS

Fifteen people have been killed and more than 40 injured after a fire ripped through an apartment building in eastern China, the BBC reports.

Footage shared on social medal showed flames and plumes of black smoke engulfing several floors of a skyscraper in Nanjing city.

Officials suggested the blaze started on the first floor of the building, where electric bikes were being stored.

But the specific cause of the fire remained under investigation.

The building is located in the Yuhuatai district of Nanjing, a city of more than eight million that lies about 162 miles (260km) north-west of Shanghai.

Emergency service crews were first alerted to the blaze at 04:40 local time (20:40 GMT) on Friday, officials said on Saturday morning.

Twenty-five fire engines and 130 firefighters were sent to tackle to the blaze. By 06:00 (22:00 GMT), the fire had been extinguished, with the search and rescue operation ending around 14:00.

Of the 44 injured people sent to hospital for treatment, one is in a critical condition and another seriously injured, the officials said.

By Mohamed Amersi

(FPRI) — There was a time when the United Kingdom was regarded as the world leader in soft-power diplomacy. The British were bridge builders, called upon to settle intractable conflicts; when its foreign secretary went somewhere, they were taken seriously, its embassies and consulates were well-resourced, and the country’s diplomats were first-class.

However, since the end of World War II and the dismantling of the British Empire, the United Kingdom has failed to find its identity or a role on the global stage. It appears to be lurching from problem to problem, without any clear strategy. The only constant has been a deep, unquestioning subservience to US objectives. This must change.

Is the Relationship So “Special” After All?

The much-discussed, and often derided, “Special Relationship” has been the guiding light of UK foreign policy since Britain lost its great-power status. However, in its eagerness to be seen as America’s fiercest ally, London has lost its voice in the relationship. Since the turn of the millennium, the United Kingdom has blindly followed the United States into conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya—a series of misguided interventions that have in part contributed to the events now unfolding in the Middle East with an emboldened Iran. 

Let no one be under any doubt: The prospects of a second Trump presidency would be catastrophic for the United Kingdom. It would threaten the country’s national security, challenge the very existence of NATO, and undermine long-held concepts of collective defense.

Britain needs to begin contingency planning for a Trump victory, warned three leading former diplomats, Simon McDonald, head of the Foreign Office until 2020, and John Kerr and Sir Peter Westmacott, who both ran the UK embassy in Washington. It poses an unprecedented threat to the national interest.

So, what is Britain left with? The country has two choices: continue to hitch itself to the US bandwagon with declining influence, or reconnect with its long tradition of statecraft, putting soft power at the center of its identity and re-engaging with the world more constructively. 

Uncoupling from the United States and pursuing an independent foreign policy is long overdue and there is no better time. World order is being reshaped with the rising influence of the East, and if it does not change course, the United Kingdom will be viewed as part of Western decline. The country should take this opportunity to adapt its approach and find a way to become meaningful and relevant. 

A New Approach, Centered on Soft Power

Whilst Charles A. Ray correctly points out in his essay on this topic that the United Kingdom benefits from US security guarantees, it too often brings with it expectations of support on US-led, misguided military exercises. The United States traditionally leans heavily on their military might to achieve objectives abroad, but the United Kingdom must be realistic about its position as a middle-ranking military power and instead center its independent policy on soft power. 

Due to its unique colonial past, the United Kingdom has a global perspective and deep understanding of most of the world’s regions. It also has alliances with many of the world’s nations, both great and rising, to utilize. 

This requires a bold change in approach, though, starting with treating the position of foreign secretary as the great position of state again. David Cameron is a big beast in the political realm, but there must be a change in approach, not just personnel. 

Take the foreign secretary’s recent trip to the Middle East as an example. The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility to the region—not least because of the Balfour Declaration and its role in the creation of Israel. Yet when the foreign secretary visits, he loses his confidence and does little more than parrot the US line.

Cameron must be bolder. He must have a vision, communicate that vision, and be brave enough to announce it publicly. The goal must be to bring all sides to the table together to work towards a vision of peace, but that requires genuine leadership and a willingness to enter talks with a broad variety of voices. 

Foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum: It must take public opinion into account, assuming it is consistent with national security considerations. In February 2003, 1.5 million people protested against the impending war in Iraq. The Blair government ignored them and never recovered from that misjudgement. 

The same mistake is being made in the current conflict in the Middle East. YouGov polled UK adults, presenting them with options for what policy the United Kingdom should pursue. Thirty-three percent (the highest proportion of any option) believed the United Kingdom should oppose Israel’s military action and call for a ceasefire, with just 9 percent saying it should support Israel with no call for a ceasefire. And yet, David Cameron continues to tow the line, without meaningful diplomatic efforts. Of course, the result may be different if Israel’s right to defend itself against the atrocities of October 7 is factored in.

Re-ignite the Commonwealth

For too long, Britain has neglected the Commonwealth, to the frustration of many member states. The country needs to rekindle these relationships. The Commonwealth is potentially one of Britain’s biggest assets—it is a bloc of nations whom the United Kingdom can influence, but it can only forge common goals if it is a mutually beneficial relationship.

Instead of managing its decline London should be re-energizing the Commonwealth through trade relationships. I have proudly served as a board member of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council for nearly seven years and saw at close quarters the many bonds that tie the United Kingdom together. Ultimately, and this may be a little too bold as it has still not fully recovered from Brexit, the goal must be to create a common market of the Commonwealth member states. After all, the GDP growth projections of the Commonwealth are predicted to outperform those of the European Union.

Potentially, it will become a more significant trading bloc than the European Union, as the balance of the global economy shifts south. Hence, Britain needs to take an imaginative approach to maximize the benefits. Lower duties on goods leads to less friction between borders, creating a greater voice for members. 

The Commonwealth can be far more than a symbol of Britain’s past: it can become the cornerstone of a new foreign policy.

Reconciling Pragmatism and Principles 

The United Kingdom should also revisit the relationship between aid and foreign policy. Britain achieved world-leading status as a foreign aid donor, creating meaningful impact globally and contributing to the country’s soft power. 

Making international aid an adjunct of the Foreign Office does not work, nor is it a fair way to treat these nations. Aid should not be contingent on foreign policy objectives—it should be used to make a lasting difference and build on Britain’s reputation as an honest broker. 

Equally, foreign policy objectives, insofar as they concern granting of aid, should not be confused with human rights considerations. A nation that tries to assume the moral high ground invariably leaves itself open to charges of hypocrisy. Human rights are an important consideration, of course, but not in themselves the determining factor of a foreign policy. 

Britain’s foreign policy has become transactional at a time when it needs to nurture long-term relationships. This means understanding where an ally stands and what it needs are. Relationships cannot be built on security alone, or on arms sales and investment. 

The Medicis of World Diplomacy

There is much talk these days about countries vying to become the Medicis of the Middle East, with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar both attempting to become regional power brokers. Britain can assume a more ambitious role: the Medicis of world diplomacy. 

Lancaster House, a mansion in London managed by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, has long been the backdrop for statecraft. In May 1950 the twelve signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty met around a horseshoe table in the house to create a permanent organization for the defense of Europe and North America. Independence for countries such as Kenya, Malaya, Nigeria, and Cyprus were negotiated and agreed upon there.

Britain has lost its confidence and forgotten its soft power draw, doing their bidding without understanding the impact on its national interest. 

But there is a gap in the market for a global problem solver, an honest broker. The United Kingdom must be prepared to talk to everyone, to engage, and to arbitrate. Bombastic speeches at the United Nations solve nothing and military might rarely achieves lasting peace. Modern diplomacy demands agility and a sensitivity to global realities. 

The United Kingdom has the relationships, the history, the global standing and still the trust (but not for too long): it now just needs the bravery to chart its own course.

---

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a non-partisan organization that seeks to publish well-argued, policy-oriented articles on American foreign policy and national security priorities.

• About the author: Mohamed Amersi is the Chairman of the Amersi Foundation, which supports initiatives in education, building cohesive societies, inclusive capitalism, governance, and the futures agenda. The Foundation has also launched the Inclusive Ventures Group, a responsible profits, social impact investing platform that has invested in education, livelihood, health, and waste management in Africa and Asia.
• Source: This article was published by FPRI

By Can Kasapoğlu

1. A High-Ranking US Admiral Confirms the Presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Yemen

The deputy commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, confirmed that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) now have boots on the ground in Yemen, where they are operating alongside the Houthi militia and providing them with targeting assistance. Admiral Cooper’s statement is the most high-profile acknowledgement from the US military of Iran’s direct role in the Houthis’ disruptive campaign against global maritime trade and the US Navy. 

Recent reports confirm Admiral Cooper’s assertion and note that high-ranking IRGC General Abdolreza Shahlaei was sent to Yemen some time ago to personally oversee operations. General Shahlaei is a target of the US State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, which is offering $15 million for any information revealing his exact location. 

The presence of the Iranian spy vessel Behshad in the Red Sea, where it has been providing intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities to the Houthis, further illuminates the scope of Iran’s efforts in Yemen. Marine traffic tracking data suggests that the Behshad has recently moved closer to the Chinese military base in Djibouti to seek protection from US strikes.

According to several news outlets, last week US forces allegedly attempted to conduct a cyberattack to cripple the Behshad and limit its ability to share intelligence with the Houthis. That the Biden administration resorted to a cyberattack rather than any of the military options at its disposal speaks to the staying power of its Obama-era Iran policy, which aims to avoid confrontation but only cedes the reins of escalation dominance to Tehran.

2. Limited Preventive Strikes Are Proving Tactically—But Not Strategically—Important 

The Houthis’ disruptive campaign against maritime trade in the Red Sea prompted the United States and United Kingdom to launch Operation Poseidon Archer, a series of preventive and punitive strikes against various tactical Houthi assets. 

Operation Prosperity Guardian, another joint effort from the American and British navies, is also launching preventive strikes in Yemen. One such strike on January 16 destroyed several Houthi missiles still in their launch positions. American and British forces have focused some of their preventive actions on degrading the militia’s disruptive military capabilities, including its surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems and unmanned surface vehicles and drones.

But while US and British efforts have targeted the Houthis’ tactical assets, the strategic value and scale of the West’s preventive strikes have thus far remained limited. Operations Prosperity Guardian and Poseidon Archer have fallen short of neutralizing the Iran-backed group’s critical capabilities and have barely attempted to dismantle the IRGC presence in Yemen. More importantly, the campaigns have failed to deter Iran or the Houthi leadership from launching continued broadsides.

The Houthis have continued to threaten the US forward presence in the Middle East. Recently, a Houthi missile came dangerously close to hitting a US Arleigh Burke–class guided missile destroyer, the USS Gravely, just days after another attempted strike on a different US destroyer, the USS Carney. These incidents marked the most significant recent escalations at sea that the US Navy has witnessed in the region. The USS Gravely thwarted the attack by employing its Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), saving the vessel from potentially severe damage to its platform and crew. 

3. The Houthis Reportedly Downed Another US Unmanned Aerial System

In early November 2023, the Houthis allegedly downed a US MQ-9 Reaper drone over the Red Sea. This past week, the group intercepted another American drone of the same kind, marking the second MQ-9 downed since the outset of the conflict. The strike indicates that the Iranian proxy group’s target set includes critical, high-tech assets with a heavy price tag. 

Open-source intelligence has not yet identified any additional Iran-supplied air defenses in the Houthis’ hands. But Iran’s lethal 358 loitering SAM—also known in Yemen as the Saqr (Hawk)—is a prime suspect in the Reaper attacks.

A menacing weapon with a distinctive design philosophy, the 358 missile is best described as a loitering air defense asset. It is launched from the ground and employs a solid-fuel rocket booster that burns out and falls to earth following the initial ascent. Then the missile transitions into a new flight pattern utilizing a turbojet that mimics a cruise missile. The weapon, equipped with air inlets along its rear that are molded to its engine segment, lurks while flying in figure-eight patterns and dives onto a target after detecting it.

The 358 provides the Houthis with another lethal capability that can threaten high-value US platforms operating over the Red Sea. 

4. Iran-Supplied Underwater Drones Join the Houthis’ Arsenal

On February 18, US CENTCOM announced that the Houthis’ arsenal now includes underwater naval drones supplied by Iran. According to the announcement, the drones, similar to the Iranian kamikaze underwater variants in the class, are a new addition to the Houthis’ disruptive military capabilities in missile and drone warfare. 

This new threat should be taken seriously. Underwater drones are more difficult to detect and intercept than surface vessels. Moreover, available evidence suggests that Tehran has established a growing underwater drone arsenal, featuring assets ranging from one-way-attack drones to the extra-large Nazir-1 unmanned underwater vehicle. The Houthis’ new weapons could pose a significant threat to US Navy assets in the region.

5. A Maritime Coalition Headed by the European Union Joins the Fray

February 19, 2024, marked the entry of a new defensive coalition into the Red Sea theatre: the European Union’s Naval Force (EUNAVFOR) Operation Aspides—“shield” in ancient Greek—has joined the fight to counter the rapidly growing Houthi threat. According to the European External Action Service (EEAS), the coalition seeks to provide a fast and robust reaction to Houthi attacks and help restore freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. 

From a tactical standpoint, the addition of a new campaign in the region is no doubt significant. However, the significance of Operation Aspides will depend on its rules of engagement. It remains to be seen if the EU effort will engage in preventive strikes, as the UK and US have done, or only fire if fired upon. 

• About the author: Can Kasapoğlu is a Hudson Senior Fellow
• Source: This article was published by the Hudson Institute

The mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians by Israel has shaken people throughout the world. It is a brutal, unfathomable expression of hate and violence; systemic genocide, long in the planning, that can only be described as an act of evil.

Whilst the Israeli government and their henchmen are the principle perpetrators, they have been supported by the US and a coterie of timid western governments, plus much of mainstream western media from day one. And despite the current political rhetoric of restraint, they continue to supply the weapons that are being used to murder Palestinians.

It is not a war it is a genocidal massacre, which could potentially fuel decades of conflict, not just between Palestinians and Israel, but between Arabs throughout the region and Israel. This merciless barbaric act will define how Israel is seen by generations of people throughput the world, and to a lesser but significant degree, the way the US is viewed. A nation that is already despised and distrusted by people in various parts of the world, particularly the Middle-East.

The decades long subjugation of Palestinians by Israel, the killings and arbitrary arrests, the house demolitions and illegal settlements, have led to the current genocide. A barbaric act that will be the undoing of Israel, the final merciless straw in 57 years of abuse.

Within the International Court of Justice the truth is and will be revealed. Israel is a terror state and it can no longer hide behind the US. No matter what lies the Israeli lawyers spin, whatever the final judgment, Israel will rightly be seen in the eyes of the world to be guilty.

A world in conflict

The world is besieged by conflicts – individual and collective strife, but all stem from some form of division. And we are living in a world that is perhaps more divided than ever, economically, socially and politically.

All ideologies – religious, social, economic and political, are divisive, tribal nationalism, which has been growing in recent years, being one of the most toxic. The socio-economic system, The Ideology of Greed, which dominates virtually all areas of life is probably the most divisive element, or ideology, in contemporary society. Selfishness, individual success at the expense of the group, conformity, and possibly the most divisive strand, competition, all flow from this poisonous source.

The result is conflict, across society and within the individuals that make up society. Conflict that is intensifying, adding to the collective blanket of anxiety and mistrust, which in varying degrees impacts everyone.

Murderous conflicts like Israels Campaign of Hate against Palestinians highlight the fragmented, infantile state, of human consciousness, and the absence of intelligence and compassion; certainly among political ‘leaders’.

Violence begets violence, hate begets hate. Despite this fact, the common, seemingly instinctual response to violence is more violence.

Hamas launches a vicious attack on Israel, killing 1200 Israeli’s, and Israel massacres 30,000 Palestinian civilians and destroys Gaza. The Houthis attack ships in the Gulf, so the US and her mates launch air strikes against the ‘rebel’ group, which then carries out more offensives. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps stages an attack in Syria, killing an “American contractor wounding five US troops”, so the US launches an air assault on 85 targets in “Iraq and Syria used by Iran-backed militias……killing at least 16 people, including civilians, and injured 25 others.”

And on and on it goes, tit for tat, tat for tit; the playground bully with the biggest stick demanding his way and beating anyone who refuse to bow down. It is pathetic. And the politicians, who declare they are working for peace and stability, while bombing, killing and destroying, well, these men, and some women, know nothing of the subtlety and beauty of peace, and are in fact facilitating cogs in the machinery of war.

Instead of this juvenile habitual way of reacting, men, and women of power, stop and reflect for once – if peace is the goal that is. Look with honesty at the underlying causes; practice forgiveness and understanding, not revenge; inculcate tolerance by demonstrating it. Create systems that promote social justice and freedom for all people, irrespective of race, nationality, social standing or beliefs.

If there is ever to be peace, the root causes of division need to be understood and addressed, and systems and modes of living inculcated that encourage a sense of oneness. This requires an examination of the socio-economic system, education methodologies, and the media. The natural resources of the world should be shared, as well as the knowledge the skills and technical know how, based on need, not on ability to pay. Sharing enables relationships to evolve, it creates trust and where there is trust much can be achieved.

Peace and brotherhood

Like love or joy, peace is not something separate from us, it is inherent – despite the cynical, but understandable argument that maintains human beings are just violent and selfish. This point of view not only allows violence and hate to perpetuate, it actually feeds such destructive behaviour. Yes, the potential for violence exists within the shadows of us all, but so does the shining light of the good, of love and compassion.

Peace is present always. All that is required is for the causes of conflict to be removed and it will naturally come into being. The requirements for its realisation are straightforward and well known: freedom and justice, brotherhood and compassion. Divine principles, human qualities, that sit within everyone, but which are crushed, denied by the existing socio-economic-political structures, and the attitudes and values that they encourage.

A fundamental, but basic change, simple and clear is therefore needed if peace is to be made manifest. A shift in values and approach, change that people throughout the world long for. The rejection of selfishness and competition and everything that feeds division, and the creation of modes of living that encourage cooperation, tolerance and understanding.

The recognition that beyond surface differences, people everywhere are basically the same. That we share a common home and are part of one family or group is fundamental to such a movement, and would do more to facilitate the needed changes than anything else. Humanity is one, and if there is ever to be peace, the systems and structures that shape society must be designed to reflect and strengthen this timeless truth.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s formal dedication to the nation of Kakrapar units 3 and 4 – the first Indian-designed 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors – took place days after reports that the Indian government is in talks with several private firms to invest in the country’s nuclear sector.

Kakrapar 3 and 4 are the first of a fleet of planned 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs): unit 3 achieved first criticality in July 2020, and the unit was connected to the grid in January 2021 and was declared to be in commercial operation in July 2023. Unit 4 reached first criticality in December and is now undergoing power ascension testing.

According to the Prime Minister’s Office, the two units were built at a cost of “more than INR22,500 crore” (about USD2.7 billion – 1 crore is 10 million). “They are first-of-its-kind reactors and with advanced safety features comparable with the best in the world. Together, these two reactors will produce about 10.4 billion units of clean electricity per year and benefit consumers of multiple states like Gujarat, Maharashtra, MP, Chhattisgarh, Goa and UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu,” the PMO said in a press release ahead of the ceremony.

According to the Times of India, Modi inaugurated the two new reactors and “interacted with senior officials” including Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) Chairman Bhuwan Chandra Pathak, as well as visiting the visited the main control room of the plant.

“Went to the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station. Two new Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors were dedicated to the nation,” Modi said on X.

The next two 700 MWe PHWRs are under construction at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan, and the Indian government has sanctioned the construction of further units at Kaiga in Karnataka; Gorakhpur in Haryana; Chutka in Madhya Pradesh; and Mahi Banswara in Rajasthan.

Seeking investors

According to Reuters, government sources said India was planning to invite private firms to invest some USD26 billion in its nuclear energy sector, and is in talks with “at least” five private firms including Reliance Industries, Tata Power, Adani Power and Vedanta Ltd to invest around INR440 billion (USD5.30 billion) each.

Plans are not yet finalised, but the government hopes to use the investments to build 11,000 MWe of new nuclear capacity by 2040, the sources said. The plants would be built and operated by NPCIL, with the investing companies earning revenue from electricity sales from the plants. This hybrid plan would not require any amendment to India’s Atomic Energy Act of 1962 – which prohibits private control of nuclear power generation – but would need to be approved by the Department of Atomic Energy, they said.

Only two government-owned enterprises – NPCIL and Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI, set up to build and operate fast reactors) – are legally allowed to own and operate nuclear power plants in India. But the possibility of involving other public sector and private corporations in the country’s future expansion plans is something that has been under consideration for some time. In 2016, the government amended the Atomic Energy Act to allow NPCIL to form joint venture companies with other public sector undertakings India in a move intended to help the state-owned company to secure funding for new projects, although the legislative change did not extend to private sector companies or foreign investors.

As well as further 700 MWe PHWRs, Indian plans envisage the construction of large reactors from overseas vendors, including further Russian-designed VVER reactors in addition to those already in operation and under construction at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu. In August 2023, Minister of State Jitendra Singh also told the country’s parliament that the government was considering options for small modular reactors, and looking at ways to allow the participation of the private sector and start-ups in such projects.

Last October 27, I suggested subjects the mainstream media needed to cover relating to the saturation bombing of Gaza and its defenseless civilian families and infrastructure. Looking at these topics now, four months later, despite massive reporting, the attention to these subjects is still thin and more deserving of reporting than ever.

1. How did Hamas, with tiny Gaza surrounded by a 17-year Israeli blockade, subjected to unparalleled electronic surveillance, with spies and informants, and augmented by an overwhelming air, sea and land military presence, manage to get the weapons and associated technology for their October 7^th surprise raid? Readers still do not know how and from where these weapons entered Gaza year after year.

2. What is the connection between the stunning failure of the Israeli government to protect its people on the border and the policy of P.M. Netanyahu? Recall the New York Times (October 22, 2023) article by prominent journalist, Roger Cohen, to wit: “All means were good to undo the notion of Palestinian statehood. In 2019, Mr. Netanyahu told a meeting of his center-right Likud party: ‘Those who want to thwart the possibility of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy.’” (Note: Israel and the U.S. fostered the rise of Islamic Hamas in 1987 to counter the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)). Readers still need more information about the context of Netanyahu’s declared support for Hamas over the years and his connection to the buildup of Hamas funding and weaponry.

3. Why is Congress preparing to appropriate over $14 billion to Israel in military and other aid without any public hearings and without any demonstrated fiscal need by Israel, a prosperous economic, technological and military superpower with a social safety net superior to that of the U.S.? USDA just reported over 44 million Americans struggled with hunger in 2022. This, in the midst of a childcare crisis. Should U.S. taxpayers be expected to pay for Netanyahu’s colossal intelligence/military collapse? As an elderly Holocaust survivor told the New York Times “It should never have happened” in the first place.

4. Why hasn’t the media reported on President Biden’s statement that the Gaza Health Ministry’s body count (now over 7000 fatalities) is exaggerated? Indications, however, are that it is a large undercount by Hamas to minimize its inability to protect its people. Israel has fired over 8,000 powerful precision munitions and bombs into Gaza so far. These have struck many thousands of inhabited buildings – homes, apartments buildings, over 120 health facilities, ambulances, crowded markets, fleeing refugees, schools, water and sewage systems, and electric networks – implementing Israeli military orders to cut off all food, water, fuel, medicine and electricity to this already impoverished densely packed area the size of Philadelphia. For those not directly slain, the deadly harm caused by no food, water, medicine, medical facilities and fuel will lead to even more deaths and serious injuries.

Note that over three-quarters of Gaza’s population consists of children and women. Soon there will be thousands of babies born to die in the rubble. Other Palestinians will perish from untreated diseases, injuries, dehydration, and from drinking contaminated water. With crumbled sanitation facilities, physicians are fearing a deadly cholera epidemic.

Israel bombed the Rafah crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border. Only a tiny trickle of trucks are now allowed there by Israel to carry food and water. Fuel for hospital generators still remains blocked.

The undercount of fatalities/injuries is far greater now. The official figure is about 30,000 lives lost, with hundreds dying every day under the rubble. There is too little media interest in more realistic estimates. Undercounting lessens the pressure on Washington officials’ co-belligerents in the White House to call for a permanent ceasefire.

5. Why can’t Biden even persuade Israel to let 600 desperate Americans out of the Gaza firestorm?

6. Why isn’t the mass media making a bigger issue out of Israel’s long-time practice of blocking journalists from entering Gaza, including European, American and Israeli journalists? The only television crews left are Gazan-residing Al Jazeera reporters. Israeli bombs have already killed 26 journalists in the Gaza Strip since October 7^th. Is Israel targeting journalists’ families? The Gaza bureau chief of Al Jazeera, Wael Al-Dahdouh’s family was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Wednesday. Israeli commanders now have killed over 100 journalists in addition in some cases to their entire families and continue to block foreign journalists except for a few brief “guided tours” in Israeli armored vehicles. 

7. Why isn’t the mainstream U.S. media giving adequate space and voice to groups advocating a ceasefire and humanitarian aid? The message of Israeli peace groups’ peaceful solutions are drowned out by the media’s addiction to interviews with military tacticians. Much time and space are being given to hawks pushing for a war that could flash outside of Gaza big time. Shouldn’t groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, the Arab-American Institute, Veterans for Peace and associations of clergy have their views and activities reported? Still being underreported are the activities all over the country of the Veterans for Peace and large labor unions demanding a permanent ceasefire and humanitarian aid. 

8. Why is the coverage of the war overlooking the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter and the many provisions of international law that all the parties, including the U.S., have been violating? (See the October 24, 2023 letter to President Biden). Under international law, Biden has made the U.S. an active “co-belligerent,” of the Israeli government’s vocal demolition of the 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza, who are mostly descendants of Palestinian refugees driven from their homes in 1948. (See, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide). Coverage has expanded to include the U.S. vetoes on the Security Council and to global reporting on the International Court of Justice proceedings on South Africa’s calling for the Court to address Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

9. What about revealing human-interest stories? For example: How do Israeli F-16 pilots feel about their daily bombing of the completely defenseless Gazan civilian population and its life-sustaining infrastructures? The reporting on the military orders given to Israeli soldiers in Gaza who are slaying indiscriminately thousands of innocents of all ages and snipers attacking people and children in hospitals is inadequate. Why are no Hamas fighters taken as prisoners of war? Is there an order of “take no prisoners” even after capture? What are the courageous Israeli human rights and refuseniks thinking and doing in a climate of serious repression of their views as a result of Netanyahu’s defense collapse on October 7^th? The open letter to President Biden on December 13, 2023, by 16 Israeli human rights groups appeared as a paid notice in the New York Times but received very little notice to its clarion call to stop the catastrophe in Gaza. (See the letter here).

10. Where is the media attention on the statements from Israeli military commentators, who, for years have declared high-tech US-backed, nuclear-armed Israel to be more secure than at any time in its history? Israel is reasserting its overwhelming military domination of the Middle East region, fully backed by U.S. militarism. The Israeli government is putting ads in U.S. newspapers wildly exaggerating long-subdued Hamas as an “existential” threat. Without Netanyahu strangely failing to keep the border guarded on October 7, 2023, what followed would not have happened!

Historians remind us that in a grid-locked conflict over time, it is the most powerful party’s responsibility to lead the way to peace.

Establishing a two-state solution has been supported by many Palestinians. All the Arab nations, starting with the Arab League peace proposal in 2002, support this solution as well. It is up to Israel and the U.S., assuming annexation of what is left of Palestine is not Israel’s objective. (See, the March 29, 2002 New York Times article: Mideast Turmoil; Text of the Peace Proposals Backed by the Arab League).

More media attention on this subject matter is much needed.