Concerns over data-driven ‘factory’ that significantly increases the number of targets for strikes in the Palestinian territory.
srael’s military has made no secret of the intensity of its bombardment of the Gaza Strip. In the early days of the offensive, the head of its air force spoke of relentless, “around the clock” airstrikes. His forces, he said, were only striking military targets, but he added: “We are not being surgical.”
There has, however, been relatively little attention paid to the methods used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to select targets in Gaza, and to the role artificial intelligence has played in their bombing campaign.
As Israel resumes its offensive after a seven-day ceasefire, there are mounting concernsabout the IDF’s targeting approach in a war against Hamas that, according to the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza, has so far killed more than 15,000 people in the territory.
The IDF has long burnished its reputation for technical prowess and has previously made bold but unverifiable claims about harnessing new technology. After the 11-day war in Gaza in May 2021, officials said Israel had fought its “first AI war” using machine learning and advanced computing.
The latest Israel-Hamas war has provided an unprecedented opportunity for the IDF to use such tools in a much wider theatre of operations and, in particular, to deploy an AI target-creation platform called “the Gospel”, which has significantly accelerated a lethal production line of targets that officials have compared to a “factory”.
The Guardian can reveal new details about the Gospel and its central role in Israel’s war in Gaza, using interviews with intelligence sources andlittle-noticed statements made by the IDF and retired officials.
This article also draws on testimonies published by the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call, which have interviewed several current and former sources in Israel’s intelligence community who have knowledge of the Gospel platform.
Their comments offer a glimpse inside a secretive, AI-facilitated military intelligence unit that is playing a significant role in Israel’s response to the Hamas massacre in southern Israel on 7 October.
The slowly emerging picture of how Israel’s military is harnessing AI comes against a backdrop of growing concerns about the risks posed to civilians as advanced militaries around the world expand the use of complex and opaque automated systems on the battlefield.
…………………………………..a short statement on the IDF website claimed it was using an AI-based system called Habsora (the Gospel, in English) in the war against Hamas to “produce targets at a fast pace”.
The IDF said that “through the rapid and automatic extraction of intelligence”, the Gospel produced targeting recommendations for its researchers “with the goal of a complete match between the recommendation of the machine and the identification carried out by a person”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
However, experts in AI and armed conflict who spoke to the Guardian said they were sceptical of assertions that AI-based systems reduced civilian harm by encouraging more accurate targeting.
A lawyer who advises governments on AI and compliance with humanitarian law said there was “little empirical evidence” to support such claims. Others pointed to the visible impact of the bombardment.
“Look at the physical landscape of Gaza,” said Richard Moyes, a researcher who heads Article 36, a group that campaigns to reduce harm from weapons.
“We’re seeing the widespread flattening of an urban area with heavy explosive weapons, so to claim there’s precision and narrowness of force being exerted is not borne out by the facts.”
According to figures released by the IDF in November, during the first 35 days of the war Israel attacked 15,000 targets in Gaza, a figure that is considerably higher than previous military operations in the densely populated coastal territory. By comparison, in the 2014 war, which lasted 51 days, the IDF struck between 5,000 and 6,000 targets.
………………………“We prepare the targets automatically and work according to a checklist,” a source who previously worked in the target division told +972/Local Call. “It really is like a factory. We work quickly and there is no time to delve deep into the target. The view is that we are judged according to how many targets we manage to generate.”
A separate source told the publication the Gospel had allowed the IDF to run a “mass assassination factory” in which the “emphasis is on quantity and not on quality”. A human eye, they said, “will go over the targets before each attack, but it need not spend a lot of time on them”.
Andrew Bowie, undersecretary for nuclear, is pushing expensive and dangerous nuclear power onto energy-rich Scotland. That’s insane. Nuclear power has consistently failed to deliver energy on time or on budget.
The much-touted Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) don’t yet exist, are heavily dependent on government subsidies to come on stream and will generate more toxic nuclear waste for which there is no safe disposal.
Unlike renewables, where costs are falling, nuclear costs keep climbing. The UK Government has flung billions at Hinkley Point C, guaranteeing £92.50 per MW hour over the next 35 years, twice as much as is guaranteed for wind. When finished, Hinkley Point C will be one of the most expensive power stations in the world. And Scottish households will pay £80 a year for nuclear on top of already exorbitant energy bills.
For those of us unable to bury ourselves completely in our ordinary lives of family, friends, and work to avoid seeing the tragedies of horrific violence unfold all around us, these are dark times indeed. The multiple wars that started after September 11, 2001 have only multiplied, and rarely end, imparting suffering to tens of millions of people around the globe. The risk of nuclear war is greater than anytime since the Cuban missile crisis, with all nine nuclear states building new nuclear weapons, several increasing their totals for the first time in 35 years, and several practicing nuclear war games on each other’s borders. At least one is threatening to use nuclear weapons if anyone challenges its aggression. The global military budget is well over $2 trillion dollars a year to wage current wars and prepare for the next ones. Two nuclear armed alleged democracies seem determined to carry out genocide in Gaza.
So it was wonderful to spend three days at the United Nations in New York amid hundreds of bright people attending the second meeting of states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The 63 governments who have ratified the Treaty, for whom it is now international law to eschew any activity supporting nuclear weapons and to try to remediate the enormous harms already done by them, meet yearly to see how they are doing, help each other implement the law, and encourage others to join.
Accompanying the diplomats are doctors, lawyers, scientists, activists, scholars, and victims from many organizations, living the antidote to despair – each working hard to advance the sanity of this treaty among a world awash in nuclear madness. Leading the dozens of civil society efforts was the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which was the ten-year driving force behind the negotiation of the TPNW in 2017. This was a major international treaty driven primarily by civil society, and a potent reminder that ordinary people can make a huge difference in a world usually dominated by the rich and powerful.
Leaders of civil society organizations were allowed to present their views in the plenary sessions along with the government representives. These statements were supplemented by educational sessions on dozens of topics. Most powerful for me were the young students from many countries who condemned nuclear weapons as creating insecurity and violating their right to life, who demanded more inclusion of youth and women in policy making. Scientists reminded us of the climate and agriculture research predicting that even a limited regional nuclear war will darken the earth’s skies enough to cause mass starvation of billions after the blast and fallout kills the first hundred million people. Representatives of the indigenous peoples who were harmed by weapons production and testing in the U.S., Australia, Khazakstan, and the Pacific gave stirring testimony of the loss of their land and multigenerational health, demanding justice for what they have suffered. The parties to the TPNW formally agree to address their concerns for healing and remediation. Several of the remaining Hibakusha (nuclear bomb survivors) from Japan shared their incredible stories and pleas for never again. Lining the hallways were works of beautiful art from the dawn of the nuclear age to the present. Concerts, vigils, prayer services, and protest marches were held at city venues nearby.
Representatives from the organizations that we count on to rescue us during disasters all made statements that there will be no meaningful help after multiple nuclear explosions . This included the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the World Medical Association, the International Council of Nurses, and the World Federation of Public Health Associations. All of these bodies agree with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War that the only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not cause an unmitigated disaster for humanity is to eliminate them. The principle means of doing that will be educating as many people and leaders as we possibly can about the threat these weapons pose.
I noticed among the many statements decrying nuclear weapons a sentiment that I heard less frequently at antinuclear events in the past – that war itself is the problem, and that we would do well to oppose all war rather than expend energy supporting one side or the other in any given war. This created the opportunity to introduce folks to World BEYOND War, whose mission is replace war with a just and sustainable peace.
Mingling with capable people dedicated to preserving life and our future through the TPNW illuminated the world that often seems dark with hatred and killing, and energized me to continue the current work of creating space for peace and human dignity.
While thousands gathered in San Francisco to protest the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s presence at its meetings, United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken signed a new Section 123 Nuclear Agreement with the Philippine Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla. This agreement would allow the United States to export nuclear technology and material to Manila. Negotiations for the agreement began upon Kamala Harris’ November 2022 trip to the Philippines, making it the fastest Section 123 agreement ever signed, according to Blinken.
President Marcos Jr. portends the so-called “peaceful nuclear cooperation,” to be an alternative energy solution for the Philippines. The agreement must now go before the US Congress for approval.
Here are five reasons why we must act now to oppose it:
In a country already prone to climate disaster, vulnerable communities in the Philippines will be further at risk. Located in the notoriously active seismic zone known as the “ring of fire,” the Filipino people are among those that climate change and natural disasters most endanger, seen in the yearly typhoons and major disasters such as Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, which some estimate affected around 16 million people. History meanwhile provides no doubt about the potential disasters that can come with nuclear energy; we are already witness to the devastation caused by the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima. US-based nuclear companies are pivoting their projects to the Philippines, making the country a guinea pig for their untested and risky technologies.
2 Nuclear energy poses a threat to the health and safety of communities in the Philippines. Exposure to toxic nuclear waste is linked to increased rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease and other adverse health effects, particularly in sensitive populations including children. The Philippines is highly abundant in safer forms of renewable energy, and it is better to use precautionary principles than put already vulnerable communities at further risk. There is no confidence in the Philippine government to handle this type of radiation processing of energy, especially if they are privatized and the main objective is profit.
3 Fashioned in the style of the Marcos Sr. Dictatorship, this deal benefits only the US and Philippine elite. This is not the first attempt of the Philippine government to prioritize nuclear energy with the United States. Marcos Sr., following his declaration of Martial Law, worked with US companies to begin the building of the Bataan Nuclear Plant. The Bataan Plant, a point of protest for activists in the Philippines, quickly failed and was mothballed when the Marcos dictatorship, full of corruption and plundering of public funds for personal use, could not complete the construction. Now, Marcos Jr., known for his lavish spending on global travel, has sought to revive a nuclear project like his father’s to earn foreign investment. House of Representatives Member Mark Cojuangco, a billionaire and long-time supporter of the Marcos family, has been a proponent of nuclear projects. These families support said nuclear project because it benefits their widespread power over land and profit in the Philippines Creating a deal with the US and foreign corporations will serve their business interests, not those of the Filipino people. For the US and US based corporations, it gives the opportunity to control and profit further from the resources in the Philippines, a country which, since 2022, has allowed 100 percent foreign ownership over “clean” energy projects.
4 The so-called “peaceful transfer” of nuclear materials thwarts the Filipino people’s right to peace, development and self-determination. Known as the deadliest country for land defenders, environmental activists, indigenous people, farmers and people in rural areas of the Philippines are currently facing brutal attacks under the Marcos’ counterinsurgency program – recently documented by UN Special Rapporteur Ian Fry. In its attempts to squash the CPP-NPA-NDF, the Marcos regime has continued the US-designed counterinsurgency policy of Duterte and many presidents before him that result in the militarization of indigenous and rural communities, indiscriminate aerial bombings, forced surrender of civilians and mass displacement of people from their homelands. At the roots of the armed conflict in the Philippines is the Filipino people’s struggle for land and sustainable, national development, free from foreign intervention and control. The transfer of nuclear materials paves the way for more displacement of indigenous people, land grabbing for the sake of foreign corporations and further militarization of the countryside. The potential monopoly of foreign ownership over energy in the Philippines further aggravates the people’s aspiration to control and determine the development of their own economy. The US agreement with the Marcos regime gives further approval of Marcos’s policies and rewards his family for their ongoing plunder and exploitation of the Filipino people.
5 As tensions with China escalate, the storage of nuclear materials will set a precedent for the US to allow a nuclear arsenal to be stored in the Philippines. The required technology and infrastructure for facilities to hold nuclear materials will open up the door for conversations to allow for the potential storage of US nuclear weapons on Philippine soil. President Marcos has already allowed the ongoing Kamandag war game exercises between the US, Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, only serving to escalate tensions in the region and drag the Philippines into conflict between the US and China. By allowing the US to store nuclear materials in the Philippines, Marcos is setting the stage to welcome US nuclear weapons as an opportunity to advance his foreign affairs relationship with US President Biden.
For these reasons, we, members of the Filipino community and allies in solidarity, demand that members of US Congress halt the Section 123 US-PH Nuclear Deal.
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) could be built in the north-east of England but not by Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.), Britain’s leading candidate to develop the technology.
In the same week that shockwaves were felt around the industry as an expected first SMR project in the US was cancelled due to a lack of interest from local utilities, US-based Westinghouse Electric was today reported to be close to agreeing a deal to build four SMRs near Hartlepool……………………………….
Rolls-Royce is seen as one of the frontrunners to develop the first UK SMR projects, with its £1.8 billion-per-site design using tech similar to that in nuclear submarines to power up to a million homes.
It was shortlisted in the government-run SMR competition in October, along with Westinghouse’s UK arm, EDF, GE-Hitachi, Holtec Britain, and NuScale Power, the operator with the cancelled US project earlier this week.
But of those names, only Rolls was thought to be currently undergoing assessment from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and Environment Agency for the first order, which it insisted put it almost two years ahead of its competitors in bringing an SMR on-stream and receiving funding from the UK government to build the reactors, though others have also applied for regulatory approval.
Rolls chief executive Tufan Erginbilgic has previously said the winner of the UK’s ongoing government-run SMR competition will need “tangible commitments in terms of projects – multiple projects”.
Earlier this week at its much-trumpeted investor event, Rolls said is planning to work with a “broad set of partners” to develop SMRs.
The government is close to publishing its long-awaited nuclear roadmap, which will set out plans to build a new generation of small and large nuclear reactors around Britain.
A cover image of the New York Post (11/16/23) depicted a supposedly shocking find. The headline “Guns Behind the MRI Machine” accompanied a photo of what Israeli troops had allegedly uncovered: Hamas guns at Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza.
On the Post cover were fewer than a dozen AK-47s and matching magazines, as well as a few tactical vests. In its subhead, the Post called this “proof Hamas used hospital as military base in stunning war crime.”
Many other media outlets reported Israel’s claims—and accompanying photos and videos the IDF offered as evidence—with little pushback other than Hamas’s denials and an acknowledgment that the outlet could not independently verify the claims. “IDF ‘Found Clear Evidence’ of Hamas Operation out of Al-Shifa Hospital, Says Spokesperson,” was an NBC News headline (11/15/23); Fox News (11/15/23) had “Watch: Israel Finds Weapons, Military Equipment Used by Hamas in Key Gaza Hospital After Raid, IDF Says.”
Israel’s assault on Al Shifa hospital provoked widespread international outrage, so a great deal hinged on its claim that the hospital was being used as a military base. But there are many reasons to question this display of weaponry, questions that imply that not only did the Israeli military make a weak case, but that some media outlets and pundits were too quick to take this presentation at face value.
The laws of war
While civilian infrastructure, and in particular medical infrastructure, are protected under the laws of war, the Israeli government claimed that the hospital’s protection was nullified because Hamas was using it as a military base, using the medical staff and patients as human shields.
The IDF released a 3D animation (YouTube, 10/27/23) depicting Al Shifa as “the main headquarters for Hamas’ terrorist activity,” with a warren of underground chambers hiding crates of weapons, missiles, barrels and meeting rooms bedecked with Islamic flags.
The US government supported this line of thinking (ABC News, 11/16/23). The Wall Street Journal editorial board (11/14/23) spelled out the argument:
The law of war in this case is clear: Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Hamas’s use of Al Shifa for military purposes vitiates the protected status granted to hospitals. Israel is still required to give warning and use means proportionate to the anticipated military advantage, and it has.
But the law of war is not, in fact, clear in the way the Journal claims. “Even if there is a military facility operating under the hospital, this does not allow Israel to bomb the site,” the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem (11/7/23) said in a statement before the hospital raid.
Even if a hospital were used for “acts harmful to the enemy,” that does not give that enemy “the right to bombard it for two days and completely destroy it,” Mathilde Philip-Gay, an expert in international humanitarian law at France’s Lyon 3 University, told the Guardian (11/17/23).
“Even if the building loses its special protection, all the people inside retain theirs,” Rutgers Law School international law expert Adil Haque told the Washington Post (11/15/23). “Anything that the attacking force can do to allow the humanitarian functions of that hospital to continue, they’re obligated to do.” The director of the hospital, Mohammad Abu Salmiya, said that 179 patients died while the facility was surrounded by Israeli forces and had to be buried in a mass grave (Al Jazeera, 11/14/23). (Abu Salmiya was later arrested by Israeli forces along with other Palestinian medical personnel—Al Jazeera, 11/11/23.)
After the raid, viewing the evidence, Human Rights Watch was not at all persuaded. “Hospitals have special protections under international humanitarian law,” said Human Rights Watch UN director Louis Charbonneau (Reuters, 11/16/23):
Doctors, nurses, ambulances and other hospital staff must be permitted to do their work and patients must be protected. Hospitals only lose those protections if it can be shown that harmful acts have been carried out from the premises. The Israeli government hasn’t provided any evidence of that.
DECEMBER 1, 2023
Press Relayed Israeli Claims of Secret Hospital Base With Insufficient Skepticism
A cover image of the New York Post (11/16/23) depicted a supposedly shocking find. The headline “Guns Behind the MRI Machine” accompanied a photo of what Israeli troops had allegedly uncovered: Hamas guns at Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza.
On the Post cover were fewer than a dozen AK-47s and matching magazines, as well as a few tactical vests. In its subhead, the Post called this “proof Hamas used hospital as military base in stunning war crime.”
Many other media outlets reported Israel’s claims—and accompanying photos and videos the IDF offered as evidence—with little pushback other than Hamas’s denials and an acknowledgment that the outlet could not independently verify the claims. “IDF ‘Found Clear Evidence’ of Hamas Operation out of Al-Shifa Hospital, Says Spokesperson,” was an NBC News headline (11/15/23); Fox News (11/15/23) had “Watch: Israel Finds Weapons, Military Equipment Used by Hamas in Key Gaza Hospital After Raid, IDF Says.”
Israel’s assault on Al Shifa hospital provoked widespread international outrage, so a great deal hinged on its claim that the hospital was being used as a military base. But there are many reasons to question this display of weaponry, questions that imply that not only did the Israeli military make a weak case, but that some media outlets and pundits were too quick to take this presentation at face value.
The laws of war
Israeli computer animation (YouTube, 10/27/23) depicting what was claimed to be “the main headquarters for Hamas’ terrorist activity” beneath Al Shifa Hospital.
While civilian infrastructure, and in particular medical infrastructure, are protected under the laws of war, the Israeli government claimed that the hospital’s protection was nullified because Hamas was using it as a military base, using the medical staff and patients as human shields.
The IDF released a 3D animation (YouTube, 10/27/23) depicting Al Shifa as “the main headquarters for Hamas’ terrorist activity,” with a warren of underground chambers hiding crates of weapons, missiles, barrels and meeting rooms bedecked with Islamic flags.
The US government supported this line of thinking (ABC News, 11/16/23). The Wall Street Journal editorial board (11/14/23) spelled out the argument:
The law of war in this case is clear: Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Hamas’s use of Al Shifa for military purposes vitiates the protected status granted to hospitals. Israel is still required to give warning and use means proportionate to the anticipated military advantage, and it has.
But the law of war is not, in fact, clear in the way the Journal claims. “Even if there is a military facility operating under the hospital, this does not allow Israel to bomb the site,” the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem (11/7/23) said in a statement before the hospital raid.
Even if a hospital were used for “acts harmful to the enemy,” that does not give that enemy “the right to bombard it for two days and completely destroy it,” Mathilde Philip-Gay, an expert in international humanitarian law at France’s Lyon 3 University, told the Guardian (11/17/23).
“Even if the building loses its special protection, all the people inside retain theirs,” Rutgers Law School international law expert Adil Haque told the Washington Post (11/15/23). “Anything that the attacking force can do to allow the humanitarian functions of that hospital to continue, they’re obligated to do.” The director of the hospital, Mohammad Abu Salmiya, said that 179 patients died while the facility was surrounded by Israeli forces and had to be buried in a mass grave (Al Jazeera, 11/14/23). (Abu Salmiya was later arrested by Israeli forces along with other Palestinian medical personnel—Al Jazeera, 11/11/23.)
After the raid, viewing the evidence, Human Rights Watch was not at all persuaded. “Hospitals have special protections under international humanitarian law,” said Human Rights Watch UN director Louis Charbonneau (Reuters, 11/16/23):
Doctors, nurses, ambulances and other hospital staff must be permitted to do their work and patients must be protected. Hospitals only lose those protections if it can be shown that harmful acts have been carried out from the premises. The Israeli government hasn’t provided any evidence of that.
Concern for Rolls-Royce, other developers after US mini nuclear setback
Proactive ,30 Nov 2023
A major setback in the roll out of mini nuclear power plants in the US has raised concern over the UK’s own bid to introduce the technology, whose developers include Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.).
Cancelling plans for its first small modular reactor (SMR) in the US earlier this week, NuScale blamed a lack of interest in the plant’s power output by local utilities.
“Despite significant efforts […] it appears unlikely that the project will have enough subscription to continue toward deployment,” the company said in a statement.
Given the plant was set to be the first of its kind in the US, having been granted regulatory approval in 2022, concern has been raised over the ramifications on other countries looking to utilise modular nuclear technology………………………..
Rolls-Royce is among frontrunners developing such technology in the UK, with its SMR representing the only system currently being assessed by independent regulators.
Cambridge University nuclear energy professor Tony Roulstone commented that failure of NuScale to push through its SMRs was “bad for the broader market”, however.
“They’re the one with a ticket from a safety authority,” he added. NuScale has received some US$600 million from the US government since 2014.
Pointing to the UK, he suggested just one version of the technology was needed, given companies will need several orders to help bring down costs as a whole.
“You can do it if you’ve got an order for ten,” he said. “You can’t do this if you’ve got an order for one.”
A host of companies are indeed looking to build SMRs though, such as EDF, GE-Hitachi and of course Rolls-Royce and NuScale.
Alongside the fact each is looking for public support and contracts, concern has been raised in the UK over a lack of urgency on the government’s part.
Sometimes Israel’s crimes are so horrific that at first you don’t even understand what you’re looking at. You just stare at it trying to make sense of what you’re seeing for a bit, like you would if you suddenly saw a space alien or a leprechaun or something.
It happened to me yesterday when I was watching a Sky News report about a teenage boy who was shot by Israeli forces in Jerusalem for celebrating the release of Palestinian prisoners in the hostage negotiations with Hamas. I was watching it thinking to myself, I must be misunderstanding what I’m looking at. I know that Israel does gross things, but surely the story here isn’t that they shot a kid for being happy about something.
Then, as has happened so many times over the last two months, I kept watching and learned that yes, that is indeed what happened. The deputy mayor of Jerusalem Fleur Hassan-Nahoum is seen defending the shooting by saying “part of the deal is that there would be no celebrations for the release of attempted murderers” (this was actually not a part of the deal, it was just a decree issued by Israel’s national security minister) and claiming dishonestly that “we’re talking about the release of attempted murderers” (the vast majority have not been convicted of any crime and have been denied any due process for the accusations against them).
The band Eve6 nicely summed up what it felt like watching the clip of the deputy mayor’s comments, tweeting, “The remarkable thing about this clip is her self assurance. Like she’s supremely confident that ‘we shot the teenager because he was celebrating’ is a thing that people will find reasonable.”
I had the same experience reading about the five premature babies who were left to die after the IDF raided al-Nasr Pediatric Hospital in Gaza earlier this month, their decomposing bodies only discovered when the temporary ceasefire allowed access to the hospital. It’s just too insane to believe — they attacked a pediatric hospital? And then they left the babies there to die? What??
The only reason we’re learning about this now is because the pause in fighting allowed journalists to get cameras into the building and show the dead infants to the world. This calls to mind the Politico report immediately prior to the ceasefire which said that the White House was worried “an unintended consequence of the pause” would be “that it would allow journalists broader access to Gaza and the opportunity to further illuminate the devastation there and turn public opinion on Israel.”
Indeed, since the pause in fighting began the world has been receiving drone footage from mainstream platforms like Reuters and The Washington Post revealing vast expanses of urban terrain completely destroyed by a blanket of Israeli military explosives spanning from city block to city block. Looking at the blatantly indiscriminate devastation that’s been caused by Israel’s assault on Gaza since October 7 makes it clear that the IDF are not targeting Hamas but Gaza itself………………………….
I cannot imagine what it’s like to be living in the midst of this horror for the last two months, trying to figure out the best way to survive while also grieving the family, friends and neighbors you’re losing along the way. These people have all been deeply traumatized in ways that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, if they survive the violence, disease and deprivation that’s to come.
This thing is so astonishingly ugly, and it could get a whole lot uglier after the ceasefire ends. If there’s anything positive to be found in this living nightmare, it’s that it’s so earth-shakingly ugly that it just might shake the world awake.
GLOBAL 2000 publishes fact-checking video on the COP 28 climate conference – nuclear power more than twice as expensive as renewables, aging-related nuclear power plant failures endanger security of supply.
At the start of COP 28 in Dubai tomorrow, GLOBAL 2000 and its German partner organization BUND Umwelt are publishing an animated video that analyzes the facts about nuclear power as a possible contribution to climate protection. The explanatory video is intended to appeal particularly to younger people who are exposed to disinformation campaigns via YouTube and other social media platforms.
“Many of the nuclear industry’s claims do not stand up to an objective fact check based on reputable sources such as the International Energy Agency or the World Report of the Nuclear Industry,” explains Reinhard Uhrig, nuclear expert at GLOBAL 2000.
“The announcements of ‘new’ or ‘modular’ reactor concepts (SMR and nuclear fusion) are also coming too late in the next decade relevant to the climate crisis – if they ever become ready for series production, because, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency of the International Energy Agency, this is questionable .”
UK Ministers are wooing the United Arab Emirates – reportedly the state-owned Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) and its sovereign wealth fund owner, ADQ – to be a partner in Sizewell C.
This is highly controversial given the UAE’s position on sensitive issues such as Israel and Palestine, and its support for Saudi Arabia’s stance on the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and other human rights concerns. Government Ministers are “minded” to intervene in attempts by the UAE to buy the Daily Telegraph because of these concerns, but apparently fail to see the contradiction – and damage to “energy security” – to sell a stake in Sizewell C, which is critical UK infrastructure, to the UAE.
Only the quick, fast buck are what matter. Sustainability, “Bah, Humbug!”
paulrodenlearning 29 Nov 23
I sincerely doubt a positive outcome from this COP23 Conference. The fact that it takes place in Dubai, an oil & natural gas nation state, hosting & sponsoring this Conference is the first fact. The profit addicted, fossil fuel companies & nation states want to extract & burn every barrel of oil, cubic foot of natural gas and ton of coal on the planet before they deem “renewable energy” as ready to power the planet.
The very idea of the halting or even reduction in the exploration, extraction & burning of any fossil fuel is just uphorrent to them. They don’t give a damn about the planet or the impact of the continued extraction and burning of any fossil fuel. The “maximizing of profits,” or “return on equity to their investors,” and “stock options” for their CEO’s & Boards of Directors is all that matters to them.
The environment, the ecosytem of the planet be damned. Only the quick, fast buck are what matter. Sustainability, “Bah, Humbug!”
Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2023-11-13
The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking Introduction
We stand in Solidarity with Palestine. But we must recognize that the United States Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
Andthis must be part of the solidarity campaign, namely to Reveal the Truth regarding Washington’s insidious role, which is part of a carefully planned military agenda directed against Palestine and the broader Middle East. Netanyahu is a proxy, with a criminal record. He has the unbending support of Western Europe’s “Classe politique”…..
Israel and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. are NOT exerting undue influence AGAINST U.S. Foreign Policy as outlined by numerous analysts.
Quite the opposite. The Zionist lobby is firmly aligned with U.S. foreign policy, and Vice Versa. It targets those who are opposed to war, who call for a cease fire. It exerts influence in favour of the conduct of the U.S. military agenda in support of Israel. The US military-intelligence establishment in coordination with powerful financial interests is calling the shots in regards to Israel’s genocidal intent to “Wipe Palestine off the Map”.…………………………….. https://www.globalresearch.ca/planned-us-israeli-attack-on-iran-2/5615443
Astronomers have discovered a new type of “aurora” created by falling SpaceX rocket boosters that punch temporary holes in the ionosphere. Experts are concerned that these blood-red light shows could be causing unknown problems for astronomy and communication.
De-orbiting SpaceX rockets are smashing temporary holes in the upper atmosphere, creating bright blobs of light in the sky. Now, scientists have warned that these “SpaceX auroras,” which look like glowing red orbs of light, could be causing unrecognized problems — though they are not a threat to the environment or life on Earth.
Researchers have known for decades that launching rockets into space can punch holes in the upper ionosphere — the part of the atmosphere between 50 and 400 miles (80 and 644 kilometers) above Earth’s surface where gas is ionized, or stripped of electrons. These “ionospheric holes” can excite gas molecules in this part of the atmosphere and trigger vibrant streaks of red, aurora-like light.
Now, astronomers at the McDonald Observatory in Texas have spotted similar but unique red lights appearing long after SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets have left Earth’s atmosphere. These lights, which are smaller and more spherical than the long streaks created by launching rockets, are the result of ionospheric holes carved out by the rockets’ secondary boosters as they fall back to Earth after detaching from the rockets, Spaceweather.com reported.
Astronomers spotted the first of these SpaceX auroras above the observatory in February, and now are seeing “2 to 5 of them each month,” Stephen Hummel, an astronomer and outreach program coordinator at McDonald Observatory, told Spaceweather.com. The red orbs are “very bright” and “easily visible with the naked eye,” he added.
Ascending rockets and de-orbiting boosters both trigger ionospheric holes by releasing fuel into the ionosphere, which causes ionized oxygen atoms to recombine, or turn back into regular gas molecules.
This transformation excites the molecules and causes them to release red light, similar to when the gas is excited by solar radiation during traditional auroral displays. This essentially creates a hole in the surrounding plasma, or ionized gas. But the recombined molecules are are reionized, which closes up the holes within 10 to 20 minutes.
SpaceX’s de-orbiting boosters release fuel during short burns in order to manouver the falling debris to touch down in the southern Atlantic Ocean instead of crashing onto land. The resulting holes typically form above the south-central U.S. around 90 minutes after launch at an altitude of about 185 miles (300 km), according to Spaceweather.com. These holes are smaller and more circular than the holes torn open by launching rockets, so the resulting lights are more spherical and do not linger as long. But they are appearing more frequently.
Just like the larger light shows, the ionospheric holes pose no danger to life on Earth’s surface. However, “their impact on astronomical science is still being evaluated,” Hummel said. As a result, it is “a growing area of attention” among researchers, he added.
Changes to the ionosphere can also disrupt shortwave radio communication and interfere with GPS signals, according to Spaceweather.com.
Studying these holes could also help scientists learn more about the ionosphere.
“The ionospheric density is different night to night, so we can learn something about the efficiency of the [ionosphere’s] chemistry by observing many events,” Jeffrey Baumgardner, a physicist at Boston University, told Spaceweather.com.
The red blobs are not the only light shows created by SpaceX rockets. The company’s rocket boosters spin and dump their leftover fuel in space before they de-orbit, which creates a cloud of tiny ice crystals. These crystals can occasionally reflect sunlight back toward Earth, and the illuminated fuel creates bright spirals in the night sky, known as “SpaceX spirals.”
The main low-carbon energy sources available in the UK in the battle against climate change are solar, wind, biomass and nuclear energy, but what sorts of people prefer these different options? That’s the topic of a new study in the December issue of the journal Energy authored at the Energy Policy Research Group at Cambridge Judge Business School, which finds that people’s preferred energy source is related to respondents’ views on the anticipated impact of climate change.
Specifically: people who believe that climate change will be catastrophic tend to prefer renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, while those less concerned about climate change are more favourable towards nuclear power. The study also finds that people prefer energy sources about which they are more knowledgeable or familiar.
Hydro-Québec has decided not to go ahead with recommissioning Gentilly 2 but nuclear remains an option it is considering to increase its production capacity beyond 2035, and it will keep studying nuclear energy, CEO Michael Sabia has said. Earlier this year the government-owned corporation launched a feasibility study on the possible restart of the 675 MWe unit which closed in 2012.
AtkinsRéalis “did a 50,000-foot analysis of the viability of Gentilly”, Sabia said. “For now, given the social acceptability issues, we have decided not to proceed with this. But there are a lot of evolutions in technologies”, SMRs “could be very well structured for some places in Quebec”, he added, according to the Montreal Gazette.
