Protests, clashes resume in Kenya as military deployed
NewsFeed Anti-tax protests have turned anti-government in Kenya, with young people dissatisfied with the current economic situation and the government’s deadly response to protests earlier in the week. Published On 27 Jun 202427 Jun 2024 Adblock test (Why?)
US investigators sanction Boeing for sharing information on mid-air blowout
Boeing had ‘blatantly violated’ federal rules by providing ‘non-public investigative information’, investigators said. United States investigators have sanctioned Boeing for revealing details of a probe into a 737 MAX mid-air blowout and said they would refer its conduct to the US Department of Justice (DOJ), prompting the embattled planemaker to issue an apology. The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said on Thursday that Boeing had “blatantly violated” its rules by providing “non-public investigative information” and speculating about possible causes of the January 5 Alaska Airlines door-plug emergency during a factory tour attended by dozens of journalists. The decision sheds new light on strains between the crisis-hit planemaker and government agencies at a time when it is trying to avoid criminal charges that are being weighed by the DOJ ahead of a July 7 deadline. “As a party to many NTSB investigations over the past decades, few entities know the rules better than Boeing,” the NTSB said. The NTSB said Boeing would keep its status as a party to the investigation into the Alaska Airlines emergency, but would no longer see information produced during its probe into the accident, which involved the mid-air blowout of a door plug with four missing bolts. Unlike other parties, Boeing will now not be allowed to ask questions of other participants at an August 6-7 hearing. “We deeply regret that some of our comments, intended to make clear our responsibility in the accident and explain the actions we are taking, overstepped the NTSB’s role as the source of investigative information,” Boeing said in a statement. The NTSB’s criticism revolves around comments made during a media briefing on Tuesday at the 737 factory near Seattle, Washington about quality improvements – widely seen as part of an exercise to showcase greater transparency. During the briefing, which was held under an embargo allowing contents to be published on Thursday, an executive said the plug had been opened on the assembly line without the correct paperwork to fix a quality issue with surrounding rivets, and that missing bolts were not replaced. The team that came in and closed the plug was not responsible for reinstalling the bolts, Elizabeth Lund, Boeing’s senior vice president of quality, added. The NTSB said that by providing investigative information and giving an analysis of information already released, Boeing had contravened its agreement with the agency. “Boeing offered opinions and analysis on factors it suggested were causal to the accident,” it added. US investigators are probing the January 5 Alaska Airlines emergency [File: National Transportation Safety Board via AP] DOJ scrutiny In May, the DOJ said Boeing had violated a 2021 settlement with prosecutors that shielded it from criminal charges over interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration prior to MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people. US prosecutors have recommended criminal charges be brought, Reuters reported on Sunday. The DOJ already has a separate criminal probe into the door-plug episode. Thursday’s rare exchange marks the latest sign of strains between Boeing and the NTSB. In 2018, Boeing was widely criticised for issuing a statement appearing to question the performance of pilots in the first of two fatal crashes that led to a grounding of the MAX. Later investigations emphasised the role of flawed software. In March this year, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy told a US Senate hearing that Boeing had failed to provide names of employees on its 737 MAX door team for two months, drawing criticism from lawmakers. Boeing then quickly provided the names. On Thursday, the NTSB said Boeing had portrayed its investigation of the Alaska Airlines incident to media as a search to locate the individual responsible for plug work. “The NTSB is instead focused on the probable cause of the accident, not placing blame on any individual or assessing liability,” the agency said. Asked during Tuesday’s briefing who had failed to fill in documentation, Lund said: “There may have been one or more than one employee. What I will say is the ‘who’ is absolutely in the responsibility of the NTSB. That investigation is still going on and I am going to not comment on that right now.” The role of individuals is a particularly sensitive topic in air safety amid an increasing focus on litigation and, in some countries, a trend towards criminalising air accidents. Under global rules, agencies carry out civil probes into air accidents for the sole purpose of finding the cause and making recommendations to improve safety in the future. Such actions are separate from any judicial probes seeking to attribute blame. Adblock test (Why?)
What power does a president have in Iran?
Iranians are choosing a successor to the late Ebrahim Raisi. Following the sudden death of President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash last month, voters in Iran are choosing his successor. The Guardian Council initially approved six male candidates from a pool of 80, including one reformist and five hardline conservatives. But some dropped out. With the nation facing deep political unrest, economic challenges and tensions with the West over its nuclear programme, stakes are high in this election. And potential conflict between Israel and Lebanon is further increasing its significance. So what path might the country take after this vote? Presenter: Sami Zeidan Guests: Hassan Ahmadian – Senior fellow at the Center for Strategic Research Ali Vaez – Project director on Iran at the International Crisis Group Sami Nader – Director of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs Adblock test (Why?)
Sunak, Starmer clash in final TV debate before UK general election
Event in central city of Nottingham covered issues from health to immigration with polls afterwards suggesting a tie. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Labour leader Keir Starmer have faced off in their final televised debate ahead of the United Kingdom election, going head-to-head over issues from health to immigration and ethics, and struggling to be heard above a noisy protest outside. The debate took place in the central city of Nottingham and represented Sunak’s last big opportunity to give his right-wing Conservatives, who are trailing Labour by about 20 points, a fighting chance in the July 4 polls. He accused Starmer of “taking people for fools” over Labour’s plans to reduce immigration, while Starmer accused Sunak, one of the country’s wealthiest men, of being “out of touch” and too rich to understand the concerns of most common Britons. Sunak repeatedly urged voters not to “surrender” to Labour on everything from borders to taxes, while Starmer stressed that the election was an opportunity for the country to “turn the page” on 14 years of Conservative government dominated by austerity, Brexit and party infighting. A snap YouGov poll said the debate, broadcast by the BBC with senior journalist Mishal Husain as the host, had been a tie, with both men on 50 percent. As the event at Nottingham Trent University got under way, indistinguishable but loud shouting could be heard from pro-Palestinian protesters who had gathered outside. Husain acknowledged the distraction and noted protest was part of the UK’s democracy. Neither Starmer nor Sunak made any reference to the demonstration, which tapered off in the second half of the debate. The two men also clashed over an election date betting scandal that has ensnared several senior Conservative politicians, as well as one Labour candidate who placed a bet against himself. Starmer promised to “reset politics, so that politics returns to public service”, accusing Sunak of showing a lack of leadership over the furore. Sunak, who promised to restore “integrity, professionalism and accountability” when he was named Conservative Party leader and prime minister in 2022, said he had been “furious” when he learned about the allegations. “I’ve been crystal clear: Anyone who has broken the rules should not only face the full consequences of the law, I will ensure that they’re booted out of the Conservative Party,” he added. But in a sign of the public’s growing disdain for its politicians, one audience member’s question – “Are you two really the best we’ve got?” – got loud applause. The two leaders have met at several debates and public sessions with voters, increasingly focusing on who was better suited to lead the country. Sunak’s campaign has struggled since he announced the election outside 10 Downing Street in torrential rain in May. He has since run a lacklustre campaign, and his decision to leave other leaders and skip the main D-Day anniversary ceremony in northern France earlier this month caused uproar. The Conservatives have been battling to win public confidence since it emerged that senior officials, including then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, broke COVID-19 lockdown rules to enjoy parties in Downing Street. Their position deteriorated – and Labour’s poll lead rose sharply – after Sunak’s short-lived predecessor Liz Truss sent interest rates soaring and tanked the pound with unfunded tax cuts in October 2022. The Conservatives are also under pressure from the hard-right Reform UK party, which has seen a spike in support since populist Nigel Farage took the helm. Polls suggest Farage, who has failed on seven previous occasions to become an MP, is on course to win in the east coast constituency of Clacton, beating the incumbent Conservative. British voters are choosing 650 lawmakers for the House of Commons, and the leader of the party that secures a majority of seats, either alone or in coalition, will become prime minister. Adblock test (Why?)
North Korea says it conducted successful test of multiwarhead missile
It is the first known test of a so-called MIRV by Pyongyang, but South Korea is questioning the claim. North Korea claims to have successfully tested a multiwarhead missile, a sophisticated weapon that would provide it with the means to overwhelm missile defences in the continental United States, after a launch that South Korea and Japan said had ended in failure. Pyongyang “successfully conducted the separation and guidance control test of individual mobile warheads” on Wednesday, state news agency KCNA reported. The separated mobile warheads “were guided correctly to the three coordinate targets”, and a decoy that separated from the missile was verified by radar. “The test is aimed at securing MIRV capability,” it said, referring to multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle technology, which allows multiple warheads to be fired on a single ballistic missile. North Korea has been developing its weaponry as leader Kim Jong Un seeks to modernise the country’s military. A multiwarhead missile was among the weapons he said the country would pursue during a ruling party meeting in early 2021, where he also mentioned spy satellites, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons and submarine-launched missiles. “I had been anticipating a MIRV test for some time now, as this was one of the last remaining items on Kim Jong Un’s modernisation wish list from the Eighth Party Congress back in January 2021,” said Ankit Panda, a senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Panda said Wednesday’s test appeared to be an initial evaluation of some of the key subsystems to develop a workable MIRV. He expected more tests to follow, leading up to a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on a lofted trajectory. “The presence of decoys is significant. North Korea has made no secret of its intention to stress and overcome US homeland missile defences,” Panda said. “Decoys will assist in that endeavour and will likely be incorporated onto their single-warhead missiles as well.” The KCNA report came a day after South Korea’s military said that Pyongyang had launched a possible solid-fuelled hypersonic weapon that had exploded in midair, while Japan reported debris had fallen into the waters off North Korea’s east coast. South Korea’s military said a joint analysis with the US military suggested the missile blew up in its initial stage of flight, and the weapon tested was not as KCNA described. “Today North Korea disclosed something, but we believe it’s simply a means of deception and exaggeration,” Lee Sung-joon, the spokesman for South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a briefing. The photos released by the North purporting to be of Wednesday’s test were also most likely fabricated or recycled pictures from a previous launch, he said. Panda said it appeared that Seoul “misinterpreted the nature of this test initially”. South Korea, the US and Japan condemned the launch as a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and a serious threat, and warned against additional provocations in the wake of last week’s summit between Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which the two leaders signed a mutual defence pact. Wednesday’s test was the North’s first weapons launch since it fired nuclear-capable multiple rocket launchers to simulate a preemptive attack on South Korea almost a month ago. In recent weeks, North Korea has also floated numerous rubbish-filled balloons across the border to the south in what it has described as a tit-for-tat response to South Korean activists sending political leaflets via their own balloons. In response, South Korea on June 9 briefly conducted propaganda loudspeaker broadcasts at border areas for the first time in years. Adblock test (Why?)
Palestinians in Lebanon ready to fight if Israel starts war with Hezbollah
Shatila refugee camp, Beirut, Lebanon – Palestinians in Lebanon have watched Israel’s assault on Gaza with simmering anger and are now facing the prospect of a similar fate if Israel wages an all-out war against the Lebanese group Hezbollah. Hezbollah began engaging Israel almost immediately after the latter began its war on Gaza, which has killed more than 37,000 people and uprooted almost the entire population. The Lebanese group has repeatedly said it would stop its attacks on Israel once a ceasefire took hold in Gaza and Israel stopped its bombardment on the people living there. Israel’s assault followed a Hamas-led surprise attack on Israeli communities and military outposts on October 7, in which 1,139 people were killed and 250 taken captive. Ready to go home In the Shatila Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, many people involved in resistance movements told Al Jazeera that they’re not scared, and would fight to support Hezbollah and the wider “axis of resistance” in the region against Israel. But they fear for their families and civilians, worrying that Israel would deliberately target densely populated residential areas in Lebanon, like the Palestinian camps, where tens of thousands of people live packed tightly together. “The Israeli army has no ethics. They don’t abide by human rights or consider the rights of children,” said Ahed Mahar, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command [PFLP-GC] in Shatila. “The Israeli army is just driven by revenge.” Some 250,000 Palestinians live in 12 refugee camps across Lebanon, fleeing there after Zionist militias expelled them from their homeland to make way for the creation of Israel in 1948 – a day referred to as the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe”. Since then, Palestinians have longed to return to their homeland, Hassan Abu Ali, a 29-year-old man who grew up in Shatila told Al Jazeera. If a major war erupted in the country, he said, he and his mother would grab a few belongings and head to the border between Lebanon and Israel. “I think many Palestinians will try to go back to Palestine at once if there is a war. That’s what people in the camp talk about,” he said. Abu Ali said he believes Israel could bomb Palestinian camps and then claim they harboured resistance fighters, justifications similar to those it has used when bombing neighbourhoods and displacement camps in Gaza, according to rights groups and legal scholars. The PFLP-GC has a presence in Palestinian refugee camps across Lebanon. Shown here, PFLP-GC members march in a parade marking Quds Day at Burj al-Barajneh on April 14, 2023 [Mohamed Azakir/Reuters] Palestinians will have “no other option” but to return to their homeland if the camps in Lebanon are destroyed, said Abu Ali, adding that as stateless refugees, Palestinians face harsh legal discrimination and live in poverty in Lebanon. “The only places I’d be able to go to are Palestine or Europe,” Abu Ali told Al Jazeera. “But to go to Europe, I need $10,000 or $12,000 for a smuggler to get out of here. That’s impossible.” Ready to fight? In Shatila, several Palestinian men said their peers would join the armed struggle against Israel if it launched a wider war against Hezbollah. They added that Hamas has attracted thousands of recruits among its traditional supporters and from communities that are historically aligned with Fatah, a rival faction led by Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. “First of all, there are lots of resistance fighters in all of the camps in Lebanon. Secondly … if a big war starts, then we are not scared. We have thousands and thousands of fighters that are ready to be martyred to free Palestine,” said a man who goes by Fadi Abu Ahmad, a member of Hamas in the camp. Abu Ahmad acknowledged that civilians – especially children, women and the elderly – could be disproportionately harmed if Israel targets Palestinians in Lebanon. But he claimed that most Palestinian refugees believe “their blood is the price they must pay to free Palestine”. He drew a comparison with Algeria’s war of independence from France, which lasted from 1954 to 1962 and led to the deaths of one million Algerians. However, other Palestinians said they feared for their families and loved ones if a war in Lebanon erupted. “I’m not scared of the Israelis or what might happen to me,” said Ahmad, 20, a Palestinian in Shatila who declined to tell Al Jazeera his last name. “But I am afraid of what they might try to do to my little brother and sister. They’re just 14 and nine years old. I don’t want anything to happen to them.” Palestinian scouts carry their national flag, at the 40th commemoration of the Sabra and Shatila massacre – in Beirut on September 16, 2022. During Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Palestinian men, women and children were massacred by forces identified as Lebanese Christian militiamen in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The official toll is 328 killed, and 991 missing [Bilal Hussein/AP Photo] What to expect? Despite Israel’s threats, many Palestinians don’t expect a larger war on Lebanon due to the strength of Hezbollah. They believe the group’s arsenal, which reportedly includes Iran-made guided missiles and sophisticated drones, is deterring Israel from seriously escalating the conflict. But Abu Ahmad from Hamas notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could still start a war on Lebanon to appease his far-right coalition partners and maintain power. “Netanyahu is a criminal,” he told Al Jazeera. “And we know that if there is a war in Lebanon, then there will be lots of killing of civilians here, including Palestinians. It could be like Gaza.” Mahar, from PFLP-GC, said a war between Hezbollah and Lebanon would be different from the last major war. In 2006, Hezbollah killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others in a surprise ground attack. In response, Israel targeted civilian infrastructure and power stations in Lebanon. The fighting lasted for 34 days
Biden and Trump to face off in first US presidential debate: What to know
They have traded barbs for months, but Joe Biden and Donald Trump will soon get a chance to go head-to-head as the United States gears up for the first debate of the 2024 presidential election campaign. The presumptive Democratic and Republican party nominees will take the debate stage in Atlanta, Georgia on Thursday evening, less than five months before the vote on November 5. Opinion polls show President Biden and ex-President Trump remain locked in a tight race that experts say could come down to a handful of key swing states. Here’s what you need to know about the debate and its potential impact on the campaign. Who is taking part in the debate? Biden, the Democratic incumbent, and his Republican challenger Trump are going up against each other for the first time in the 2024 election cycle. They last debated each other on October 22, 2020, as part of that year’s presidential race. To participate in the debate, presidential candidates had to meet a set of criteria set out by the US news network CNN, which is hosting the event. This included having their name on enough state ballots to reach the Electoral College threshold needed to win the presidency, and having received at least 15 percent support in four separate national polls of registered and likely voters. Where is the debate taking place and at what time? The debate kicks off at 9pm local time (01:00 GMT) at CNN’s studios in Atlanta. Who is hosting the debate? The debate will be hosted by CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. What is the debate format? The debate will last 90 minutes, with two commercial breaks, CNN said. Biden and Trump have agreed to appear behind podiums — as opposed to being seated — and their microphones will be muted unless it is their respective turn to speak. “While no props or pre-written notes will be allowed on the stage, candidates will be given a pen, a pad of paper and a bottle of water,” the network said. There also will not be an audience, CNN said, in order “to ensure candidates may maximize the time allotted in the debate”. Biden challenged Trump to two debates, in June and September, ahead of the election on November 5 [File: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters] How important are televised debates in a US presidential election? Experts have said most voters already know for whom they plan to vote in November, so it’s unclear how much the debate will push the dial in favour of either candidate. Still, a Pew Research Center poll from 2016 found that 63 percent of voters said the presidential debates were very or somewhat helpful in deciding which White House hopeful to cast a ballot for. That means Biden and Trump will try to use the event to appeal to a small group of “swayable voters”, explained Alan Schroeder, a professor emeritus of journalism at Northeastern University and author of the book Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail. With Biden and Trump locked in a neck-and-neck contest, those undecided voters could prove critical, Schroeder told Al Jazeera. “Any time it’s this close, a debate can be important simply because it has the potential to break that logjam.” Is the debate happening earlier than usual? How come? Yes. Biden and Trump had called for the 2024 presidential debates to happen earlier in the campaign, saying they wanted to make their pitches to American voters before the early-voting period opens. The first presidential debates are typically held in the fall months — September and October — after the Republican and Democratic parties have held conventions to officially name their nominees. It has also been a tradition since 1988 for the dates to be set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit sponsored by the two major parties. Late last year, the commission announced that it had selected three dates: one in mid-September and two in October. But last month, Biden’s campaign announced plans to eschew the traditional schedule and push forward the first debate. It also trimmed the number of debates to two. “The Commission’s schedule has debates that begin after the American people have a chance to cast their vote early, and doesn’t conclude until after tens of millions of Americans will have already voted,” the Biden campaign wrote. It also said the commission’s model of holding debates with large, in-person audiences “simply isn’t necessary or conducive to good debates”. What topics are set to dominate? Many polls indicate the US economy remains the top concern for Americans ahead of the election, and the candidates will no doubt be asked about their economic platforms. Immigration, public safety and reproductive rights will also likely be debate topics, as they too rank high among voter concerns. Foreign policy is also a topic of interest in this year’s election, and candidates are expected to be asked about their positions towards Israel’s war in Gaza, continued support for Ukraine and competition with China. In addition, the state of the US’s democratic institutions is high on voters’ radars and is anticipated to come up on Thursday night. Biden has accused Trump of being a threat to democracy, after the former president’s supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results. The Democrat could also try to bring up Trump’s legal cases. The Republican was found guilty last month of falsifying business documents in a New York hush-money case, making him the first former president in US history ever convicted of a crime. But pressing Trump on his conviction and legal troubles — the ex-president faces three other criminal indictments — could be risky, according to Schroeder at Northeastern University. “Do you try to remind the audience over and over that he’s now a convicted felon and there are other trials coming up, or does that look like overkill? Would that be something that audiences might not want to hear about?” Schroeder asked. Trump became
French court upholds arrest warrant for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad
Counterterrorism prosecutors failed to have warrant annulled on grounds that al-Assad enjoys immunity as head of state. A Paris appeals court has upheld the validity of an arrest warrant issued for the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad over alleged complicity in war crimes committed during the country’s civil war, according to lawyers. The judges ruled on Wednesday that the warrant, which French anti-terrorism prosecutors had sought to annul on the grounds that al-Assad enjoys immunity as a serving head of state, remains in force. “This is a historic decision. It’s the first time a national court has recognised that a sitting head of state does not have total personal immunity” for their actions, said plaintiffs’ lawyers Clemence Bectarte, Jeanne Sulzer and Clemence Witt. Mazen Darwish, director of the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, said the decision “shows that there is no immunity when we are talking about crimes against humanity and using chemical weapons against civilians”. #NoImmunity #Justice #Syria pic.twitter.com/R60PCp63xm — Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (@SyrianCenter) June 26, 2024 The case against al-Assad is a particularly high-profile example of victims of the country’s devastating civil war seeking accountability for government forces that took part in atrocities. An arrest warrant was issued for al-Assad, his brother Maher, and two Syrian generals in November for alleged complicity in war crimes, including chemical weapons attacks on the cities of Douma and East Ghouta in 2013. With al-Assad maintaining a large degree of control over Syria, devastated by years of fighting during which his forces were accused of atrocities against civilians, Syrians who fled the country and settled in Europe have launched legal efforts to hold members of the Syrian military and government to account. The August 2013 chemical attacks killed more than 1,000 people and injured thousands more, but international condemnation produced little change in the Assad government’s prosecution of the war. In May, anti-terror prosecutors contested the arrest warrant against al-Assad, maintaining that acting heads of state enjoy absolute immunity. The prosecutors did not challenge the arrest warrant for al-Assad’s brother or the Syrian generals Ghassan Abbas and Bassam al-Hassan. Those named in the warrants can be arrested and brought to France for the investigation, an unlikely outcome that advocates nonetheless say sends a message of accountability at a time when the Assad government has begun to come back in from the cold after years of being shunned by regional governments and organisations. Adblock test (Why?)
Gallant’s US trip strengthens potential challenge to Israel’s Netanyahu
EDITOR’S ANALYSIS Israeli defence minister’s visit comes a month before Netanyahu’s, and highlights his position as an alternative to the PM. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has been on a mission in the past few days to shore up bipartisan support in the United States for Israel, in advance of what could potentially be all-out war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Gallant set the stage before he left for the US on Saturday, emphasising that ties between the two countries were “perhaps more important than ever”. After meetings with his US counterpart Lloyd Austin and other top officials, Gallant’s message was consistent: the US and Israel are strong allies, and need to be on the same side in the face of the perceived threat from Iran and its supporters in the region. But the Israeli and US government don’t quite see eye to eye on everything at the moment. Many observers believe that one of the most important items on Gallant’s agenda was a frozen shipment of heavy-duty 2,000-pound (907kg) and 500-pound (227kg) bombs. The Biden administration paused the shipment in May, apparently in protest at the potential use of the bombs in Gaza, where the Israelis have killed more than 37,500 people, with continued US backing. The frozen shipment has served as a riposte to critics of the US government who say that President Joe Biden continues to support what critics are calling “genocide” in Gaza. But, in reality, the US has refused to expand that pause to other military shipments. The administration even responded to comments from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he claimed that more arms shipments had been held back, by stressing that only one shipment has been stopped. Whether Gallant has succeeded in getting the arms shipment sent to Israel is unclear. The officials Gallant met included pro-Israeli messages in their statements that followed. There was talk of the strong relationship between Israel and the US, the importance of Israel’s security, and the necessity of defeating the Palestinian group Hamas. But, notably, there was no overt attempt to row back any of the clearly signposted anti-Netanyahu messaging of the past few months – including persistent leaks that Biden was displeased with Netanyahu. The US president himself was caught on a hot mic saying that he had told Netanyahu they would have a “come to Jesus” meeting, a phrase used to refer to a moment of realisation before would change the Israeli prime minister’s thinking. Gallant the alternative The Biden administration’s attempts to personify its problems with Israel in Netanyahu means there appears to be space for a US-backed alternative. Many saw former war cabinet minister Benny Gantz as the most likely candidate, but his resignation and return to the opposition earlier this month, as well as a general decline in popularity among the Israeli public, may make him a less appealing figure to back. That opens the door for Gallant, who, while a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, has shown an independent streak in the past. Gallant called out the prime minister for a lack of a post-war plan for Gaza – echoing US criticisms – in May. And don’t forget that Gallant was fired by Netanyahu in March 2023 for the defence minister’s disagreement with him over the immensely controversial plans to overhaul the judiciary. It was only a mass public outcry that led to Gallant’s reinstatement. With that in mind, an alternative reading of Gallant’s trip to the US is that it is also an attempt to undermine Netanyahu only a month before the prime minister’s own trip to Washington, where he will address a joint session of Congress. Gallant took the opportunity while in the US capital to make a pointed remark that differences between “family”, such as the US, be kept “in-house”, a not-so-subtle dig considering Netanyahu’s public criticism of the Biden administration. To be clear, Gallant is no peacenik. He has been fully supportive of Israel’s actions in Gaza, and – along with Netanyahu – faces a potential International Criminal Court case if judges approve the chief prosecutor’s request for an arrest warrant. And one of the main items on his agenda in the US was drumming up support for a potential assault against Hezbollah, possibly involving a ground invasion. US officials have signalled Washington won’t be as supportive of that plan. But the opportunity to make the case in the corridors of US power allows Gallant to come back to Israel in a stronger position to take on Netanyahu – if he ever decides to make a move. Adblock test (Why?)
India exports rockets, explosives to Israel amid Gaza war, documents reveal
In the early morning hours of May 15, the cargo vessel Borkum stopped off the Spanish coast, lingering in the waters a short distance from Cartagena. At the port, protesters waved Palestinian flags and called on authorities to inspect the ship based on suspicions that it carried weapons bound for Israel. Leftist members of the European Parliament sent a letter to Spanish President Pedro Sánchez requesting that the ship be prevented from docking. “Allowing a ship loaded with weapons destined for Israel is to allow the transit of arms to a country currently under investigation for genocide against the Palestinian people,” the group of nine MEPs warned. Before the Spanish government could take a stand, the Borkum cancelled its planned stopover and continued to the Slovenian port of Koper. “We were right,” Inigo Errejon, the spokesperson for the hard-left Sumar party wrote on X, arguing that the Borkum’s decision to skip Cartagena confirmed the suspicions. But missed in the debate over whether the ship ought to be allowed to dock in Spain were the unlikely origins of the Borkum’s cargo. According to documents seen by Al Jazeera, the ship contained explosives loaded in India and was en route to Israel’s port of Ashdod, some 30km (18 miles) from the Gaza Strip. Marine tracking sites show it departed Chennai in southeast India on April 2 and circumnavigated Africa to avoid transiting through the Red Sea, where Yemen’s Houthis have been attacking vessels in reprisal for Israel’s war. The identification codes specified in the documentation, obtained unofficially by the Solidarity Network Against the Palestinian Occupation (RESCOP), suggest the Borkum contained 20 tonnes of rocket engines, 12.5 tonnes of rockets with explosive charges, 1,500kg (3,300 pounds) of explosive substances and 740kg (1,630 pounds) of charges and propellants for cannons. A paragraph on confidentiality specified that all employees, consultants or other relevant parties were mandated that “under no circumstances” were they to name IMI Systems or Israel. IMI Systems, a defence firm, was bought by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, in 2018. The commercial manager of the ship, the German company MLB Manfred Lauterjung Befrachtung, told Al Jazeera in a statement that “the vessel did not load any weapons or any other cargo for the destination Israel”. A second cargo ship that had departed India was denied entry on May 21 to the port of Cartagena. Spanish newspaper El Pais reported that the Marianne Danica left from India’s port of Chennai and was en route to Israel’s port of Haifa with a cargo of 27 tonnes of explosives. Minister of Foreign Affairs Jose Manuel Albares confirmed in a news conference that the vessel was denied entry on the grounds that it was shipping military cargo to Israel. These incidents add to mounting evidence that weapon parts from India, a country that has long advocated dialogue over military action in resolving conflicts, are quietly making their way to Israel, including during the ongoing months-long war in Gaza. A lack of transparency on India’s transfers helps them slip under the radar, say analysts. Zain Hussain, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told Al Jazeera that “the lack of verifiable information makes it hard to determine whether transfers have taken place”. But “collaboration between India and Israel has been happening for quite a few years now”, Hussain said, therefore “it’s not unfeasible that we may see some made-in-India components being used by Israel [in its war on Gaza]”. ‘Made in India’ On June 6, in the aftermath of Israel’s bombing of a United Nations shelter at the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza, the Quds News Network released a video of the remains of a missile dropped by Israeli warplanes. Amid the tangled parts, a label clearly read: “Made in India.” “Made in India” Reads the label on the remains of a missile dropped by Israeli warplanes at a UN shelter in Nusseirat refugee camp last night. pic.twitter.com/NOFMXr64Tp — Quds News Network (@QudsNen) June 6, 2024 Hussain, who researches the transfer of conventional arms at the Stockholm-based think tank, said the video required further investigation but observed that a large share of the collaboration between India and Israel is known to revolve around missile production, in particular the Barak surface-to-air missile. According to SIPRI, the Indian company Premier Explosives Limited makes solid propellants – a significant part of the rocket motors, but not the whole motor – for MRSAM and LRSAM missiles. These are the Indian designations for Barak medium and long-range surface-to-air missiles of Israeli design. The company’s executive director, T Chowdary, admitted to exporting to Israel amid the current war in Gaza, during a conference call on March 31. “We have received the pending revenue from the Israel export order, and this has shown an exponential jump in the revenue of the quarter,” he told investors, according to the minutes of the meeting. “We are happy to announce that we have highest ever quarterly revenue.” On that occasion, Chowdary presented Premier Explosives Limited as “the only Indian company which specialises in the export of fully assembled rocket motor”. In addition, he said the company had begun manufacturing mines and ammunitions and started exporting RDX and HMX explosives, commonly used in military weapons systems. In its January 2024 overview, the company listed exports to Israel in the “defence & space” sector, which SIPRI deemed likely to include propellants for Barak missiles. Premier Explosives did not respond to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment. According to SIPRI, the Indian components can be used for Barak missiles that are then also reexported by Israel. Indian made UAVs Yet, India’s collaboration with Israel goes far beyond rocket propellers. In December 2018, Adani Defence & Aerospace – the defence arm of Indian multinational holding company Adani Enterprises Ltd – and Israel’s Elbit Systems inaugurated the Adani Elbit Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Complex (UAV) in Hyderabad. The facility was presented in a joint statement as “the first outside Israel to manufacture the Hermes 900 Medium Altitude Long Endurance