vox--2020-01-28--Why famous dudes grow beards to deal with existential crises

Was anyone really surprised when Beto O ’ Rourke emerged from exile with a freshly grown salt-and-pepper beard ?
It seemed to materialize all at once .
O ’ Rourke suspended his presidential bid on November 1 , 2019 , when he was still dressed in his trademark blue button-down and slacks , without a stray follicle on his mouth , nose , or chin .
The rest of his winter was spent hunkered down in Texas , presumably engaging in the sort of cloistral rumination and recalibration that follows any public figure ’ s collapse .
In that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , apparently , personal and professional downfalls , setbacks , and sea changes are great fertilizers for facial hair .
Here he is on December 17 , equipped with a large coffee , a bemused demeanor , and a charcoal neckbeard as he endorses Texas congressional hopeful Sima Ladjevardian .
Here he is a few weeks later at Christmas , looking giddily unelectable in a lumberjack goatee , as if we were transported to an alternate dimension where O ’ Rourke ’ s punk rock career didn ’ t end in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven weeks to ditch the clean-shaven look he ’ s had since , at least , his mugshot .
But as powerful men have always known , there ’ s no coping mechanism quite like a beard .
This is a tradition in modern politics that dates to at least 2001 , in the aftermath of Al Gore ’ s legendarily distressed presidential campaign .
After the Supreme Court handed the election to his opponent , Gore reappeared with a straw-colored beard , and quickly shifted his influence to warning about climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the years after the end of his 2016 presidential campaign , and the symbolic end of the type of Republican Party he represented .
Today he looks a little bit like a discharged general in the Sherman civil war campaign .
This instinct doesn ’ t only follow men on the wrong end of political calamity ; Conan O ’ Brien famously ditched his chin after his humiliating seven-month stint on The Tonight Show , and when David Letterman left The Late Show on much better terms in 2015 , he too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jon Stewart did it post-Daily Show ; Colbert grew one between Comedy Central and CBS .
( An honorable mention must be paid to Ben Affleck , who sported a breakup beard during the summer he split from Jennifer Garner . )
Clearly , there is something within men , particularly men who are often in front of cameras , that urges them to radically change the way their face looks during the epilogue of existential upheaval .
The cultural instinct is to chalk this trend up to depression or other mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” has been inscribed within the Urban Dictionary catalog since 2009 , and as Deborah Serani , a psychologist and adjunct professor at Adelphi University explained in Psychology Today , an apathy toward self-grooming can be one of the first signs of dysfunction in the frontal lobe , which is the part of the brain that also dictates your interest in eating , sleeping , and other basic self-care regimens .
But people who ’ ve studied the beard , and men ’ s relationship to the beard , tell me that post-reckoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gloomy coda .
Christopher Oldstone-Moore wrote Of Beards and Men , a book that charts the history of men ’ s hairstyles from the Roman Empire onward .
The way he sees it , beards can be a force of reclamation , rather than regret .
“ In our 20th and 21st century culture , we established shaving as a norm for social propriety .
Typically men in the limelight , men in show business , politics , and business , they ’ re under a particular pressure to perform , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that pressure cooker , they can express their freedom from those constraints.
” The example Oldstone-Moore finds most useful is David Letterman , who was known for his anti-authority slant on CBS and NBC , and who clearly revels in his newfound Appalachian glory .
“ On the first day of Stephen [ Colbert ’ s ] show , an energy left me , it ’ s not my problem anymore , ” he said in an interview with the Today show .
“ I always told myself when the show goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I had to shave every day , and I got so sick and tired of it.
” According to Oldstone-Moore , Letterman ’ s appearance and attitude ensures everyone around him understands that he is finished with that part of his life , and that for the first time in 40 years , he is enjoying a moment where nobody can tell him what to do .
“ It ’ s frankly a middle finger , ” he explains .
Of course , Letterman is enjoying his post-Late Show life on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purged from the payroll like Conan , and he never polled at 2 percent like Beto .
His beard will always be one of the more triumphant beards in the celebrity canon .
So what does that mean for those other men , who were defeated rather than released ?
It ’ s impossible to get a pure answer without asking the subjects themselves , but Oldstone-Moore says that returning to the fold with a radical new look could be a plea to be taken more seriously , especially if the public has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expense .
He points to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau , who recently returned from a vacation in Costa Rica with a scraggly beard .
Trudeau is currently adopting an unusually strong stance against the United States ’ escalation with Iran , which led to the tragic deaths of 57 Canadians aboard a plane that was shot down above Tehran .
It ’ s a distinct silhouette from that of the man who became enshrined in the American imagination with his goofy grin and Chewbacca socks .
Consciously or subconsciously , Oldstone-Moore speculates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his look .
” He ’ s gone through the wringer .
I think he feels like he needs to present a different self , because he was so Obama-like , now he ’ s got to be a little grittier , ” says Oldstone-Moore .
“ That shows more of that individuality , and that you ’ re a little bit outside of the mainstream.
” This point is echoed by Robert Martin , a biological anthropologist who serves as an emeritus curator at the Field Museum of Natural History in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking , beards served as some sort of a signal within the social contract during early human evolution .
That signal forks in two different hypotheses : Either men grow beards to attract women , or men grow beards to express a certain dominance among other men .
Surprisingly , according to research conducted by psychology lecturer Barnaby Dixson at the University of Queensland , beards have very little sway within male-to-female interactions .
Instead , facial hair , as a biological agent , is much more of a factor when dudes want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This may explain your point about high-profile men growing beards after a defeat , ” says Martin .
“ This is probably not connected with male and female interactions , but rather with status concerns .
Growing a beard may well be an unconscious device to reassert status after a setback.
” Of course , not all men grow a post-flop beard .
Sen. Cory Booker suspended his presidential campaign and still rocks his clean visage .
Julián Castro remains beardless after his twin brother , Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro , acquired some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better distinguish himself from his kin .
So how much stock should you put in the lizard brain pulling the strings in the grimier part of the male psyche ?
Who knows .
The way I see it , the most likely impetus for existential beards is that men don ’ t have many other grooming options to demonstrate a break from the past .
Women can earmark their entire lifespans by the moment they get bangs .
I ’ ve seen my girlfriend emotionally metamorphosize with a new nail polish color .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ style constructs are slowly atrophying , a lot of men feel that their one and only chance to transform lies in the tiny bit of real estate below their lower lip .
” Men are becoming more accepting of style , clothing , and hair .
That ’ s been one of the great changes in masculinity in the past 25 years , but it ’ s slow progress and there ’ s not yet parity between men and women on that , ” he says .
“ But the beard is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men will continue to lose jobs and elections , enter self-imposed banishment , and resurface with a fresh motivation to leave a new mark .
That cycle is never going away .
In the future , though , maybe people like O ’ Rourke will complete that gauntlet with more than just a beard .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Was anyone really surprised when Beto O’Rourke emerged from exile with a freshly grown salt-and-pepper beard?
It seemed to materialize all at once. O’Rourke suspended his presidential bid on November 1, 2019, when he was still dressed in his trademark blue button-down and slacks, without a stray follicle on his mouth, nose, or chin. The rest of his winter was spent hunkered down in Texas, presumably engaging in the sort of cloistral rumination and recalibration that follows any public figure’s collapse. In that time, O’Rourke proved once again that, apparently, personal and professional downfalls, setbacks, and sea changes are great fertilizers for facial hair.
Here he is on December 17, equipped with a large coffee, a bemused demeanor, and a charcoal neckbeard as he endorses Texas congressional hopeful Sima Ladjevardian. Here he is a few weeks later at Christmas, looking giddily unelectable in a lumberjack goatee, as if we were transported to an alternate dimension where O’Rourke’s punk rock career didn’t end in the ’90s. It took him about seven weeks to ditch the clean-shaven look he’s had since, at least, his mugshot. But as powerful men have always known, there’s no coping mechanism quite like a beard.
This is a tradition in modern politics that dates to at least 2001, in the aftermath of Al Gore’s legendarily distressed presidential campaign. After the Supreme Court handed the election to his opponent, Gore reappeared with a straw-colored beard, and quickly shifted his influence to warning about climate change.
Sen. Ted Cruz did something similar in the years after the end of his 2016 presidential campaign, and the symbolic end of the type of Republican Party he represented. Today he looks a little bit like a discharged general in the Sherman civil war campaign. This instinct doesn’t only follow men on the wrong end of political calamity; Conan O’Brien famously ditched his chin after his humiliating seven-month stint on The Tonight Show, and when David Letterman left The Late Show on much better terms in 2015, he too decided to go full Santa Claus. Jon Stewart did it post-Daily Show; Colbert grew one between Comedy Central and CBS. (An honorable mention must be paid to Ben Affleck, who sported a breakup beard during the summer he split from Jennifer Garner.)
Clearly, there is something within men, particularly men who are often in front of cameras, that urges them to radically change the way their face looks during the epilogue of existential upheaval. The cultural instinct is to chalk this trend up to depression or other mental health ailments. The term “breakup beard” has been inscribed within the Urban Dictionary catalog since 2009, and as Deborah Serani, a psychologist and adjunct professor at Adelphi University explained in Psychology Today, an apathy toward self-grooming can be one of the first signs of dysfunction in the frontal lobe, which is the part of the brain that also dictates your interest in eating, sleeping, and other basic self-care regimens.
But people who’ve studied the beard, and men’s relationship to the beard, tell me that post-reckoning facial hair isn’t always a gloomy coda. Christopher Oldstone-Moore wrote Of Beards and Men, a book that charts the history of men’s hairstyles from the Roman Empire onward. The way he sees it, beards can be a force of reclamation, rather than regret.
“In our 20th and 21st century culture, we established shaving as a norm for social propriety. Typically men in the limelight, men in show business, politics, and business, they’re under a particular pressure to perform,” he says. “When they step out of that pressure cooker, they can express their freedom from those constraints.”
The example Oldstone-Moore finds most useful is David Letterman, who was known for his anti-authority slant on CBS and NBC, and who clearly revels in his newfound Appalachian glory. “On the first day of Stephen [Colbert’s] show, an energy left me, it’s not my problem anymore,” he said in an interview with the Today show. “I always told myself when the show goes away, I’ll stop shaving. I had to shave every day, and I got so sick and tired of it.”
According to Oldstone-Moore, Letterman’s appearance and attitude ensures everyone around him understands that he is finished with that part of his life, and that for the first time in 40 years, he is enjoying a moment where nobody can tell him what to do. “It’s frankly a middle finger,” he explains.
Of course, Letterman is enjoying his post-Late Show life on his own terms. He wasn’t purged from the payroll like Conan, and he never polled at 2 percent like Beto. His beard will always be one of the more triumphant beards in the celebrity canon. So what does that mean for those other men, who were defeated rather than released?
It’s impossible to get a pure answer without asking the subjects themselves, but Oldstone-Moore says that returning to the fold with a radical new look could be a plea to be taken more seriously, especially if the public has spent a few months laughing at your expense.
He points to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who recently returned from a vacation in Costa Rica with a scraggly beard. Trudeau is currently adopting an unusually strong stance against the United States’ escalation with Iran, which led to the tragic deaths of 57 Canadians aboard a plane that was shot down above Tehran. It’s a distinct silhouette from that of the man who became enshrined in the American imagination with his goofy grin and Chewbacca socks. Consciously or subconsciously, Oldstone-Moore speculates that Trudeau wants to match his rhetoric with his look.
”He’s gone through the wringer. I think he feels like he needs to present a different self, because he was so Obama-like, now he’s got to be a little grittier,” says Oldstone-Moore. “That shows more of that individuality, and that you’re a little bit outside of the mainstream.”
This point is echoed by Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist who serves as an emeritus curator at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. He says that, scientifically speaking, beards served as some sort of a signal within the social contract during early human evolution.
That signal forks in two different hypotheses: Either men grow beards to attract women, or men grow beards to express a certain dominance among other men. Surprisingly, according to research conducted by psychology lecturer Barnaby Dixson at the University of Queensland, beards have very little sway within male-to-female interactions. Instead, facial hair, as a biological agent, is much more of a factor when dudes want to show up other dudes.
“This may explain your point about high-profile men growing beards after a defeat,” says Martin. “This is probably not connected with male and female interactions, but rather with status concerns. Growing a beard may well be an unconscious device to reassert status after a setback.”
Of course, not all men grow a post-flop beard. Sen. Cory Booker suspended his presidential campaign and still rocks his clean visage. Julián Castro remains beardless after his twin brother, Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro, acquired some facial hair in a possible effort to better distinguish himself from his kin.
So how much stock should you put in the lizard brain pulling the strings in the grimier part of the male psyche? Who knows. The way I see it, the most likely impetus for existential beards is that men don’t have many other grooming options to demonstrate a break from the past. Women can earmark their entire lifespans by the moment they get bangs. I’ve seen my girlfriend emotionally metamorphosize with a new nail polish color. As Oldstone-Moore notes, while gender and style constructs are slowly atrophying, a lot of men feel that their one and only chance to transform lies in the tiny bit of real estate below their lower lip.
”Men are becoming more accepting of style, clothing, and hair. That’s been one of the great changes in masculinity in the past 25 years, but it’s slow progress and there’s not yet parity between men and women on that,” he says. “But the beard is the one exception to that rule.”
High-profile men will continue to lose jobs and elections, enter self-imposed banishment, and resurface with a fresh motivation to leave a new mark. That cycle is never going away. In the future, though, maybe people like O’Rourke will complete that gauntlet with more than just a beard.
Maybe bangs? Try bangs.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-01-28--A SARS-like virus is spreading quickly. Here’s what you need to know.

On December 31 last year , China announced a small outbreak of a mysterious new coronavirus in the city of Wuhan involving 27 cases .
Flash-forward to Tuesday : The number of cases of 2019-nCoV , as the virus is known , has leaped past 4,000 , and there are sick people in more than a dozen other countries .
That includes five confirmed cases in the United States .
Nancy Messonnier , director of the CDC ’ s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases , said Friday that although the outbreak is a “ very serious public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US public is low at this time.
” Yet Tom Frieden , the former director of the CDC , told Vox he ’ s concerned by how infectious the virus is .
“ If the sustained human transmission and a high rate of severe illness are confirmed , then it clearly is an event of international concern.
” With information about 2019-nCoV — and its risk of spreading — evolving by the hour , we ’ ve answered basic questions about the outbreak here .
We ’ ll be updating this story as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where did this coronavirus outbreak come from ?
The outbreak was first reported to the World Health Organization by Chinese officials on December 31 in Wuhan , a city of 11 million in Hubei province .
At that time , cases centered around Wuhan ’ s Huanan South China Seafood Market .
Local health officials reported then that patients with the virus were “ mainly business staff and purchasers ” at the market , where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits .
Scientists in China quickly ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The leading hypothesis then was that a yet-to-be-identified novel virus had spread to humans from one of the animals in the market .
By January 9 , the state broadcaster , China Central Television , reported a major discovery : a new virus , known as 2019-nCoV .
Many of the people who had become ill tested positive for 2019-nCoV .
Two days later , Chinese scientists shared the genetic sequence of the new virus , and the WHO applauded China ’ s efforts for sharing information readily .
( This transparency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2003 , when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long .
The virus eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000 . )
By January 20 , Chinese authorities confirmed that human-to-human transmission is also occurring .
By January 23 , the WHO confirmed that there is “ fourth-generation ” spread of the virus in Wuhan , meaning there are cases where an individual has spread it to a second person , that second person to a third , and the third to a fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also evidence of second-generation cases . )
Knowing that , “ the scope of this outbreak expands massively , ” Peter Daszak , the president of EcoHealth Alliance , a US global health research organization working in China , told Vox .
But the picture of the beginnings of this outbreak is rapidly changing .
A recent study , published on January 24 in The Lancet , suggests the outbreak may not have actually started at the market .
The first known patient had no market exposure .
And that person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks earlier than Wuhan health authorities had suggested about the first case .
2 ) How many people are sick ?
How many have died ?
As of January 28 , at least 4,474 people have fallen ill .
The vast majority of these patients ( 4,409 ) are in mainland China , where most ( 2,714 ) are concentrated in Hubei province , home to Wuhan .
The remaining cases are spread across more than 30 Chinese provinces and cities — including Shanghai , Guangdong , Hong Kong , and Beijing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check out this website from researchers at Johns Hopkins ; it collects data from various sources : the WHO , the CDC , the National Health Commission of the People ’ s Republic of China ( NHC ) , and two other sites .
( The map is embedded below . )
Additional cases have turned up in travelers in more than a dozen other countries , including the US , Canada , Thailand , Japan , Taiwan , Malaysia , Singapore , France , Australia , Nepal , Vietnam , Germany , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 107 people have died .
But the real toll may be much higher .
UK-based researchers who have modeled the outbreak ’ s potential suggest there are likely many more cases — as many as 9,700 , according to the upper end of their estimate .
And the risk of rapid spread is heightened , as hundreds of millions start to travel this week for China ’ s Lunar New Year .
3 ) How is the world responding ?
Chinese authorities first warned people to stop traveling in and out of Wuhan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city under quarantine beginning January 23 , suspending public transport within Wuhan , and canceling flights and trains leaving the city .
It was an extraordinary move given that Wuhan has a population of 11 million , more people than New York City .
By the evening of January 24 , quarantine measures had expanded to 12 cities near Wuhan , effectively stifling the movement of 35 million people .
By January 25 , President Xi Jinping said the new virus posed a “ grave ” threat , and his government ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens inside China and overseas .
The same day , Hong Kong authorities declared a state of emergency over the virus , and decided to close schools for three weeks , while Beijing suspended all inter-province buses .
According to the New York Times , the government said the quarantine was needed to “ effectively cut off the transmission of the virus , resolutely curb the spread of the epidemic , and ensure the safety and health of the people.
” But the evidence for travel restrictions during outbreaks shows , counterintuitively , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much to stop the spread of disease .
Health officials in China and the region are now scrambling to find cases through screening at transportation hubs and follow-up with the contacts of those infected with the virus — an effort that ’ s supported by the WHO .
Other countries at risk of imported cases have also implemented screening measures .
In the US , the CDC — along with the Homeland Security Department ’ s Customs and Border Protection — began screening travelers from Wuhan for the virus at US airports on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city will be funneled through airports that are looking out for cases .
On January 25 , the US government announced it would be working to evacuate American diplomats and citizens from Wuhan .
4 ) What do we know about the cases in the US ?
Right now there are five confirmed cases in the US , according to the CDC .
All involved travelers from Wuhan : • The first patient ’ s name hasn ’ t been released , but we know he ’ s a resident of Snohomish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know he ’ s in his 30s and he recently traveled to Wuhan , returning to Seattle on January 15 , two days before airport screening started ( though the man didn ’ t have symptoms yet ) .
By January 19 , he reached out to health care providers to report his symptoms and travel history .
They suspected 2019-nCoV .
The man is being treated for mild pneumonia at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett , Washington .
• The second case , reported on January 24 , involves a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She returned from Wuhan on January 13 , and didn ’ t have any symptoms while traveling .
A few days after returning , when she started to feel ill , she called healthcare providers to report her symptoms and was admitted to hospital and placed in isolation .
Right now , she ’ s in stable condition .
• The third , fourth , and fifth cases , reported over the weekend , concerned individuals in Orange County and LA County , California , and Maricopa County , Arizona , respectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan , and that they ’ re getting care in a local hospital .
As of January 25 , CDC officials said they ’ ve screened over 2,000 people coming into the US for the disease on 200 flights , and found zero cases .
The agency also said it ’ s investigating 100 possible cases of coronavirus in 26 states .
5 ) How does the new coronavirus spread ?
We don ’ t yet know the exact way the virus is spreading , but we do know it ’ s part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronaviruses , which mostly infect mammals , including bats .
Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system , sometimes targeting the cells deep within the lungs .
Only seven , including 2019-nCoV , SARS , and MERS , have evolved to infect humans .
According to the CDC , human coronaviruses are most commonly passed via : • Touching an object or surface with the virus on it , then touching your mouth , nose , or eyes before washing your hands As for how easily the new coronavirus spreads , that ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from WHO , at the moment , each individual has transmitted the virus to an average of 1.4 to 2.5 others .
That makes 2019-nCoV , based on what we know now , less contagious than SARS .
But there are many different estimates floating around as the situation evolves — and some suggest 2019-nCoV is even more contagious .
For the moment , the WHO estimates the virus ’ s incubation period — before symptoms start to show — is between 2 and 10 days , but it ’ s not yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time .
We also know at least 15 health care workers have been infected .
“ It ’ s unusual to get health care worker infections in outbreaks , ” explained Tom Inglesby , director of the Center for Health Security of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
“ It ’ s always a sign of alarm when that happens , ” he added , because it means the virus may be easily transmitted , even in settings where people are taking precautions .
6 ) What are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the seven coronaviruses that infect humans , SARS and MERS , can cause severe pneumonia and even death .
The rest lead to milder symptoms , like a common cold .
Right now , it ’ s not clear where 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum .
An early report , published in the Lancet , had a good overview of what ’ s known about symptoms so far — albeit , in a subset of the first 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV in Wuhan .
The most common symptoms in this group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and fatigue ; less common were headache , diarrhea , and coughing up mucus or blood .
A little more than half of the 41 patients had difficulty breathing , and 63 percent had low levels of white blood cells .
As for the disease severity : 13 patients were admitted to an ICU and six died .
By January 22 , 68 percent of the patients had been discharged from hospital .
All patients had pneumonia and lung abnormalities on CT scans .
( A quick refresher : Pneumonia is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by a variety of organisms — bacteria , fungi , viruses , even parasites .
In this case , 2019-nCoV is causing the infection and leading the lungs ’ air sacs to become inflamed and fill up with fluid or pus instead of air . )
In the Lancet group , most patients were men and over half didn ’ t have underlying diseases .
The median age was 49 .
It ’ s possible there are many more people with the virus who have very mild symptoms or who are asymptomatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Wellcome Trust , a research charity focused on global health .
If that ’ s the case , and there are thousands carrying 2019-nCoV while only a few people have died , this outbreak will look milder .
It ’ s also possible this virus winds up behaving like SARS , said Inglesby , which kills about one in 10 patients infected .
With SARS , “ We saw substantial spread in health care settings where health care workers became ill during care for patients , ” for example .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential for widespread transmission.
” 7 ) What ’ s the likelihood this becomes a global public health emergency ?
The potential for this virus to spread further is so great that the WHO gathered an expert committee on Wednesday and Thursday last week to decide whether the emergence of 2019-nCoV constitutes a global public health emergency , a rare designation the agency gives outbreaks that pose an international threat .
By the end of Thursday , WHO ’ s Director-General , Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , announced the committee ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute one , mainly because of the limited number of cases outside of China , and China ’ s efforts to control the spread of the disease .
“ Make no mistake , this is an emergency in China .
But it has not yet become a global health emergency , ” Tedros explained .
He also vowed to reconvene the emergency committee in the coming days to review new data .
“ At this time , there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China , but that doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tedros added .
Formally , a public health emergency of international concern , or PHEIC — pronounced “ fake ” — is defined as “ an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.
” In reality , it ’ s a political tool the WHO uses to sound the alarm about a serious disease that has caught the world off guard and put people ’ s health in danger .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention , to galvanize resources , and stop the disease from spreading further across borders .
A key consideration in declaring a PHEIC is whether the disease threat is dire enough to risk countries enacting travel and trade restrictions .
Declarations can be devastating to local economies and are often associated with economic losses .
So they ’ re not taken lightly .
In fact , the WHO has only declared a public health emergency five times since the International Health Regulations , which govern global health emergency responses , were enacted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2009 , with the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic .
The second time was in May 2014 , when polio seemed to surge again , threatening the eradication effort .
The third time , in August 2014 , came as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was growing out of control .
The fourth was related to Zika in 2016 .
And the fifth , in 2019 , was another outbreak of Ebola that ’ s ongoing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo .
8 ) How worried should I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many unknowns to say .
We don ’ t know which animal carries this virus .
We don ’ t know how exactly it spreads .
We don ’ t know how easily it spreads among people , or how deadly and severe the virus is .
To put the cases and deaths so far into perspective , remember that seasonal flu kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people each year .
“ Right now , you ’ re probably more likely to be catching flu than you are to be getting coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in global public health at the University of Edinburgh .
Even so , the fact that cases are already turning up in so many countries — mere weeks after this outbreak was first declared — suggests we should brace ourselves for an escalation .
Messonnier of the CDC said there are likely to be more cases in the coming days — in the US and beyond .
On January 28 , her agency began advising Americans to avoid non-essential travel to China .
“ This is a rapidly changing situation — abroad and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning , ” Messonnier said .
That doesn ’ t , however , mean American officials expect the US to be inundated with dozens of patients or that the virus will spread broadly within the country .
It ’ s the major cities in and around China that are most at risk , according to a paper posted on January 14 in the Journal of Travel Medicine .
The top travel destinations out of Wuhan — and most at risk of spread of the infection — include Bangkok , Hong Kong , Tokyo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has sickened thousands in China , and made its way to the United States .
Vox ’ s Julia Belluz explains what ’ s known and what ’ s next .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you get your podcasts , including : Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , and ART19 .

On December 31 last year, China announced a small outbreak of a new coronavirus in the city of Wuhan involving 27 cases.
Flash-forward to Wednesday: The number of cases of 2019-nCoV, as the virus is known, has leaped past 6,000, and there are sick people in more than a dozen other countries.
That includes five confirmed cases in the United States.
Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said Friday that although the outbreak is a “very serious public health threat, the immediate risk to the US public is low at this time.”
Yet Tom Frieden, the former director of the CDC, told Vox he’s concerned by how infectious the virus is. “If the sustained human transmission and a high rate of severe illness are confirmed, then it clearly is an event of international concern.”
With information about 2019-nCoV — and its risk of spreading — evolving by the hour, we’ve answered basic questions about the outbreak here. We’ll be updating this story as more information becomes available.
1) Where did this coronavirus outbreak come from?
The outbreak was first reported to the World Health Organization by Chinese officials on December 31 in Wuhan, a city of 11 million in Hubei province. At that time, cases centered around Wuhan’s Huanan South China Seafood Market. Local health officials reported then that patients with the virus were “mainly business staff and purchasers” at the market, where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits.
Scientists in China quickly ruled out known pathogens as the likely cause. The leading hypothesis then was that a yet-to-be-identified novel virus had spread to humans from one of the animals in the market.
By January 9, the state broadcaster, China Central Television, reported a major discovery: a new virus, known as 2019-nCoV. Many of the people who had become ill tested positive for 2019-nCoV. Two days later, Chinese scientists shared the genetic sequence of the new virus, and the WHO applauded China’s efforts for sharing information readily. (This transparency was a contrast to the SARS outbreak of 2003, when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long. The virus eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000.)
By January 20, Chinese authorities confirmed that human-to-human transmission is also occurring. By January 23, the WHO confirmed that there is “fourth-generation” spread of the virus in Wuhan, meaning there are cases where an individual has spread it to a second person, that second person to a third, and the third to a fourth. (Outside of Wuhan, there’s also evidence of second-generation cases.) Knowing that, “the scope of this outbreak expands massively,” Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a US global health research organization working in China, told Vox.
But the picture of the beginnings of this outbreak is changing. A recent study, published on January 24 in The Lancet, suggests the outbreak may not have actually started at the market. The first known patient had no market exposure. And that person became ill on December 1, nearly two weeks earlier than Wuhan health authorities had suggested about the first case.
2) How many people are sick? How many have died?
As of January 29, at least 6,057 people have fallen ill. The vast majority of these patients (5,970) are in mainland China, and most (3,554) are concentrated in Hubei province, home to Wuhan. The remaining cases are spread across more than 30 Chinese provinces and cities — including Shanghai, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Beijing. To get the latest numbers, check out this website from researchers at Johns Hopkins; it collects data from various sources: the WHO, the CDC, the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHC), and two other sites. (The map is embedded below.)
Source: Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering
Additional cases have turned up in travelers in more than a dozen other countries, including the US, Canada, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Australia, Nepal, Vietnam, Germany, and South Korea. A total of 132 people have died.
But the real toll may be much higher.
Hong Kong University infectious disease researchers have estimated that the virus may be spreading person-to-person in all of China’s major mainland cities, and that there are already 44,000 cases in Wuhan alone. UK-based researchers who have modeled the outbreak’s potential suggest there are likely many more cases — as many as 9,700, according to the upper end of their estimate. And the risk of rapid spread is heightened, as hundreds of millions have been traveling for China’s Lunar New Year.
3) How is the world responding?
Chinese authorities first warned people to stop traveling in and out of Wuhan, and then said they would put the city under quarantine beginning January 23, suspending public transport within Wuhan, and canceling flights and trains leaving the city. It was an extraordinary move given that Wuhan has a population of 11 million, more people than New York City. By the evening of January 24, quarantine measures had expanded to 12 cities near Wuhan, effectively stifling the movement of 35 million people. By January 25, President Xi Jinping said the new virus posed a “grave” threat, and his government ordered travel agencies to suspend tours for Chinese citizens inside China and overseas. The same day, Hong Kong authorities declared a state of emergency over the virus and closed schools for three weeks, while Beijing suspended all inter-province buses.
According to the New York Times, the government said the quarantine was needed to “effectively cut off the transmission of the virus, resolutely curb the spread of the epidemic, and ensure the safety and health of the people.” But the evidence for travel restrictions during outbreaks shows, counterintuitively, that they don’t actually do much to stop the spread of disease.
Health officials in China and the region are now scrambling to find cases through screening at transportation hubs and follow-up with the contacts of those infected with the virus — an effort that’s supported by the WHO.
Other countries at risk of imported cases have also implemented extraordinary measures. In the US, the CDC — along with the Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection — began screening travelers from Wuhan for the virus at US airports on January 17, and all travelers from the city will be funneled through airports that are looking out for cases. The US government evacuated American diplomats and citizens from Wuhan. Its also advising Americans to avoid non-essential travel to China. Hong Kong has suspended ferry and train links with mainland China, and cancelled flights. Meanwhile, several airlines have begun cancelling flights to China — including Air Canada, British Airways, and United.
4) What do we know about the cases in the US?
Right now there are five confirmed cases in the US, according to the CDC. All involved travelers from Wuhan:
The first patient’s name hasn’t been released, but we know he’s a resident of Snohomish County in Washington state. We also know he’s in his 30s and he recently traveled to Wuhan, returning to Seattle on January 15, two days before airport screening started (though the man didn’t have symptoms yet). By January 19, he reached out to health care providers to report his symptoms and travel history. They suspected 2019-nCoV. The man is being treated for mild pneumonia at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Washington.
The second case, reported on January 24, involves a woman in her 60s who lives in Chicago. She returned from Wuhan on January 13 and didn’t have any symptoms while traveling. A few days after returning, when she started to feel ill, she called health care providers to report her symptoms and was admitted to a hospital and placed in isolation. She’s currently in stable condition.
The third, fourth, and fifth cases, reported over the weekend, concerned individuals in Orange County and LA County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, respectively. They had all recently traveled to Wuhan, and they’re receiving care in local hospitals.
As of January 25, CDC officials said they’ve screened over 2,000 people coming into the US for the disease on 200 flights, and found zero cases. The agency also said it’s investigating 100 possible cases of coronavirus in 26 states.
5) How does the new coronavirus spread?
We don’t yet know the exact way the virus is spreading, but we do know it’s part of a large family of viruses called coronaviruses, which mostly infect mammals, including bats. Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system, sometimes targeting the cells deep within the lungs. Only seven, including 2019-nCoV, SARS, and MERS, have evolved to infect humans.
According to the CDC, human coronaviruses are most commonly passed via:
Through coughing and sneezing
Close personal contact, including touching and shaking hands
Touching an object or surface with the virus on it, then touching your mouth, nose, or eyes before washing your hands
And rarely, through fecal contamination
As for how easily the new coronavirus spreads, that’s also unclear. According to a preliminary estimate from the WHO, at the moment, each individual has transmitted the virus to an average of 1.4 to 2.5 others. That makes 2019-nCoV, based on what we know now, less contagious than SARS. But there are many different estimates floating around as the situation evolves — and some suggest 2019-nCoV is even more contagious.
For the moment, the WHO estimates the virus’s incubation period — before symptoms start to show — is between two and 10 days, but it’s not yet known whether the virus can spread during that time.
We also know at least 15 health care workers have been infected. “It’s unusual to get health care worker infections in outbreaks,” explained Tom Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It’s always a sign of alarm when that happens,” he added, because it means the virus may be easily transmitted, even in settings where people are taking precautions.
6) What are the symptoms of the new coronavirus?
Two of the seven coronaviruses that infect humans, SARS and MERS, can cause severe pneumonia and even death. The rest lead to milder symptoms, like a common cold. At the moment, it’s not clear where 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum.
An early report, published in the Lancet, provided a good overview of what’s known about symptoms so far — in a subset of the first 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV in Wuhan. The most common symptoms in this group were fever, cough, muscle pain, and fatigue; less common were headache, diarrhea, and coughing up mucus or blood. A little more than half of the 41 patients had difficulty breathing, and 63 percent had low levels of white blood cells. As for the disease severity: 13 patients were admitted to an ICU and six died. By January 22, 68 percent of the patients had been discharged from the hospital.
All patients had pneumonia and lung abnormalities on CT scans. (A quick refresher: Pneumonia is an infection in the lungs that can be caused by a variety of organisms — bacteria, fungi, viruses, even parasites. In this case, 2019-nCoV is causing the infection and leading the lungs’ air sacs to become inflamed and fill up with fluid or pus instead of air.)
In the Lancet group, most patients were men and over half didn’t have underlying diseases. The median age was 49.
It’s possible there are many more people with the virus who have very mild symptoms or who are asymptomatic, said Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, a research charity focused on global health. If that’s the case, and there are thousands carrying 2019-nCoV while only a few people have died, this outbreak will look milder.
It’s also possible this virus winds up behaving like SARS, said Inglesby, which kills about one in 10 patients infected. With SARS, “We saw substantial spread in health care settings where health care workers became ill during care for patients,” for example. “This is a very serious outbreak with the potential for widespread transmission.”
7) What’s the likelihood this becomes a global public health emergency?
The potential for this virus to spread further is so great that the WHO gathered an expert committee on Wednesday and Thursday last week to decide whether the emergence of 2019-nCoV constitutes a global public health emergency, a rare designation the agency gives outbreaks that pose an international threat.
By the end of Thursday, the WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced the committee’s decision that the outbreak doesn’t yet constitute one, mainly because of the limited number of cases outside of China, and China’s efforts to control the spread of the disease.
“Make no mistake, this is an emergency in China. But it has not yet become a global health emergency,” Tedros explained. He also vowed to reconvene the emergency committee in the coming days to review new data. “At this time, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen,” Tedros added.
Formally, a public health emergency of international concern, or PHEIC — pronounced “fake” — is defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.” In reality, it’s a political tool the WHO uses to sound the alarm about a serious disease that has caught the world off guard and put people’s health in danger. It’s meant to draw countries’ immediate attention, to galvanize resources, and stop the disease from spreading further across borders.
A key consideration in declaring a PHEIC is whether the disease threat is dire enough to risk countries enacting travel and trade restrictions. Declarations can be devastating to local economies and are often associated with economic losses. So they’re not taken lightly. In fact, the WHO has only declared a public health emergency five times since the International Health Regulations, which govern global health emergency responses, were enacted in 2007.
The first time was in 2009, with the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The second time was in May 2014, when polio seemed to surge again, threatening the eradication effort. The third time, in August 2014, came as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was growing out of control. The fourth was related to Zika in 2016. And the fifth, in 2019, was another outbreak of Ebola that’s ongoing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
8) How worried should I be about a pandemic?
There are too many unknowns to say. We don’t know which animal carries this virus. We don’t know how exactly it spreads. We don’t know how easily it spreads among people, or how deadly and severe the virus is.
To put the cases and deaths so far into perspective, remember that seasonal flu kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people each year. “Right now, you’re probably more likely to be catching flu than you are to be getting coronavirus,” said Devi Sridhar, chair in global public health at the University of Edinburgh.
Even so, the fact that cases are already turning up in so many countries — mere weeks after this outbreak was first declared — suggests we should brace ourselves for an escalation.
Messonnier of the CDC said there are likely to be more cases in the coming days — in the US and beyond. “This is a rapidly changing situation — abroad and domestically — and we’re still learning,” Messonnier added.
That doesn’t, however, mean American officials expect the US to be inundated with dozens of patients or that the virus will spread broadly within the country. It’s the major cities in and around China that are most at risk, according to a paper posted on January 14 in the Journal of Travel Medicine. The top travel destinations out of Wuhan — and most at risk of spread of the infection — include Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei.
Listen to Today, Explained
A SARS-like virus has sickened thousands in China, and made its way to the United States. Vox’s Julia Belluz explains what’s known and what’s next.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and ART19.


vox--2020-01-28--Photos: What China’s quarantine to stop the Wuhan coronavirus looks like

Photos : What China ’ s quarantine to stop the Wuhan coronavirus looks like Share All sharing options for : Photos : What China ’ s quarantine to stop the Wuhan coronavirus looks like In the nearly four weeks since China reported an outbreak of the mysterious new coronavirus , the number of cases has skyrocketed from 40-something to over 4,400 , and more than 100 people have died .
China ’ s most prominent method of responding to the outbreak of 2019-nCoV , as the virus is known ?
A mandatory limit on the movement of people who may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantine .
Quarantines have been used to control the spread of disease since 1377 .
But never has anyone attempted a quarantine as large this one in China .
On January 23 , authorities introduced travel restrictions in three cities — Wuhan , Huanggang , and Ezhou — affecting 20 million people .
Within days , the quarantine was extended to additional provinces and cities , impacting more than 50 million people in total .
It ’ s “ the mother of all quarantines , ” University of Michigan medical historian Howard Markel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could never have imagined it.
” On January 25 , Chinese citizens with holiday plans received bad news .
President Xi Jinping said the new virus posed a “ grave ” threat , and his government ordered travel agencies to halt tours for Chinese citizens inside China and overseas .
But here ’ s the thing : History shows these types travel restrictions aren ’ t very helpful in stopping outbreaks .
At best , they delay the spread of disease — but don ’ t impact the number of people who eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not compatIble with the interconnected nature of modern travel and trade .
People go underground , finding ways to travel in spite of the restrictions .
And when restrictions are lifted , viruses make their way out .
Still , quarantine seems to be one of China ’ s key tools for controlling the spread of the virus right now .
Here ’ s what life under quarantine in China looks like on the ground .
A woman wearing a protective mask rides a motorized bike on an empty road in Wuhan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the source of the virus .
Travel restrictions in cities across China are affecting over 50 million people A man sprays disinfectant .
A new study shows the virus took off weeks earlier than Chinese officials have suggested .
A woman checks her son ’ s temperature in Wuhan , China .
More than 107 have people dead from the virus .
Construction machinery sits at the site of a planned temporary field hospital in Wuhan , Hubei province , China .
Wuhan Leishenshan hospital will be completed next wteek , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff of Union Hospital in Wuhan , China .
A worker produces protective suits at a factory in Nantong in China ’ s Jiangsu province .
A police officer takes the temperature of a driver at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Wuhan , China .
Subway riders in Hong Kong wear face masks as they head home , following reports of the coronavirus appearing in the region .
There are now five cases confirmed in the US .
A group of women wear protective masks while exercising in Wuhan , China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed in 12 other countries including : South Korea , Thailand , France , Australia , and Japan .
A worker takes away an escaped giant salamander just caught at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan , which was shut down due to its connection to some of the first 2019-nCoV cases .
A security guard stands outside the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan .

What China’s quarantine to stop the Wuhan coronavirus looks like
Share All sharing options for: What China’s quarantine to stop the Wuhan coronavirus looks like
In the nearly four weeks since China reported an outbreak of the mysterious new coronavirus, the number of cases has skyrocketed from 40-something to over 4,400, and more than 100 people have died.
China’s most attention-grabbing method of responding to the outbreak of 2019-nCoV, as the virus is known: a mandatory limit on the movement of people who may have been exposed, known as a quarantine.
Quarantines have been used to control the spread of disease since 1377. But never has anyone attempted a quarantine as large as this one in China.
On January 23, authorities introduced travel restrictions in three cities — Wuhan, Huanggang, and Ezhou — affecting 20 million people. Within days, the quarantine was extended to additional provinces and cities, impacting more than 50 million people in total. It’s “the mother of all quarantines,” University of Michigan medical historian Howard Markel told the Washington Post. “I could never have imagined it.”
Public transport has been suspended. Flights canceled. Inter-province bus services stopped.
On January 25, Chinese citizens with holiday plans received bad news. President Xi Jinping said the new virus posed a “grave” threat, and his government ordered travel agencies to halt tours for Chinese citizens inside China and overseas.
But here’s the thing: History shows these types of travel restrictions aren’t very helpful in stopping outbreaks. At best, they delay the spread of disease but don’t impact the number of people who eventually get sick. They’re also not compatIble with the interconnected nature of modern travel and trade. People will find ways to evade them, going underground or traveling in spite of the restrictions. That’s not to mention the economic and psychological burden they impose. “More often than not, health officials are several steps behind a spreading epidemic. And when they aren’t, the history books show, they tend to act too fast (costing a fortune) or unfairly (discriminating against some populations),” Markel wrote in the Times.
Still, quarantine appears to be one of China’s key tools for controlling the spread of the virus right now. Here’s what life under quarantine in China looks like on the ground.
A woman wearing a protective mask rides a motorized bike on an empty road in Wuhan, China, the city thought to be the source of the virus. Travel restrictions in cities across China are affecting more than 50 million people.
A man sprays disinfectant. A new study shows the virus took off weeks earlier than Chinese officials have suggested.
Workers disinfect a government building in Hangzhou, located in China’s Zhejiang province.
A woman checks her son’s temperature in Wuhan, China. More than 107 have people died from the virus.
Construction machinery sits at the site of a planned temporary field hospital in Wuhan in Hubei province. Wuhan Leishenshan hospital will be completed next week, with a capacity of 1,300 beds.
The medical staff of Union Hospital in Wuhan, China.
A worker produces protective suits at a factory in Nantong in China’s Jiangsu province.
A police officer takes the temperature of a driver at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Wuhan, China.
Subway riders in Hong Kong wear face masks as they head home, following reports of the coronavirus appearing in the region. There are now five cases confirmed in the US.
A group of women wear protective masks while exercising in Wuhan, China. A handful of cases have also been confirmed in 12 other countries, including South Korea, Thailand, France, Australia, and Japan.
A worker takes away an escaped giant salamander just caught at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which was shut down due to its connection to some of the first 2019-nCoV cases.
A security guard stands outside the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan.


vox--2020-01-28--Trump releases Middle East peace plan for Israel-Palestine

The proposal attempts to solve the intractable problems between Israelis and Palestinians that have stymied US administrations for decades .
President Donald Trump on Tuesday released his long-awaited Middle East peace plan .
Speaking at the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , Trump outlined his “ vision for peace , prosperity , and a brighter future for Israelis and Palestinians.
” The proposal , masterminded by Trump ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner , attempts to solve the intractable problems between Israelis and Palestinians that have stymied both Democratic and Republican administrations for decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ borders , defines the future of Jewish settlements in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory , lays out the conditions under which a future Palestinian state could be created , and addresses Israel ’ s myriad security concerns .
What it doesn ’ t do is provide a “ right of return ” for displaced Palestinians to their ancestral homes in Israel , allow for a sovereign state of Palestine to form a military that it could use to threaten Israel ( or to defend itself against Israel ) , or give Palestinians any meaningful part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it essentially ignores all of the Palestinians ’ desires , as the plan was drafted with no input from the Palestinian side .
For that reason , most analysts predicted the deal would be dead on arrival .
But that doesn ’ t mean it won ’ t still have potentially dramatic consequences for Israelis , Palestinians , and many others in the Middle East .

The proposal attempts to solve the intractable problems between Israelis and Palestinians that have stymied US administrations for decades.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday released his long-awaited Middle East peace plan. Speaking at the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump outlined his “vision for peace, prosperity, and a brighter future for Israelis and Palestinians.”
The proposal, masterminded by Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, attempts to solve the intractable problems between Israelis and Palestinians that have stymied both Democratic and Republican administrations for decades.
It redraws the region’s current borders, defines the future of Jewish settlements in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory, lays out the conditions under which a future Palestinian state could be created, and addresses Israel’s myriad security concerns.
What it doesn’t do is provide a “right of return” for displaced Palestinians to their ancestral homes in Israel, allow for a sovereign state of Palestine to form a military that it could use to threaten Israel (or to defend itself against Israel), or give Palestinians any meaningful part of Jerusalem as its capital.
In fact, it essentially ignores all of the Palestinians’ desires, as the plan was drafted with no input from the Palestinian side.
For that reason, most analysts predicted the deal would be dead on arrival. But that doesn’t mean it won’t still have potentially dramatic consequences for Israelis, Palestinians, and many others in the Middle East.


vox--2020-01-28--Trump’s defense in the impeachment trial just concluded. Here are 6 key moments.

In arguments that intermittently advanced conspiracy theories , attacked the whistleblower and questioned House Democrats ’ fact pattern , President Donald Trump ’ s defense counsel made a haphazard case against impeachment this week .
Over the course of three days , a panel of attorneys including , notably , Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz , argued that Democrats were attempting to invalidate the results of the 2016 election .
“ They ’ ve basically said , ‘ Let ’ s cancel an election over a meeting with Ukraine , ’ ” White House counsel Pat Cipollone said .
Counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting that Trump didn ’ t commit the offenses he is charged with , and that even if he had , they do not meet the threshold for removal from office .
The House has charged the president with abuse of power over his attempt to coerce a foreign country to investigate one of his political opponents , and obstruction of Congress over his attempt to stonewall lawmakers ’ inquiry into that matter .
House Democrats had anticipated several of these points , and offered their own counterarguments ahead of time : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Congress to check presidents when they ’ ve abused their power and pointed to constitutional scholars who ’ ve argued that a crime is not needed to warrant impeachment .
Ultimately , Trump ’ s counsel was focused on keeping the trial short , in order to move toward a speedy acquittal : They needed to provide Senate Republicans just enough cover to say that they ’ d heard enough , and to conclude that more witness testimony isn ’ t necessary .
Revelations leaked from former National Security Adviser John Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that plan , but Trump ’ s team worked to downplay them .
And given GOP lawmakers ’ existing focus on acquitting the president quickly , it ’ s likely that this case resonated .
Trump ’ s counsel called out lack of firsthand testimony — inadvertently making the case for more witnesses Trump ’ s defense attempted to cast doubt on the facts that have been presented during the impeachment trial , and in doing so , inadvertently helped make the case for calling more witnesses .
Trump ’ s counsel on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats cited did not have firsthand knowledge about the quid pro quo the president engaged in with Ukraine .
“ Most of the Democrats ’ witnesses have never spoken to the president at all , let alone about Ukraine , ” Trump attorney Mike Purpura said .
“ All Democrats have to support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations are Ambassador Sondland ’ s assumptions and presumptions.
” Sondland and other officials including State Department official David Holmes testified to their understanding of this quid pro quo and said that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of facts that were presented to them .
But , as Trump ’ s counsel were able to point out , neither of them were explicitly told this was a quid pro quo in stark terms .
And Sondland ’ s credibility , in particular , was questioned .
In perhaps one of the most effective moments of the Republicans ’ arguments , counsel displayed a supercut of Sondland ’ s testimony in the House during which he repeatedly said that his conclusions were based on his own “ assumptions.
” “ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variations of the words presume , assume , guess , speculate , and belief over 30 times , ” Purpura said .
But since Purpura made that argument , a New York Times report has come out , revealing a bombshell from Bolton , who ’ s said that he was directly told by Trump about the quid pro quo between military aid and political investigations .
Democrats emphasized that Republicans ’ arguments have only bolstered the case for including more witnesses who have direct knowledge about the quid pro quo .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the Senate should call witnesses and documents , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters .
“ They kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts , but there are people who have eyewitness accounts.
” Ken Starr railed on the “ age of impeachment ” Starr , the independent counsel who conducted the investigation that led to former President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment , is now over impeachment , it appears .
In remarks heavily laced with irony , Starr argued that impeachment — as a means for Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used far too often .
“ The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently , ” Starr said .
“ Indeed , we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the ‘ Age of Impeachment.
’ ” As Vox ’ s Sean Collins notes , these arguments were were presented against the backdrop of Starr ’ s own involvement in past impeachment proceedings : Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted media reports that had previously raised concerns about Hunter Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burisma , a Ukrainian natural gas company .
It ’ s a subject Trump ’ s defense has been keen to focus on to demonstrate that the president was attempting to root out corruption in his requests to President Volodymyr Zelensky .
Democrats , however , have provided detailed evidence to demonstrate that Trump ’ s request to Zelensky was singularly focused on this political investigation and not broader corruption .
A debunked conspiracy theory had also suggested that part of the reason Joe Biden pushed to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further scrutiny .
There is no evidence to indicate this was the case , a point that House impeachment manager Rep. Sylvia Garcia emphasized .
“ Every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Vice President Biden was carrying out official US policy , ” she said .
Bondi suggested that Trump ’ s defense team focused on the Bidens because House impeachment managers had done so first , even though it was likely they would have done so either way .
“ We would prefer not to be discussing this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squarely at issue , so we must address it , ” Bondi said .
Alan Dershowitz tried to diffuse the Bolton bombshell Trump counsel Alan Dershowitz attempted to neutralize the New York Times ’ s Bolton bombshell by arguing that it simply doesn ’ t matter .
Dershowitz , in his remarks on Monday , said that the explicit outlining of a quid pro quo in Bolton ’ s manuscript does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
“ Nothing in the Bolton revelations , even if true , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power or an impeachable offense , ” Dershowitz said .
“ That is clear from the history , that is clear from the language of the Constitution .
You can not turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct , simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit.
” The central point of Dershowitz ’ s remarks was that the impeachment of a president required a crime , a perspective that many constitutional scholars disagree with .
Sekulow rounded out the defense arguments by calling on lawmakers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , arguing that the recent report doesn ’ t qualify as evidence given its reliance on unnamed sources who had seen the book .
“ You can not impeach a president on an unsourced allegation , ” Sekulow said .
The Bolton revelations have played a major role in renewing pressure on Republican senators to consider hearing witnesses who have direct knowledge about Trump ’ s handling of Ukraine aid .
Trump ’ s counsel , however , has argued that the allegations aren ’ t substantive enough to be considered — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not constitute an impeachable act .
Bolton ’ s manuscript , of course , only further strengthens Democrats ’ comprehensive slate of evidence noting how Trump conditioned military aid on political favors .
Whether enough senators want to hear from him , however , is an open question .
Trump ’ s counsel used Democrats ’ own words against them Much like the House impeachment managers , Trump ’ s counsel dug up some old video clips , in order to use Democrats ’ past words against them .
As part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played clips of a number of prominent Democrats including Reps. Jerry Nadler and Zoe Lofgren , as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , to show how their perspectives on impeachment had changed since the 1990s .
“ If you look to the words from the past that I think are instructive , they ’ re instructive because they were right then and they ’ re right now , ” Cipollone said .
These clips featured Democrats making several of the same arguments that Republicans used this time around , including arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be leveraged on a partisan basis .
“ There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment , ” Nadler said .
“ By these actions you would undo the free election that expressed the will of the American people in 1996 , ” Lofgren said .
“ My fear is that when a Republican wins , the White House Democrats will demand payback , ” Schumer said .
The House impeachment managers employed a similar tactic when they played clips of Sen. Lindsey Graham ’ s remarks as a House manager .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite effective , drawing a visceral reaction from senators in the audience , and demonstrating how much positions have shifted for lawmakers in both parties .

In arguments that intermittently advanced conspiracy theories, attacked the whistleblower, and questioned House Democrats’ fact pattern, President Trump’s defense counsel made a haphazard case against convicting the president in the impeachment trial this week.
Over three days, a panel of attorneys including, notably, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, argued that Democrats were attempting to invalidate the results of the 2016 election.
“They’ve basically said, ‘Let’s cancel an election over a meeting with Ukraine,’” White House counsel Pat Cipollone said.
Counsel also tried to thread the needle, suggesting that Trump didn’t commit the offenses he is charged with, and that even if he had, they do not meet the threshold for removal from office. The House has charged the president with abuse of power over his attempt to coerce a foreign country to investigate one of his political opponents, and obstruction of Congress over his attempt to stonewall lawmakers’ inquiry into that matter.
House Democrats had anticipated several of these points and offered counterarguments ahead of time: They noted that the purpose of impeachment was for Congress to check presidents when they’ve abused their power and pointed to constitutional scholars who’ve argued that a crime is not needed to warrant impeachment.
Ultimately, Trump’s counsel was focused on keeping the trial short, in order to move toward a speedy acquittal: They needed to provide Senate Republicans just enough cover to say that they’d heard enough and conclude that more witness testimony isn’t necessary.
Revelations leaked from former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming book might have complicated that plan, but Trump’s team worked to downplay them. And given GOP lawmakers’ focus on acquitting the president quickly, it’s likely that this case resonated.
Trump’s counsel called out a lack of firsthand testimony — inadvertently making the case for more witnesses
Trump’s defense attempted to cast doubt on the facts that have been presented during the impeachment trial and, in doing so, inadvertently helped make the case for calling more witnesses.
Trump’s counsel on Saturday argued that many of the individuals Democrats cited did not have firsthand knowledge about the quid pro quo the president is accused of engaging in with Ukraine.
“Most of the Democrats’ witnesses have never spoken to the president at all, let alone about Ukraine,” Trump attorney Mike Purpura said. “All Democrats have to support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations are Ambassador Sondland’s assumptions and presumptions.”
Sondland and State Department official David Holmes testified to their understanding of this quid pro quo and said there was no other explanation for the facts that were presented to them. But, as Trump’s team was able to point out, neither of them were explicitly told this was a quid pro quo in stark terms. Sondland’s credibility, in particular, was questioned.
In perhaps one of the most effective moments of the Republicans’ arguments, counsel displayed a supercut of Sondland’s testimony in the House during which he repeatedly said that his conclusions were based on his own “assumptions.”
“In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland used variations of the words presume, assume, guess, speculate, and belief over 30 times,” Purpura said.
But since Purpura made that argument, a New York Times report has come out revealing that Bolton has said he was directly told by Trump about the quid pro quo between military aid and political investigations. Democrats emphasized that Republicans’ arguments have only bolstered the case for including more witnesses who have direct knowledge about the alleged quid pro quo.
“They made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters. “They kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts, but there are people who have eyewitness accounts.”
Ken Starr railed against the “age of impeachment”
Starr, the independent counsel who conducted the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, is now over impeachment, it appears.
In remarks heavily laced with irony, Starr argued that impeachment — as a means for Congress to check the president — was now being used far too often.
“The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently,” Starr said. “Indeed, we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the ‘Age of Impeachment.’”
As Vox’s Sean Collins notes, these arguments were presented against the backdrop of Starr’s involvement in past impeachment proceedings:
He led Republican efforts in the House to investigate Clinton, and published his findings in what became known as the Starr Report, a document that was far more showy than Mueller’s work, and one that made an express recommendation, finding Clinton’s conduct “may constitute grounds for impeachment.”
Trump’s counsel redirected attention to Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted media reports that had previously raised concerns about Hunter Biden’s seat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company.
It’s a subject Trump’s defense has been keen to focus on to suggest that the president was attempting to root out corruption in his requests to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Democrats, however, have provided detailed evidence to demonstrate that Trump’s request to Zelensky was singularly focused on this political investigation and not broader corruption.
A debunked conspiracy theory had also suggested that part of the reason Joe Biden pushed to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was to protect his son Hunter Biden from further scrutiny.
There is no evidence that this was the case, a point that House impeachment manager Rep. Sylvia Garcia emphasized. “Every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Vice President Biden was carrying out official US policy,” she said.
Bondi suggested that Trump’s defense team focused on the Bidens because House impeachment managers had done so first, even though it was likely they would have done so either way.
“We would prefer not to be discussing this, but the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it,” Bondi said.
Alan Dershowitz tried to diffuse the Bolton news
Trump counsel Alan Dershowitz attempted to neutralize the New York Times’s Bolton report by arguing that it simply doesn’t matter.
In his remarks on Monday, Dershowitz said that the explicit outlining of a quid pro quo in Bolton’s manuscript does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said. “That is clear from the history, that is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct, simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit.”
The central point of Dershowitz’s remarks was that the impeachment of a president required a crime, a perspective that many constitutional scholars disagree with.
Jay Sekulow asks lawmakers to ignore the Bolton allegation
Sekulow rounded out the defense arguments by calling on lawmakers to disregard the revelations from the Bolton manuscript, arguing that the Times’s report doesn’t qualify as evidence given its reliance on unnamed sources who had seen the book.
“You cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation,” Sekulow said.
The Bolton revelations have played a major role in renewing pressure on Republican senators to consider hearing witnesses who have direct knowledge about Trump’s handling of Ukraine aid. Trump’s counsel, however, has argued that the allegations aren’t substantive enough to be considered — and that even if true, they do not constitute an impeachable act.
Bolton’s manuscript, of course, only further strengthens Democrats’ comprehensive slate of evidence noting how Trump conditioned military aid on political favors. Whether enough senators want to hear from Bolton, however, is an open question.
Trump’s counsel used Democrats’ own words against them
Much like the House impeachment managers, Trump’s counsel dug up some old video clips in order to use Democrats’ past words against them.
As part of their closing, Trump’s lawyers played clips of a number of prominent Democrats, including Reps. Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, and Schumer, to show how their perspectives on impeachment had changed since the 1990s.
“If you look to the words from the past that I think are instructive, they’re instructive because they were right then and they’re right now,” Cipollone said.
These clips featured Democrats making several of the same arguments during Clinton’s impeachment trial that Republicans used this time around, including arguing, for example, that impeachment should not be leveraged on a partisan basis.
“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment,” Nadler said. “By these actions you would undo the free election that expressed the will of the American people in 1996,” Lofgren said. “My fear is that when a Republican wins, the White House Democrats will demand payback,” Schumer said.
The House impeachment managers employed a similar tactic when they played clips of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s remarks as a House manager during the 1998 trial. In both cases, this method was quite effective, drawing a visceral reaction from senators in the audience and demonstrating how much positions have shifted for lawmakers in both parties.


vox--2020-01-28--Lonely Island’s Palm Springs is a funny existential comedy about 2 dirtbags who find each other

Nyles ( Andy Samberg ) is a nihilistic dirtbag stuck in Palm Springs for a wedding he really , really doesn ’ t want to go to , with a girlfriend he really , really doesn ’ t like .
Sarah ( Cristin Milioti ) is the bride ’ s sister and maid of honor — and she wants to be there even less .
They ’ re both frustrated screw-ups , unhappy with life and love , and thus naturally drawn to one another .
But when they break away from the wedding for a tryst out in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they find themselves stuck with one another in a way neither expected .
Nyles ’ s lackadaisical , nothing-matters attitude seems like the only way to survive .
But maybe there are life lessons to be learned here .
To compare Palm Springs to other movies would be to give away the delightful concept , and I don ’ t want to do that .
But I can say it ’ s a twist on an old comedic formula meant to explore where life ’ s meaning truly resides , and whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in life or just coast along trying to survive .
And it ’ s a distinctly , cheekily 21st-century version of that tale .
Palm Springs set a record at Sundance when Hulu and Neon jointly announced that they ’ d acquired the film for a very specific sum : $ 17.5 million ... and 69 cents .
( The previous record was $ 17.5 million . )
The irreverent sense of humor inherent in that announcement matches that of the film and the Lonely Island gang , the trio consisting of comics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taccone , who rose to prominence through their work writing and performing on Saturday Night Live , including classic digital shorts like “ D*ck in a Box , ” “ I ’ m on a Boat , ” and “ Lazy Sunday.
” They ’ re also the team behind movies like the 2016 feature film Popstar : Never Stop Never Stopping .
The trio produced Palm Springs , along with Becky Sloviter , and it boasts some of the same sweet , existential , occasionally rude vibe of their comedic ventures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barbakow from a screenplay by Andy Siara ( Lodge 49 ) .
But the most prominent drivers are Samberg and Milioti , playing a pair of lost souls who are thrown together in a way that could destroy them both , or help them find a way out .
( There ’ s also a great role for J.K. Simmons , as a man with strange and very specific wisdom to impart . )
Palm Springs is not groundbreaking or quite as compulsively quotable as some of Lonely Island ’ s previous outings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort , a movie that feels primed in particular for millennial audiences just starting to creep toward middle age who are trying to sort out what life really means , and how best to live it .
Zinging between humor and poignance with a lot of charm , it achieves in its most insightful moments what comedy does best : Let us laugh at the world a little , by way of learning something about ourselves .
Palm Springs premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 26 , 2020 .
It will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stream on Hulu at a later date .

Nyles (Andy Samberg) is a nihilistic dirtbag stuck in Palm Springs for a wedding he really, really doesn’t want to attend, with a girlfriend he really, really doesn’t like. Sarah (Cristin Milioti) is the bride’s sister and maid of honor — and she wants to be there even less. They’re both frustrated screw-ups, unhappy with life and love, and thus naturally drawn to one another.
But when they break away from the wedding for a tryst out in the desert, something goes very wrong, and they find themselves stuck with one another in a way neither expected. Nyles’s lackadaisical, nothing-matters attitude seems like the only way to survive. But maybe there are life lessons to be learned here.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
To compare Palm Springs to other movies would be to give away the delightful concept, and I don’t want to do that. But I can say that when the movie premiered at Sundance in January, it was impossible to realize we’d be trapped in its premise by the time it came out in July. It’s a twist on an old comedic formula meant to explore where life’s meaning truly resides, and whether it’s better to take risks in life or just coast along trying to survive.
And it’s a distinctly, cheekily 21st-century version of that tale. Palm Springs set a record at Sundance when Hulu and Neon jointly announced that they’d acquired the film for a very specific sum: $17.5 million ... and 69 cents. (The previous record was $17.5 million.) The irreverent sense of humor inherent in that announcement matches that of the film and the Lonely Island gang, the trio consisting of comics Samberg, Akiva Schaffer, and Jorma Taccone, who rose to prominence through their work writing and performing on Saturday Night Live, including classic digital shorts like “D*ck in a Box,” “I’m on a Boat,” and “Lazy Sunday.” They’re also the team behind movies like the 2016 feature film Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping.
The trio produced Palm Springs, along with Becky Sloviter, and it boasts some of the same sweet, existential, occasionally rude vibe of their comedic ventures, in a nimble directorial outing for Max Barbakow from a screenplay by Andy Siara (Lodge 49).
But the most prominent drivers are Samberg and Milioti, playing a pair of lost souls who are thrown together in a way that could destroy them both, or help them find a way out. (There’s also a great role for J.K. Simmons, as a man with strange and very specific wisdom to impart.)
Palm Springs is not groundbreaking or quite as compulsively quotable as some of Lonely Island’s previous outings. But it is an oddly perceptive effort, a movie that feels primed in particular for millennial audiences just starting to creep toward middle age who are trying to sort out what life really means, and how best to live it. Zinging between humor and poignance with a lot of charm, it achieves in its most insightful moments what comedy does best: Let us laugh at the world a little, by way of learning something about ourselves.
Palm Springs premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 26, 2020. It is streaming on Hulu and playing at select drive-in theaters.


vox--2020-01-28--Jared Kushner, architect of Trump’s Middle East peace plan, still doesn’t get it

Senior White House adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner spent three years working on the Trump administration ’ s newly released Israel-Palestine peace plan .
Yet the main talking point he ’ s using to sell the proposal reveals the fundamental problem at the heart of the plan itself : the administration ’ s tacit endorsement of Israel ’ s continued illegal settlements in Palestinian territory .
In multiple interviews right after the administration released its proposal on Tuesday , Kushner said Israel ’ s rapid growth — in other words , the settlements — are precisely why Palestinian leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we don ’ t do this today , at the rate at which Israel is growing , I think that it will never be able to be done , ” Kushner told Al Jazeera .
“ So we see this as the last chance for the Palestinians to have a state.
” He didn ’ t misspeak , which we know because he repeated this same talking point over an hour later .
“ This is something that we inherited , the situation where Israel continues to grow and grow , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let ’ s be clear about what this means : The White House ’ s lead staffer for finding a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine stalemate says Israel ’ s growth is basically unstoppable .
For that reason , he claims , Palestine has no choice but to strike a deal .
It ’ s an astounding thing for Kushner to say .
Israel restrains itself from extending its settlements into the West Bank unless it feels it has tacit American approval .
Kushner ’ s plan and his statements will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership to expand those settlements .
They may explain why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wants a vote on Sunday to annex 30 percent of the West Bank .
That could make a fraught issue so much worse .
About 500,000 Israelis live in the settlements , of which there are about 130 scattered around the West Bank .
Roughly 75 percent of settlers live on or near the West Bank border with Israel .
Some of the settlements are vast communities that house tens of thousands of people and look like suburban developments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Settlements create what Israelis and Palestinians call “ new facts on the ground.
” Palestinian communities are split apart and their connection to the land weakened , while Jewish communities put down roots in territory meant for Palestinians .
In effect , it shrinks the area of land left available for any future Palestinian state to exist on and chops it up into pieces , destroying its potential viability as a real , contiguous state .
For some settlers , this is the point : They want the West Bank fully incorporated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make that happen .
A “ conceptual map ” of Palestine released as part of Kushner ’ s proposal shows he wants some of those settlements to remain where they are ( they ’ re the flecks of beige interspersed among the blueish green parts ) .
Instead of coming up with a plan that would see those settlers relocated or finding some other solution , Kushner ’ s plan just takes the huge chunk of land where most of the settlements are located and gives it to Israel .
In return , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away in the desert on the border with Egypt and not much else .
Which means one of two things : either Kushner doesn ’ t know how sensitive this issue is , or he doesn ’ t care and is using it as a cudgel against Palestinians .
It ’ s hard to know which one is worse .

Senior White House adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner spent three years working on the Trump administration’s newly released Israel-Palestine peace plan. Yet the main talking point he’s using to sell the proposal reveals the fundamental problem at the heart of the plan itself: the administration’s tacit endorsement of Israel’s continued illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.
In multiple interviews right after the administration released its proposal on Tuesday, Kushner said Israel’s rapid growth — in other words, the settlements — are precisely why Palestinian leaders should make a deal now.
“If we don’t do this today, at the rate at which Israel is growing, I think that it will never be able to be done,” Kushner told Al Jazeera. “So we see this as the last chance for the Palestinians to have a state.”
He didn’t misspeak, which we know because he repeated this same talking point over an hour later. “This is something that we inherited, the situation where Israel continues to grow and grow,” he told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.
Jared Kushner on the new Middle East peace plan: "It was very, very difficult to draw these lines... This is something we inherited." pic.twitter.com/C4hk69u9Az — Christiane Amanpour (@camanpour) January 28, 2020
Let’s be clear about what this means: The White House’s lead staffer for finding a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine stalemate says Israel’s growth is basically unstoppable. For that reason, he claims, Palestine has no choice but to strike a deal.
It’s an astounding thing for Kushner to say. Israel restrains itself from extending its settlements into the West Bank unless it feels it has tacit American approval. Kushner’s plan and his statements will likely serve as a green light to Israeli leadership to expand those settlements. They may explain why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wants a vote on Sunday to annex 30 percent of the West Bank.
That could make a fraught issue so much worse.
Why settlements make a peace deal harder to reach
About 500,000 Israelis live in the settlements, of which there are about 130 scattered around the West Bank. Roughly 75 percent of settlers live on or near the West Bank border with Israel. Some of the settlements are vast communities that house tens of thousands of people and look like suburban developments. Some look like hand-built shanty outposts.
Settlements create what Israelis and Palestinians call “new facts on the ground.” Palestinian communities are split apart and their connection to the land weakened, while Jewish communities put down roots in territory meant for Palestinians.
In effect, it shrinks the area of land left available for any future Palestinian state to exist on and chops it up into pieces, destroying its potential viability as a real, contiguous state. For some settlers, this is the point: They want the West Bank fully incorporated as Israeli territory and are trying to make that happen.
A “conceptual map” of Palestine released as part of Kushner’s proposal shows he wants some of those settlements to remain where they are (they’re the flecks of beige interspersed among the blueish green parts).
Instead of coming up with a plan that would see those settlers relocated or finding some other solution, Kushner’s plan just takes the huge chunk of land where most of the settlements are located and gives it to Israel. In return, Palestinians get some pockets of land far away in the desert on the border with Egypt and not much else.
Which means one of two things: either Kushner doesn’t know how sensitive this issue is, or he doesn’t care and is using it as a cudgel against Palestinians. It’s hard to know which one is worse.