therealnews--2020-02-27--Why are More Democrats Breaking Tradition and Boycotting AIPAC?

KIM BROWN : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Kim Brown .
AIPAC is the largest official Israeli lobby group registered in the United States .
It holds conferences every election cycle .
And it used to be a nonpartisan issue for all presidential candidates to attend and speak at these conferences , where they would usually try to outdo each other in their fanatic support for Israeli policies , but this is changing rapidly .
Both Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both announced that they will not attend AIPAC ’ s policy conference this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Senator Bernie Sanders because of his demand that the U.S. treat not just Israelis , but Palestinians with respect .
Congresswoman Betty McCollum of Minnesota ’ s fourth district said that AIPAC is a hate group .
Now , AIPAC eventually apologized for the attack ads .
On Sunday Bernie Sanders tweeted : “ The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security .
So do the Palestinian people .
I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their conference ” Now , AIPAC in turn blasted Bernie Sanders for his tweet and called his decision not to attend shameful .
The group called If Not Now is a progressive Jewish organization .
They released this video last week calling on progressive candidates to skip AIPAC .
Let ’ s have a listen .
SARAH KATE : I realized the AIPAC conference wasn ’ t the educational event it was branded but rather something with a deep-set , right wing agenda .
REBECCA MILLBERG : Then Trump came and spoke at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AIPAC and Netanyahu kept coming back even as he had more and more racist policies in the state of Israel .
SIMONE ZIMMERMAN : The way AIPAC is policing the discourse on this issue is harmful to Palestinians .
It ’ s harmful to American Jews , it ’ s harmful to Israelis , and it ’ s harmful to everybody who considered themselves an ally in the fight for a better future .
REBECCA MILLBERG : To people who are still considering going to AIPAC , my question is why ?
JACOB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re a progressive or someone who cares about human rights .
If you care about equality , if you care about justice , you should have serious concerns about showing up at AIPAC ’ s conference .
KIM BROWN : So after Congresswoman McCallum called AIPAC a hate group , Alex Kane interviewed her for 972 Magazine .
He ’ s here with us today to discuss the shift in the Democratic Party in its relation to the state of Israel .
Alex is a freelance journalist who writes on Israel Palestine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here in the United States .
Also , on the war on terror .
He writes , as I mentioned , for 972 Magazine ; also writes for the Intercept Middle East I forward and other outlets across the web .
Alex , we appreciate you joining us today .
ALEX KANE : Thanks for having me .
KIM BROWN : So Alex , we ’ ve spoken to you here previously on the Real News about an earlier piece you wrote titled How Israel Palestine Jumped to the Heart of U.S. politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ division in the Democratic Party .
Now as we ’ re going along through the caucuses , we ’ re seeing delegates start to add up and right now , the more progressive candidate Bernie Sanders who has a more progressive policy or ideas towards how U.S. should deal with Palestine , he ’ s fairing much better than the pro Israel candidates like Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg .
So in your opinion , how is this issue factoring in to how caucus and primary voters are choosing their candidate this time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not sure how much it ’ s playing into the actual primaries or caucuses .
I mean we ’ ve only had of course three primaries or , sorry , two caucuses and one primary and of course the next one is in South Carolina and Israel as a particular issue has not come up as a major part of the primary elections itself , right ?
So I don ’ t think most voters in the States that have voted think of Israel as a huge issue .
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to states with larger and more influential Jewish populations , including New York and Florida , so that ’ s sort of one point to make .
But that doesn ’ t mean that Israel hasn ’ t been an issue in the overall primary .
You ’ ve seen Israel come up a number of times in the debates and you ’ ve really seen the split between the progressives and the more establishment candidates there .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren sticking to their line that Netanyahu is a right wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s occupation and in turn making it impossible for a Palestinian state to come into being .
And of course Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg also saying that there should be a two state solution , meaning Israel and a Palestinian state living together side by side , but Biden in particular are not criticizing Netanyahu in as harsh terms and not contemplating real shifts in U.S. policy like making U.S. military aid to Israel contingent on changes in Israeli behavior , like stopping Israeli settlements or stopping the steps to AMEX @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s where the issue has come up mostly in debates and on the campaign trail .
I don ’ t think voters are yet thinking about Israel but that may change in the future .
KIM BROWN : We can look back on presidential election cycles 25 years in the past between George H. W. Bush , George W. Bush , Bill Clinton , Barack Obama , all spoke at AIPAC and they each made a promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognize the annexation .
Now , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who actually went ahead with it .
But there ’ s an interesting twist here because what can a Democratic candidate possibly promise at an AIPAC conference , which can out shine what Trump has already done ?
ALEX KANE : Well that ’ s a good point .
I mean I don ’ t think any of the Democratic candidates , if they ’ d gone to AIPAC and to be clear , none of them have said they ’ re going to AIPAC and it ’ s on super Tuesday so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to AIPAC .
But if say Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg went to AIPAC , I don ’ t think it ’ s possible for them to outflank Donald Trump on the right on Israel because Donald Trump has essentially ripped the mask off of U.S. policy and made it clear that the United States will stand with Israel and its apartheid regime in the West bank and its overall policies of occupation and discrimination against Palestinians .
And that has totally ripped the mask off of the U.S. policy because U.S. policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian or sorry , for years I should say , not for decades .
For years U.S. policy should be that there should be a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel , there should be a two state solution there .
Israel should withdraw from the occupied Palestinian Territories .
Now that is no longer U.S. policy , so there ’ s no middle ground here , right ?
I think Trump has really polarized the Israel debate that ’ s something that leaves people like Joe Biden very uncomfortable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie Sanders to step in and really be the progressive candidate on Israel Palestine .
KIM BROWN : Let ’ s talk about perhaps the waning influence of the AIPAC conference because let ’ s say at least in the 21st century political era , I want to say the modern political era , but I think it ’ s a little bit more recent than that .
I mean it was really a come to Jesus , pardon the pun , but a kiss the ring sort of moment for all candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the AIPAC conference and make not just promises but I suppose intentions of support for Israeli policies .
Maybe some slight critique about how to treat Palestinians depending on the candidate , depending on the era of course .
But are we seeing AIPAC ’ s influence on U.S. national elections , especially for the white house , is that teetering off a bit in your opinion ?
ALEX KANE : Yes , absolutely .
And I think there are essentially two reasons why .
The first is a sort of fundamental reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in support of a sort of center right liberal American Jews community , I mean there are splits in the American Jewish community but AIPAC has always been a big tent meant to marshal the resources of American Jews and Christian evangelicals to support candidates who profess their undying love for Israel no matter what Israel is actually doing , so that has been AIPAC .
Now , as Israel has carried out more and more belligerent policies towards the Palestinians , launching deadly assaults on the Gaza Strip and entrenching on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stolen Palestinian land , that has made the job of AIPAC very difficult .
How are you going to appeal to a Democratic Party base that is for social justice , for equality , and yet defend a state whose very policies are antithetical to that ?
So that ’ s first .
That ’ s one difficulty that AIPAC has to contend with .
The other is something that AIPAC did to itself during the Iran debate for instance .
AIPAC spent millions of dollars trying to kill president Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a diplomatic agreement with Iran .
AIPAC did not succeed .
The Democrats supported Obama ’ s Iran deal , and AIPAC did eventually succeed when Trump got into office and ripped the Iran deal up and basically put the U.S. on a confrontation path with Iran .
So that was a major clarifying moment in the sort of cleavage that has been building up between AIPAC and parts of the Democratic Party .
I don ’ t want to overstate it ; the Democratic establishment is still very much with AIPAC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party is basically telling AIPAC to shove it .
KIM BROWN : Alex , I ’ m a little loathed to compare apples to oranges , so to speak , but I ’ m imagining a black presidential candidate skipping the NAACP conference , for example .
What does it mean for Bernie Sanders , a Jewish candidate–not only a Jewish candidate for president , but the front-runner at the moment–to skip this particular conference ?
And it ’ s not to paint the Jewish voting block as a monolith , nor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there is some sort of divergence in how identity politics works in this particular instance .
ALEX KANE : I think it ’ s significant because I think many non-Jewish politicians and non-Jews in general , to make a generalization , certainly not everybody , but to make a generalization they think of American Jews as supporters of Israel no matter what .
And Bernie Sanders is showing the world that that ’ s not necessarily true .
Now , Bernie Sanders is a supporter of a certain kind of Israel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He wants Israel to stop occupying another people , to stop having separate and unequal laws when comparing Israeli Jews and Palestinians .
So it ’ s not that Sanders is not a supporter of Israel it ’ s just he ’ s a supporter of a different kind of Israel than the one that exists today .
And in fact , that ’ s really the majority views of most American Jews .
Most American Jews don ’ t like Netanyahu , they don ’ t like Israeli settlements , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupation .
They are in general more antiwar than the larger American population if you want to break it down by ethnic groups .
And so , Sanders is really in the mainstream in the Jewish community .
People may not realize that , but he ’ s expressing views that are really in the mainstream .
Now , the American Jewish establishment is a different matter .
His views are very much antithetical to that establishment .
Groups like AIPAC groups , like the Anti-Defamation League , but Bernie Sanders aligned with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Israel group that wants Israel to end the occupation but also wants the United States to keep supporting Israel .
So Bernie Sanders , essentially , his views are very much in line with the larger American Jewish community .
KIM BROWN : When you get a chance go to 972 Magazine check out Alex Kane ’ s interview with Congresswoman Betty McCollum .
She called AIPAC a hate group after they ran attack ads against Senator Bernie Sanders who announced that he would not be attending this year ’ s AIPAC conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that she would not be in attendance either .
We ’ ve been speaking with Alex Kane .
Alex is a freelance journalist .
He writes on issues relating to Israel , Palestine , on civil liberties , on Jewish communities here in the U.S. You can find his latest piece , as I said , at 972 Magazine , but he writes all over the internet .
So Alex , we do appreciate your taking the time to speak with us today .
Thank you .
ALEX KANE : Thanks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thank you for watching The Real News Network .

The pro-Israel group is attacking Bernie Sanders both for his support for Palestinians and for not attending the yearly conference, but he’s not the only person calling out AIPAC’s right-wing agenda.
Story Transcript
KIM BROWN: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown.
AIPAC is the largest official Israeli lobby group registered in the United States. It holds conferences every election cycle. And it used to be a nonpartisan issue for all presidential candidates to attend and speak at these conferences, where they would usually try to outdo each other in their fanatic support for Israeli policies, but this is changing rapidly. Both Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both announced that they will not attend AIPAC’s policy conference this year. AIPAC has been running attack ads against Senator Bernie Sanders because of his demand that the U.S. treat not just Israelis, but Palestinians with respect. Congresswoman Betty McCollum of Minnesota’s fourth district said that AIPAC is a hate group.
Now, AIPAC eventually apologized for the attack ads. On Sunday Bernie Sanders tweeted: “The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference” Now, AIPAC in turn blasted Bernie Sanders for his tweet and called his decision not to attend shameful. The group called If Not Now is a progressive Jewish organization. They released this video last week calling on progressive candidates to skip AIPAC. Let’s have a listen.
SARAH KATE: I realized the AIPAC conference wasn’t the educational event it was branded but rather something with a deep-set, right wing agenda.
REBECCA MILLBERG: Then Trump came and spoke at AIPAC and Pence came and spoke at AIPAC and Netanyahu kept coming back even as he had more and more racist policies in the state of Israel.
SIMONE ZIMMERMAN: The way AIPAC is policing the discourse on this issue is harmful to Palestinians. It’s harmful to American Jews, it’s harmful to Israelis, and it’s harmful to everybody who considered themselves an ally in the fight for a better future.
REBECCA MILLBERG: To people who are still considering going to AIPAC my question is why?
JACOB LEVKOWITZ: Today, if you’re a progressive or someone who cares about human rights. If you care about equality, if you care about justice, you should have serious concerns about showing up at AIPAC’s conference.
KIM BROWN: So after Congresswoman McCallum called AIPAC a hate group, Alex Kane interviewed her for 972 Magazine. He’s here with us today to discuss the shift in the Democratic Party in its relation to the state of Israel. Alex is a freelance journalist who writes on Israel Palestine, on civil liberties and on Jewish communities here in the United States. Also, on the war on terror. He writes, as I mentioned, for 972 Magazine; also writes for the Intercept Middle East I forward and other outlets across the web. Alex, we appreciate you joining us today.
ALEX KANE: Thanks for having me.
KIM BROWN: So Alex, we’ve spoken to you here previously on the Real News about an earlier piece you wrote titled How Israel Palestine Jumped to the Heart of U.S. politics in which you already pointed out the division in the Democratic Party. Now as we’re going along through the caucuses, we’re seeing delegates start to add up and right now, the more progressive candidate Bernie Sanders who has a more progressive policy or ideas towards how U.S. should deal with Palestine, he’s fairing much better than the pro-Israel candidates like Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg. So in your opinion, how is this issue factoring into how caucus and primary voters are choosing their candidate this time?
ALEX KANE: Well, I’m not sure how much it’s playing into the actual primaries or caucuses. I mean we’ve only had of course three primaries or, sorry, two caucuses and one primary and of course the next one is in South Carolina and Israel as a particular issue has not come up as a major part of the primary elections itself, right? So I don’t think most voters in the States that have voted think of Israel as a huge issue. I think that will perhaps change as we get to states with larger and more influential Jewish populations, including New York and Florida, so that’s sort of one point to make. But that doesn’t mean that Israel hasn’t been an issue in the overall primary. You’ve seen Israel come up a number of times in the debates and you’ve really seen the split between the progressives and the more establishment candidates there.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren sticking to their line that Netanyahu is a right wing racist whose pursuing policies that entrench Israel’s occupation and in turn making it impossible for a Palestinian state to come into being. And of course Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg also saying that there should be a two state solution, meaning Israel and a Palestinian state living together side by side, but Biden in particular are not criticizing Netanyahu in as harsh terms and not contemplating real shifts in U.S. policy like making U.S. military aid to Israel contingent on changes in Israeli behavior, like stopping Israeli settlements or stopping the steps to AMEX to West bank, so that’s where the issue has come up mostly in debates and on the campaign trail. I don’t think voters are yet thinking about Israel but that may change in the future.
KIM BROWN: We can look back on presidential election cycles 25 years in the past between George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, all spoke at AIPAC and they each made a promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognize the annexation. Now, of course they all lied except for Donald Trump who actually went ahead with it. But there’s an interesting twist here because what can a Democratic candidate possibly promise at an AIPAC conference, which can out shine what Trump has already done?
ALEX KANE: Well that’s a good point. I mean I don’t think any of the Democratic candidates, if they’d gone to AIPAC and to be clear, none of them have said they’re going to AIPAC and it’s on super Tuesday so none of them probably will be going to AIPAC. But if say Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg went to AIPAC, I don’t think it’s possible for them to outflank Donald Trump on the right on Israel because Donald Trump has essentially ripped the mask off of U.S. policy and made it clear that the United States will stand with Israel and its apartheid regime in the West bank and its overall policies of occupation and discrimination against Palestinians.
And that has totally ripped the mask off of the U.S. policy because U.S. policy for decades has been: “We want a Palestinian…” Or sorry, for years I should say, not for decades. For years, U.S. policy was that there should be a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel; there should be a two state solution there. Israel should withdraw from the occupied Palestinian Territories. Now that is no longer U.S. policy, so there’s no middle ground here, right? I think Trump has really polarized the Israel debate. That’s something that leaves people like Joe Biden very uncomfortable, but it’s something that allows Bernie Sanders to step in and really be the progressive candidate on Israel-Palestine.
KIM BROWN: Let’s talk about perhaps the waning influence of the AIPAC conference because let’s say at least in the 21st century political era, I want to say the modern political era, but I think it’s a little bit more recent than that. I mean it was really a come to Jesus, pardon the pun, but a kiss the ring sort of moment for all candidates, Republicans, Democrats to go to the AIPAC conference and make not just promises but I suppose intentions of support for Israeli policies. Maybe some slight critique about how to treat Palestinians depending on the candidate, depending on the era of course. But are we seeing AIPAC’s influence on U.S. national elections, especially for the white house, is that teetering off a bit in your opinion?
ALEX KANE: Yes, absolutely. And I think there are essentially two reasons why. The first is a sort of fundamental reason. AIPAC exists to marshal the resources in support of a sort of center right liberal American Jews community, I mean there are splits in the American Jewish community but AIPAC has always been a big tent meant to marshal the resources of American Jews and Christian evangelicals to support candidates who profess their undying love for Israel no matter what Israel is actually doing, so that has been AIPAC.
Now, as Israel has carried out more and more belligerent policies towards the Palestinians, launching deadly assaults on the Gaza Strip and entrenching on a deeply brutal occupation and building settlements on stolen Palestinian land, that has made the job of AIPAC very difficult. How are you going to appeal to a Democratic Party base that is for social justice, for equality, and yet defend a state whose very policies are antithetical to that? So that’s first. That’s one difficulty that AIPAC has to contend with.
The other is something that AIPAC did to itself during the Iran debate for instance. AIPAC spent millions of dollars trying to kill president Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative, which is a diplomatic agreement with Iran. AIPAC did not succeed. The Democrats supported Obama’s Iran deal, and AIPAC did eventually succeed when Trump got into office and ripped the Iran deal up and basically put the U.S. on a confrontation path with Iran. So that was a major clarifying moment in the sort of cleavage that has been building up between AIPAC and parts of the Democratic Party. I don’t want to overstate it; the Democratic establishment is still very much with AIPAC, but the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is basically telling AIPAC to shove it.
KIM BROWN: Alex, I’m a little loathed to compare apples to oranges, so to speak, but I’m imagining a black presidential candidate skipping the NAACP conference, for example. What does it mean for Bernie Sanders, a Jewish candidate–not only a Jewish candidate for president, but the front-runner at the moment–to skip this particular conference? And it’s not to paint the Jewish voting block as a monolith, nor is the African American voting black a monolith but there is some sort of divergence in how identity politics works in this particular instance.
ALEX KANE: I think it’s significant because I think many non-Jewish politicians and non-Jews in general, to make a generalization, certainly not everybody, but to make a generalization they think of American Jews as supporters of Israel no matter what. And Bernie Sanders is showing the world that that’s not necessarily true. Now, Bernie Sanders is a supporter of a certain kind of Israel. He wants Israel to be a democracy. He wants Israel to stop occupying another people, to stop having separate and unequal laws when comparing Israeli Jews and Palestinians.
So it’s not that Sanders is not a supporter of Israel it’s just he’s a supporter of a different kind of Israel than the one that exists today. And in fact, that’s really the majority views of most American Jews. Most American Jews don’t like Netanyahu, they don’t like Israeli settlements, they don’t like Israel’s occupation. They are in general more antiwar than the larger American population if you want to break it down by ethnic groups. And so, Sanders is really in the mainstream in the Jewish community. People may not realize that, but he’s expressing views that are really in the mainstream.
Now, the American Jewish establishment is a different matter. His views are very much antithetical to that establishment. Groups like AIPAC groups, like the Anti-Defamation League, but Bernie Sanders aligned with J Street, which is a liberal pro-Israel group that wants Israel to end the occupation but also wants the United States to keep supporting Israel. So Bernie Sanders, essentially, his views are very much in line with the larger American Jewish community.
KIM BROWN: When you get a chance go to 972 Magazine check out Alex Kane’s interview with Congresswoman Betty McCollum. She called AIPAC a hate group after they ran attack ads against Senator Bernie Sanders who announced that he would not be attending this year’s AIPAC conference along with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who said that she would not be in attendance either.
We’ve been speaking with Alex Kane. Alex is a freelance journalist. He writes on issues relating to Israel, Palestine on civil liberties on Jewish communities here in the U.S. You can find his latest piece, as I said, at 972 Magazine, but he writes all over the internet. So Alex, we do appreciate your taking the time to speak with us today. Thank you.
ALEX KANE: Thanks for having me.
KIM BROWN: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-27--Egypt’s Government Rehabilitates Ex-President Mubarak with State Funeral

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
Egypt ’ s long-time dictator , Hosni Mubarak , died at the age of 91 on Tuesday , he was buried the following day .
Mubarak ruled Egypt with an iron hand for nearly 30 years from 1981 until the protest of Egypt ’ s Arab Spring ousted him in 2011 .
After his forced resignation , Mubarak faced a trial where he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Egyptian public ’ s demand for him to be tried for the killing of over 800 protesters during the Arab Spring .
He received a life sentence in 2012 , but it was released five years later when his conviction was overturned under current president , Abdel Fattah el-Sisi , Mubarak ’ s former director of military intelligence who became president shortly after the 2014 coup d ’ état against elected president , Mohamed Morsi .
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi , Egypt ’ s top military officers , Mubarak ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Egyptian and Arab officials accompanied Mubarak ’ s funeral procession in Cairo .
Joining me now to discuss Mubarak ’ s death and what he meant for Egypt is Angela Joya .
She ’ s a political economist with expertise on the middle East and North Africa , and who has taught at the University Of Oregon .
Her most recent book is The Roots of Revolt : A Political Economy of Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak , forthcoming very soon from Cambridge University Press .
Thanks for joining us again , Angela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , Greg .
Greg Wilpert : Let ’ s start with who Mubarak was .
How did he come to power and how did he govern Egypt for 30 years as Egypt ’ s longest serving president ?
Angela Joya : Mubarak , interestingly enough as a cohort of free officers , had came from a rural background in the Nile Delta in the North of Egypt , and it was through the military schooling and military training that he climbed through the ranks of power within the state .
His role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli war .
It was right after that that Sadat basically appointed him as his vice president .
He served as vice president for Sadat until you mentioned 1981 when Sadat was assassinated , Mubarak assumed the presidency of Egypt until he was overthrown decades later .
Greg Wilpert : So the 2011 Arab Spring protests actually forced Mubarak to resign .
Let ’ s review those developments a little bit .
I mean how and why did the Arab Spring come about in Egypt ?
Angela Joya : When I heard the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflect on how long he actually ruled Egypt .
Talking to my Egyptian friends , a lot of them remark how they were born under his rule , they grew up under his rule , and now they ’ re getting closer to becoming in their early 40s .
Close to two generations of Egyptians almost have seen no one else in power except Mubarak .
He has had a massive influence in the state , in Egypt and in society there .
That , I guess in some ways , affected politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Egypt .
When I think about the chronology of Mubarak ’ s rule I see a particular transition that happens initially in the 1980s , for instance , because of the environment of fear , because of Islamists and the fact that Sadat was assassinated , Mubarak was very cautious in the kind of policies that he was implementing .
Egypt was gripped in economic crisis , and so Mubarak was not necessarily so keen on implementing reforms that the International Monetary Fund at the time or the World Bank were prescribing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , early 1990s when Egypt started accepting some of those requests for opening Egyptian markets to the global economy .
In the 1980s also , Mubarak was seen… I mean if you look at his legacy , he was seen more of a democratic figure in some ways because he opened up society to a more political competition by other groups .
It was repressive as it later on became post reforms , I mean the political environment in Egypt .
I would say Mubarak ’ s rule transformed quite a bit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjustment program recommended by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund .
In that period , Mubarak ’ s reputation among Egyptians , ordinary Egyptians , transformed quite a bit as well .
I recall when I was doing my field work in 2008 I was going through some of the villages and smaller towns in upper Egypt , and ordinary Egyptians were already referring to him as a foreigner , as a foreign ruler over Egyptian .
They were disowning him in some ways because of the way his policies were affecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990s is when you see Egypt opening up and Egyptians seeing Mubarak as taking away the wealth of Egypt and handing it over to private investors , whether Egyptian or foreigner , they didn ’ t make the distinction .
But that ’ s what the process of dispossession that I discussed in my book , it started happening in the course of 1990s land reform and housing reform which I ’ ve looked at more closely .
Greg Wilpert : Talk a little bit more about how people reacted to these policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he implemented this structural adjustment program , how ’ s that related then to… First of all , the economy seems to have picked up a little bit , but still in 2011 you saw the Arab Spring .
Why was that ?
Angela Joya : Right .
I guess the part of the violence that I examined in my research was mostly linked to urban land reform and rural land reform , so agricultural reform and urban land rights , tenancy rights .
We saw slow mobilization with the Kefaya group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging in resistance , acts of resistance across villages and towns of Egypt , against the actions of landlords , and against the actions of the military that often would send off security forces to support the landlords in this process of dispossessing peasants and farmers , small farmers .
Workers also went on various strikes so [ inaudible 00:06:35 ] happened where various manufacturing centers of Egypt started revolting against some of the changes that were introduced that entailed shrinking the labor force , but also bringing in stringent rules of contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were stagnating for the longest time .
Egypt experienced quite a radical… Basically increased the rate of poverty , and there ’ s a rule of Mubarak .
A lot of that had to do part and parcel because over a million Egyptians were dispossessed from land in the late 1990s , ’ 97 and onward .
So by the time 2000s rolled in , there was expectation that maybe investors will be attracted , foreign investors , but also Egyptian private investors , then they would transform the economy , create jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately by the end of 2000s , the number of strikes , the number of protests in Egypt started climbing up precisely because people ’ s conditions of life were not changing , it was not getting better .
I remember around those times walking in the streets of Cairo , but also Alexandria , their bigger cities , there was an increasing environment of fear that was setting in .
I remember my internal couturiers would often say , “ Do not take a picture of that .
Do not take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought that they were being seen .
Oppression seemed to have set in Egypt as economic reform packages were introduced , and basically , people ’ s lives were being put under pressure .
By 2010 , it was predictable in some ways that some uprising would happen but not to the scale that it happened .
The scale of it and the fact that it was more urban based was quite shocking to a lot of experts of Egypt .
Now thinking back to 2011 and how Mubarak reacted to that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who he had become in the 2000s .
I wanted to emphasize is that in the 2000s , it was his son , Gamal Mubarak and a lot of his friends who were trained in western universities and who worked for the World Bank , for International Monetary Fund , they had taken over various cabinet roles and advising basically the government as to what policies they should implement .
They had become the government basically .
Mubarak was , at this part , I think at this part of his rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence .
I do not think that he had the power to basically dictate the kind of policies that came out under his name in the late 2000s .
This is the part where Mubarak was shocked that the people were revolting in 2011 in January .
He didn ’ t believe that they were actually asking him to step down , and he thought , “ I ’ m the father figure , these are my children , ” and he did refer to all Egyptian as his children , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can assume that at this point , maybe even mentally , he was not there fully and so he had been going through various rounds of sicknesses .
The actual manipulations , and rules , and policy-making were happening at the hands of , at this point , late 2000s , the military-supported capitalist class in Egypt that had gained quite a bit of control of the state and the economy .
Greg Wilpert : Now , another major player and factor in Egypt of course , was the United States .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was the second largest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel .
Why would you say that the US give so much support to Mubarak , about $ 2 billion per year , and how important was that aid for keeping Mubarak in office ?
Angela Joya : I have to say that initially , the aid started with the peace agreement , the Camp David Accords with Israel under Sadat , and so the aid was promised then , but it continued happening afterwards because Egypt continued to fulfill its role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Palestine .
But in reality , when we talk to Palestinians , they would often talk or refer to Mubarak as the one who kept the Gates closed for Palestinians not to escape the conditions that they were experiencing , especially the Sinai region and the border between Gaza and Egypt .
Mubarak was seen by the Palestinians and by some of the critical scholars of the region as doing the dirty job of Israel for it .
In some ways , that ’ s what they thought they got rewarded for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of research that I ’ ve done in my forthcoming book , you also find out that the relationship between the Egyptian military and between the American corporations over the course of 1980s , 1990s and 2000s strengthens and becomes much closer , and so Egypt became a market basically for American products , mainly military products .
Either they were assembling them in Egypt or they were preparing , making them , and selling them , and getting licenses out of US .
It was that relationship also that ensured if Egypt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of US aid , they would continue becoming or remaining a customer for American military .
That was another reason , it was not necessarily just for the support of Egypt ’ s role in maintaining the peace between Israel and Palestine .
Greg Wilpert : Now , finally , very briefly , Mubarak spent only a few years in prison and was ultimately released under a President el-Sisi .
It seems that also given Mubarak ’ s ceremonious funeral , that he has been completely rehabilitated by the current government .
Would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If so , what does this say about the current president ?
Angela Joya : Ultimately in the case of Egypt as I have noticed since 2011 onwards , the military has definitely assumed a stronger control over the state and under el-Sisi , Abdel Fattah el-Sisi , we see a consolidation of the military ’ s power within the state and economy .
Some of the activists in Egypt that I speak with , they have confirmed some of my worst fears that the environment of safety of journalists , of activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the rule of el-Sisi than it was under Mubarak in all of his period of rule .
In some ways , this repression is also speaking to how the military as a class want to celebrate the legacy of one of their own , and that ’ s where this three days of mourning for Mubarak comes into play and this massive ceremony that they are going to have for his funeral , is part and parcel of that consolidating this [ inaudible 00:13:57 ] of the military in Egypt , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not surprising .
I mean , I kind of expected that they will rehabilitate him not because of who he think , they think he is or he was , but more so as to what he symbolically represents on the part of the military and how the military should be viewed by the Egyptian public in general .
Greg Wilpert : Okay .
Well , very interesting but we ’ re going to leave it there .
I was speaking to Angela Joya , author of the forthcoming book , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak .
Thanks again , Angela , for having joined us today .
Angela Joya : Pleasure to be here , Greg .
Thank you .
Greg Wilpert : Thank you for joining The Real News Network .

Despite being discredited and ousted by the 2011 Arab Spring, former president Mubarak’s funeral aims to rehabilitate him and his legacy of military rule.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. Egypt’s long-time dictator, Hosni Mubarak, died at the age of 91 on Tuesday, he was buried the following day. Mubarak ruled Egypt with an iron hand for nearly 30 years from 1981 until the protest of Egypt’s Arab Spring ousted him in 2011. After his forced resignation, Mubarak faced a trial where he was at first convicted largely as a result of the Egyptian public’s demand for him to be tried for the killing of over 800 protesters during the Arab Spring.
He received a life sentence in 2012, but it was released five years later when his conviction was overturned under current president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Mubarak’s former director of military intelligence who became president shortly after the 2014 coup d’état against elected president, Mohamed Morsi. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt’s top military officers, Mubarak’s sons Alaa and Gamal, and other Egyptian and Arab officials accompanied Mubarak’s funeral procession in Cairo.
Joining me now to discuss Mubarak’s death and what he meant for Egypt is Angela Joya. She’s a political economist with expertise on the middle East and North Africa, and who has taught at the University Of Oregon. Her most recent book is The Roots of Revolt: A Political Economy of Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak, forthcoming very soon from Cambridge University Press. Thanks for joining us again, Angela.
Angela Joya: Pleasure to be here, Greg.
Greg Wilpert: Let’s start with who Mubarak was. How did he come to power and how did he govern Egypt for 30 years as Egypt’s longest serving president?
Angela Joya: Mubarak, interestingly enough as a cohort of free officers, had came from a rural background in the Nile Delta in the North of Egypt, and it was through the military schooling and military training that he climbed through the ranks of power within the state. His role became more prominent in the 1973 Egyptian Israeli war. It was right after that that Sadat basically appointed him as his vice president. He served as vice president for Sadat until you mentioned 1981 when Sadat was assassinated, Mubarak assumed the presidency of Egypt until he was overthrown decades later.
Greg Wilpert: So the 2011 Arab Spring protests actually forced Mubarak to resign. Let’s review those developments a little bit. I mean how and why did the Arab Spring come about in Egypt?
Angela Joya: When I heard the news of Mubarak passing away, you reflect on how long he actually ruled Egypt. Talking to my Egyptian friends, a lot of them remark how they were born under his rule, they grew up under his rule, and now they’re getting closer to becoming in their early 40s. Close to two generations of Egyptians almost have seen no one else in power except Mubarak. He has had a massive influence in the state, in Egypt and in society there. That, I guess in some ways, affected politics in Egypt, affected the economy in Egypt.
When I think about the chronology of Mubarak’s rule I see a particular transition that happens initially in the 1980s, for instance, because of the environment of fear, because of Islamists and the fact that Sadat was assassinated, Mubarak was very cautious in the kind of policies that he was implementing.
Egypt was gripped in economic crisis, and so Mubarak was not necessarily so keen on implementing reforms that the International Monetary Fund at the time or the World Bank were prescribing. This waited until the end of 1980s, early 1990s when Egypt started accepting some of those requests for opening Egyptian markets to the global economy.
In the 1980s also, Mubarak was seen… I mean if you look at his legacy, he was seen more of a democratic figure in some ways because he opened up society to a more political competition by other groups. It was repressive as it later on became post reforms, I mean the political environment in Egypt.
I would say Mubarak’s rule transformed quite a bit in the 1990s when Egypt adopted a structure adjustment program recommended by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In that period, Mubarak’s reputation among Egyptians, ordinary Egyptians, transformed quite a bit as well.
I recall when I was doing my field work in 2008 I was going through some of the villages and smaller towns in upper Egypt, and ordinary Egyptians were already referring to him as a foreigner, as a foreign ruler over Egyptian. They were disowning him in some ways because of the way his policies were affecting the lives of these people.
The 1990s is when you see Egypt opening up and Egyptians seeing Mubarak as taking away the wealth of Egypt and handing it over to private investors, whether Egyptian or foreigner, they didn’t make the distinction. But that’s what the process of dispossession that I discussed in my book, it started happening in the course of 1990s land reform and housing reform which I’ve looked at more closely.
Greg Wilpert: Talk a little bit more about how people reacted to these policies. I mean like you said, he implemented this structural adjustment program, how’s that related then to… First of all, the economy seems to have picked up a little bit, but still in 2011 you saw the Arab Spring. Why was that?
Angela Joya: Right. I guess the part of the violence that I examined in my research was mostly linked to urban land reform and rural land reform, so agricultural reform and urban land rights, tenancy rights. We saw slow mobilization with the Kefaya group, but also with peasants in rural areas engaging in resistance, acts of resistance across villages and towns of Egypt, against the actions of landlords, and against the actions of the military that often would send off security forces to support the landlords in this process of dispossessing peasants and farmers, small farmers.
Workers also went on various strikes so [inaudible 00:06:35] happened where various manufacturing centers of Egypt started revolting against some of the changes that were introduced that entailed shrinking the labor force, but also bringing in stringent rules of contract that were short-term contracts and wages that were stagnating for the longest time. Egypt experienced quite a radical… Basically increased the rate of poverty, and there’s a rule of Mubarak. A lot of that had to do part and parcel because over a million Egyptians were dispossessed from land in the late 1990s, ’97 and onward.
So by the time 2000s rolled in, there was expectation that maybe investors will be attracted, foreign investors, but also Egyptian private investors, then they would transform the economy, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. Unfortunately by the end of 2000s, the number of strikes, the number of protests in Egypt started climbing up precisely because people’s conditions of life were not changing, it was not getting better.
I remember around those times walking in the streets of Cairo, but also Alexandria, their bigger cities, there was an increasing environment of fear that was setting in. I remember my internal couturiers would often say, “Do not take a picture of that. Do not take a picture of this particular building.” They thought that they were being seen. Oppression seemed to have set in Egypt as economic reform packages were introduced, and basically, people’s lives were being put under pressure.
By 2010, it was predictable in some ways that some uprising would happen but not to the scale that it happened. The scale of it and the fact that it was more urban based was quite shocking to a lot of experts of Egypt. Now thinking back to 2011 and how Mubarak reacted to that, it says quite a bit about Mubarak and who he had become in the 2000s.
I wanted to emphasize is that in the 2000s, it was his son, Gamal Mubarak and a lot of his friends who were trained in western universities and who worked for the World Bank, for International Monetary Fund, they had taken over various cabinet roles and advising basically the government as to what policies they should implement. They had become the government basically. Mubarak was, at this part, I think at this part of his rule, more of a figure without much influence. I do not think that he had the power to basically dictate the kind of policies that came out under his name in the late 2000s.
This is the part where Mubarak was shocked that the people were revolting in 2011 in January. He didn’t believe that they were actually asking him to step down, and he thought, “I’m the father figure, these are my children,” and he did refer to all Egyptian as his children, and so he was quite shocked. But I can assume that at this point, maybe even mentally, he was not there fully and so he had been going through various rounds of sicknesses.
The actual manipulations, and rules, and policy-making were happening at the hands of, at this point, late 2000s, the military-supported capitalist class in Egypt that had gained quite a bit of control of the state and the economy.
Greg Wilpert: Now, another major player and factor in Egypt of course, was the United States. That is Egypt, for a long time, was the second largest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel. Why would you say that the US give so much support to Mubarak, about $2 billion per year, and how important was that aid for keeping Mubarak in office?
Angela Joya: I have to say that initially, the aid started with the peace agreement, the Camp David Accords with Israel under Sadat, and so the aid was promised then, but it continued happening afterwards because Egypt continued to fulfill its role as a “peacekeeper” between Israel and Palestine.
But in reality, when we talk to Palestinians, they would often talk or refer to Mubarak as the one who kept the Gates closed for Palestinians not to escape the conditions that they were experiencing, especially the Sinai region and the border between Gaza and Egypt. Mubarak was seen by the Palestinians and by some of the critical scholars of the region as doing the dirty job of Israel for it. In some ways, that’s what they thought they got rewarded for.
I think given that the kind of research that I’ve done in my forthcoming book, you also find out that the relationship between the Egyptian military and between the American corporations over the course of 1980s, 1990s and 2000s strengthens and becomes much closer, and so Egypt became a market basically for American products, mainly military products. Either they were assembling them in Egypt or they were preparing, making them, and selling them, and getting licenses out of US.
It was that relationship also that ensured if Egypt received this $3 billion a year of US aid, they would continue becoming or remaining a customer for American military. That was another reason, it was not necessarily just for the support of Egypt’s role in maintaining the peace between Israel and Palestine.
Greg Wilpert: Now, finally, very briefly, Mubarak spent only a few years in prison and was ultimately released under a President el-Sisi. It seems that also given Mubarak’s ceremonious funeral, that he has been completely rehabilitated by the current government. Would you say that’s correct? If so, what does this say about the current president?
Angela Joya: Ultimately in the case of Egypt as I have noticed since 2011 onwards, the military has definitely assumed a stronger control over the state and under el-Sisi, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, we see a consolidation of the military’s power within the state and economy. Some of the activists in Egypt that I speak with, they have confirmed some of my worst fears that the environment of safety of journalists, of activists, of NGOs is much worse now under the rule of el-Sisi than it was under Mubarak in all of his period of rule.
In some ways, this repression is also speaking to how the military as a class want to celebrate the legacy of one of their own, and that’s where this three days of mourning for Mubarak comes into play and this massive ceremony that they are going to have for his funeral, is part and parcel of that consolidating this [inaudible 00:13:57] of the military in Egypt, in the mind of Egyptians.
It’s not surprising. I mean, I kind of expected that they will rehabilitate him not because of who he think, they think he is or he was, but more so as to what he symbolically represents on the part of the military and how the military should be viewed by the Egyptian public in general.
Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, very interesting but we’re going to leave it there. I was speaking to Angela Joya, author of the forthcoming book, The Roots of Revolt: A Political Economy of Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak. Thanks again, Angela, for having joined us today.
Angela Joya: Pleasure to be here, Greg. Thank you.
Greg Wilpert: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-26--EU Gives 32 Gas Permits as Study Says Methane Undercounted by 40%

On Feb. 12 , the European Parliament voted to provide what could amount to over $ 26 billion in financing to 32 different natural gas projects , a decision one climate advocacy group called “ climate hypocrisy.
” The decision came just a week before a new study published in the journal Nature concluded that accounting for global methane emissions from oil and gas drilling has been underestimated by a whopping 25-40 % .
The list of natural gas projects is known as Projects of Common Interest ( PCI ) , with many proposals set to import gas obtained from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States and move it to European Union markets .
The Parliament weighed in 443 to 169 in favor of the plan , with 36 abstaining .
Energy projects on the PCI list are eligible to receive up to 50 % of their financing from the Connecting Europe Facility .
“ This climate hypocrisy has to end , ” Colin Roche , an activist with Friends of the Earth Europe , said in a press release .
“ Following unprecedented disasters like Australia ’ s wildfires , history will look unkindly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel pipelines and terminals.
” Roche also called the prospect of the 32 new projects “ incompatible ” with the European Parliament ’ s Green New Deal .
That Green New Deal however , explicitly includes natural gas as a bridge toward renewable energy .
Further , Roche called for a moratorium on EU taxpayer money going toward gas infrastructure .
While the Parliament ’ s vote to approve the plan angered climate activists , the gas industry celebrated .
“ The projects in question aim at completing the missing links in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and South Eastern Europe , ” James Watson , Secretary General of the European Gas Industry Association , said in a press release .
“ These regions are the least developed when it comes to interconnecting the energy infrastructure of the EU Member States… This is an opportunity one should embrace with open arms.
” The vote came just two days after the U.S. Department of Energy authorized permits for four new Gulf of Mexico-based liquefied natural gas terminals set to export gas to the global market .
The Trump Administration even pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the LNG in a press release announcing the permits .
“ The Trump Administration recognizes the importance and increasing role U.S. natural gas has in the global energy landscape , ” U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette said .
“ The export capacity of these four projects alone is enough LNG to supply over half of Europe ’ s LNG import demand .
With today ’ s authorizations , we are paving the way for more U.S. natural gas exports to bring energy security and prosperity to our allies around the world.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a provision into the budget bill to give $ 1 billion in subsidies for projects on the PCI list .
The European Commission PCI list approval comes two days after European Ombudsman Emily O ’ Reilly concluded that the environmental and climate assessment done by the European Commission on the PCI list was inadequate .
O ’ Reilly , called for further study of the issues in response to a complaint made by an activist with the organization Food and Water Europe and asked for a response by the end of March .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ also reported that the European Commission may soon launch “ a strategy to curb methane emissions ” through the office of Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson .
That strategic plan may come out later this year , an anonymous source within the Energy Commissioner ’ s office told EURACTIV .
Methane is a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere , the key time period during which scientists say radical action must be taken on the climate crisis .
A January investigation by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of LNG projects approved during the tenure of President Donald Trump , concluded that the facilities could emit greenhouse gases equivalent to that of 24 coal-fired power plants per year .
That ’ s more than the entire state of Kentucky ’ s coal power plant fleet .
“ The emissions from these projects can ’ t be squared with the sorts of drastic , drastic reductions we need in order to avoid catastrophic climate change , ” says Nathan Matthews , a senior Sierra Club attorney , told the publication .
Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the greenhouse gas costs of transporting the fracked gas from point A , the wellhead , and point Z , the LNG import facility somewhere on the other side of the world .
The numbers also only accounted for 11 of the “ freedom gas ” terminals approved by Trump , with the tally now up to 15 after the Feb. 10 decision .
One project on the PCI list in particular , Shannon LNG , has attracted global attention from the likes of actor Mark Ruffalo , Pope Francis , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy , which is owned by Wes Edens , the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team , USA Today and a major donor to the Democratic National Committee .
Edens also sits on the Host Committee for the forthcoming Democratic National Committee in Milwaukee , where the victory of the party ’ s presidential primary race will receive the crown as the party ’ s nominee to occupy the White House .
The terminal aims to intake gas obtained from fracking in fields such as Pennsylvania ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that gas will be moved to its export terminal by rail on trains owned by Edens , which itself has attracted opposition among local activists .
On Feb. 5 , Ruffalo spoke out against the PCI list before the European Parliament .
“ It is going to be fracked gas taken from my community , it ’ s going to poison our people and it is the antithesis of moving forward with the European Green Deal , ” Ruffalo told the Parliament .
“ And what I ’ m asking you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , and put that money into real renewable energy and clean energy projects.
” The PCI list also includes the EastMed Pipeline , slated to vacuum up gas drilled offshore from the eastern Mediterranean Sea and move it to Cyprus , through Greece and into Italy .
Climate advocates have expressed similar concerns about methane leakage for tapping into that offshore gas .
One of the main companies which has lobbied in the United States and European Union for more access to the offshore reservoir is ExxonMobil .

Cheniere’s Sabine Pass LNG export facility in Cameron, LA. Roy Luck/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
On Feb. 12, the European Parliament voted to provide what could amount to over $26 billion in financing to 32 different natural gas projects, a decision one climate advocacy group called “climate hypocrisy.” The decision came just a week before a new study published in the journal Nature concluded that accounting for global methane emissions from oil and gas drilling has been underestimated by a whopping 25-40%.
The list of natural gas projects is known as Projects of Common Interest (PCI), with many proposals set to import gas obtained from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the United States and move it to European Union markets. The Parliament weighed in 443 to 169 in favor of the plan, with 36 abstaining.
Energy projects on the PCI list are eligible to receive up to 50% of their financing from the Connecting Europe Facility.
“This climate hypocrisy has to end,” Colin Roche, an activist with Friends of the Earth Europe, said in a press release. “Following unprecedented disasters like Australia’s wildfires, history will look unkindly on those who today backed building more fossil fuel pipelines and terminals.”
Roche also called the prospect of the 32 new projects “incompatible” with the European Parliament’s Green New Deal. That Green New Deal however, explicitly includes natural gas as a bridge toward renewable energy.
Further, Roche called for a moratorium on EU taxpayer money going toward gas infrastructure. While the Parliament’s vote to approve the plan angered climate activists, the gas industry celebrated.
“The projects in question aim at completing the missing links in the regional infrastructure of Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe,” James Watson, Secretary General of the European Gas Industry Association, said in a press release. “These regions are the least developed when it comes to interconnecting the energy infrastructure of the EU Member States… This is an opportunity one should embrace with open arms.”
The vote came just two days after the U.S. Department of Energy authorized permits for four new Gulf of Mexico-based liquefied natural gas terminals set to export gas to the global market. The Trump Administration even pointed to the European markets as the destiny for the LNG in a press release announcing the permits.
“The Trump Administration recognizes the importance and increasing role U.S. natural gas has in the global energy landscape,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette said. “The export capacity of these four projects alone is enough LNG to supply over half of Europe’s LNG import demand. With today’s authorizations, we are paving the way for more U.S. natural gas exports to bring energy security and prosperity to our allies around the world.”
In December, Congress also tucked a provision into the budget bill to give $1 billion in subsidies for projects on the PCI list.
The European Commission PCI list approval comes two days after European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly concluded that the environmental and climate assessment done by the European Commission on the PCI list was inadequate. O’Reilly, called for further study of the issues in response to a complaint made by an activist with the organization Food and Water Europe and asked for a response by the end of March.
That same day, the outlet EURACTIV also reported that the European Commission may soon launch “a strategy to curb methane emissions” through the office of Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson. That strategic plan may come out later this year, an anonymous source within the Energy Commissioner’s office told EURACTIV.
Methane is a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere, the key time period during which scientists say radical action must be taken on the climate crisis.
A January investigation by the business publication Bloomberg, doing an analysis of LNG projects approved during the tenure of President Donald Trump, concluded that the facilities could emit greenhouse gases equivalent to that of 24 coal-fired power plants per year. That’s more than the entire state of Kentucky’s coal power plant fleet.
“The emissions from these projects can’t be squared with the sorts of drastic, drastic reductions we need in order to avoid catastrophic climate change,” says Nathan Matthews, a senior Sierra Club attorney, told the publication.
Bloomberg’s reporting team does not account for the greenhouse gas costs of transporting the fracked gas from point A, the wellhead, and point Z, the LNG import facility somewhere on the other side of the world. The numbers also only accounted for 11 of the “freedom gas” terminals approved by Trump, with the tally now up to 15 after the Feb. 10 decision.
One project on the PCI list in particular, Shannon LNG, has attracted global attention from the likes of actor Mark Ruffalo, Pope Francis, and the singer Cher.
Shannon LNG is a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, which is owned by Wes Edens, the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team, USA Today and a major donor to the Democratic National Committee. Edens also sits on the Host Committee for the forthcoming Democratic National Committee in Milwaukee, where the victory of the party’s presidential primary race will receive the crown as the party’s nominee to occupy the White House.
The terminal aims to intake gas obtained from fracking in fields such as Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale basin. And much of that gas will be moved to its export terminal by rail on trains owned by Edens, which itself has attracted opposition among local activists.
On Feb. 5, Ruffalo spoke out against the PCI list before the European Parliament.
“It is going to be fracked gas taken from my community, it’s going to poison our people and it is the antithesis of moving forward with the European Green Deal,” Ruffalo told the Parliament. “And what I’m asking you to do…is to dump those projects, scrap them, and put that money into real renewable energy and clean energy projects.”
The PCI list also includes the EastMed Pipeline, slated to vacuum up gas drilled offshore from the eastern Mediterranean Sea and move it to Cyprus, through Greece and into Italy.
Climate advocates have expressed similar concerns about methane leakage for tapping into that offshore gas. One of the main companies which has lobbied in the United States and European Union for more access to the offshore reservoir is ExxonMobil.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-26--A Racist Voter ID Law Targeting Native Americans Just Lost its Punch

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Kim Brown : Welcome to The Real News , I ’ m Kim Brown .
The efforts to preclude nonwhite citizens from voting have continued to persist in the 21st century .
Voter ID is the weapon du jour with conservative state legislatures over the past decade , placing onerous burdens on citizens of colors to in effect show their papers in order to exercise their right to vote .
Now , this is what happened to Native Americans in North Dakota .
People whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or who didn ’ t have birth certificates were made to jump through onerous hoops in order to participate in elections .
But a new settlement reached last week could ease some of those challenges .
And today we ’ re joined with Jacqueline De León .
Jacqueline is a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund , which is a legal organization defending the rights of Native American tribes , organizations , and people .
She has led hearings across Indian country on Native American voting rights and she practices ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American voters to participate in state and federal elections , and she joins us today from Boulder , Colorado .
Thank you for being here , Jacqueline .
Jacquelin De Le… : Thank you so much for having me .
Kim Brown : So let ’ s start with what happened last week and go backwards so that we all can grasp how we ’ ve arrived at this point .
So first off , Native American tribes were set to go to trial in May as the plaintiffs suing the state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving securing so-called proper ID to cast a ballot , but last week a settlement was reached and tell us what happened as a result of that .
Jacquelin De Le… : We were happy to hear that the state was willing to enter into settlement negotiations after years and years of battle , and what the tribes effectively agreed to is that a voter who doesn ’ t have an address can go into the polling booth and mark on a map where their address is , indicate on the cross streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it is , even if they ’ re homeless , their tent is , and the state will then assign them an address .
That vote will become a provisional ballot , the state will assign an address before the final tally of counts is made and then they will report back to the tribes that they have assigned that address and that that vote was counted .
So we think that that ’ s a good solution for individuals that lack addresses .
The state will also support the issuance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before an election and some compensation for tribes issuing IDs and the acceptance of tribal letters to serve as ID .
Kim Brown : So how were Native Americans voting prior to the passage of this bill through the North Dakota legislature ?
Because it was not this complicated to vote prior to , I believe it was either 2012 or 2014 that the Republican controlled state house as a reaction to the Native American voting block , which helped to not only elect Barack Obama in 2012 but also saying Heidi Heitkamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2012 .
This law was enacted as an outgrowth of that .
Can you explain to us how it was prior to the law being enacted and what caused the passage of this GOP initiative ?
Jacquelin De Le… : So prior to the law , North Dakota was a very progressive state in a lot of ways .
When it came to voting , there ’ s no voter registration , so an individual could go up to vote .
At the time they had a thing called voucher , meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I know… If for example , you didn ’ t have an identification , an individual could say , you know what , I know this person , so this person is from our precinct .
And they can vouch for that voter .
There also was an individual voter could attest that they were qualified under penalty of perjury .
And basically that ’ s the voter swearing that they were qualified to vote .
And that ’ s the fail safe mechanism that the district judge implemented after our victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
And so going back as to why it is that this very open system was changed .
And again , remember North Dakota is not a very populous state .
What may not be feasible in a more populous state was very feasible in North Dakota where voters largely knew each other in very small communities .
But in 2011 the legislature considered an ID bill and they ultimately decided that that ID bill would be too onerous to people who didn ’ t have an identification .
And they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans lack residential street addresses , and so they wouldn ’ t be able to comply with an ID requirement that required an address .
And so they rejected a voter ID bill in 2011 .
In 2012 Heidi Heitkamp won a surprise victory for U.S. Senate .
And immediately in the session following that election , the legislature passed the ID bill .
It ’ s important to note that Heidi Heitkamp ’ s election was considered to be attributable to the Native American vote .
She won by 1 % and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a block that carried her to victory .
And so the passage of the ID bill in the subsequent legislative cycle in 2013 we think was a direct response to that election .
They did not consider any other viewpoints .
They didn ’ t open up the floor to debate .
They used a legislative maneuver .
Basically they attached the ID bill to another bill so it could be voted on without any discussion .
And the effects in 2014 were immediate and severe .
And that ’ s when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans were being turned away from the polling place .
Kim Brown : And it ’ s not a reach to say that the Native American voting blog helped deliver Heidi Heitkamp her U.S. Senate seat because she lost reelection in 2018 with this voter ID law firmly in place .
Can , can we attribute her loss to Native Americans being denied access to the ballot box ?
Jacquelin De Le… : So I think that what led to her victory in 2016 was a host of factors .
She was facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandals that that candidate had and the Native American vote carried her over the top in that instance .
And it was , I think widely acknowledged that it was the Native American vote that secured her victory .
In this last election cycle , she was facing a more formidable opponent .
North Dakota is a traditionally Republican state .
And there was , in this instance , exceptionally high turnout among Native Americans .
And the reason was is that with the articulation of the injustice , with these years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American tribes , you are being disenfranchised .
And then with I think a national spotlight being put on North Dakota because the balance of the Senate was at play at the time , a ton of donations came into North Dakota to try and mobilize the native vote .
And tribes issued , hundreds of IDs for free using those donated funds .
And they also assigned addresses and tried to compensate for the suppressive effects of the law .
And so it led to sort of a historic turnout .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place and the settlement hadn ’ t been reached , we think that the suppression would ’ ve continued when there weren ’ t sort of this surplus of money coming in due to national attention .
And we think that that barrier would have led to decreased turnout over the years .
Kim Brown : So broadly Jacquelin what are the challenges surrounding voters in Indian country and what are some of the ongoing barriers to participation ?
Because it ’ s not easy for people of color across the spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that Native Americans are the OGs of bearing the brunt of this colonial state , especially when it comes to oppressing people ’ s human rights , basic human rights , but certainly rights as citizens and trying to do that as voters .
So what are the challenges that Native Americans are still dealing with in 2020 Jacquelin De Le… : So Native Americans face unreasonable barriers I think that would shock the conscience of everyday Americans .
In the Duckwater Reservation in Nevada , individuals have to travel 140 miles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given the fact that there ’ s mountains in the region and road conditions , that ’ s a four to five hour trip one way .
In order to cast a vote in person , tribes throughout Nevada have to travel over 100 miles .
These kind of distances are unreasonable and they are prevalent throughout Indian country .
Other tribes regularly face 40 or even 20 miles .
But the problem is , is that those distances are on dirt roads and individuals have to leave a reservation in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be incredibly costly , not just in the tank of gas that it takes to get and the hours that you have to commit to .
I ’ m going to go vote , but also in childcare and other barriers that pop up when you have to travel those kinds of distances .
But I think that those distances also critically communicate to Native American communities that their votes are not important and that they don ’ t matter .
And so Native Americans face just unreasonable distances when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other issues that face Native Americans are a digital divide .
So 99 % of tribes lack broadband access .
It ’ s not uncommon for me to go onto a reservation and then immediately lose service .
And so as states progress towards online registration , tribes are left out of that calculus .
Voter ID continues to be a problem in Indian country in South Dakota .
They recently considered a bill and a decided that tribal ID wouldn ’ t be allowed for online registration .
Native Americans also face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reservations .
So not only do they have to travel these unreasonable distances to go and cast their ballot when they go outside of the reservation , there are tensions between the border town and the reservation and they have to go to these hostile areas .
For example , in Arizona , the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians describe how their flow of water is regularly blocked by individuals in the border town , racial tensions are so high .
And so when you place a polling location where there are really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t feel comfortable going there .
In Wisconsin , they also have a polling locations inside of a Sheriff ’ s office , which is a huge deterrent for individuals going to go vote .
It ’ s intimidating .
There ’ s also disrespect shown in South Dakota , native Americans were forced to vote out of a repurposed chicken coop and described the humiliation they felt when they saw feathers on the floor and no bathroom facilities .
And so it ’ s a really discouraging landscape out there .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to a border town that is hostile , that also communicates that your vote is unwanted and that border town does not necessarily have to host the polling location .
There ’ s no reason why a polling location isn ’ t on a reservation .
For example , in Crow Creek , they placed the polling location in Gann Valley , which has a whopping population of 12 people , instead of Fort Thompson that has a population of 1,200 people in a largely Native American population .
Kim Brown : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous and indefinitely complex and in my opinion , absolutely under-reported .
So hopefully we can check in with you in the future , Jacqueline , and you can bring us up to speed- Kim Brown : On some of the challenges that our brothers and sisters in Indian country are facing .
Jacqueline , we appreciate your time today .
Thank you so very much .
Jacquelin De Le… : Thank you so much .
Kim Brown : And thank you for watching The Real News Network .

North Dakota will now provide Native Americans with no-cost identification to vote in a victory against racist voter ID laws—but they still face shocking barriers to the ballot box nationwide.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Kim Brown: Welcome to The Real News, I’m Kim Brown. The efforts to preclude nonwhite citizens from voting have continued to persist in the 21st century. Voter ID is the weapon du jour with conservative state legislatures over the past decade, placing onerous burdens on citizens of colors to in effect show their papers in order to exercise their right to vote. Now, this is what happened to Native Americans in North Dakota. People whose homes didn’t have formal addresses or who didn’t have birth certificates were made to jump through onerous hoops in order to participate in elections. But a new settlement reached last week could ease some of those challenges. And today we’re joined with Jacqueline De León. Jacqueline is a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, which is a legal organization defending the rights of Native American tribes, organizations, and people. She has led hearings across Indian country on Native American voting rights and she practices ongoing litigation and legislative advocacy to enable Native American voters to participate in state and federal elections, and she joins us today from Boulder, Colorado. Thank you for being here, Jacqueline.
Jacquelin De Le…: Thank you so much for having me.
Kim Brown: So let’s start with what happened last week and go backwards so that we all can grasp how we’ve arrived at this point. So first off, Native American tribes were set to go to trial in May as the plaintiffs suing the state of North Dakota behind a voter suppression law involving securing so-called proper ID to cast a ballot, but last week a settlement was reached and tell us what happened as a result of that.
Jacquelin De Le…: We were happy to hear that the state was willing to enter into settlement negotiations after years and years of battle, and what the tribes effectively agreed to is that a voter who doesn’t have an address can go into the polling booth and mark on a map where their address is, indicate on the cross streets where it is that their house or where it is, even if they’re homeless, their tent is, and the state will then assign them an address. That vote will become a provisional ballot, the state will assign an address before the final tally of counts is made and then they will report back to the tribes that they have assigned that address and that that vote was counted. So we think that that’s a good solution for individuals that lack addresses. The state will also support the issuance of free IDs on the reservations 30 days before an election and some compensation for tribes issuing IDs and the acceptance of tribal letters to serve as ID.
Kim Brown: So how were Native Americans voting prior to the passage of this bill through the North Dakota legislature? Because it was not this complicated to vote prior to, I believe it was either 2012 or 2014 that the Republican controlled state house as a reaction to the Native American voting block, which helped to not only elect Barack Obama in 2012 but also saying Heidi Heitkamp to this, to the U.S. Senate in 2012. This law was enacted as an outgrowth of that. Can you explain to us how it was prior to the law being enacted and what caused the passage of this GOP initiative?
Jacquelin De Le…: So prior to the law, North Dakota was a very progressive state in a lot of ways. When it came to voting, there’s no voter registration, so an individual could go up to vote. At the time they had a thing called voucher, meaning that somebody from the community could say, I know… If for example, you didn’t have an identification, an individual could say, you know what, I know this person, so this person is from our precinct. And they can vouch for that voter. There also was an individual voter could attest that they were qualified under penalty of perjury. And basically that’s the voter swearing that they were qualified to vote. And that’s the fail safe mechanism that the district judge implemented after our victory in 2016 to allow voters to vote again. And so going back as to why it is that this very open system was changed.
And again, remember North Dakota is not a very populous state. What may not be feasible in a more populous state was very feasible in North Dakota where voters largely knew each other in very small communities. But in 2011 the legislature considered an ID bill and they ultimately decided that that ID bill would be too onerous to people who didn’t have an identification. And they were also informed at that time that Native Americans lack residential street addresses, and so they wouldn’t be able to comply with an ID requirement that required an address. And so they rejected a voter ID bill in 2011. In 2012 Heidi Heitkamp won a surprise victory for U.S. Senate. And immediately in the session following that election, the legislature passed the ID bill. It’s important to note that Heidi Heitkamp’s election was considered to be attributable to the Native American vote.
She won by 1% and so the Native American vote was seen as a block that carried her to victory. And so the passage of the ID bill in the subsequent legislative cycle in 2013 we think was a direct response to that election. They did not consider any other viewpoints. They didn’t open up the floor to debate. They used a legislative maneuver. Basically they attached the ID bill to another bill so it could be voted on without any discussion. And the effects in 2014 were immediate and severe. And that’s when NARFE got the call that many Native Americans were being turned away from the polling place.
Kim Brown: And it’s not a reach to say that the Native American voting blog helped deliver Heidi Heitkamp her U.S. Senate seat because she lost reelection in 2018 with this voter ID law firmly in place. Can, can we attribute her loss to Native Americans being denied access to the ballot box?
Jacquelin De Le…: So I think that what led to her victory in 2016 was a host of factors. She was facing a especially weak candidate due to some scandals that that candidate had and the Native American vote carried her over the top in that instance. And it was, I think widely acknowledged that it was the Native American vote that secured her victory.
In this last election cycle, she was facing a more formidable opponent. North Dakota is a traditionally Republican state. And there was, in this instance, exceptionally high turnout among Native Americans. And the reason was is that with the articulation of the injustice, with these years of litigation with us saying to the Native American tribes, you are being disenfranchised. And then with I think a national spotlight being put on North Dakota because the balance of the Senate was at play at the time, a ton of donations came into North Dakota to try and mobilize the native vote. And tribes issued, hundreds of IDs for free using those donated funds. And they also assigned addresses and tried to compensate for the suppressive effects of the law. And so it led to sort of a historic turnout. Now, if the law were to remain in place and the settlement hadn’t been reached, we think that the suppression would’ve continued when there weren’t sort of this surplus of money coming in due to national attention. And we think that that barrier would have led to decreased turnout over the years.
Kim Brown: So broadly Jacquelin what are the challenges surrounding voters in Indian country and what are some of the ongoing barriers to participation? Because it’s not easy for people of color across the spectrum to vote at all. And we know that Native Americans are the OGs of bearing the brunt of this colonial state, especially when it comes to oppressing people’s human rights, basic human rights, but certainly rights as citizens and trying to do that as voters. So what are the challenges that Native Americans are still dealing with in 2020
Jacquelin De Le…: So Native Americans face unreasonable barriers I think that would shock the conscience of everyday Americans. In the Duckwater Reservation in Nevada, individuals have to travel 140 miles to register. That’s crazy. Given the fact that there’s mountains in the region and road conditions, that’s a four to five hour trip one way. In order to cast a vote in person, tribes throughout Nevada have to travel over 100 miles. These kind of distances are unreasonable and they are prevalent throughout Indian country. Other tribes regularly face 40 or even 20 miles. But the problem is, is that those distances are on dirt roads and individuals have to leave a reservation in order to cast their ballot. And that can be incredibly costly, not just in the tank of gas that it takes to get and the hours that you have to commit to. I’m going to go vote, but also in childcare and other barriers that pop up when you have to travel those kinds of distances.
But I think that those distances also critically communicate to Native American communities that their votes are not important and that they don’t matter. And so Native Americans face just unreasonable distances when it comes to casting a ballot and registering. Other issues that face Native Americans are a digital divide. So 99% of tribes lack broadband access. It’s not uncommon for me to go onto a reservation and then immediately lose service. And so as states progress towards online registration, tribes are left out of that calculus.
Voter ID continues to be a problem in Indian country in South Dakota. They recently considered a bill and a decided that tribal ID wouldn’t be allowed for online registration. Native Americans also face hostility when they vote outside of their reservations. So not only do they have to travel these unreasonable distances to go and cast their ballot when they go outside of the reservation, there are tensions between the border town and the reservation and they have to go to these hostile areas.
For example, in Arizona, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians describe how their flow of water is regularly blocked by individuals in the border town, racial tensions are so high. And so when you place a polling location where there are really high racial tensions, people don’t feel comfortable going there. In Wisconsin, they also have a polling locations inside of a Sheriff’s office, which is a huge deterrent for individuals going to go vote. It’s intimidating. There’s also disrespect shown in South Dakota, native Americans were forced to vote out of a repurposed chicken coop and described the humiliation they felt when they saw feathers on the floor and no bathroom facilities. And so it’s a really discouraging landscape out there.
And I will also say that when you go to a border town that is hostile, that also communicates that your vote is unwanted and that border town does not necessarily have to host the polling location. There’s no reason why a polling location isn’t on a reservation. For example, in Crow Creek, they placed the polling location in Gann Valley, which has a whopping population of 12 people, instead of Fort Thompson that has a population of 1,200 people in a largely Native American population.
Kim Brown: Wow. These are issues that are numerous and indefinitely complex and in my opinion, absolutely under-reported. So hopefully we can check in with you in the future, Jacqueline, and you can bring us up to speed-
Jacquelin De Le…: Yes, I’d love to.
Kim Brown: On some of the challenges that our brothers and sisters in Indian country are facing. Jacqueline, we appreciate your time today. Thank you so very much.
Jacquelin De Le…: Thank you so much.
Kim Brown: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.