G. Mudalige is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Technology & Innovation
Image Source : Reuters
Israel has launched extensive air strikes on southern Lebanon, targeting more than 100 Hezbollah rocket launchers and other sites, including a weapons storage facility. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reported the launchers were prepared for attacks against Israel, though no casualties were confirmed. This marks one of the most intense escalations since cross-border clashes began in October 2023 following Hezbollah's involvement in solidarity with Hamas during the Gaza conflict.
The airstrikes, conducted over two hours, were met with Hezbollah's retaliation targeting military sites in northern Israel, further intensifying the hostilities. Israel's defense minister, Yoav Gallant, described this as a "new phase of the war," with Israel focusing more efforts on the northern front. The IDF urged residents in northern Israel to remain close to shelters and avoid large gatherings as tensions continued to rise.
Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, condemned the attacks, calling them a breach of red lines and likening them to a declaration of war. He referred to recent explosions across Lebanon, which killed dozens and injured thousands, accusing Israel of committing war crimes. Israel has not confirmed involvement in these attacks, but Nasrallah's defiant tone indicated that Hezbollah would continue its cross-border strikes unless there was a ceasefire in Gaza.
Meanwhile, IDF Chief of Staff Lt Gen Herzi Halevi approved plans for intensified military operations in northern Israel. The possibility of creating an Israeli-controlled buffer zone in southern Lebanon was also discussed, aiming to safeguard Israel's northern communities. However, questions remain about how this goal would be achieved amid escalating conflict.
International efforts to de-escalate the situation are underway, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy calling for restraint. Lammy emphasized the need for a ceasefire to ensure the safe return of residents on both sides of the border, underscoring the urgent need for a political resolution to the ongoing conflict.
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.
Looking at current events, it is safe to say that the Biden administration is at a crossroads. On the one hand, there is massive military support for Israel; on the other, there are attempts to promote its own interests in the Middle East.
Image Source : Erik De Castro/Reuters
Why do attempts by professional negotiators fail?
We all know the famous saying: “you can’t sit in two chairs at once”. American diplomats either do not know it or, with a 100 per cent probability, have forgotten it. Either way, their actions are nothing but a laughing stock.
Officials in the current US administration promised some time ago to draw up a new version of an agreement to be sent to Israel and Hamas to overcome the obstacles to a ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza. The long-awaited new proposal would be based on the principle of “agree or disagree”, meaning that if either side, Israel or Hamas, rejects it, the war in Gaza, and by extension other fronts in the Middle East and the Red Sea, would remain trapped in a vicious cycle of violence with the attendant risk of further escalation.
It should be recalled that for the past three months, representatives of the Biden administration have been literally torn between their “interest in de-escalating the situation” in the Middle East through a ceasefire agreement in Gaza and the “stubborn” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has no interest in ending this unjust war or the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Constant war on several fronts suits him because it effectively postpones the death of his political career and the bringing to justice of his many crimes.
The Biden administration’s dilemma is how to reconcile its policy of military support for Israel in the name of false self-defence with its larger interests in the Middle East. His position has been further weakened by the election cycle in the United States, where all eyes are on domestic politics. Foreign policy has never been a priority for American voters unless the country is directly involved in war.
However, the question of how far the US would go in defending Israel has been the subject of debate between the two candidates in the presidential election, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump. Interestingly, neither candidate wants to be seen as wavering in their support for Israel in an election year. Harris is trying to walk a fine line between the two positions, echoing the Biden administration’s official position on the Gaza war, and showing “understanding” of the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza after 11 months of war, chaos and devastation at the hands of the Israeli army. This understanding should appeal to Muslim and Arab Americans living in prosperous states like Michigan.
As for Trump’s position, he showed no sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. On the contrary, according to the Israeli media, he said that Israel was small and that he was thinking about how to solve the problem. Of course, he wanted to be ambiguous because he is interested in attracting the Jewish vote in the US and convincing leading Jewish donors that he is totally on Israel’s side. Incidentally, the American press has published the opinion of a leading Jewish donor who said that she would make a significant contribution to Trump’s campaign if he promised that, if he won a second term, he would, for example, agree to Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.
In conclusion, it would be risky to predict an imminent end to the war in Gaza or to downplay the prospects of a major military confrontation in southern Lebanon. Over the past two weeks, the Israeli army has left no one in any doubt that it is prepared to launch a major military campaign against Hezbollah if diplomacy does not allow the return of the 68,000 Israelis who have been evacuated from their homes in northern Israel since 7 October last year.
The opinion of the Knights of the Cloak and Dagger
On 7 September, the British newspaper Financial Times published an unusual opinion piece by CIA Director William J. Burns and the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, Richard Moore. They believe that their services are actively cooperating through intelligence channels “to press for restraint and de-escalation” in the Middle East. They stressed that they would continue to work together with the help of “our Egyptian and Qatari friends to de-escalate tensions in the region”. The Grand Knights of the Cloak and Dagger don’t say so explicitly, but it’s pretty clear that this ‘de-escalation’ of theirs will only be in Israel’s interest.
Later, speaking to Financial Times editor Roula Khalaf, CIA director Burns said that 90 per cent of the text of the agreement for the first phase, Biden’s 31 May roadmap, had been completed, but that the last 10 per cent was very difficult to finalise. Two stumbling blocks were Israel’s insistence and brazen demand that it maintains a permanent military presence in the Philadelphi Corridor along Egypt’s border with Gaza, and the exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners held without trial in Israeli jails.
Burns said that work would continue “as hard as we can” to achieve a ceasefire and hostage release agreement because there was no other “good alternative”. He added, quite rightly, that “we must remember that for all the work that needs to be done, it is ultimately a matter of political will”. He called on Israel and Hamas to make “hard choices and difficult compromises”.
Israeli criminal actions under American cover
Meanwhile, Netanyahu, whose views do not reflect those of most Israelis, relies, as always, only on aggressive action against the Palestinians. It should be remembered that Israel actively and extensively used military force to expel the Palestinians as early as 1948, and continued acts of ethnic cleansing to pave the way for Jewish settlers and to create and maintain a Jewish majority in Palestine.
Violence has been and remains the main constant in Israeli strategy. Nevertheless, before 7 October, much was made of Israel’s “deterrence”. Much was made of the fact that Hamas would never dare to attack Israel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence encouraged this kind of thinking. Israel’s continued attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Jenin, Tulkarm, Tubas and elsewhere in the West Bank for the first time in nearly 22 years can be seen in this light, as part of the use of pre-emptive violence. Ostensibly, the idea is to prevent the West Bank from becoming another war front, which would place an additional burden on the Israeli occupation forces already engaged on the fronts in Gaza and Lebanon. But remarkably, the attacks coincided with a Knesset vote to repeal provisions of the 2005 Disengagement Law and authorise the resumption and intensification of settlement expansion in the West Bank.
In light of the above, it is highly doubtful that either side – Israel and Hamas – will be willing to heed the call for an end to the state of war, at least until after the US presidential elections on 5 November. In the meantime, peace and stability in the Middle East and Red Sea region will remain elusive, and the region itself will teeter on the brink of another major war.
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.
While some observers highlight the costs of decarbonizing Europe’s economy, the costs of climate inaction are far higher, and the green policies already in place are providing clear benefits. To achieve the structural transformation necessary for a more sustainable future, the European Green Deal must be implemented and strengthened.
Image Source : (gfa/Getty)
BRUSSELS – It has become something of a cliché to interpret the results of June’s European Parliament elections as a rejection of the European Green Deal and the policies associated with it. It’s also wrong: in her political guidelines for the next European Commission, President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed her commitment to the Green Deal, saying, “We must and will stay the course on all of our goals.”
This is the right approach. Europeans want a more sustainable future, and the Green Deal is a necessary – and highly beneficial – first step. For example, the European Union’s ban on sales of gasoline- and diesel-powered cars, which will come into force in 2035, is expected to deliver significant health benefits and could save hundreds of thousands of lives annually by improving air quality. Moreover, this deadline is likely to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs).
While it has been argued that the 2035 deadline should be scrapped, doing so would fuel consumer uncertainty and undermine the green transition. Instead, the EU should focus on encouraging more consumers – with the right incentives and under competitive conditions – to choose EVs over internal combustion engines. This, in turn, would ensure that used EVs are available at affordable prices by the time the ban goes into effect.
Regrettably, misleading claims about the unpopularity of green policies have already led to the withdrawal of legislation aimed at halving pesticide use across the EU by 2030. Similarly, EU institutions have rolled back some of the climate-related requirements farmers must meet to receive subsidies under the bloc’s Common Agricultural Policy.
Slowing the EU’s green transformation would harm consumers. In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom, surveys conducted by the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) and the 44 independent consumer groups within our network show that Europeans are eager to embrace more sustainable lifestyles.
But, as BEUC’s 2023 survey finds, while most European consumers want to reduce their environmental impact, they often feel lost in a maze of misleading green claims and labels, underscoring the need for reliable information sources. The survey revealed that most consumers believe that polluting companies should be banned from making any green claims. Clearly, realizing the Green Deal’s full potential requires meeting consumer demand for genuinely sustainable products. Reversing course now would jeopardize this progress.
While there is still much work to be done, we must recognize that the Green Deal is already benefiting European consumers. Two of its key components – the Right to Repair and Ecodesign for Sustainable Products – are intended to enhance product longevity and efficiency, thereby reducing costs for consumers.
This is especially important for low-income consumers as Europe continues to grapple with a persistent cost-of-living crisis. In 2022, as energy prices skyrocketed, consumer groups found that the most energy-efficient appliances could save households up to €2,450 ($2,700) on their annual energy bills. Even in more “normal” times, with energy prices back to more reasonable levels, European households can save between €650 and €1,800 every year on their energy bills thanks to ecodesign and energy labeling. To mitigate high energy costs, the EU also adopted rules that protect those who cannot pay their bills from having their electricity or gas disconnected.
Likewise, well-crafted policies like the EU’s tough auto-emissions standards have already improved air quality in towns and cities across the bloc, increased vehicle efficiency, and paved the way for clean-air zones.
But fostering a green, prosperous economy is a long-term project that requires additional legislation and the preservation of existing measures to guide consumers toward more sustainable choices. To promote sustainable and healthy food options, for example, policymakers must ensure that both domestic and imported goods meet the EU’s product requirements and that free-trade agreements align with the standards and values embodied by the Green Deal.
Accelerating the shift to zero-carbon transportation is essential. In a market dominated by large and heavy vehicles, the growing demand for smaller, more efficient, and affordable EVs among low- and middle-income consumers creates a unique opportunity for domestic manufacturers. To make these cars accessible to more people, improving the secondhand market should also be a priority. This can be done by setting binding EU-level zero-emissions-vehicles targets for large corporate fleets (which will hit the secondhand market much faster than privately-owned cars). In addition to getting clean cars on the road, European policymakers must develop a public-transport strategy that makes train travel within and between member states cheaper and more convenient.
Consumers also want – and deserve – the ability to invest their savings in ways that contribute to a greener future. So far, there are no minimum requirements to call an investment product “green” or “sustainable,” leading to greenwashing. By introducing clear requirements into the EU’s Sustainable Finance framework, policymakers could help consumers generate meaningful impact with their investments and thereby mobilize private capital to support decarbonization.
The costs of decarbonizing Europe’s economy, though significant, pale in comparison to the cost of climate inaction. The EU is already struggling to compensate farmers for drought-related crop losses, rebuild infrastructure damaged by devastating floods, and combat annual wildfires ravaging southern regions.
To be sure, achieving a just green transition will necessitate public support for vulnerable populations as they adapt to a more sustainable economy. That said, many of the Green Deal policies already in place provide tangible economic and health benefits that directly address consumers’ most pressing concerns.
Curbing Europe’s ambition to achieve a truly sustainable transition would only serve entrenched interests intent on blocking necessary reforms. The notion that consumers are indifferent to environmental concerns, or that climate action prevents policymakers from addressing other issues, is deeply misguided. To facilitate the structural transformation needed to build a sustainable and prosperous future, the European Green Deal must be implemented and strengthened.
