Doomsday clock stays at 90 seconds to midnight: What we know | Science and Technology News

Atomic scientists have kept their Doomsday Clock set at 90 seconds to midnight as they did last year, citing worry about Russia’s potential use of nuclear weapons amid its invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s war on Gaza and worsening climate change as factors driving the risk of global catastrophe.

Here is what we know about the Doomsday Clock and Tuesday’s announcement:

What did the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announce?

Scientists kept their Doomsday Clock close to midnight and the latest it’s ever been set in its 77-year history.

“Conflict hot spots around the world carry the threat of nuclear escalation, climate change is already causing death and destruction, and disruptive technologies like AI and biological research advance faster than their safeguards,” Rachel Bronson, the bulletin’s president and CEO, said, adding that keeping the hands of the clock unchanged from the prior year is “not an indication that the world is stable”.

What war and conflicts led to this announcement?

Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine, set to reach its second anniversary next month, has escalated tensions with the West to their most dangerous levels since the Cold War.

“A durable end to Russia’s war in Ukraine seems distant, and the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in that conflict remains a serious possibility. In the past year, Russia has sent numerous worrying nuclear signals,” Bronson said.

Bronson cited Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision in February to suspend Russian participation in the New START treaty with the United States, which limited the strategic nuclear arsenals of the two countries.

The US and Russia between them have nearly 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, enough to destroy the planet many times over.

Bronson additionally cited Putin’s March announcement of Russia’s deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus and the Russian parliament’s October passage of a law withdrawing ratification of the global treaty banning nuclear weapons tests.

A priest shovels dirt during a funeral for Ukrainian serviceman Mykhailo Tereshchenko, who was killed in fighting with Russian forces in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region [File: Marko Djurica/Reuters]

Israel has been at war with Hamas since the Palestinian group, based in Gaza, launched attacks in southern Israel on October 7.

“As a nuclear state, Israel’s actions are clearly relevant to the Doomsday Clock discussion. Of particular worry is that the conflict might escalate more broadly in the region, creating a larger conventional war and drawing in more nuclear powers or near-nuclear powers,” Bronson said.

Climate change was also considered.

“The world in 2023 entered into uncharted territory as it suffered its hottest year on record, and global greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise,” Bronson added.

“Both global and North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures broke records, and Antarctic sea ice reached its lowest daily extent since the advent of satellite data.”

Bronson said 2023 also was a record-breaking year for clean energy with $1.7 trillion in new investments. Offsetting this, however, were fossil fuel investments of nearly $1 trillion, Bronson said.

Her organisation also warned about artificial intelligence.

“AI-enabled disinformation efforts could be a factor that prevents the world from dealing effectively with nuclear risks, pandemics, and climate change,” a press release added.

INTERACTIVE The-Doomsday Clock graphic 2024-1706015882

What is the Doomsday Clock?

The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic timepiece showing how close we are to “destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making”, according to the bulletin, a Chicago-based nonprofit organisation that controls the clock.

The bulletin describes it as “many things all at once: It’s a metaphor, it’s a logo, it’s a brand, and it’s one of the most recognisable symbols in the past 100 years.”

The closer it moves to midnight, the closer humanity is to the end of the world.

Apocalyptic threats could arise from political tensions, weapons, technology, climate change or pandemics.

How is the clock set?

The hands of the clock are moved closer to or farther away from midnight based on the scientists’ reading of existential threats at a particular time.

The bulletin updates the time annually. A board of scientists and other experts in nuclear technology and climate science, including 10 Nobel laureates, discuss world events and determine where to place the hands of the clock each year.

“The Bulletin is a bit like a doctor making a diagnosis,” the organisation said on its website.

“We look at data, as physicians look at lab tests and x-rays, and also take harder-to-quantify factors into account, as physicians do when talking with patients and family members. We consider as many symptoms, measurements, and circumstances as we can. Then we come to a judgment that sums up what could happen if leaders and citizens don’t take action to treat the conditions,” it added.

Can we still turn the clock back?

According to the bulletin, it’s possible, and it has happened before.

But for it to happen, the bulletin recommends that “three of the world’s leading powers – the US, China and Russia” start a serious dialogue.

“They have the capacity to pull the world back from the brink of catastrophe. They should do so, with clarity and courage, and without delay,” the statement said.

When was the Doomsday Clock created?

The clock was created in 1947 by the Bulletin, which was founded two years earlier by scientists Albert Einstein, J Robert Oppenheimer and Eugene Rabinowitch along with University of Chicago scholars.

During that time, the clock was set at seven minutes to midnight, but after the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb in 1949, Rabinowitch, who was then the bulletin’s editor, moved the clock to three minutes to midnight.

The farthest the clock has been from midnight was 17 minutes. That was in 1991 when US President George HW Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) to reduce the number of their countries’ nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

According to the University of Chicago, until recently, the closest it had ever been set was at two minutes to midnight: in 1953 when the US and the Soviet Union tested thermonuclear weapons and in 2018 because of “a breakdown in the international order, of nuclear actors, as well as the continuing lack of action on climate change”.

Then, in 2023, the clock moved its closest to midnight – just 90 seconds away. The organisation said the update was made “largely (though not exclusively) because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine”.

“The possibilities that the conflict could spin out of anyone’s control remains high,” Bronson said.

The Doomsday Clock is placed in the bulletin offices at the University of Chicago.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Oscar nominations 2024: full list of Academy Award nominees | Arts and Culture News

Oppenheimer dominates 96th Academy Award nominations with 13 in total including best picture.

Filmmaker Christopher Nolan’s, Oppenheimer, dominated nominations for the 96th Academy Awards, followed by Yorgos Lanthimos’s, Poor Things, and Martin Scorsese’s, Killers of the Flower Moon.

Nolan’s three-hour-long film about the father of the atomic bomb received 13 nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, and acting nominations for Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr and Emily Blunt.

Multiple nominations were also given to the craft of the film.

Scorses’s epic about the murders of members of the Osage Nation in Oklahoma in the 1920s landed 11 nominations, including the Best Actress nomination for Lily Gladstone, who becomes the first Native American actress to be Oscar-nominated.

Greta Gerwig’s, Barbie, took eight nominations, including nods for Best Picture, Ryan Gosling for Best Supporting Actor, and two Best Song nominations in, What Was I Made For, and, I’m Just Ken.

Here are all the nominees for the main categories. The award ceremony will take place on March 10.

Lily Gladstone, centre, in a scene from, Killers of the Flower Moon [Apple TV+ via AP]

Best Picture

  • American Fiction
  • Anatomy of a Fall
  • Barbie
  • The Holdovers
  • Killers of the Flower Moon
  • Maestro
  • Oppenheimer
  • Past Lives
  • Poor Things
  • The Zone of Interest

Best Director

  • Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest
  • Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things
  • Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer
  • Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon
  • Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall

Best Actor

  • Bradley Cooper, Maestro
  • Colman Domingo, Rustin
  • Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers
  • Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer
  • Jeffrey Wright, American Fiction

Best Actress

  • Annette Bening, Nyad
  • Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon
  • Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall
  • Carey Mulligan, Maestro
  • Emma Stone, Poor Things

Best Supporting Actor

  • Sterling K Brown, American Fiction
  • Robert De Niro, Killers of the Flower Moon
  • Robert Downey Jr, Oppenheimer
  • Ryan Gosling, Barbie
  • Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

Best supporting actress

  • Emily Blunt, Oppenheimer
  • Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple
  • America Ferrera, Barbie
  • Jodie Foster, Nyad
  • Da’Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

Best International Feature Film

  • Io Capitano (Italy)
  • Perfect Days (Japan)
  • Society of the Snow (Spain)
  • The Teachers’ Lounge (Germany)
  • The Zone of Interest (United Kingdom)

Best Animated Feature

  • The Boy and the Heron
  • Elemental
  • Nimona
  • Robot Dreams
  • Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

Best documentary feature

  • Bobi Wine: The People’s President
  • The Eternal Memory
  • Four Daughters
  • To Kill a Tiger
  • 20 Days in Mariupol

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US and UK carry out new attacks against Yemen’s Houthis | Houthis

NewsFeed

The US and UK militaries say they have conducted new air attacks against Houthi weapon sites in Yemen, as the group continues to target Red Sea shipping in protest over Israel’s war in Gaza.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US denies Yemen’s Houthis claim of attack on US military cargo ship | Israel War on Gaza News

The armed group says it conducted its attack on the Ocean Jazz in response to US and UK attacks on Houthi positions.

The United States has rejected a claim made by Yemen’s Houthi rebels that they attacked the US military cargo ship Ocean Jazz in the Gulf of Aden.

“The Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists’ report of an alleged successful attack on M/V Ocean Jazz is patently false,” the US Naval Forces Central Command said in a statement on Monday. “NAVCENT has maintained constant communications with M/V Ocean Jazz throughout its safe transit.”

The Iran-aligned armed group, which controls much of Yemen, did not say when or precisely where the attack took place, or if any damage was caused.

“The Yemeni Armed Forces affirm that retaliation against American and British attacks is inevitable, and any new aggression will not go unpunished,” the Houthis said earlier in a statement.

British maritime security firm Ambrey said the vessel named by the Houthis on Monday had been contracted by the US military.

US and United Kingdom forces have launched attacks across Yemen against Houthi forces in recent weeks in response to months of Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping that the Iran-backed fighters say is a response to Israel’s war on Gaza.

Since November, the Houthis have attacked dozens of commercial vessels navigating on the Red Sea, disrupting international maritime trade.

The group initially said it was attacking vessels affiliated with Israel, but has since widened its targets to include vessels linked to the US and UK. The Houthis say their attacks in the Red Sea are part of their support for Palestinians under siege and bombardment by Israeli forces in Gaza for more than three months.

Israel’s bombing campaign and ground offensive in Gaza have killed more than 25,000 people, mostly women and children, according to Palestinian officials in the territory.

Israel launched the assault and imposed a siege on Gaza after Hamas fighters carried out a surprise attack on southern Israel on October 7, killing at least 1,139 people, according to an Al Jazeera tally based on official Israeli statistics. Some 240 others were seized as captives during the attack.

So far, Houthi activity has been concentrated in the narrow strait of Bab al-Mandeb, which connects the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea. Approximately 50 ships sail through the strait daily, heading to and from the Suez Canal – a key artery for global maritime trade.

Some of the world’s largest shipping companies have suspended transit in the region, forcing vessels to sail around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Could a divided Jewish base upend US Democrats’ presidential hopes? | Elections News

Dearborn, Michigan – Raised in a Jewish American household, Dana Kornberg was in her early 20s when she started to become critical of the Israeli government.

It was 2006, and Kornberg was touring Israel, as part of what is called a birthright trip, a tradition for Jewish teens and young adults.

During her travels, she saw Israeli construction workers building a tall concrete barrier to fence in parts of the occupied West Bank, a landlocked Palestinian territory. She also heard Israeli comments about Palestinians that made her uncomfortable: “They were alluded to as being dangerous.”

Those experiences made her concerned about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians — something that evoked in her parallels to Jewish oppression throughout history.

“To me, it was horrific,” said Kornberg, now a 41-year-old assistant sociology professor. “What lessons have we learned from what our people have gone through?”

Dana Kornberg addresses protesters in front of a federal building in Detroit, Michigan, in October [Stephen Starr/Al Jazeera]

Now, as Israel’s war in Gaza continues to rage, Jewish American voters such as Kornberg are grappling with the US’s role in the conflict — and how it will affect their voting preferences in the upcoming presidential election.

Jewish American voters have long been seen as a reliably Democratic voting bloc: The Pew Research Center dubbed them “among the most consistently liberal and Democratic groups in the US population”.

During the last presidential election cycle, eight out of 10 Jewish people identified as Democratic. But US policy towards Israel and the war in Gaza has since divided Jewish Americans, as well as the broader Democratic base, leading to fears of a depressed turnout.

On one hand, President Joe Biden has continued to rally strong support among Jewish voters by pledging his “rock-solid and unwavering” support to Israel, as it leads a months-long military campaign in Gaza.

That stance, however, has provoked outcry among more progressive Jewish organisations, as the death toll in the Palestinian enclave soars past 25,200.

Questions of rising anti-Semitism in the US have also mobilised Jewish advocacy groups, ahead of what is expected to be a tightly fought race for the White House in November.

A January poll from USA Today and Suffolk University showed narrow margins separating Biden from his chief Republican rival, former President Donald Trump. Biden received 37 percent support in the poll, compared with Trump’s 39.

Other surveys have shown foreign policy to be a top issue for voters this year, with a majority of Americans backing a ceasefire in Gaza, something Biden has refused to call for.

Kornberg, a member of the progressive organisation Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), is among those protesting Biden’s stance on the war in Gaza, where United Nations experts have warned of the risk of genocide and famine.

In recent months, Kornberg has travelled from Michigan to Washington, DC, and Chicago to join demonstrations calling for a ceasefire. She was one of nearly 100 protesters arrested in November for blocking the Israeli consulate in Chicago.

Kornberg questioned whether Biden would be able to rally Jewish American voters before the general election. Even the prospect of a second Trump presidency, she warned, might not be enough to unite the Democratic base.

“I’m just not convinced that the fear of Trump is going to be enough to get [Democratic voters] to go to the polls,” Kornberg said.

She also criticised Biden for statements he made downplaying the Palestinian death toll and tying Jewish wellbeing worldwide to Israel.

“When Biden says things like, ‘The only place Jews can feel safe is Israel’, that’s a severely anti-Semitic comment because a lot of us heard it as if Jewish people shouldn’t be safe in this country,” she said of the US.

President Joe Biden has rallied support among the majority of Jewish voters, but younger voters are more sceptical of his track record in Gaza [Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo]

But the question of how Israel is perceived — and whether its actions in Gaza are justified — is an issue that has split Jewish American communities along generational lines.

A poll in November from the Jewish Electorate Institute found that Biden retains strong Jewish support overall: Three-quarters of participants approved of his handling of Israel’s war in Gaza.

That number dropped, however, when young Jewish Americans were viewed in isolation.

Only 53 percent of Jewish voters ages 18 to 35 approved of Biden’s stance, compared with 82 percent for other voting age groups.

Still, participants overwhelmingly backed Biden. An estimated 68 percent said they would vote for the Democratic incumbent, compared with 22 percent for Trump and 11 percent who were undecided.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, a pro-Israel advocacy group, credited that high level of support to shared values.

“Overwhelmingly, Jewish voters support President Biden because he represents the interests and values of the Jewish community, including — but not limited to — support of Israel,” Soifer told Al Jazeera.

She also named “abortion, democracy, gun safety, climate change, the economy [and] anti-Semitism” as “key issues driving the Jewish vote”.

But Soifer added that she saw renewed party engagement after October 7, the day the Palestinian group Hamas launched attacks on southern Israel, killing an estimated 1,200 people.

“Jewish voters self-identify as Democrats over Republicans by a nearly 50-point margin. This has only been solidified in the aftermath of October 7,” Soifer explained.

Her organisation has also seen an uptick in support following the Hamas attack, she added.

Progressive and anti-Zionist Jewish American advocacy groups have likewise reported a significant bump in membership following the start of the war in Gaza.

“Since October 7, our following and base has doubled or more by nearly every measure,” said Liv Kunins-Berkowitz of Jewish Voice for Peace.

“We now have over 1.8 million followers on our social media accounts and over 720,000 people that JVP counts as our base. They subscribe to our email list and regularly engage in JVP’s campaigns, demonstrations and workshops.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Joni Ernst hold hands at the March for Israel rally on November 14, 2023 [File: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo]

The Jewish American population overall sits at approximately 7.5 million people, or about 2.4 percent of the total number of people in the US.

And while the US Congress is overwhelmingly composed of politicians who identify as Christian, Jewish leaders make up the majority of non-Christian officials. They hold 33 elected positions in Congress, for a total of six percent of the available seats.

Some of those officials, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, appeared at a March for Israel on November 14. Tens of thousands of people gathered in Washington, DC, for that march, during which chants of “no ceasefire” were heard.

“Even in its darkest days, the United States has always stood with Israel, and we will do everything to see that that never, ever changes,” Schumer said, punctuating his words with raised fists as the crowd cheered.

But even among the Jewish representation in Congress, there are schisms over the extent to which the US should support Israel’s far-right government.

Schumer’s colleague, Senator Bernie Sanders, recently called the war in Gaza “wholesale destruction in an almost unprecedented manner”.

In January, Sanders criticised the Israeli government for acting “in a deeply reckless and immoral way”, though he stopped short of calling for a ceasefire, a point of contention with his progressive base.

He instead proposed a resolution that would push the US State Department to reveal whether US aid has been used in human rights abuses in Gaza. That proposal, however, was defeated last week in the Senate.

US Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a measure that would freeze aid to Israel until the US government assessed its human rights record [Rebecca Cook/Reuters]

But opposing Israel can come with political costs. Recent years have seen major pro-Israel groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Democratic Majority for Israel, spend record sums of money against Democratic candidates who have not openly expressed support for Israel.

In 2022, for example, AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel spent more than $6m — an unprecedented amount — on an attack ad campaign against Donna Edwards, a progressive candidate for the US House of Representatives.

Edwards, who previously served in the House from 2008 to 2017, ultimately lost her race.

Kornberg, the sociology professor, fears that progressive Jewish voices like hers may go largely unheard in the upcoming election.

“There’s a stonewalling that’s happening by Democrats where their constituents overwhelmingly, unprecedentedly want a ceasefire [in Gaza], and they’re just not listening,” she said.

“Why are we going to vote for people that don’t represent us?”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US aviation regulator calls for inspections of older Boeing 737 planes | News

Federal Aviation Administration recommends checks on Boeing 737-900ER planes.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recommended that airlines inspect door plugs on Boeing 737-900ER jets after a blowout this month on another type of aircraft with a similar mid-cabin exit.

In a statement late on Sunday, the aviation regulator said operators “are encouraged to conduct a visual inspection to ensure the door plug is restrained from any movements”.

The FAA said some airlines had conducted additional inspections on the 737-900ER mid-cabin exit door plugs and had noted “findings with bolts during the maintenance inspections”.

Regulators have stepped up scrutiny on Boeing after a cabin panel flew off midair during an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 flight on January 5, leaving a gaping hole in the plane’s fuselage and forcing an emergency landing.

The FAA grounded 171 Boeing 737 MAX 9 planes after the incident.

On Wednesday, the FAA said inspections of an initial group of 40 Boeing 737 MAX 9 jets had been completed, a key hurdle to ending the grounding of the model.

Boeing has sought to contain the damage by appointing an independent adviser to examine quality control in its manufacturing processes.

A Boeing spokesperson said: “We fully support the FAA and our customers in this action.”

The 737-900ER is more widely used than the 737 MAX 9. It is an older model but has the same optional door plug design that allows for the addition of an extra emergency exit door when carriers opt to install more seats.

There are 490 Boeing 737-900ER jets in service, at least 79 of which have an active door rather than the plug because they are operated by low-cost airlines with denser cabins, according to Cirium data.

In contrast to the new MAX 9, which experienced the door-plug issue, Boeing 737-900ER aircraft have more than 11 million hours of operation and 3.9 million flight cycles, and the FAA said the door plug “has not been an issue with this model”.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Trump may testify in E Jean Carroll defamation case: Here’s what’s to know | Donald Trump News

Former United States President Donald Trump may testify on Monday in a defamation trial over his 2019 comments branding writer E Jean Carroll a liar who faked a sexual attack to sell a memoir. He plans to be in court as the New York trial resumes after a weekend break.

Trump has denied Carroll’s accusations and has targeted her in comments to reporters and on social media, accusing her of making up the claims. Yet until now, he has never testified in court over the allegations.

Here is what to know about the case as well as the latest developments:

Who is E Jean Carroll and what does she accuse Trump of?

Carroll, 80, a former Elle magazine advice columnist, has accused Trump, 77, of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan in either 1995 or early 1996.

Carroll first made the accusations in a 2019 memoir.

E Jean Carroll testifies before Judge Lewis Kaplan as former US President Donald Trump watches, during the second civil trial where Carroll accused Trump of raping her decades ago [File: Jane Rosenberg/Reuters]

Trump has vehemently denied that a rape ever occurred or that he even knew Carroll. He has labelled Carroll a “nut job” and “mentally sick”.

She is seeking at least $10m for damage to her reputation over two statements that Trump made in June 2019, while he was president, in which he denied that anything happened and said Carroll made up the incident to boost sales of her memoir.

“I’m here because Donald Trump assaulted me, and when I wrote about it, he said it never happened. He lied, and he shattered my reputation,” Carroll told jurors and Trump last week.

What’s happened between 2019 and now?

In 2019, Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump alleging that he labelled her a liar following the release of her memoir.

The same year, while serving as president, Trump refuted Carroll’s accusations, telling a reporter at the White House: “I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?”

He stated that he didn’t know her, emphasising that people who make such charges “have to be careful, because they are playing with very dangerous territory”.

In the lawsuit, Carroll stated that Trump “smeared her integrity, honesty and dignity – all in the national press”.

That lawsuit was tied up in appeals courts as judges decided whether Trump was protected from legal claims for comments made while he was president.

But wasn’t Trump held guilty in a case involving Carroll?

In 2022, Carroll filed a second lawsuit against him minutes after a new New York State law took effect allowing victims of sexual violence to sue over attacks that occurred decades ago.

She accused Trump of battery “when he forcibly raped and groped her” and of defamation, citing an October post on his Truth Social platform where he denied the alleged rape. In the post Trump called Carroll’s claim a “hoax” and “lie”, prompting the new defamation claim.

To distinguish between the two cases, court papers sometimes refer to the suit over Trump’s 2019 comments as Carroll I, and the second case as Carroll II.

The second lawsuit moved forward because it was centred in statements Trump made when he was no longer in office.

As a result, a nine-member jury determined in May 2023 that the ex-president did not rape Carroll, but they did find him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Jurors awarded Carroll a little more than $2m for sexual abuse. They also awarded her $3m in damages for defamation. Trump is appealing that verdict.

According to a report by The New York Times, Trump has not faced criminal charges for sexual assault, and such charges are not possible due to the expiration of the statute of limitations in the case involving Carroll.

Criminal court requires a high standard of proof, where guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. In contrast, in a civil case, the standard is lower, and a jury can determine liability if it believes there is a likelihood greater than 50 percent that the claim is true.

That’s Carroll II. But is Carroll I still in limbo?

Last week, following the conclusion of appeals in Carroll I and with the Biden administration’s Justice Department affirming last summer that Trump lacked immunity, the trial finally began.

Because the first jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll in the 1990s and then defamed her in 2022, the new trial concerns only how much more – if anything – he’ll be ordered to pay her for other remarks he made in 2019 while he was president.

Who forms the jury and what are Trump and Carroll stating?

The judge selected a jury of two women and seven men to hear the case.

During opening statements, Carroll told jurors that Trump used his position as president to tell outright lies.

“He used the world’s biggest microphone to attack Ms. Carroll, to humiliate her and to destroy her reputation,” Carroll lawyer Shawn Crowley told jurors, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Alina Habba, a lawyer defending Trump, told the jury Carroll has benefitted from the situation.

“Her career has prospered, and she has been thrust back into the limelight as she always has wanted,” Habba said

“She has gained more fame, more notoriety than she could have ever dreamed of.”

“The evidence will show that Ms. Carroll has made Trump the focal point of her identity now,” Habba said, adding: “She doesn’t want to fix her reputation, ladies and gentlemen. She likes her new brand.”

Carroll exits Manhattan Federal Court, in the second civil trial [File: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters]

What comes next?

Trump could testify on Monday. Carroll’s lawyers have implored the judge to make Trump swear, before any testimony, that he understands and accepts the court’s restrictions on what he can say.

Judge Kaplan has ruled that if the former president takes the stand now, he won’t be allowed to say she concocted her allegation or that she was motivated by financial or political considerations.

Trump doesn’t have to attend or give testimony in the civil case. He stayed away last year from the prior trial.

The former president is currently contending with four criminal cases as well as the civil fraud case and Carroll’s lawsuit as the presidential primary season gets into gear. He has been juggling court and campaign appearances, using both to argue that he’s being persecuted by Democrats terrified of his possible election.

Trump is expected to travel after Monday’s court session to an evening campaign event in New Hampshire, which holds its Republican presidential primary on Tuesday.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Ron DeSantis drops out of US presidential race, endorses Trump | Elections News

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has suspended his Republican US presidential campaign just before the New Hampshire primary and endorsed Donald Trump, ending a White House bid that failed to meet expectations that he would emerge as a serious challenger to the former president.

“It’s clear to me that a majority of Republican primary voters want to give Donald Trump another chance,” he said in a video posted on X on Sunday.

New Hampshire’s primary, the first in the United States, comes on Tuesday.

DeSantis derided former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, long his closest rival for second place in the primary race, saying Republicans “can’t go back to the old Republican guard of yesteryear, a repackaged form of warmed-over corporatism that Nikki Haley represents.”

DeSantis entered the 2024 presidential contest with major advantages in his quest to take on Trump, and early primary polls suggested he was in a strong position to do just that.

He and his allies amassed a political fortune well in excess of $100m and he boasted a significant legislative record on issues important to many conservatives like abortion and the teaching of race and gender issues in schools.

Such advantages did not survive the reality of presidential politics in 2024.

From a high-profile announcement that was plagued by technical glitches to constant upheavals to his staff and campaign strategy, DeSantis struggled to find his footing in the primary. He lost the Iowa caucuses – which he had vowed to win – by 30 percentage points to Trump.

And now, DeSantis’s political future is in question after he suspended his presidential bid following just one voting contest. The 45-year-old is term-limited as Florida’s governor.

DeSantis was widely expected to be a serious challenger to Trump.

Acknowledging the threat, Trump went after the Florida governor viciously in the months leading up to DeSantis’s announcement of his candidacy in May, and continued to pound him on the campaign trail, on social media and in paid advertising in the months that followed.

Yet many of DeSantis’s problems may have been his own doing.

Fuelled by his dominant Florida re-election in 2022, DeSantis sidestepped tradition by announcing his presidential campaign on X, in a conversation on the social media site with CEO Elon Musk. The site failed repeatedly during the conversation, making it all but impossible to hear his opening remarks as a presidential candidate.

In the subsequent weeks and months, DeSantis struggled to connect with voters on a personal level.

He irked some New Hampshire Republican officials in his campaign’s inaugural visit to the state by declining to take questions from voters, as is tradition in New Hampshire. And later, uncomfortable interactions with voters in other states were caught on camera as well.

More serious financial challenges emerged over the summer.

By the end of July, DeSantis had laid off nearly 40 employees in a move designed to cut roughly one-third of his campaign payroll. The cuts came shortly after public filings revealed that he was burning through his substantial campaign coffers at an unsustainable rate.

Some people looking for a Trump alternative backed Haley, the former diplomat and South Carolina governor who gained popularity among many Republican donors, independent voters and the so-called Never Trump crowd.

DeSantis and Haley frequently attacked each other in debates and in advertising, often more directly than they went after Trump.

As internal financial concerns mounted, DeSantis turned aggressively to an allied super PAC to handle basic campaign functions such as organising campaign events, advertising and an expansive door-knocking operation.

Federal law does not allow campaigns to coordinate directly with super PACs.

In December, a non-partisan government watchdog group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, citing reporting by The Associated Press and others, alleging that the degree of coordination and communication between DeSantis’s campaign and the Never Back Down super PAC crossed a legal line.

DeSantis denied any wrongdoing and called the complaint “a farce”.

Still, the steady stream of negative developments leading up to the opening primary contests undermined the confidence of DeSantis’s donor network, which was supposed to be a major strength, and would-be supporters at the ballot box. As his polling numbers stagnated, DeSantis and his allies pulled back on their multistate strategy and focused virtually all of his resources on Iowa’s opening caucuses.

After leaving the 2024 presidential contest, DeSantis now refocuses his attention on the rest of his second and final term as Florida’s governor, which ends in January 2027.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

The US plan to revamp the Palestinian Authority is doomed to fail | Opinions

For two months now, the United States and other Western countries, backing Israel, have been talking about “the day after” in Gaza. They have rejected Israeli assertions that the Israeli army will remain in control of the Strip and pointed to the Palestinian Authority (PA) as their preferred political actor to take over governance once the war is over.

In so doing, the US and its allies have paid little regard to what the Palestinian people want. The current leadership of the PA lost the last democratic elections held in the occupied Palestinian territory in 2006 to Hamas and since then, it has steadily lost popularity.

In a recent public opinion poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), some 90 percent of respondents were in favour of the resignation of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and 60 percent called for the dismantling of the PA itself.

Washington is undoubtedly aware of the low public trust in the PA, but there is a reason why it insists on supporting its takeover of Gaza: its leadership has been a reliable partner for decades in maintaining a status quo in the interests of Israel. The US would like that arrangement to continue, so its backing for the PA may be accompanied by an attempt to revamp it in order to solve its legitimacy problem. But even if this effort succeeds, it is unlikely the new iteration of the PA would be sustainable.

A reliable partner

Perhaps one of the main factors that has convinced the US that the PA is a “good choice” for post-war governance in Gaza is its anti-Hamas stance and willingness to conduct security coordination with Israel.

Since the commencement of the conflict between Israel and Gaza on October 7, the PA and its leadership have not issued an official statement offering explicit political support for the Palestinian resistance. Their rhetoric has predominantly focused on condemning and disapproving of attacks on civilians on both sides, while also rejecting the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.

In a political address on the ninth day of the war, Abbas criticised Hamas, asserting that their actions did not represent the Palestinian people. He emphasised that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and underscored the importance of peaceful resistance as the only legitimate means to oppose Israeli occupation. This statement was later retracted by his office.

In December, Hussein al-Sheikh, a PA official and secretary-general of the executive committee of the PLO, also criticised Hamas in an interview with Reuters. He suggested its armed resistance “method and approach” has failed and led to many casualties among the civilian population.

The stance of the PA is consistent with its own narrow political and economic interests which have come at the expense of the Palestinian national cause. It has systematically and brutally stamped out any opposition and any support for other factions, including Hamas, in order to maintain its rule over West Bank cities while Israel continues with its brutal occupation and dispossession of the Palestinian people.

In Israel’s war on Gaza in 2008–2009, the PA leadership hoped to regain administrative control of Gaza with assistance from Israel. During that conflict, the PA prohibited any activities in the West Bank in support of Gaza and threatened to arrest participants. I, myself, faced harassment and the threat of arrest for attempting to join a demonstration against the war. Similar positions were adopted by the PA, albeit with less aggressive measures, in subsequent Israeli assaults on Gaza, as its leadership came to recognise that Hamas was unlikely to relinquish its control over the Strip.

Since October 7, the PA has taken a bolder stance, marked by more aggressive actions. Its security forces have suppressed demonstrations and marches held in support of Gaza, resorting to shooting live ammunition at participants. Additionally, the PA has recently detained individuals expressing support for the Palestinian resistance.

While cracking down on Palestinian protests, the PA has done nothing to protect its people from attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinian communities, which have resulted in deaths, injuries and the displacement of hundreds of people in the occupied West Bank. Additionally, the Israeli army has intensified its raids in the PA-administered areas, leading to the arrest of thousands and the killing of hundreds of Palestinians, with no reaction from the PA.

The PA’s inability to offer basic protection has added to the deterioration of its legitimacy among Palestinians. Furthermore, by taking a stance against the Palestinian resistance and aligning itself with Israel and the US, the PA is only further undermining its own legitimacy.

PA 1.0 and PA 2.0

Washington is aware of the growing unpopularity of the PA and its leadership among Palestinians but it is not giving up on it because it seems to believe that that can be fixed. That is because the US has tried to revamp the authority before as it has always faced problems with legitimacy due to the way it was set up.

As a governing institution, the PA was established to bring an end to the first Intifada. Conceived under the interim peace agreements in Oslo, it was envisioned as an administrative body to oversee civil affairs for Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip and certain parts of the West Bank, excluding occupied East Jerusalem.

It effectively took on a role as an Israeli security contractor in exchange for certain benefits related to administering Palestinian population centres. The PA faithfully fulfilled its mandate, carrying out routine arrests and surveillance of Palestinian individuals, whether they were involved in actions against Israel or were activists opposing its corrupt practices.

Thus, Israel strategically benefitted from the establishment of the PA, but the same cannot be said for the Palestinian people, as they continued to experience the ravages of a military occupation.

Despite this, the PA under Yasser Arafat – or what we can call PA 1.0 – leveraged patronage and corruption to maintain some level of support. Notably, Arafat viewed the Oslo process as an interim measure, expecting a fully independent Palestinian state by 2000. He pragmatically engaged in security collaboration with Israel, hoping to build trust and ultimately achieve peaceful coexistence. In 1996, responding to ongoing Palestinian resistance, he even declared a “war on terror” and convened a security summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, involving Israel, Egypt and the US.

In 2000, the civil and security arrangements overseen by the PA became increasingly fragile and eventually collapsed, triggering the eruption of the second Intifada. This uprising was a response to Israel’s policies of settlement expansion, its firm refusal to accept any form of Palestinian sovereignty between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and broader social and economic grievances.

In 2002, the Bush administration conceived the idea of refurbishing the PA as part of the Road map for peace. While Arafat’s leadership was perceived as a hindering factor, he had already collaborated with the US by implementing structural reforms, including the creation of a prime minister’s position.

Seeking to reshape the Palestinian leadership, the US engaged with potential alternative leaders, including Mahmoud Abbas, who eventually assumed the presidency of the PA in 2005 after the suspicious death of Arafat.

The PA took its first blow when Hamas won the elections in 2006 and was able to form a government. The US and EU rejected the results, boycotted the government and suspended financial assistance to the PA, while Israel halted the transfer of tax revenues. Meanwhile, the PA security apparatus leadership refused to deal with the Hamas government and continued their work as usual, claiming they reported to the PA president’s office.

For several months, Hamas struggled to maintain its PA government, while Abbas and his supporters made significant efforts to isolate it. In 2007, Hamas took over the PA security apparatus in the Gaza Strip and assumed control of all PA institutions. Abbas declared Hamas an unwanted entity in the West Bank and ordered the expulsion of the Hamas government and the imprisonment of many Hamas operatives.

After splitting the PA into two entities, one in the Gaza Strip and another in the West Bank, Abbas, along with allies Mohammed Dahlan and Salam Fayyad, led efforts to restructure the PA in the West Bank with full support from the US and the EU.

Under what we can call PA 2.0, two major restructuring efforts took place. First, it consolidated the Palestinian security apparatus under a united command. Led by US Army General Keith Dayton, the revamping of the Palestinian security forces aimed at deepening their partnership with the Israeli state and army. Additionally, it sought to cultivate a vested interest among PA personnel in maintaining the role of the PA. Second, the restructuring of the PA consolidated its budget, placing all its resources under the Ministry of Finance.

This restructuring did not result in a “better” PA. It remained a dysfunctional entity, which mismanaged resources and service provision, leading to a severe deterioration in living standards for the majority of Palestinians. Its leadership enjoyed certain privileges due to its security coordination with Israel and engaged in widespread corruption practices that have raised concerns even among PA supporters. Meanwhile, Israel’s settlement enterprises continued expanding without limits and the violence employed by the Israeli army and settlers against ordinary Palestinians only worsened.

PA 3.0?

The lack of support for the PA leadership and its dysfunction have raised concerns about whether it can play a role in the upcoming post-Gaza war arrangements that the US administration is trying to put together.

That is why Washington has signalled it will seek to revamp the PA once again – into PA 3.0 – with the aim of addressing the needs of various parties. The US administration and its allies seek an authority that can provide security to Israel and engage in a peace process without altering the status quo.

Since the start of the war, several US envoys have visited Ramallah carrying the same message: that the PA needs to be revamped. In December US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with Abbas and al-Sheikh (the PLO secretary general) urging them to “bring new blood” into the government. Al-Sheikh is considered a possible successor to Abbas, who could be part of these efforts to restructure the PA.

However, after more than 100 days since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, it looks like Washington does not have a concrete plan and only has some general ideas which the PA has declared a readiness to discuss. More importantly, the US vision does not seem to take into account the will of the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian public clearly demands a leadership that can head a democratic, national entity capable of fulfilling the Palestinian national aspirations, including creating an independent state and realising the Palestinians’ right of return to their homelands.

Revamping the PA implies intensifying cooperation with Israel and providing Israeli settlers with more security, which effectively means more insecurity and dispossession for the Palestinians. As a result, the Palestinian people will continue to perceive the PA as illegitimate and public anger, upheaval and resistance will continue to grow.

In this sense, the US vision for revamping the PA would fail because it would not address the core issues of Israeli occupation and apartheid, which successive American administrations have systematically and purposefully ignored.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

War on Gaza: What impact will the ICJ case have? | Show Types

The ICJ hearings have drawn scorn as well as shock from Israel’s media punditry. In the West, however, the case has emboldened journalists to ask tougher questions of the Israeli narrative.

Lead contributors:
Oren Ziv – Reporter, +972 Magazine
Mouin Rabbani – Co-editor, Jadaliyya
Selma Carmey – Human rights lawyer
Gideon Levy – Columnist, Haaretz
Daniel Levy – President, US/Middle East Project; Former Israeli political adviser

On our radar:

Australia’s public broadcaster- ABC – fired a radio host after she shared a report on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis to her social media. Meenakshi Ravi reports on a leak showing a pro-Israel pressure group may have been involved.

Feature: Top marks for Finland

Finland’s educational drive around media literacy offers a model for educators, broadcasters and countries around the world.

Feature contributors:
Leo Pekkala – Deputy director, National Audiovisual Institute
Mari Vesanummi – Media education producer, YLE
Valtteri Kela – Finnish language teacher, Helsinki French Finnish School
Valentina Uitto – History teacher, Helsinki French Finnish School

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version