Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
April 18, 2024
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/quentin-tarantino-scraps-movie-critic-film-1235006413/
Quentin Tarantino will no longer be making The Movie Critic, the film he previously said would be his last as a director. Variety confirmed Wednesday that the director had passed on the project, which would have been his 10th film, and revealed that sources said he wouldn’t be rewriting the project either.
Back in February, Brad Pitt had been supposedly tapped for the movie — the collaboration would have reconnected the actor-director duo after working together on 2009’s Inglorious Bastards and 2019’s Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood. Movie Critic was reportedly set in 1977 and followed a movie critic who wrote reviews for a porn magazine. (It was rumored Pitt would have reprised a version of role as Cliff Booth from Once Upon a Time, per Variety.)
At Cannes last year, Tarantino refused to answer questions about the film, but said, “I can’t tell you guys [anything] until you see the movie. I’m tempted to do some of the character’s monologues right now, but I’m not going to. Maybe if there were less video cameras. You just have to wait and see.” Variety had also reported last September that Tarantino had gotten a $20.2 million subsidy from California for the film, which was identified as “#10” referring to the director’s 10th movie.
“I love shooting in California,” Tarantino said in a statement at the time. “I started directing movies here and it is only fitting that I shoot my final motion picture in the cinema capital of the world. There is nothing like shooting in my hometown; the crews are the best I’ve ever worked with, and the locations are amazing. The producers and I are thrilled to be making #10 in Los Angeles.” It’s unclear if he’ll use the approved subsidy for a different film.
snip
Quentin Tarantino Scraps Film 'The Movie Critic,' Which Would've Been His Last
The director was seemingly in talks to reunite with Brat Pitt for the filmhttps://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/quentin-tarantino-scraps-movie-critic-film-1235006413/
Quentin Tarantino will no longer be making The Movie Critic, the film he previously said would be his last as a director. Variety confirmed Wednesday that the director had passed on the project, which would have been his 10th film, and revealed that sources said he wouldn’t be rewriting the project either.
Back in February, Brad Pitt had been supposedly tapped for the movie — the collaboration would have reconnected the actor-director duo after working together on 2009’s Inglorious Bastards and 2019’s Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood. Movie Critic was reportedly set in 1977 and followed a movie critic who wrote reviews for a porn magazine. (It was rumored Pitt would have reprised a version of role as Cliff Booth from Once Upon a Time, per Variety.)
At Cannes last year, Tarantino refused to answer questions about the film, but said, “I can’t tell you guys [anything] until you see the movie. I’m tempted to do some of the character’s monologues right now, but I’m not going to. Maybe if there were less video cameras. You just have to wait and see.” Variety had also reported last September that Tarantino had gotten a $20.2 million subsidy from California for the film, which was identified as “#10” referring to the director’s 10th movie.
“I love shooting in California,” Tarantino said in a statement at the time. “I started directing movies here and it is only fitting that I shoot my final motion picture in the cinema capital of the world. There is nothing like shooting in my hometown; the crews are the best I’ve ever worked with, and the locations are amazing. The producers and I are thrilled to be making #10 in Los Angeles.” It’s unclear if he’ll use the approved subsidy for a different film.
snip
April 18, 2024
https://globalextremism.org/post/election-denial-is-ramping-up/
The 2020 U.S. presidential election was the first time in recent history where a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, baselessly lied about potential massive voter fraud as having led to a “rigged” outcome for his opponent, Joe Biden. The “Stop the Steal” movement that emerged from Trump’s complaints about the election, and made up of dozens of election denying organizations, directly threatened American democracy. Its ideas fomented the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. As Trump used his widely followed social media platforms to amplify his election fraud claims, an entire cottage industry of far-right organizations sprang up in 2020 to spread election denial narratives citing bogus “evidence” of alleged fraud across the country (GPAHE reported on these organizations in 2022). Many of the groups active in earlier election cycles are now ramping up for the 2024 presidential election, alongside others on the far right that have begun spreading messaging about voter fraud and potential election manipulation in November.
Research has found that allegations of mass voter fraud strongly undermine trust in elections, the bedrock of a healthy democracy, and the acceptance of election results. The claims made by these groups have clearly had a negative impact on our democracy. A survey fielded after the 2020 election found most Trump voters believed Biden’s win was illegitimate, and 40 percent said that they would not support Biden even if Trump’s court cases challenging the election result failed (all of which did). All research points to voter fraud being extremely rare, and there is a large consensus among experts that voter fraud in the U.S. not the widespread problem that can alter election results as election deniers would have us believe. An analysis by Justin Levitt, professor at Loyola Law School, for example, found only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation between the years 2000 and 2014, in a pool of over a billion ballots.
Voting by Mail (VBM), which was commonplace in 2020 due to the pandemic, is also incredibly secure, and five states – Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington – hold elections almost exclusively through the mail. VBM states have reported just over a dozen cases of fraud since the year 2000. As with voting in person, VBM fraud is rare, and studies have shown that it increases voter turnout. Despite this unequivocal evidence to the contrary, far-right groups still push the narrative that elections in the United States are largely fraudulent primarily for three reasons. First, to promote legislation that makes it harder to vote, which usually targets minority and lower income voters. Secondly, to promote the lie that Trump actually won the 2020 election. And finally, to bolster the lie that there is a deliberate conspiracy by government elites (usually Democratic party-aligned individuals or Jews) to “replace” the native population with a non-white immigrant one (i.e. the white supremacist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory). Unfortunately, these claims haven’t stopped since 2020, and far-right groups are now laying the groundwork to paint elections in the U.S. as riddled with fraud.
Here are six organizations pushing election denial in advance of the 2024 election.
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is a far right “think tank” founded in 1973, which came to prominence during the Reagan era, and remains an influential organization in the far-right movement. Initially opposed to the Trump administration, the Heritage Foundation eventually came around to supporting Trump after they were given enormous leeway in choosing who would be appointed to cabinet positions in the administration following the 2016 election. They later hired a number of ex-Trump officials after Biden won in 2020. More recently, the organization has turned towards “national conservatism” under the leadership of its new president Kevin Roberts, who has taken up the mantle of Trumpian and Orbanist (see Global Project Against Hate and Extremism’s reporting on Heritage’s connections to Hungary) causes at Heritage. Since then, the organization has transformed from a traditional conservative organization to a well-funded authoritarian and conspiracist outfit fixated on cultural panics and disseminating its detailed plan, Project 2025, to move the country towards authoritarianism and strip civil rights for many communities (for more, read GPAHE’s detailed analysis of Project 2025). Heritage rails about imaginary “radical left threats,” a “secret communist movement in America,” and “wokeism” in every aspect of American life.
snip
The Election Denial Industry is Ramping Up for 2024
https://globalextremism.org/post/election-denial-is-ramping-up/
The 2020 U.S. presidential election was the first time in recent history where a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, baselessly lied about potential massive voter fraud as having led to a “rigged” outcome for his opponent, Joe Biden. The “Stop the Steal” movement that emerged from Trump’s complaints about the election, and made up of dozens of election denying organizations, directly threatened American democracy. Its ideas fomented the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. As Trump used his widely followed social media platforms to amplify his election fraud claims, an entire cottage industry of far-right organizations sprang up in 2020 to spread election denial narratives citing bogus “evidence” of alleged fraud across the country (GPAHE reported on these organizations in 2022). Many of the groups active in earlier election cycles are now ramping up for the 2024 presidential election, alongside others on the far right that have begun spreading messaging about voter fraud and potential election manipulation in November.
Research has found that allegations of mass voter fraud strongly undermine trust in elections, the bedrock of a healthy democracy, and the acceptance of election results. The claims made by these groups have clearly had a negative impact on our democracy. A survey fielded after the 2020 election found most Trump voters believed Biden’s win was illegitimate, and 40 percent said that they would not support Biden even if Trump’s court cases challenging the election result failed (all of which did). All research points to voter fraud being extremely rare, and there is a large consensus among experts that voter fraud in the U.S. not the widespread problem that can alter election results as election deniers would have us believe. An analysis by Justin Levitt, professor at Loyola Law School, for example, found only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation between the years 2000 and 2014, in a pool of over a billion ballots.
Voting by Mail (VBM), which was commonplace in 2020 due to the pandemic, is also incredibly secure, and five states – Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington – hold elections almost exclusively through the mail. VBM states have reported just over a dozen cases of fraud since the year 2000. As with voting in person, VBM fraud is rare, and studies have shown that it increases voter turnout. Despite this unequivocal evidence to the contrary, far-right groups still push the narrative that elections in the United States are largely fraudulent primarily for three reasons. First, to promote legislation that makes it harder to vote, which usually targets minority and lower income voters. Secondly, to promote the lie that Trump actually won the 2020 election. And finally, to bolster the lie that there is a deliberate conspiracy by government elites (usually Democratic party-aligned individuals or Jews) to “replace” the native population with a non-white immigrant one (i.e. the white supremacist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory). Unfortunately, these claims haven’t stopped since 2020, and far-right groups are now laying the groundwork to paint elections in the U.S. as riddled with fraud.
Here are six organizations pushing election denial in advance of the 2024 election.
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is a far right “think tank” founded in 1973, which came to prominence during the Reagan era, and remains an influential organization in the far-right movement. Initially opposed to the Trump administration, the Heritage Foundation eventually came around to supporting Trump after they were given enormous leeway in choosing who would be appointed to cabinet positions in the administration following the 2016 election. They later hired a number of ex-Trump officials after Biden won in 2020. More recently, the organization has turned towards “national conservatism” under the leadership of its new president Kevin Roberts, who has taken up the mantle of Trumpian and Orbanist (see Global Project Against Hate and Extremism’s reporting on Heritage’s connections to Hungary) causes at Heritage. Since then, the organization has transformed from a traditional conservative organization to a well-funded authoritarian and conspiracist outfit fixated on cultural panics and disseminating its detailed plan, Project 2025, to move the country towards authoritarianism and strip civil rights for many communities (for more, read GPAHE’s detailed analysis of Project 2025). Heritage rails about imaginary “radical left threats,” a “secret communist movement in America,” and “wokeism” in every aspect of American life.
snip
April 18, 2024
https://globalextremism.org/post/hungarian-organizations-spreading-countrys-authoritarian-agenda/
At the CPAC Dallas event in August 2022, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán called for Christian Nationalists in Europe and the United States to “unite forces,” because “we Hungarians know how to defeat the enemies of freedom on the political battlefield.” At the governmental level, this is increasingly done through Hungarian organizations that are used as a form of soft-power to influence other countries culturally and ideologically. A growing army of Hungarian “universities,” “think tanks,” and other organizations including American lobbying outfits, heavily funded by the Hungarian treasury, have taken to building widespread networks of influence in the United States and much of Europe. In doing so, they intend to influence these countries to move their politics in the direction of the Orbán regime’s, which the EU parliament calls an “electoral autocracy.”
Through this network, Hungarian soft-power organizations make connections with foreign NGOs, think tanks, intellectuals, and politicians, and spread far-right propaganda about immigration, LGBTQ+ issues, European integration, and “wokeness,” and promote a positive image of Orbán and the Hungarian regime to fellow far-right travelers abroad. Some of this influence is gained through the American Hungarian community and American lobbying firms. This can be seen in the case of the American Hungarian Federation, an organization representing the Hungarian expat community in the United States which supports Orbán’s political agenda, as when it pressured the Trump Administration to reconsider the State Department’s decision to provide a 700,000 USD grant to foster the free press in Hungary, which Orbánists criticized as an example of American interference in Hungarian affairs.
In another instance, Orbán https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/us/politics/hungary-orban-lobbying.html" target="_blank">hired the lobbying firm of former Florida Republican Congressman Connie Mack IV. According to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings obtained by GPAHE, this contract amounted to payments of 20,000 USD per month to Levick Strategic Communications, which according to the New York Times, “specializes in generating media coverage that casts troubled clients in a more favorable light — preparing executives for interviews, urging reporters to pursue more sympathetic angles and spreading complimentary facts through news releases and social media.” Other firms of Mack’s, such as the Prime Policy Group, were tasked with contacting US journalists in order to schedule meetings with a visiting “Hungarian official.” Later in 2018, Orbán hired Policy Impact, led by Republican lobbyist William Nixon, which helped to https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/us/politics/hungary-orban-lobbying.html" target="_blank">introduce Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson to Orbán and Hungary. Carlson later would go on to paint the country as a glowing conservative paradise and even visit in the summer of 2021, claiming on his show that Orbán had been unfairly cast as an authoritarian in the international press: “Because the lessons are so obvious, and such a clear refutation to the policies we currently have, and the people who instituted those policies, Hungary and its government have been ruthlessly attacked and unfairly attacked: ‘It’s authoritarian, they’re fascists…’ There are many lies being told right now, that may be the greatest of all.” It is https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/us/politics/hungary-orban-lobbying.html" target="_blank">estimated that Orbán spent an estimated 4.5 million USD on lobbyists from May 2012 to October 2021.
Other actions are more oriented towards building a coalition of far-right movements and leaders that the Orbán regime can call upon to support its politics. While organizations based in Hungary have been provided the most resources for these aims, the Hungarian government also has ties with international organizations such as the anti-LGBTQ+ organization Political Network for Values (PNfV), which received a 140,000 euro grant from the Hungarian government in 2020 and has Hungarians in its leadership. Many of these attempts to influence Western countries function under the radar. In September 2022, the investigative journalism outlet Átlátszó reported on the activities of a bilingual, “London-based” international news agency called V4NA, which delivers coverage of current events from a far-right perspective. According to Átlátszó’s reporting, the outlet is owned by the large media conglomerate KESMA, filled with Orbán loyalists, and actually is based in the center of Budapest, not London, in order to provide a pro-Orbán spin on current events while apparently presenting itself as a foreign news outlet.
snip
Pro-Orban Hungarian Organizations Are Spreading the Country's Authoritarian Agenda Abroad
https://globalextremism.org/post/hungarian-organizations-spreading-countrys-authoritarian-agenda/
At the CPAC Dallas event in August 2022, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán called for Christian Nationalists in Europe and the United States to “unite forces,” because “we Hungarians know how to defeat the enemies of freedom on the political battlefield.” At the governmental level, this is increasingly done through Hungarian organizations that are used as a form of soft-power to influence other countries culturally and ideologically. A growing army of Hungarian “universities,” “think tanks,” and other organizations including American lobbying outfits, heavily funded by the Hungarian treasury, have taken to building widespread networks of influence in the United States and much of Europe. In doing so, they intend to influence these countries to move their politics in the direction of the Orbán regime’s, which the EU parliament calls an “electoral autocracy.”
Through this network, Hungarian soft-power organizations make connections with foreign NGOs, think tanks, intellectuals, and politicians, and spread far-right propaganda about immigration, LGBTQ+ issues, European integration, and “wokeness,” and promote a positive image of Orbán and the Hungarian regime to fellow far-right travelers abroad. Some of this influence is gained through the American Hungarian community and American lobbying firms. This can be seen in the case of the American Hungarian Federation, an organization representing the Hungarian expat community in the United States which supports Orbán’s political agenda, as when it pressured the Trump Administration to reconsider the State Department’s decision to provide a 700,000 USD grant to foster the free press in Hungary, which Orbánists criticized as an example of American interference in Hungarian affairs.
In another instance, Orbán https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/us/politics/hungary-orban-lobbying.html" target="_blank">hired the lobbying firm of former Florida Republican Congressman Connie Mack IV. According to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings obtained by GPAHE, this contract amounted to payments of 20,000 USD per month to Levick Strategic Communications, which according to the New York Times, “specializes in generating media coverage that casts troubled clients in a more favorable light — preparing executives for interviews, urging reporters to pursue more sympathetic angles and spreading complimentary facts through news releases and social media.” Other firms of Mack’s, such as the Prime Policy Group, were tasked with contacting US journalists in order to schedule meetings with a visiting “Hungarian official.” Later in 2018, Orbán hired Policy Impact, led by Republican lobbyist William Nixon, which helped to https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/us/politics/hungary-orban-lobbying.html" target="_blank">introduce Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson to Orbán and Hungary. Carlson later would go on to paint the country as a glowing conservative paradise and even visit in the summer of 2021, claiming on his show that Orbán had been unfairly cast as an authoritarian in the international press: “Because the lessons are so obvious, and such a clear refutation to the policies we currently have, and the people who instituted those policies, Hungary and its government have been ruthlessly attacked and unfairly attacked: ‘It’s authoritarian, they’re fascists…’ There are many lies being told right now, that may be the greatest of all.” It is https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/us/politics/hungary-orban-lobbying.html" target="_blank">estimated that Orbán spent an estimated 4.5 million USD on lobbyists from May 2012 to October 2021.
Other actions are more oriented towards building a coalition of far-right movements and leaders that the Orbán regime can call upon to support its politics. While organizations based in Hungary have been provided the most resources for these aims, the Hungarian government also has ties with international organizations such as the anti-LGBTQ+ organization Political Network for Values (PNfV), which received a 140,000 euro grant from the Hungarian government in 2020 and has Hungarians in its leadership. Many of these attempts to influence Western countries function under the radar. In September 2022, the investigative journalism outlet Átlátszó reported on the activities of a bilingual, “London-based” international news agency called V4NA, which delivers coverage of current events from a far-right perspective. According to Átlátszó’s reporting, the outlet is owned by the large media conglomerate KESMA, filled with Orbán loyalists, and actually is based in the center of Budapest, not London, in order to provide a pro-Orbán spin on current events while apparently presenting itself as a foreign news outlet.
snip
April 18, 2024
https://www.wortfm.org/project-2025-far-right-plans-for-an-ideal-america/
White people in the U. S. are being discriminated against — at least that’s the opinion authors of the document “Project 2025” — a far-right playbook for their proposed changes to the U. S. society, according to Wendy Via, CEO and Co-founder of Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. This group tracks, monitors, and exposes the rise of far right extremism worldwide, and has identified over 100 sponsors of the document, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, many with racist ties.
https://soundcloud.com/wort-fm/buzz-4-10-24-wendy-vi
Project 2025: Far Right Plans For An "Ideal" America
https://www.wortfm.org/project-2025-far-right-plans-for-an-ideal-america/
White people in the U. S. are being discriminated against — at least that’s the opinion authors of the document “Project 2025” — a far-right playbook for their proposed changes to the U. S. society, according to Wendy Via, CEO and Co-founder of Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. This group tracks, monitors, and exposes the rise of far right extremism worldwide, and has identified over 100 sponsors of the document, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, many with racist ties.
https://soundcloud.com/wort-fm/buzz-4-10-24-wendy-vi
April 18, 2024
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2024/04/10/jewish-faculty-reject-the-weaponization-of-antisemitism/
Dear President Shafik,
We write as Jewish faculty of Columbia and Barnard in anticipation of your appearance before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on April 17, where you are expected to answer questions about antisemitism on campus. Based on the committee’s previous hearings, we are gravely concerned about the false narratives that frame these proceedings to entrap witnesses. We urge you, as the University president, to defend our shared commitment to universities as sites of learning, critical thinking, and knowledge production against this new McCarthyism. Rather than being concerned with the safety and well-being of Jewish students on campuses, the committee is leveraging antisemitism in a wider effort to caricature and demonize universities as hotbeds of “woke indoctrination.”
Its opportunistic use of antisemitism in a moment of crisis is expanding and strengthening longstanding efforts to undermine educational institutions. After launching attacks on public universities from Florida to South Dakota, this campaign has opened a new front against private institutions. The prospect of Rep. Elise Stefanik, a member of congress with a history of espousing white nationalist politics, calling university presidents to account for alleged antisemitism on their campuses reveals these proceedings as disingenuous political theater. In the face of these coordinated attacks on higher education, universities must insist on their freedom to research and teach inconvenient truths. This includes historical injustices and the contemporary structures that perpetuate them, regardless of whether these facts are politically inexpedient for certain interest groups.
To be sure, antisemitism is a grave concern that should be scrutinized alongside racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and all other forms of hate. These hateful ideologies exist everywhere and we would be ignorant to believe that they don’t exist at Columbia. When antisemitism rears its head, it should be swiftly denounced, and its perpetrators held to account. However, it is absurd to claim that antisemitism—“discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews,” according to the Jerusalem Declaration’s definition—is rampant on Columbia’s campus. To argue that taking a stand against Israel’s war on Gaza is antisemitic is to pervert the meaning of the term.
Labeling pro-Palestinian expression as anti-Jewish hate speech requires a dangerous and false conflation of Zionism with Jewishness, of political ideology with identity. This conflation betrays a woefully inaccurate understanding—and disingenuous misrepresentation—of Jewish history, identity, and politics. It erases more than a century of debates among Jews themselves about the nature of a Jewish homeland in the biblical Land of Israel, including Israel’s status as a Jewish nation-state. It dismisses the experiences of the post-Zionist, non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist Jews who work, study, and live on our campus.
snip
Jewish faculty reject the weaponization of antisemitism
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2024/04/10/jewish-faculty-reject-the-weaponization-of-antisemitism/
Dear President Shafik,
We write as Jewish faculty of Columbia and Barnard in anticipation of your appearance before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on April 17, where you are expected to answer questions about antisemitism on campus. Based on the committee’s previous hearings, we are gravely concerned about the false narratives that frame these proceedings to entrap witnesses. We urge you, as the University president, to defend our shared commitment to universities as sites of learning, critical thinking, and knowledge production against this new McCarthyism. Rather than being concerned with the safety and well-being of Jewish students on campuses, the committee is leveraging antisemitism in a wider effort to caricature and demonize universities as hotbeds of “woke indoctrination.”
Its opportunistic use of antisemitism in a moment of crisis is expanding and strengthening longstanding efforts to undermine educational institutions. After launching attacks on public universities from Florida to South Dakota, this campaign has opened a new front against private institutions. The prospect of Rep. Elise Stefanik, a member of congress with a history of espousing white nationalist politics, calling university presidents to account for alleged antisemitism on their campuses reveals these proceedings as disingenuous political theater. In the face of these coordinated attacks on higher education, universities must insist on their freedom to research and teach inconvenient truths. This includes historical injustices and the contemporary structures that perpetuate them, regardless of whether these facts are politically inexpedient for certain interest groups.
To be sure, antisemitism is a grave concern that should be scrutinized alongside racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and all other forms of hate. These hateful ideologies exist everywhere and we would be ignorant to believe that they don’t exist at Columbia. When antisemitism rears its head, it should be swiftly denounced, and its perpetrators held to account. However, it is absurd to claim that antisemitism—“discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews,” according to the Jerusalem Declaration’s definition—is rampant on Columbia’s campus. To argue that taking a stand against Israel’s war on Gaza is antisemitic is to pervert the meaning of the term.
Labeling pro-Palestinian expression as anti-Jewish hate speech requires a dangerous and false conflation of Zionism with Jewishness, of political ideology with identity. This conflation betrays a woefully inaccurate understanding—and disingenuous misrepresentation—of Jewish history, identity, and politics. It erases more than a century of debates among Jews themselves about the nature of a Jewish homeland in the biblical Land of Israel, including Israel’s status as a Jewish nation-state. It dismisses the experiences of the post-Zionist, non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist Jews who work, study, and live on our campus.
snip
April 17, 2024
Initial release provoked debate over sexism in sport
Athletes say they are comfortable with choices offered
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/16/team-usa-uniforms-paris-2024-olympics-nike
Tara Davis-Woodhall’s comments on Team USA’s Olympic uniforms attracted worldwide attention. Photograph: Dustin Satloff/Getty Images for the USOPC
In the moments before she fired off the Instagram comment heard around the world, Tara Davis-Woodhall could hardly believe her eyes. The American long jumper and world silver medalist had just seen a photograph of one of Nike’s Team USA uniforms for this summer’s Games, a high-cut leotard barely covering the bikini line that was unveiled at a launch event in Paris last week. The running publication Citius Mag had posted an image of the slinky uniform on a female mannequin alongside a male one-piece kit with longer legs. As the side-by-side comparison prompted an online furore over sexism in elite sport, Davis-Woodhall couldn’t help but enter the fray.
“Wait my hoo haa is gonna be out,” she commented, joining a chorus of athletes who hammered the company’s apparent decision to prioritize skimpiness over function. In response, Nike said female runners at the Games will not be limited to the high-cut leotard and that the new line offers nearly 50 styles to choose from, including shorts. Speaking on Tuesday at the Team USA media summit in midtown Manhattan, Davis-Woodhall was one of several US Olympians who attributed the backlash to the photograph. “It was the picture that did no justice,” the Texas native said. “I saw one [of the uniforms] today. They’re beautiful. They’re not like the picture. The cut does look a little bit different on that mannequin. They just should have had a second look with someone to choose that photo to post.”
Gabby Thomas, the Atlanta-born sprinter who took 200m bronze and 4x100m silver in Tokyo, was “initially shocked like everybody else” after seeing the uniform on the mannequin that quickly went viral. But Thomas said that she felt more comfortable after seeing US pole vaulter Katie Moon’s impassioned defense on social media, which stated that criticism ultimately attacks the athletes who may decide to wear it. “The point is we DO have the choice of what to wear, and whether we feel the best in a potato sack or a bathing suit during competitions, we should support the autonomy,” the Nike-sponsored Moon wrote.
“I love competing in the brief,” Thomas said on Tuesday. “I think I love wearing as little clothes as possible just because you’re sweaty, you’re being really active and moving, so I love that we have the option to wear that, but we also have the option to wear any uniform we want. We could wear the men’s uniform if we really wanted to. So I’m comfortable with what they put out there. The initial shock was warranted, but I think no one has anything to worry about.” Nike issued a statement quoting executive John Hoke as saying the company worked “directly with athletes throughout every stage of the design process”, a claim Thomas vouched for.
snip
'The picture did no justice': US athletes retreat from criticism of 'hoo haa' uniform
Initial release provoked debate over sexism in sport
Athletes say they are comfortable with choices offered
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/16/team-usa-uniforms-paris-2024-olympics-nike
Tara Davis-Woodhall’s comments on Team USA’s Olympic uniforms attracted worldwide attention. Photograph: Dustin Satloff/Getty Images for the USOPC
In the moments before she fired off the Instagram comment heard around the world, Tara Davis-Woodhall could hardly believe her eyes. The American long jumper and world silver medalist had just seen a photograph of one of Nike’s Team USA uniforms for this summer’s Games, a high-cut leotard barely covering the bikini line that was unveiled at a launch event in Paris last week. The running publication Citius Mag had posted an image of the slinky uniform on a female mannequin alongside a male one-piece kit with longer legs. As the side-by-side comparison prompted an online furore over sexism in elite sport, Davis-Woodhall couldn’t help but enter the fray.
“Wait my hoo haa is gonna be out,” she commented, joining a chorus of athletes who hammered the company’s apparent decision to prioritize skimpiness over function. In response, Nike said female runners at the Games will not be limited to the high-cut leotard and that the new line offers nearly 50 styles to choose from, including shorts. Speaking on Tuesday at the Team USA media summit in midtown Manhattan, Davis-Woodhall was one of several US Olympians who attributed the backlash to the photograph. “It was the picture that did no justice,” the Texas native said. “I saw one [of the uniforms] today. They’re beautiful. They’re not like the picture. The cut does look a little bit different on that mannequin. They just should have had a second look with someone to choose that photo to post.”
Gabby Thomas, the Atlanta-born sprinter who took 200m bronze and 4x100m silver in Tokyo, was “initially shocked like everybody else” after seeing the uniform on the mannequin that quickly went viral. But Thomas said that she felt more comfortable after seeing US pole vaulter Katie Moon’s impassioned defense on social media, which stated that criticism ultimately attacks the athletes who may decide to wear it. “The point is we DO have the choice of what to wear, and whether we feel the best in a potato sack or a bathing suit during competitions, we should support the autonomy,” the Nike-sponsored Moon wrote.
“I love competing in the brief,” Thomas said on Tuesday. “I think I love wearing as little clothes as possible just because you’re sweaty, you’re being really active and moving, so I love that we have the option to wear that, but we also have the option to wear any uniform we want. We could wear the men’s uniform if we really wanted to. So I’m comfortable with what they put out there. The initial shock was warranted, but I think no one has anything to worry about.” Nike issued a statement quoting executive John Hoke as saying the company worked “directly with athletes throughout every stage of the design process”, a claim Thomas vouched for.
snip
April 17, 2024
“Light pours gracefully into the space from both glazed aspects, varying with the time of day and seasons”
https://www.themodernhouse.com/sales-list/willoughby-road/
Between Hampstead Village and the green expanses of the Heath lies this exquisite and highly accomplished architectural home. Designed by the architects Guard Tillman Pollock for an artist, the house was conceived as a contemporary reflection of and homage to the seminal modernist houses of Hampstead. Spatially and technologically innovative throughout, it was shortlisted for a RIBA Award in 2012. It provides around 2,800 sq ft of internal accommodation, with a current arrangement of five bedrooms, an artist’s studio and several living and garden spaces in adaptable, open layouts that mimic and enhance the arrangements of its Victorian forebears.
From the street and among the terrace of its period neighbours, the striking white façade of the upper level appears to float above a front wall of London stock brick. A portion of clean white render interrupts the mass of glazing, which, in a defining feature, is shielded from passing gazes and solar gain by a screen of PVC mesh. A steel gate opens to the beautifully planted front garden, where a pond forms a border between the house and a high wall to the street. Beyond a protruding wall, steel grates form a courtyard garden enjoyed from the living space within.
The house is set over four storeys and enters at a slightly raised ground level to a hallway with a study to its left. A series of pocket doors, controlled by recessed magnetic buttons, allow the plan to behave with complete openness in the absence of the desire for privacy and the spaces are united aesthetically by the deep hue of a polished concrete floor.
The living spaces are arranged to take advantage of long diagonal views. Each interlocking space generates its own natural light and relates to the private courtyard gardens in its own capacity. Ahead of the hallway lies the kitchen, and to the right is a sweeping reception with a front-facing living space containing a gas fire and a double-height dining area. The latter, lit by a towering mass of glazing, communicates visually with the kitchen and is overlooked by a first-floor gallery.
snip
Willoughby Road - Hampstead, London NW3 - Architect: Guard Tillman Pollock
“Light pours gracefully into the space from both glazed aspects, varying with the time of day and seasons”
https://www.themodernhouse.com/sales-list/willoughby-road/
Between Hampstead Village and the green expanses of the Heath lies this exquisite and highly accomplished architectural home. Designed by the architects Guard Tillman Pollock for an artist, the house was conceived as a contemporary reflection of and homage to the seminal modernist houses of Hampstead. Spatially and technologically innovative throughout, it was shortlisted for a RIBA Award in 2012. It provides around 2,800 sq ft of internal accommodation, with a current arrangement of five bedrooms, an artist’s studio and several living and garden spaces in adaptable, open layouts that mimic and enhance the arrangements of its Victorian forebears.
From the street and among the terrace of its period neighbours, the striking white façade of the upper level appears to float above a front wall of London stock brick. A portion of clean white render interrupts the mass of glazing, which, in a defining feature, is shielded from passing gazes and solar gain by a screen of PVC mesh. A steel gate opens to the beautifully planted front garden, where a pond forms a border between the house and a high wall to the street. Beyond a protruding wall, steel grates form a courtyard garden enjoyed from the living space within.
The house is set over four storeys and enters at a slightly raised ground level to a hallway with a study to its left. A series of pocket doors, controlled by recessed magnetic buttons, allow the plan to behave with complete openness in the absence of the desire for privacy and the spaces are united aesthetically by the deep hue of a polished concrete floor.
The living spaces are arranged to take advantage of long diagonal views. Each interlocking space generates its own natural light and relates to the private courtyard gardens in its own capacity. Ahead of the hallway lies the kitchen, and to the right is a sweeping reception with a front-facing living space containing a gas fire and a double-height dining area. The latter, lit by a towering mass of glazing, communicates visually with the kitchen and is overlooked by a first-floor gallery.
snip
April 17, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/16/polling-distortion-new-york-times/
https://archive.ph/WbB5w
By now, my readers know full well what I think of national polls taken nearly seven months before the election: They are worse than meaningless. Pervasive polling obsession winds up misinforming (and freaking out) voters while crowding out the essential aspects of a historic campaign. For starters, constant polling hype frames the election as a horse race, devoid of moral or policy outcomes. Premature polling distracts us from what is critical and central — four-times indicted former president Donald Trump’s unprecedented attack on democracy. (When you want to “suspend” the Constitution, use a putsch to overturn the will of the voters, unleash the military on civilians and weaponize the Justice Department, you are pining to undermine democracy and turn America into something resembling Viktor Orban’s Hungary.)
At its worst, coverage of polling misleads voters. Consider the opening of a recent New York Times article. “President Biden has nearly erased Donald J. Trump’s early polling advantage, amid signs that the Democratic base has begun to coalesce behind the president despite lingering doubts about the direction of the country, the economy and his age, according to a new survey by the New York Times and Siena College,” writes Shane Goldmacher. This is false. The previous poll was well within the margin of error; the poll Goldmacher is hawking is within the margin of error. There has been no statistical change. The narrative of “Biden behind! Now, he’s catching up!” is mathematically inaccurate. And yet, the poll sets up a narrative and frames coverage — Why has Trump lost his lead? Can Biden sustain his comeback? — all based on a false premise.
Even if outlets presented polling honestly (i.e., “The poll shows the race is now statistically tied but our poll does not predict the future”), the obsessive focus on polling as if it were the news itself would distort perception of the race for a simple reason: We cannot know in April who will win in November. This realization will shock those grasping at polls for emotional solace during a hair-raising election season. However, too many people who will vote in seven months have yet to pay attention to the race. Moreover, too many events are still to happen between now and November to enable us to say the race then will look the way the polls do now. An infinite number of variables (e.g., Trump could be convicted, Trump could be acquitted, a wider Middle East war could break out, Biden could negotiate a Middle East peace deal) are at play. Just think how a single speech, Biden’s State of the Union, affected voters’ perception. Polling before that event that didn’t account for it appeared even less relevant in retrospect.
Poll defenders will say, “The poll just shows what would happen if the election were today!” But the election is not today — and everything between now and then will determine the outcome. So what’s the point of polling in April? Honestly, it is a cheaply obtained, lazy way to generate an audience. Early polling rarely reflects the outcome. Too much (it’s called “the campaign”) happens in the interim. That was true in 2020, 2016, 2012 and 2008. Pollsters struggle with extremely low response rates and uncertainty in determining who will vote months from now. But the problem is more basic. Brian Klaas, a political scientist and author of the fascinating book “Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters,” told an interviewer in January: “I have no idea who’s going to win the 2024 election. It’s impossible to say, and that’s because the world is going to change drastically in the next 10 months or so.” He adds that “anyone who tells you, ‘Oh, I know exactly what’s going on,’ they’re just lying to you.” Maybe they are just desperately trying to sell newspapers, draw eyeballs and attract clicks.
snip
Jennifer Rubin: The worst mainstream media habit: Distorting polls for clicks
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/16/polling-distortion-new-york-times/
https://archive.ph/WbB5w
By now, my readers know full well what I think of national polls taken nearly seven months before the election: They are worse than meaningless. Pervasive polling obsession winds up misinforming (and freaking out) voters while crowding out the essential aspects of a historic campaign. For starters, constant polling hype frames the election as a horse race, devoid of moral or policy outcomes. Premature polling distracts us from what is critical and central — four-times indicted former president Donald Trump’s unprecedented attack on democracy. (When you want to “suspend” the Constitution, use a putsch to overturn the will of the voters, unleash the military on civilians and weaponize the Justice Department, you are pining to undermine democracy and turn America into something resembling Viktor Orban’s Hungary.)
At its worst, coverage of polling misleads voters. Consider the opening of a recent New York Times article. “President Biden has nearly erased Donald J. Trump’s early polling advantage, amid signs that the Democratic base has begun to coalesce behind the president despite lingering doubts about the direction of the country, the economy and his age, according to a new survey by the New York Times and Siena College,” writes Shane Goldmacher. This is false. The previous poll was well within the margin of error; the poll Goldmacher is hawking is within the margin of error. There has been no statistical change. The narrative of “Biden behind! Now, he’s catching up!” is mathematically inaccurate. And yet, the poll sets up a narrative and frames coverage — Why has Trump lost his lead? Can Biden sustain his comeback? — all based on a false premise.
Even if outlets presented polling honestly (i.e., “The poll shows the race is now statistically tied but our poll does not predict the future”), the obsessive focus on polling as if it were the news itself would distort perception of the race for a simple reason: We cannot know in April who will win in November. This realization will shock those grasping at polls for emotional solace during a hair-raising election season. However, too many people who will vote in seven months have yet to pay attention to the race. Moreover, too many events are still to happen between now and November to enable us to say the race then will look the way the polls do now. An infinite number of variables (e.g., Trump could be convicted, Trump could be acquitted, a wider Middle East war could break out, Biden could negotiate a Middle East peace deal) are at play. Just think how a single speech, Biden’s State of the Union, affected voters’ perception. Polling before that event that didn’t account for it appeared even less relevant in retrospect.
Poll defenders will say, “The poll just shows what would happen if the election were today!” But the election is not today — and everything between now and then will determine the outcome. So what’s the point of polling in April? Honestly, it is a cheaply obtained, lazy way to generate an audience. Early polling rarely reflects the outcome. Too much (it’s called “the campaign”) happens in the interim. That was true in 2020, 2016, 2012 and 2008. Pollsters struggle with extremely low response rates and uncertainty in determining who will vote months from now. But the problem is more basic. Brian Klaas, a political scientist and author of the fascinating book “Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters,” told an interviewer in January: “I have no idea who’s going to win the 2024 election. It’s impossible to say, and that’s because the world is going to change drastically in the next 10 months or so.” He adds that “anyone who tells you, ‘Oh, I know exactly what’s going on,’ they’re just lying to you.” Maybe they are just desperately trying to sell newspapers, draw eyeballs and attract clicks.
snip
April 17, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68830552
Israel's military said it was examining footage that showed soldiers watching as settlers set a Palestinian vehicle on fire
In the Israeli-occupied West Bank, a group of Israeli settlers storm a Palestinian village and, captured on CCTV, a masked man sets fire to a car parked in a garage, under the watch of at least three Israeli soldiers. The incident was part of a rampage by Israeli settlers that, according to local officials, killed four Palestinians over four days. The violence was triggered by the disappearance of 14-year-old Binyamin Ahimeir, who went missing on Friday after leaving his settler outpost to herd sheep near the Palestinian village of Mughayir, in the Ramallah area. His body was found a day later, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said he had been killed in a "terrorist attack".
Amid the search for the boy, dozens of settlers, some of them armed, raided Mughayir. They burned homes and cars, and killed a 25-year-old man named Jihad Abu Alia with a shot in the chest, according to Palestinian officials. Sameh Abu Alia, his cousin, said Jihad, who would get married in June, was trying to prevent the settlers from storming the family's house. "It wasn't the first time settlers attacked us. But we weren't expecting a huge number of them," he said. "They shot at the water tanks, the electricity network, and the internet. They were planning to isolate us from the outside world."
Settlers, armed with guns and stones, returned to the village on Saturday. Shaul Golan, a photographer for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, said he was attacked by a group of between 20 to 30 people, some of whom were armed and wearing IDF uniforms, as he hid under a table in one of the burned houses while trying to cover the rampage. "They beat me mercilessly, breaking my finger and taking my bag to burn all of the photography equipment inside," he said in an interview published on the newspaper's website. "I laid on the floor, as every one of them kicked me in the head and stomach… They had hate in their eyes."
Palestinian officials said Omar Hamed. 17, (L) and Jihad Abu Alia, 25 (R) were killed by Israeli settlers over the weekend
Violence spread to other areas. In the village of Dayr Dibwan, CCTV video shared by Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group which monitors West Bank violence, showed masked settlers entering a private garage and setting a vehicle on fire, while Israeli soldiers stand watching. Responding to the footage, the IDF said the incident was being examined and that the soldiers would "be dealt with accordingly", Reuters reported. In nearby Beitin on Saturday a 17-year-old boy, Omar Hamed, was killed after being hit by a bullet in the head in an attack by a group of 30 settlers who had been accompanied by Israeli forces, Palestinian officials said.
https://twitter.com/Yesh_Din/status/1779501559379849229
snip
Deadly West Bank settler attacks on Palestinians follow Israeli boy's killing
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68830552
Israel's military said it was examining footage that showed soldiers watching as settlers set a Palestinian vehicle on fire
In the Israeli-occupied West Bank, a group of Israeli settlers storm a Palestinian village and, captured on CCTV, a masked man sets fire to a car parked in a garage, under the watch of at least three Israeli soldiers. The incident was part of a rampage by Israeli settlers that, according to local officials, killed four Palestinians over four days. The violence was triggered by the disappearance of 14-year-old Binyamin Ahimeir, who went missing on Friday after leaving his settler outpost to herd sheep near the Palestinian village of Mughayir, in the Ramallah area. His body was found a day later, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said he had been killed in a "terrorist attack".
Amid the search for the boy, dozens of settlers, some of them armed, raided Mughayir. They burned homes and cars, and killed a 25-year-old man named Jihad Abu Alia with a shot in the chest, according to Palestinian officials. Sameh Abu Alia, his cousin, said Jihad, who would get married in June, was trying to prevent the settlers from storming the family's house. "It wasn't the first time settlers attacked us. But we weren't expecting a huge number of them," he said. "They shot at the water tanks, the electricity network, and the internet. They were planning to isolate us from the outside world."
Settlers, armed with guns and stones, returned to the village on Saturday. Shaul Golan, a photographer for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, said he was attacked by a group of between 20 to 30 people, some of whom were armed and wearing IDF uniforms, as he hid under a table in one of the burned houses while trying to cover the rampage. "They beat me mercilessly, breaking my finger and taking my bag to burn all of the photography equipment inside," he said in an interview published on the newspaper's website. "I laid on the floor, as every one of them kicked me in the head and stomach… They had hate in their eyes."
Palestinian officials said Omar Hamed. 17, (L) and Jihad Abu Alia, 25 (R) were killed by Israeli settlers over the weekend
Violence spread to other areas. In the village of Dayr Dibwan, CCTV video shared by Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group which monitors West Bank violence, showed masked settlers entering a private garage and setting a vehicle on fire, while Israeli soldiers stand watching. Responding to the footage, the IDF said the incident was being examined and that the soldiers would "be dealt with accordingly", Reuters reported. In nearby Beitin on Saturday a 17-year-old boy, Omar Hamed, was killed after being hit by a bullet in the head in an attack by a group of 30 settlers who had been accompanied by Israeli forces, Palestinian officials said.
https://twitter.com/Yesh_Din/status/1779501559379849229
snip
April 16, 2024
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-defence-industrial-strategy-beyond-the-rhetoric
The Eurofighter Typhoon in formation—Europe’s defence capabilities are not quite so well-ordered (Mike Mareen / shutterstock.com)
PAUL MASON 15th April 2024
Last week the French president, Emmanuel Macron, called on France to become a ‘war economy’. He has placed €20 billion worth of new defence orders this year and ordered defence companies to crank up production, with the aim of replenishing ammunition stocks and supporting Ukraine. Poland, meanwhile, has pledged to ramp up its defence spending to 4 per cent of gross domestic product—twice the minimum commitment demanded by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—while Norway has committed to a warship-building programme that will double its military spending by 2036. The trigger for this sudden surge in European defence spending is clear.
It is not just the need to supply Ukraine with the ammunition and matériel needed to survive but the realisation that the United States is becoming a strategically unreliable ally. A chorus of voices—from the European Council president, Charles Michel, to the Estonian premier, Kaja Kallas—have called on the European Union to finance a new round of defence investment, using pooled debt instruments rather than relying on national budgets. And last month the European Commission issued its first ever European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS). But the challenges facing European defence are huge. Not only have European states traditionally underspent in this arena: their own defence industries are fragmented and capital for new investment is scarce, leaving Europe’s armies chronically reliant on US equipment.
Grim reading
The EDIS, though high in ambition, makes for grim reading as an audit of current defence production—especially when viewed alongside the US response to the new danger. If EU member states had all met the NATO threshold of 2 per cent of GDP, between 2006 and 2020 they would have spent an extra trillion euro, a quarter of that on investment. So, as demand for ammunition and new kit surged in response to the war in Ukraine, 78 per cent of Europe’s expenditure on arms went abroad, with the US alone accounting for 63 per cent. Moreover, EU states do not routinely collaborate in their defence spending. Only 18 per cent of Europe’s military-equipment budgets go on cross-border projects—just half-way to the 35 per cent benchmark set by member states back in 2007. Europe’s armies, in short, are existentially reliant on the US for high-technology equipment, with South Korea emerging as a supplier of urgent, mass-produced tanks and artillery.
The European defence industry is replete with jealously protected ‘national champions’ which have shown little propensity to invest proactively and at scale. However puffed up, they are at best niche innovators, not capable—unlike their US rivals—of the generational leaps required by the threat from an authoritarian Russia and a Chinese dictatorship defying any rules-based order cemented by universal norms. The US, meanwhile, is moving fast. Its own National Defense Industrial Strategy, published late last year, diagnoses a different problem—a highly monopolised defence industry, focused on big systems-integrators such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. This leaves little room for small and medium enterprises and technology start-ups to change the game, and allows the big five defence companies to more or less design their own market. In response the US has pledged to open its domestic defence market to foreign ‘partnership’—rather than competition—and to buy from a broader domestic ecosystem, giving SMEs and digital-focused tech companies greater direct access, removing the gatekeeper role played by the big five.
Targets hard to achieve.............................
snip
Whoever wins the US presidential election, the EU has no option but to underpin its collective defence.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-defence-industrial-strategy-beyond-the-rhetoric
The Eurofighter Typhoon in formation—Europe’s defence capabilities are not quite so well-ordered (Mike Mareen / shutterstock.com)
PAUL MASON 15th April 2024
Last week the French president, Emmanuel Macron, called on France to become a ‘war economy’. He has placed €20 billion worth of new defence orders this year and ordered defence companies to crank up production, with the aim of replenishing ammunition stocks and supporting Ukraine. Poland, meanwhile, has pledged to ramp up its defence spending to 4 per cent of gross domestic product—twice the minimum commitment demanded by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—while Norway has committed to a warship-building programme that will double its military spending by 2036. The trigger for this sudden surge in European defence spending is clear.
It is not just the need to supply Ukraine with the ammunition and matériel needed to survive but the realisation that the United States is becoming a strategically unreliable ally. A chorus of voices—from the European Council president, Charles Michel, to the Estonian premier, Kaja Kallas—have called on the European Union to finance a new round of defence investment, using pooled debt instruments rather than relying on national budgets. And last month the European Commission issued its first ever European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS). But the challenges facing European defence are huge. Not only have European states traditionally underspent in this arena: their own defence industries are fragmented and capital for new investment is scarce, leaving Europe’s armies chronically reliant on US equipment.
Grim reading
The EDIS, though high in ambition, makes for grim reading as an audit of current defence production—especially when viewed alongside the US response to the new danger. If EU member states had all met the NATO threshold of 2 per cent of GDP, between 2006 and 2020 they would have spent an extra trillion euro, a quarter of that on investment. So, as demand for ammunition and new kit surged in response to the war in Ukraine, 78 per cent of Europe’s expenditure on arms went abroad, with the US alone accounting for 63 per cent. Moreover, EU states do not routinely collaborate in their defence spending. Only 18 per cent of Europe’s military-equipment budgets go on cross-border projects—just half-way to the 35 per cent benchmark set by member states back in 2007. Europe’s armies, in short, are existentially reliant on the US for high-technology equipment, with South Korea emerging as a supplier of urgent, mass-produced tanks and artillery.
The European defence industry is replete with jealously protected ‘national champions’ which have shown little propensity to invest proactively and at scale. However puffed up, they are at best niche innovators, not capable—unlike their US rivals—of the generational leaps required by the threat from an authoritarian Russia and a Chinese dictatorship defying any rules-based order cemented by universal norms. The US, meanwhile, is moving fast. Its own National Defense Industrial Strategy, published late last year, diagnoses a different problem—a highly monopolised defence industry, focused on big systems-integrators such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. This leaves little room for small and medium enterprises and technology start-ups to change the game, and allows the big five defence companies to more or less design their own market. In response the US has pledged to open its domestic defence market to foreign ‘partnership’—rather than competition—and to buy from a broader domestic ecosystem, giving SMEs and digital-focused tech companies greater direct access, removing the gatekeeper role played by the big five.
Targets hard to achieve.............................
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,590
