I’m an American, Why Have I Been Left to Rot as a Hostage of Iran?
Opinion
Siamak Namazi
Siamak Namazi -
Risking a public appeal while caged in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison speaks volumes about the depth of my despair. I have suffered quietly as nearly 2,500 of what should have been the best and most productive days of my life were lost behind these bars. But I am compelled to break that silence now because I believe that the Biden administration’s approach to rescuing Americans in distress in Iran has failed spectacularly so far and unless the president intervenes immediately, we are likely to languish in this abyss for the foreseeable future. I was incarcerated in October 2015 and handed a 10-year sentence after a closed-door trial. The judge ruled that activities such as speaking at university conferences, holding fellowships at Washington think tanks and even having a connection to the World Economic Forum were tantamount to attempting to overthrow the regime in collaboration with a hostile foreign government — meaning the United States. A probe by the United Nations called my arrest “arbitrary.” The US government and countless human rights organizations have proclaimed my innocence, refer to me as a hostage and have demanded my immediate release. But the ugly reality is that Iran will free its captives only if offered sufficient incentives. Critics reject this solution without providing viable alternatives. Nevertheless, it seems any president considering the authorization of a deal for our release factors in the unavoidable political costs of doing so. Indifferent to this political calculus, Tehran seems to be demanding more for our release than the White House can stomach. This catastrophic dynamic has helped me earn the unenviable title of the longest-held Iranian American hostage in history. My father, Baquer — a retired UNICEF official — isn’t far behind, and the conservationist Morad Tahbaz and the businessman Emad Shargi are also still detained. A little over a year ago, the four of us had good reason to be optimistic that this scourge would finally end. There was widespread hope that negotiations to bring Iran and the United States back into the nuclear deal would culminate in success, and the Biden administration has said a nuclear deal would be hard to envision without a hostage deal. That was the right approach. But forgoing an opportunity to free us because the nuclear talks have stalled is not. Last summer, Tehran claimed that it had worked out the contours of an agreement with Washington for our release. The deal reportedly involved freeing us in a prisoner swap topped off with the unfreezing of Iranian assets in South Korea. The Iranians have repeatedly expressed willingness to carry out this “humanitarian exchange” immediately and accuse the White House of faltering. Iran’s account is undoubtedly skewed; Washington says that this deal was never finalized. But from what I can surmise from behind these bars, the Biden administration is ignoring the plight of American detainees and making our freedom dependent on how the unpredictable nuclear discussions end. A deal to rescue citizens at risk should come first as a matter of principle. Such a gambit also makes sense because it would inject desperately needed good will into the nuclear negotiations. I can conclude only that with greater political will and courage from the White House, we could have been home a year ago. Instead, we and our families were practically unhinged each time world diplomats mistakenly predicted that a deal was about to be reached on the nuclear issue. There is no greater agony for a prisoner than being tantalized with the prospect of imminent freedom that never materializes. No greater pain than surrendering to hope, only to have it whisked out of reach. So what happens if the nuclear talks — now on life support — fall apart without the United States securing our release? The administration might genuinely believe that in such a scenario it could get Iran to accept a different package of incentives to free us. But that is a huge gamble. As President Biden has seen — with me specifically — freedom delayed easily becomes freedom denied in these cases. I was not included in the Obama administration’s hostage deal with Iran. In January 2016, other American prisoners were returned safely to the United States. I was left behind to rot in a high-security detention center. Often kept in a bare, closet-size room, I slept on the floor and received food from under the door — like a dog. I endured unutterable indignities during the 27 months I spent in that corner of hell before being moved to the general ward. John Kerry, the secretary of state at the time, assumed he would have another opportunity to secure my release. Our hope turned to horror, however, when the Iranians instead tossed my then-79-year-old father into a solitary cell. Although we suffered just a few meters apart, we were denied contact for a year. I knew only that the strain of those inhuman conditions resulted in his hospitalization on multiple occasions. It took two years and more than one heart surgery before he was put on medical furlough. Sadly, change in the White House brought us no relief. The Trump administration also cut deals freeing some American detainees while leaving us behind. Mr. Biden, I implore you to put the lives of innocent American detainees above Washington politics and make the tough decisions necessary to free all of us immediately. While political backlash is inevitable, the prolonged suffering and potential deaths of hostages are not. It is hard to imagine my now 85-year-old father surviving the wait for another opportunity. End this nightmare. The New York Times
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3739076/siamak-namazi/i%E2%80%99m-american-why-have-i-been-left-rot-hostage-iran
3 Killed in Copenhagen Mall Shooting, 22-Year-Old Arrested
World
Asharq Al-Awsat
People react in front of the Fields shopping center in Copenhagen, Denmark, 03 July 2022. EPA/Olafur Steinar Rye Gestsson
A gunman killed three people and wounded several others in a shooting at a busy Copenhagen mall on Sunday as panicked shoppers said they ran for their lives. A 22-year-old Danish man was arrested after the shooting but his motives were unclear, police said. The shooter, who was believed to have acted alone, was known to the police "but only peripherally". "He's not someone we particularly know," Copenhagen police chief Soren Thomassen told a news conference after the rare mass shooting, the first since February 2015. The young man, who according to witnesses was armed with a large rifle, was arrested peacefully shortly after police arrived at the large Fields shopping mall, located between the city center and Copenhagen airport. "There are three dead and several injured, three of them in critical condition," Thomassen said. The three dead were a man in his forties and two young people whose ages were not specified. On social networks, people had been speculating about a racist motive, or some other motive, the head of the investigation said, "but I cannot say that we have anything which supports that at this moment." Police however confirmed they were investigating videos posted online which claimed to show the suspect with weapons and pointing a gun at his head. Images from the scene showed parents carrying their children as they fled the building and ambulance personnel taking people away on stretchers. The shooting occurred around 5:30 pm, causing panic in the mall. Many visitors were there for a concert with British singer Harry Styles at the nearby Royal Arena, which was cancelled. "My daughters were supposed to go see Harry Styles. They called me to say someone was shooting. They were in a restaurant when it happened," Hans Christian Stolz, a 53-year-old Swede who came to pick up his children, told AFP. "We thought at first people were running because they had seen Harry Styles, then we understood that it was people in panic ... We ran for our lives," his daughter Cassandra said. Styles said he was devastated by news of the attack. "I'm heartbroken along with the people of Copenhagen. I adore this city," the singer posted on Twitter. "I'm devastated for the victims, their families, and everyone hurting. I'm sorry we couldn't be together. Please look after each other." The attack occurred two days after this year's Tour de France cycling competition started from Copenhagen, and the Tour organizers released a statement expressing their sympathy. "The entire caravan of the Tour de France sends its sincerest condolences to the victims and their families," it said. Witnesses quoted by the Danish media described how the suspect had tried to trick people by saying his weapon was a fake one, to get them to approach. "He was sufficiently psychopathic to go and hunt people, but he wasn't running," one witness told DR state television. Other eyewitnesses told Danish media they had seen more than 100 people rush towards the mall's exit as the first shots were fired. "We could see that many people suddenly ran towards the exit and then we heard a bang," Thea Schmidt, who was in the mall at the time of the attack told broadcaster TV2. "Then we ran out of Field's too."
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3739061/3-killed-copenhagen-mall-shooting-22-year-old-arrested
Tunisia's Jabeur Fends Off Mertens to Reach Wimbledon Quarters
Sports
Asharq Al-Awsat
Tennis - Wimbledon - All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, London, Britain - July 1, 2022 Tunisia's Ons Jabeur celebrates winning her third round match against France's Diane Parry REUTERS/Toby Melville
World number two Ons Jabeur reached her second consecutive Wimbledon quarter-final on Sunday, beating Elise Mertens 7-6 (11/9), 6-4. The Tunisian fended off five set points for her 24th-seeded Belgian opponent in the first set tie-break to edge ahead. Jabeur broke serve twice in the second set to seal the win and set up a last-eight clash against Czech player Marie Bouzkova. The 27-year-old said she wanted to be a trailblazer for Arab and African players. "I wish I could really give that message to the young generation not just from my country but from the African continent," she said. "I want to see more players here. I want them to believe more in themselves and believe they can be here. "I don't come from a rich family so you have to stop finding excuses and just go for it, enjoy it." Just over a year ago, she became the first Arab woman to win a singles title on the elite women’s tennis tour when she lifted the trophy in Birmingham — also a grass-court tournament. “I love playing on grass, I love the connection between nature and me, so hopefully it will continue this way for me and maybe through the finals," Jabeur said. Shaking off the disappointment of a first-round loss at the French Open, Jabeur's goals are “very high" at the All England Club. “No matter who’s coming, I’m going to build the fight, I’m going to fight till the end because I really want the title,” said Jabeur, who has never reached a Grand Slam semifinal. Jabeur described her match, particularly the tiebreaker, as “10 out of 10 stressful" but that she's coping better now. “I am breathing better. I’m expressing more my feelings before the matches. That helps me, like, really play the game that I want to play,” she said. Jabeur is not a big fan of the antics that were on display in the fourth-round match between Nick Kyrgios and Stefanos Tsitsipas on Saturday. “Tennis is a very beautiful sport. It shouldn’t be that way,” said Jabeur, who after her victory in the Berlin final prepared a cooler with ice for opponent Belinda Bencic, who had stopped playing because of an injured ankle. So it was no surprise that 90 minutes after her victory on Sunday, while Jabeur was on a balcony doing TV interviews, fans yelled greetings to her from below. “Me, I’m just someone that enjoys life a lot," Jabeur said. “For me, a tennis career is going to be very short. What’s more important for me is my character and how people talk about me.”
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3739041/tunisias-jabeur-fends-mertens-reach-wimbledon-quarters
De Mistura Visits Rabat to Discuss Disputed Western Sahara
Arab World
Asharq Al-Awsat
UN special envoy for the Western Sahara region Staffan de Mistura. AFP
UN special envoy for the Western Sahara Staffan de Mistura arrived in Morocco on Friday to hold talks with Moroccan officials on advancing the political process in the disputed region, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. Observers see that de Mistura’s visit aims to discuss the disputed Western Sahara issue, which has been on hold since the resignation of the former UN envoy, Horst Kohler. “It is also his intention to visit Western Sahara in the course of this trip,” the spokesman said during a news briefing. “During this phase of the engagement, the personal envoy intends to remain guided by the clear precedents set by his predecessors,” Dujarric added. In a question on whether de Mistura is looking to have new roundtable with the four parties, he responded, “I think he is… what he's looking for is how we can move forward the dialogue within the context of the relevant Security Council resolutions.” Responding to another question regarding de Mistura’s visit not including Algiers and Mauritania, the spokesman said, “This is what we're announcing right now. If we have more as the trip continues, we will share that with you.”
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3737566/de-mistura-visits-rabat-discuss-disputed-western-sahara
Fourth of July fireworks echo eerily in a divided country. In theory, this patriotic holiday marks what holds us together, beyond all our disagreement. In practice it amplifies American division. The year that Independence Day memorializes, 1776, also lends its name to the Trumpist 1776 Project, a riposte to the 1619 Project. The very idea of patriotism risks becoming a partisan marker: In 2019, fully 76 percent of Republicans and only 22 percent of Democrats said they were “extremely proud” to be American, according to Gallup. A recent Quinnipiac poll asked Americans whether they would fight or flee if the country were invaded: 68 percent of Republicans said they would stay and fight, compared with 40 percent of Democrats. Although such questions can only be conjectural, this one does suggest that some progressives are not so sure the country is worth saving, or at least risking their lives to save. Conservatives often say that liberals don’t really like this country, and these figures suggest they might have a point. In progressive circles, claiming patriotism is, at best, an eyebrow-raiser. As the 246th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence arrives in a country with the world’s highest incarceration rate, sky-high per capita carbon emissions, an epidemic of gun violence and abortion bans across much of the American map, progressive disgust has clear appeal. But progressives need patriotism, more than ever in a time of understandable anger and despair. We want to make the world better by our lights, and to do that we need a stronger democracy. Patriotism in the right spirit fosters the civic trust and solidarity that democracy needs. Patriotism shouldn’t be an excuse for glossing over failures and crimes — just the opposite. It adds responsibilities, even sorrows, to our lives. But it also fosters affection and, yes, pride. The patriotism we need is the patriotism of July 5, which used to be a rallying day for abolitionists, particularly in New York State. Before the Civil War, July 5 was a rejoinder to the hypocrisy of Independence Day, which trumpeted liberty in a country full of race slavery. It was also, for many abolitionists, a day to continue the founding work of Emancipation, to build on and extend a flawed but radical inheritance. Of course, some radicals, such as William Lloyd Garrison, embraced a fundamentally bleak vision of the country. Garrison denounced the Constitution as “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell” and pronounced himself “ashamed of my country.” But others such as Frederick Douglass, who was more intimate with the horrors of American life, concluded that American politics was not just a grim fate but also a crucible of transformation. Douglass, in the famous July 5 speech often called “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” denounced national crimes in blistering terms, but also praised the Declaration of Independence as the pivot-point of Americans’ “yet undeveloped destiny.” Douglass called liberty and equality “saving principles” that the country could still make real. Many progressive achievements have roots in the July 5 style of patriotism. When President Lyndon Johnson made the case for the Voting Rights Act in a national TV broadcast before Congress in 1965, he called the United States “the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose”: creating a free society of equal citizens. That purpose was a measure of failure as well as success. In a country where “Emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact,” Johnson warned, if inequality was not addressed, America would “have failed as a people and as a nation.” The country could “gain the whole world and lose his own soul,” he said, paraphrasing the Book of Mark. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., too, called the principles of the American founding “a promissory note” that had come due, and urged the country to “rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.” This version of patriotism links criticism of our country’s failings with a commitment to changing them. It cleaves to principles of freedom and equality because they are right, and also because they are ours, they are us. It addresses America’s worst aspects, not as enemies to be eliminated (as in our many domestic “wars” on this or that) but as we would approach a friend or family member who had lost their way. In this spirit, even the harshest reproach, the most relentless list of wrongs, comes with a commitment to repair and heal, to build a more just and decent country. It also entails a practical faith: As long as change might be possible, we owe it to one another to try. These may sound like the gentle tones of a more naïve time. Don’t we know more now than earlier generations did about the cruelty and complexity of history, the intensity of white supremacy in the early Republic, the constitutional compromises with slavery? Haven’t we outgrown complacent patriotism? But this is wrong and, really, embarrassingly parochial. We do not know more about American injustice than King, or, for that matter, Johnson, the son of bigoted East Texas who became a complex but effective civil rights champion. There was nothing complacent in their patriotism. They insisted that every American ought to shoulder some of the responsibility for their country’s crimes and failings, whether or not they had personally benefited or suffered from them. And, for Johnson and King, everyone deserved to take some pride in American progress toward justice. Patriotism was a practical task: to appreciate and preserve what is good, work to change what is bad, and remember that part of what is good in a country is that citizens can change it. Patriotic effort came with no guarantee of success, but it was an obligation nevertheless — a duty akin to what the philosopher William James once called “the moral equivalent of war.” Today, America faces threats to national well-being and even survival: climate change, racial inequity, oligarchy, the economic collapse of whole regions. But the enemy is not an invader: These slow-moving crises pit us against one another. Spewing our carbon, living in our economically and ideologically segregated neighborhoods and regions, trading accusations of bigotry and bad faith, we are one another’s problems. In these conditions, it is hard to find threads of commonality. At some point, a liberal gets tired of saying, “We are better than this,” when we seem resolutely not to be. But there is something beyond both one last “We are better than this” and your preferred update of Garrison’s “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.” Progressive patriotism justifies risks and sacrifices to try to create a country that deserves them. Loyalty to the country, in this light, means faith that you and other citizens can still build better ways of living together. Progressive frustrations such as climate inaction, gun proliferation and the erosion of reproductive freedom are rooted in ways our political system stops majority opinion from ruling — through the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court, for starters. Earlier political transformation, such as the New Deal and the civil rights movement, had to shift political power and make the country more democratic in order to make it better. Because democracy is power, and power is scary and dangerous, political trust and a generous vision of the country are especially important in making a country more democratic. By the same token, peaceful political change is much harder among people who fear and mistrust one another, and who feel it intolerable for the other side to hold power. Only a quarter of Republicans, and about two-fifths of Democrats, believe the other party’s voters sincerely have the country’s best interests at heart. On the whole, Americans suspect that they live among people who are trying to destroy the country, and quite possibly to destroy them. This is our dilemma. We need basic change, but cannot tolerate making it alongside fellow citizens who are also our partisan enemies. Yet we also cannot make it without them. We need one another’s support, maybe, and one another’s consent and cooperation, absolutely. Patriotism softens the dilemma. It gives assurance that anger and criticism have affection and loyalty behind them. It conveys what Walt Whitman presented as the democratic promise: “I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms.” With the trust that this promise can support, it is possible to hear, even welcome, complex and critical ideas — support for troops but criticism of certain wars and policies abroad, decrying inequality because it means the country is not asking enough of itself. Without this trust, any disagreement can become existential, and in politics we veer between fighting for our lives and trying to ignore one another altogether. Readers may bridle at any suggestion that progressives need more patriotism. Democrats are trying to hold Donald Trump responsible for his bid to steal the 2020 election, while Republicans are mostly obfuscating or worse. Isn’t saving American democracy the apogee of patriotism? Yes, true enough; but in a time this deeply divided and unstable, it isn’t enough to be the party that insists on following the rules. Rules are distillations of a deeper picture of how to live together. Saving — or perhaps achieving — democracy will require convincing enough people to embrace a vision of the country in which everyone can vote, votes count and majorities rule. Our rules and institutions depend, in the end, on our attachment to living with a shared politics. With that attachment, win or lose, many things are possible. Without it, nothing lasts long. Patriotism may look masochistic. Nation-states have done terrible things and killed hundreds of millions of people. The desire to get out from under them is a recurrent theme in modern life, from Stalin’s and Mao’s regimes to the antebellum and Jim Crow South. But large and complex societies, such as we all inhabit today, have found no other way to organize themselves. We cannot avoid the dilemmas of political power. We can only try to use it for good. Patriotism can seem morally arbitrary. Why should a border or citizenship papers mark the boundary of solidarity? Of course they shouldn’t: Progressive patriots should work for the rights of migrants and for humane international policies. (Two examples: support for refugees and for a global vaccine program.) But patriotism is a practical political attitude, and countries are the units in which most political power exists. We humans have just a few ways to come together and cooperate. Sometimes we are market actors, worth precisely as much as our money. Sometimes we are co-ethnics, measured by shared language and religion, and the myth of bloodlines. Both economics and ethnicity bring us together as insiders and outsiders, or those who have and those who have not — particularly in the United States, with its braided histories of plutocracy and racial hierarchy. Only when we meet as democratic citizens do we become equals who can change the world together. In a democracy, even a flawed one, patriotism supports our best chance to live as equals. As King explained in his denunciation of the Vietnam War, American empire and capitalist materialism at Riverside Church in 1967, his loyalties as a Christian radical went well beyond any nationalism, but as a citizen he called on fellow citizens to “recapture the revolutionary spirit” in American life and “make democracy real.” Patriotism isn’t just a warm feeling, “loving the country.” It can fire anger when your own country upholds injustice or strips away essential freedoms, grief when pointless war abroad or avoidable violence at home makes America a destructive force. In politics as elsewhere, grief and anger are admissions of how much we have at stake in one another, and how much cause we have to care. Patriotism isn’t a neutral, generic principle that somehow avoids taking sides. King and Johnson were fighting for their country’s soul against Americans with very different goals. But their way of evoking that fight — and, for King at least, of living it — could inspire what Ebony editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., writing about the crowd hearing King’s speech at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, called “a certain surprise, as though the people had discovered suddenly what they were and what they had.” Patriotic feeling is always attached to some vision of the country’s future, and, inevitably, to some Americans who share that vision more than others. It doesn’t transcend partisanship, but enriches partisan struggle, making it always an invitation to others to join you. It is a way of saying that we will not give up on one another, because the country that ties us together also gives us the power to remake it — in a better way, and, a patriot may feel, truer to itself. The New York times
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3737476/jedediah-britton-purdy/democrats-need-patriotism-now-more-ever
Can You Blame Poor Countries Like Mine for Turning to China?
Opinion
Dorothy Wickham
Dorothy Wickham -
Judging from the American and Australian reactions, China’s push to raise its profile in the Pacific Ocean seems frightening indeed. Secretive negotiations between Beijing and the government of my home country, the Solomon Islands, have raised speculation that they could lead to a Chinese military presence here. Our government has denied this. But Washington has warned that these developments would “set a concerning precedent” that could destabilize the Pacific, and at least one Australian politician fretted that the Solomons might become a “little Cuba off our coast.” Like many of my fellow islanders, I am uncomfortable, too — about the lack of transparency in our government’s dealings with China, about Beijing’s ultimate motives and the potential impact all this could have on our fragile institutions. But the view from the front lines of this big-power contest is more nuanced than in Washington or Canberra, and it points to an important lesson for the United States as it vies with China for influence across the Pacific: You have got to show up. And the United States has not. We get it. The Solomon Islands is small, remote and economically insignificant. But if all countries like us are dismissed as such, China will pick us off one by one with its promises of business projects and development aid. For decades, we identified with the West, a legacy forged when the United States, Australia and their allies halted Japan’s imperial advance during World War II in the Battle of Guadalcanal. But that was long ago. There is a creeping sense today that we are being ignored, if not forgotten. So who can blame us if we open the door to new friends who can help with our needs? And those needs are great. Forty-four years after independence, we are still struggling to build a nation. Despite rich natural resources, around 80 percent of our 700,000 citizens still live in hard-to-reach rural areas, subsisting on family-run plots of lands. Many still lack access to running water, basic sanitation and electricity. Jobs are scarce, access to health care is limited, and high numbers of children are stunted by poor diets. Already prone to earthquakes, tsunamis and cyclones, we face ominous new threats because of climate change, including coral bleaching and rising sea levels that are slowly washing away islands. We don’t blame anyone for these problems, but as Western leaders point fingers at China and chide our leader, we’d like to ask: Where have you been? To be fair, Australia, New Zealand and the United States have provided much-needed assistance over the decades, and the US Peace Corps arrived in 1971. But those volunteers were pulled out 22 years ago during a period of violent political unrest. US aid to the Solomon Islands, already dwarfed by Australia’s, flatlined in the 2010s. My work as a journalist has taken me across these islands, and I’ve seen little remaining legacy of Peace Corps works, or US help in general. Few Solomon Islanders know much about our past bonds with the West — nearly 75 percent of our population is under age 35, and most are poorly educated. Among the few regular reminders of the West comes when an unexploded American or Japanese World War II bomb blows up, killing or maiming villagers. I lost a cousin last year, a promising young university graduate killed at a barbecue with friends. This unseen threat also inhibits economic progress because of the risk of developing land containing 80-year-old explosives just waiting to detonate. Australia and New Zealand have been major donors, typically through aid programs focused on strengthening our public institutions. But as important as these efforts are, they are largely invisible to young Solomon Islanders who need jobs or vocational training in things like carpentry or masonry to address a persistent shortage of skilled labor and to put food on the table. Overall, Australian aid has fallen over the years. China’s growing presence, on the other hand, has become impossible to miss in Honiara, the capital. Chinese-run businesses — construction, hardware, fishing, transport and other sectors — have quickly become part of the local economy since our government established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 2019. That meant severing longtime relations with China’s rival Taiwan, an unpopular move. But minds are slowly changing. Chinese construction companies are building a new wing that will significantly upgrade our main hospital and a long-overdue stadium that will host the Pacific Games next year. China’s profile has been rising across the Pacific. While Solomon Islands trade with the United States is negligible, China is our biggest trading partner by far. And it has not gone unnoticed here that China has taken meaningful measures to reduce carbon emissions, while American and Australian politicians have dithered or, in the case of Australia, even made light of climate concerns in the Pacific. Many of us worry about the consequences of cozying up to China, and lingering suspicion contributed to rioting in Honiara in November. But at the very least, the United States and Australia have been forced to notice us again. They are pledging to be more involved, there are plans to reopen the US embassy in Honiara, and Peace Corps volunteers are returning. Washington and Canberra are now saying that we in the Pacific matter to them. They will need to back that up with sustained action. Their wartime sacrifices saved us long ago. But loyalty does not last forever. It must be earned. Small, fragile, but strategic countries like mine have no choice but to chart our own course, with whatever friends we can find. The New York Times
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3737466/dorothy-wickham/can-you-blame-poor-countries-mine-turning-china
Lebanon's Hezbollah Confirms it Launched Drones Towards Karish Field
Arab World
Asharq Al-Awsat
This image grab from a video released by the Israeli army spokesperson's unit on July 2, 2022, shows the interception by the Israeli army of a drone launched by Lebanon's Hezbollah that was headed towards an offshore gas field in the Mediterranean. (Photo by various sources / AFP)
Lebanon's Hezbollah said Saturday it had launched three drones towards an offshore gas field in the Mediterranean, after Israel's army said it had intercepted drones belonging to the Iran-backed movement. "On Saturday afternoon, three unarmed drones were launched towards the disputed Karish field for reconnaissance missions," the Shiite group said in a statement. "The mission was accomplished," it added, without mentioning any Israeli interception. The launch of the aircraft appeared to be an attempt by Hezbollah to influence US-brokered negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over their maritime border, an area that is rich in natural gas. In a statement, the Israeli army said the aircraft were spotted early on and did not pose an "imminent threat.” Nonetheless, the incident drew a stern warning from Israel’s caretaker prime minister, Yair Lapid. "I stand before you at this moment and say to everyone seeking our demise, from Gaza to Tehran, from the shores of Lebanon to Syria: Don’t test us,” Lapid said in his first address to the nation since taking office on Friday. "Israel knows how to use its strength against every threat, against every enemy.”
from Asharq AL-awsat https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3737456/lebanons-hezbollah-confirms-it-launched-drones-towards-karish-field
