admin

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making clear that his forces will not agree to Hamas’ demands to vacate Gaza, for two crucial reasons – overall national security and ensuring the safe return of the remaining hostages still in Hamas captivity.

Concerns continue to mount that Hamas could look to smuggle some of the remaining 97 Israeli hostages still in captivity into the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, which has long been deemed a haven for Islamic militant groups, and where they could then be transported to Yemen or Iran.

According to Netanyahu, the best way to prevent these Hamas hostage smuggling efforts is through maintaining the contested Philadelphi Route – a security corridor that runs between the Gaza Strip and Egypt.

‘Hol[d] the Philadelphi corridor, because that possesses Hamas, that prevents them from rearming,’ Netanhyu told Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmeade. ‘It prevents Gaza from becoming this Iranian terror enclave again, which can threaten our existence.

‘But it’s also the way to prevent them from smuggling hostages . . . into Egypt, into the Sinai, where they could disappear,’ he added. ‘Then they’ll end up in Iran or in Yemen, and they’re lost forever.’

The prime minster’s comments echoed a report by The Jewish Chronicle that said Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar was hashing out a secret plan to smuggle himself, other Hamas leadership and some of the remaining Israeli hostages out of Gaza through the Philadelphi corridor before heading to Iran.

The chronicle cited Israeli intelligence sources, though other Israeli news outlets refuted the reporting Thursday, and Fox News Digital could not independently verify the intelligence.

In his remarks to Fox News, Netanyahu did not expand on the leverage Hamas could gain by smuggling the hostages out of Gaza, but securing the hostages’ release has increasingly taken center stage in the ceasefire negotiations.

Following the assassination of six Israeli hostages who had been held prisoner by Hamas since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, and who were found in the tunnels mined by the terrorist organization last month, Netanyahu has increased his opposition to U.S. efforts to push through a cease-fire agreement.

Three of the hostages killed were reportedly supposed to be part of an exchange under a cease-fire deal proposed in July, but which never came to fruition.

‘We’re doing everything we can to get the remainder [out],’ Netanhyu said. ‘But Hamas consistently refuses to make a deal.’

Details of the ceasefire agreement put forward by the U.S., Qatar and Egypt have remained closely guarded for months, and reporting for weeks has suggested that the most recent deal signed on by Israel, but rebuffed by Hamas, was down to Jerusalem’s refusal to vacate the Philadelphi Route.

‘It’s just a direct falsehood,’ he said, noting that it is about more than just holding onto the corridor.

‘What we have to do is to make sure that we do two things,’ Netanyahu said. ‘One, get the hostages out. And second, keep the red lines that are necessary for Israel’s security and survival.

‘I think both of them go through holding the Philadelphi corridor,’ he added.

Despite Netanyahu’s strong opposition to ceding any hold of the strategic route and Hamas’ apparent refusal to hand over more hostages until Israel stops its operations in Gaza, Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday said that negotiations were making significant headway.

‘I think based on what I’ve seen, 90 percent is agreed, but there are a few critical issues that remain where we need to be able to get agreement,’ he told reporters. ‘Much of this has been discussed in recent days, including the Philadelphi corridor, including some of the exact specifics of how hostages and prisoners are exchanged.

‘So that remains, but pretty much everything else is there,’ he added.

Blinken said he expects in the ‘coming days’ that an updated deal will be shared by Egypt and Qatar with Hamas and by the U.S. with Israel in an attempt to shore up a cease-fire agreement.

‘Then it will be time really for the parties to decide yes or no, and then we’ll see,’ he added.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Politics

Reporter’s Notebook: Why foreign policy might matter

Which of these things is not like the others? The economy. The border. Abortion. Foreign policy.

The first three are issues many voters consistently tell pollsters are the subjects most important to them in 2024. Foreign policy? Dwarfed by the others. In fact, recent Fox polling shows that foreign policy decisions were the most important subjects to only 3% of registered voters surveyed in Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. Foreign policy only climbs to 4% when Fox asked the question nationally.

So why care about foreign policy in a race like the one between Vice President Harris and former President Trump? The importance of foreign policy as a determining factor in the race for the presidency rises and falls. Vietnam wore on the public consciousness in the late 1960s. It drove former President Lyndon Johnson away from seeking re-election in 1968. The Iranian hostage crisis certainly didn’t help former President Carter as he stumbled in 1980. It’s believed that former President Reagan scored a boost from improving America’s image on the global stage. Staring down the Soviets certainly enabled Reagan to cruise to victory in 1984.

Former President George H.W. Bush seemingly received no benefit for the 1991 Gulf War nor the fall of the Eastern Bloc in the late ‘80s and early ’90s. This was ironic. The president earned a staggering 91% approval rating just after the Gulf War. Yet he lost to former President Clinton less than two years later. The events of 9/11 lifted the fate of former President George W. Bush in 2001. Bush won re-election in 2004. But casualties from the war in Iraq cost him support that fall.

So, should we focus on foreign policy as a crucial issue in 2024? Hard to say. But in a tight race, anything might be decisive. Especially in battleground states where the race is a statistical dead heat.

‘Pocketbook issues are always the most important issues for most people,’ said Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-Ind. But Bucshon offered a caveat.

‘(Foreign policy) could be in the national security space part of the election narrative because the vice president was obviously part of this decision-making progress,’ the Indiana Republican said.

That is precisely what Republicans hope to highlight as Congress returns to session. Biden is out the door. Harris is now the Democratic nominee. And Republicans hope to tell the story of the vice president and foreign policy.

War in the Middle East. Executions of Israeli hostages. Even the controversy involving Trump honoring service members killed in Afghanistan three years ago. Curiously, the incident and questions surrounding how Trump and his team conducted themselves at Arlington National Cemetery may have actually retrained focus on why they were there in the first place: the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan under the watch of the president and vice president.

A mother of one of the 13 U.S. service members killed in the Abbey Gate attack at the Kabul airport railed against the administration.

‘We’ve been disrespected so much in the last three years,’ Kelly Barnett told Fox. She’s a Gold Star mother who lost her son, Taylor Hoover, in the terrorist attack. ‘No response from them. No ‘I’m sorry.’’

Republicans see this as connective tissue to Harris.

‘I think it’s open to criticism because the vice president was intimately involved in that discussion (to withdraw from Afghanistan),’ said Bucshon.

Harris even said as much during an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash in 2021 after the withdrawal.

‘(President Biden) just made a really big decision. Afghanistan,’ said Bash. ‘Were you the last person in the room?’

‘Yes,’ replied Harris.

‘And you feel comfortable?’ countered Bash.

‘I do,’ answered Harris.

On NBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., noted that former President Trump ‘was never able’ to get out of Afghanistan despite wanting to do so.

‘I give President Biden and Vice President Harris credit for finally ending a war after 20 years,’ said Khanna.

The California Democrat conceded the administration bungled the withdrawal. But Khanna believes Harris and the president ‘deserve credit’ for actually extracting the U.S. from the protracted conflict. In addition, some Republicans point to the Israel/Hamas war as a flashpoint for the administration.

‘Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have tried to hamstring Israel every step of the way here,’ Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said on Fox.

On Fox Business, Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, argued that the only ‘two-state solution’ Harris and vice presidential nominee and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz care about is winning ‘Pennsylvania and Michigan.’

But when it comes to the Middle East, the administration contends it’s clear who is to blame — despite the Mideast crisis unfolding on its watch.

‘Hamas is responsible for their deaths. And as the president said, most leaders pay for their crimes,’ said White House national security spokesman John Kirby.

The campaign trail now moves from battleground states like Nevada and North Carolina to Capitol Hill as Congress returns to session. Expect congressional Republicans to curate a narrative about the Biden administration’s foreign policy — and latch that to Harris.

The House is slated to vote on a number of measures in the coming days pertaining to China. There may even be legislation tied to Israel and the Mideast War. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is releasing an exhaustive report about the Afghanistan withdrawal imminently. The committee also issued a subpoena to Secretary of State Antony Blinken to testify about the withdrawal Sept. 19.

The State Department contends Blinken isn’t available then. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller called the subpoena ‘unnecessary,’ arguing Blinken worked with the committee in good faith. But Foreign Affairs Committee spokeswoman Leslie Shedd said Blinken knew the committee wanted his testimony since late May.

‘The chairman offered the secretary any session day in the month of September to come in, and he refused. Instead, he vaguely suggested November or December — when it is far too late for Congress to take legislative action to fix the problems at the State Department that led to the withdrawal,’ Shedd said.

Regardless, the coming days will present lots of fodder about what went wrong in Afghanistan three years ago. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will present the families of the 13 service members killed in Afghanistan with the Congressional Gold Medal in a ceremony Tuesday.

So, do the foreign policy arguments stick to Harris? Unclear. However, you’ll notice that Republicans recently began to invoke the ‘Biden-Harris administration.’ That’s a concerted effort to pivot from Biden and Velcro issues to the vice president — once she became the nominee.

But will foreign policy make a difference? It can. But we won’t know until the vote is in. As observed earlier, George W. Bush won re-election over former Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in 2004. But there were ‘micro’ costs to Bush’s campaign over the Iraq war in particular regions and precincts.

And in a close election, that’s why foreign policy might matter in 2024.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Politics

Alan Dershowitz leaves Democratic Party, cites DNC: ‘I was disgusted’

Prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz announced his departure from the Democratic Party, citing several ‘anti-Jewish’ lawmakers that make up the ranks of the party and the recent Democratic National Convention in which Vice President Kamala Harris became the party’s presidential nominee.

Speaking with radio host Zev Brenner on ‘Talkline with Zev Brenner,’ Dershowitz cited the DNC, which he said gave legitimacy to anti-Israel speakers, and anti-Israel protesters outside the gathering.

‘It was the most anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist convention I’ve experienced,’ he said. ‘I was disgusted at the Democratic National Convention. Absolutely disgusted.’

‘I am no longer a Democrat. I am an Independent,’ he added, noting that he wouldn’t reveal whom he was voting for president until possibly after Nov. 1. ‘I want to see how they deal with Iran. I want to encourage the current administration to support Israel.’

The Harvard Law professor emeritus said his departure from the party was a long time coming and that he gradually resigned over time.

‘Alot of things pushed me in that direction,’ he said. Dershowitz noted Harris’ failure to preside over a joint session of Congress during an address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a big role in his decision.

Some Democrats skipped Netanyahu’s speech as a form of protest.

Ultimately, it was the convention that was held in Chicago last month that pushed him over the edge, he said.

He named Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, who he said were anti-Israel, and Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been accused of antisemitism in the past.

In addition, there were anti-Israel protesters outside the gathering who called for the destruction of Israel, he said.

‘That’s not my party,’ Dershowitz said.

The Democratic Party has seen a sharp split within its ranks following the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas. Some members of the party have refused to condemn the terror group and have blamed Netanyahu for Israel’s military response.

Many Democrats have called for a ceasefire and urged Israel to use restraint while neglecting to hold Hamas and Hezbollah, an Iran-backed terror group based in Lebanon, in Israel’s north, to the same standard.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Business

Biden preparing to block U.S. Steel sale to Japanese company

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is preparing to announce that he will formally block Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.9 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel, two people familiar with the matter confirmed to NBC News.

The storied American firm announced in December that it had agreed to be purchased by the Japanese-owned conglomerate, saying it was necessary for U.S. Steel’s evolution in an increasingly competitive and globalized marketplace.

But the agreement was immediately opposed by the Biden administration as not only a historic blow to U.S. manufacturing capacity, but also as a national security threat.

A water tower at the US Steel Corp. Edgar Thomson Works steel mill in Braddock, Pennsylvania, US, on April 6, 2024. Justin Merriman / Bloomberg via Getty Images

“U.S. Steel has been an iconic American company for more than a century and it should remain a totally American company,” Biden later said in April. “American-owned, American-operated by American union steelworkers, the best in the world. And that’s going to happen. I promise you.”

A White House official said the Treasury committee charged with reviewing foreign investments into the U.S. hasn’t sent Biden a recommendation. It was not clear when such a recommendation would be made.

U.S. Steel executives have said that the deal’s failure would put the fate of thousands of union jobs — as well as its longtime Pittsburgh headquarters — in doubt. Pennsylvania is poised to be one of the most critical swing states in the fall election — meaning the potential loss of thousands of jobs there could have reverberating political repercussions.

“We want elected leaders and other key decision makers to recognize the benefits of the deal as well as the unavoidable consequences if the deal fails,” U.S. Steel CEO David Burritt said in a release.

Once one of the largest companies in America, U.S. Steel today employs approximately 20,000 workers, down from about 340,000 at its height in 1943, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

U.S. Steel’s market value was at about $7 billion as of Thursday morning. Its approximately $15 billion valuation by Nippon would make it worth about as much as Snap (formerly Snapchat) and Hyatt Hotels.

Shares of U.S. Steel climbed slightly Wednesday after initially declining on early reports from the Washington Post and New York Times that Biden was preparing to block the deal.

The U.S. Steel Edgar Thomson Works steel mill in Braddock, Pa. Justin Merriman / Bloomberg via Getty Images

In a statement, Nippon said that it had not received any update on the process, but that it opposed any effort to scupper the agreement.

‘Since the outset of the regulatory review process, we have been clear with the administration that we do not believe this transaction creates any national security concerns,’ it said. ‘U.S. Steel and the entire American steel industry will be on much stronger footing because of Nippon Steel’s investment in U.S. Steel — an investment that Nippon Steel is the only willing and able party to do so.’

The deal is still officially being reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an ostensibly nonpartisan arm of the U.S. Treasury that reviews national security implications of overseas entries into U.S. businesses. Its most recent high-profile case involved TikTok.

“We are very alarmed by any attempts to politicize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review process on the sale of the U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel Corporation, which should be conducted objectively based on fair rules and processes,’ a spokesperson for the Japan-U.S. Business Council said.

Nippon Steel also has its roots in firms more than a century old. Today, it is one of the largest producers of crude steel in the world and is worth more than $21 billion, but has been facing increasing competition from China.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has previously stated he would block the deal ‘instantaneously’ if elected. In a new statement, the former president said that he would ensure U.S. Steel’s ‘facilities will remain under American ownership’ under a second Trump administration.

‘Kamala Harris is the one in the White House — if she wants to protect these American jobs she has the power to do it right now,’ a Trump campaign spokesperson said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Business

Google’s second antitrust trial could help shape the future of online ads

A month after losing a landmark antitrust case brought by the Department of Justice, Google is headed back to court to face off for a second time against federal prosecutors.

In August, a judge ruled that Google has held a monopoly in internet search, marking the biggest antitrust ruling in the tech industry since the case against Microsoft more than 20 years ago. This time, Google is defending itself against claims that its advertising business has acted as a monopoly that’s led to higher ad prices for customers.

The trial begins in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday and will likely last for at least several weeks. It represents the first tech antitrust trial from a case brought by the Biden administration. The department’s earlier lawsuit was first filed in October 2020, when Donald Trump was in the White House.

While U.S. officials have spent the past several years going after Big Tech, only Google has so far has ended up in federal court. The DOJ sued Apple in March, saying its iPhone ecosystem is a monopoly that drove its “astronomical valuation” at the expense of consumers, developers and rival phone makers.

In late 2020, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust suit against Facebook (now Meta), claiming the company had built a monopoly through acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Earlier this year, Meta asked a court to dismiss the suit. In 2023, the FTC and 17 states sued Amazon for allegedly wielding its “monopoly power” to inflate prices, degrade quality for shoppers and unlawfully exclude rivals, undermining competition.

For Google, the focus turns to its ad tools, which are part of the company’s $200 billion digital ad business.

The government claims Google is in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit anticompetitive behavior. The DOJ will argue that Google locked in publishers and advertisers to its products and that websites had to develop workarounds in response. A coalition of states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee, joined the case.

Google’s ad business has drawn numerous critics over the years because the platform operates on multiple sides of the market — buying, selling and an ad exchange — giving the company unique insights and potential leverage. In its initial lawsuit, the DOJ cited internal communication from a Google ad executive, who said owning multiple sides of the ad-selling process is like “if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE,” referring to the New York Stock Exchange.

At stake is how Google is allowed to operate its portfolio of ad products. The DOJ, if successful, seeks the divestiture of, at minimum, the Google Ad Manager suite (GAM), the marketplace that gives brands the ability to create and manage ad units and track ad campaigns and lets publishers sell ad inventory.

That’s different from Google’s flagship platform — Google Ads — which is primarily for businesses looking to advertise their products or services across search, websites, YouTube and other partner sites.

In the most recent quarter, Google parent Alphabet reported ad revenue of $64.6 billion, accounting for over three-quarters of total sales. Of that amount, $48.5 billion came from search and other businesses like Gmail and Maps, and $8.7 billion came from YouTube.

The GAM suite is part of the Google Network business, which generated $7.4 billion in second-quarter revenue, or about 11% of total ad sales.

In addition to a potential partial breakup, Google could see a flood of litigation from advertisers seeking monetary rewards if the DOJ is successful. Bernstein analysts said Google could face up to $100 billion in such lawsuits.

In the first antitrust case, the court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies. Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the DOJ, which argued that Google has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote.

Google now awaits its punishment for that case. The DOJ is asking for an extended time frame, until February, to offer remedies, followed by a hearing in April. Google says the DOJ should have already done its homework and should be prepared to offer its proposal in October.

In the second case, the DOJ plans to show that Google has cobbled together unrivaled power through the acquisitions of companies like DoubleClick in 2008, and by building services that let ad buyers target users across the internet.

The company’s M&A strategy “set the stage for Google’s later exclusionary conduct across the ad tech industry,” the Justice Department alleges. The agency claims Google controls 91% of the market for ad servers, the space used by publishers to sell ads, and takes advantage of its power by unfairly raising ad prices.

The DOJ plans to call YouTube CEO Neal Mohan in for live testimony. Mohan, was previously vice president at DoubleClick before the acquisition. After being rolled into Google’s ad tech stack, DoubleClick’s technology allowed Google to require publishers, in some instances, to use all of its tools to gain access to any of them, meaning they couldn’t use rival services for parts of the online ad-buying process, the agency alleges.

“Website creators earn less, and advertisers pay more, than they would in a market where unfettered competitive pressure could discipline prices and lead to more innovative ad tech tools that would ultimately result in higher quality and lower cost transactions for market participants,” the DOJ says.

Some publishers have been forced to turn to alternative models like subscriptions to fund their operations, the government says, while others have gone out of business.

Google has long fought back against claims that it dominates online ads, pointing to the market share of competitors including Meta. It will argue that buyers and sellers have many options especially as the online ad market has evolved.

Google will also argue that the DOJ’s pursuits would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.

The company says that its ad tools adapt to handle the billions of ad auctions taking place on the internet each day, and that the DOJ doesn’t have an accurate picture of the ad space. Google will also tell the court that it’s always offered competitive rates for customers, who often mix and match advertising platforms.

As it relates to deal-making, Google will claim that DoubleClick and AdMeld weren’t killer acquisitions at the time and that regulators signed off on them.

In trying to prove its case, the DOJ has listed potential testimony from Jerry Dischler, formerly vice president of Google’s ad platform who currently leads the company’s cloud applications. It’s also noted the potential to call on several Google product managers.

Also on the DOJ’s list is Google AI executive Sissie Hsiao, who was formerly a director of global display, video and mobile app advertising, and Scott Sheffer, who is listed as vice president of Google partnerships. The government plans to include evidence from internal Google communications, testimony from publishers, advertisers and companies that tried to compete with Google as well as experts and professors from Stanford and Harvard, filings show.

Google also noted it may call on Nitish Korula, engineering director for Google assistant who was formerly senior technical advisor to search head Prabhakar Raghavan. It also requested testimony from Simon Whitcombe, a vice president at Meta, and suggested depositions from executives at BuzzFeed and The New York Times.

Though the DOJ and Google submitted a list of executives named for potential testimony or deposition, those individuals won’t necessarily be called.

Google declined to comment for this article.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

World News

New Maori Queen anointed following the death of her father

A new Maori Queen was anointed Thursday, taking on the role at a time when New Zealand is facing some of the biggest challenges to race relations in two decades.

A statement released by representatives said Nga Wai Hono i te Po had been chosen by Maori elders to replace her father, King Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII, who died aged 69 last week following surgery.

“The new monarch was raised up in a ceremony known as Te Whakawahinga, in front of thousands of people gathered for the tangihanga (funeral and burial) of Kiingi Tuheitia,” a spokesperson for the Kiingitanga or royal family said.

The new queen is not crowned and instead a bible that has been used since 1858 was placed upon her head and Archbishop Don Tamihere used sacred oils to bestow prestige, sacredness, power and spiritual essence upon her.

Thousands gathered at Tuurangawaewae, the meeting place of the King movement, to farewell him in a traditional funeral.

Following the anointment of his daughter, the King’s coffin was taken to the Waikato River by hearse before being paddled in a flotilla of traditional Maori waka or canoe to Taupiri Mountain, where he was to be buried alongside other royals and high-profile Maori.

The Maori King or Queen is considered the paramount chief of several tribes, or iwi, but is not affiliated with all of them. The monarch’s role has no judicial or legal authority in New Zealand and is largely ceremonial.

The role is not necessarily hereditary but voted on by representatives from iwi across the country. The new queen, or Kuini, is the only daughter and youngest child of the former King and his wife Te Atawhai Makau Ariki and is aged 27.

Radio New Zealand says that the new monarch, who has two older brothers, was favored to ascend the throne, although it had not been a foregone conclusion.

The new queen holds a Master of Arts in Tikanga (societal lore of) Maori and has served on a number of boards include that of the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust, an organization charged with revitalizing Maori language, according to 1News.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the government welcomed the new queen’s appointment as she carries forward the mantle of leadership left by her father.

Her anointment comes at a time when New Zealand is struggling with race relations.

New Zealand’s center-right coalition which took office last year has started undoing policies of previous governments, particularly those promoting the official use of the Maori language, the enhancement of Indigenous living standards and rights and efforts to repair some of the wrongs undertaken during colonization.

King Tuheitia held a gathering of tribes from across the country in January to discuss how to respond to government plans. As King Tuheitia told the thousands who attended that their voices matter, his daughter, the new queen stood beside him.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

World News

Michel Barnier named as new French prime minister

Michel Barnier, the EU’s former chief Brexit negotiator, has been named France’s new prime minister, the French president’s office says, ending two months of stalemate following inconclusive parliamentary elections.

In a statement on Thursday, the Élysée Palace said: “The President of the Republic has appointed Michel Barnier as Prime Minister. He has to form a united government to serve the country and the French people.”

The statement added that Barnier’s appointment comes after “an unprecedented cycle of consultations” in order to ensure a stable government.

Barnier, 73, a staunch Europhile, is a member of the Republicans party which represents the traditional right. He is best known on the international stage for his role in mediating the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.

A 40-year veteran of French and European politics, Barnier has held various ministerial positions in France, including roles as foreign, agriculture and environment ministers. He served twice as a European commissioner as well as an adviser to President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. In 2021, Barnier announced his bid for presidential elections but failed to garner enough support within his party.

Macron accepted the resignation of former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and his government in July, after his centrist Ensemble alliance was defeated in the second round of France’s snap parliamentary election. The president has since faced calls from across the political divide to name a new PM. Last week, Macron told journalists during a trip to Serbia he was “making all the necessary efforts” to finalize a name.

Barnier’s prospects for forming a stable government are unclear. Currently, France’s far-right National Rally (RN) is one of the largest parties in parliament following the election in early July. It has previously suggested it could be open to working with Barnier and would not immediately veto him.

Still, RN politician Laurent Jacobelli spoke disparagingly of Barnier, telling French television network TF1: “They are taking out of mothballs those who have governed France for 40 years.”

Barnier served as the chief negotiator during the UK’s exit from the European Union. The lengthy talks between London and Brussels ran from 2016 to 2021 and he is known among Brexiteers in the UK for driving a hard bargain.

Born in January 1951 in a suburb of the Alpine city of Grenoble, Barnier was first elected to parliament at the age of 27.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

World News

Netanyahu is unequivocal about ceasefire and hostage agreement with Hamas: ‘There’s not a deal in the making’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday was as clear as he has ever been about how he views a ceasefire and hostage agreement with Hamas.

“There’s not a deal in the making,” he told Fox News. “Unfortunately, it’s not close.”

“It’s exactly inaccurate. There’s a story, a narrative out there, that there’s a deal out there.”

Hamas “don’t agree to anything. Not to the Philadelphi Corridor, not to the keys of exchanging hostages for jailed terrorists, not to anything. So that’s just a false narrative.”

Netanyahu is facing mounting accusations that he has purposefully blocked a deal with Hamas. The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, citing a document it obtained, reported that Netanyahu in July effectively spiked a draft hostage and ceasefire deal by introducing a raft of new, eleventh-hour demands.

In the Fox News interview, Netanyahu rejected allegations that he has obstructed a deal.

“The obstacle to the end of this war is Hamas. The obstacle to the release of hostages is Hamas. The ones who butchered in a sling, murdering six people in cold blood, riddling them with bullets and then firing bullets into their heads is Hamas. It’s not Israel. It’s not me.”

Netanyahu was also questioned about reports that the families of American hostages still held by Hamas are lobbying the US Administration to unilaterally seek their loved ones’ release.

“I don’t know,” he said. “You know, I don’t judge the families. They’re going through enormous anguish.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

World News

Remote Indigenous tribe kills two loggers encroaching on their land in Peru

Two loggers have been killed by bow and arrow after allegedly encroaching the land of the uncontacted Mashco Piro Indigenous tribe deep in Peru’s Amazon, according to a rights group.

The group, known as FENAMAD, defends the rights of Peru’s Indigenous peoples. It says tensions between loggers and Indigenous tribes are on the rise and more government protective action is needed.

Two other loggers in the attack were missing and another was injured, FENAMAD said, and rescue efforts were underway.

The rights group, which represents 39 Indigenous communities in the Cusco and Madre de Dios regions in southeastern Peru, said the incident took place on August 29 in the Pariamanu river basin while loggers were expanding their passageways into the forest and came into contact with the reclusive and renowned territorial tribe.

“The Peruvian state has not taken preventive and protective measures to ensure the lives and integrity of the workers who have been gravely affected,” the group said in a statement Tuesday, adding authorities have yet to arrive in the area since the incident.

FENAMAD said the attack happened just 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) from a July incident, when the Mashco Piro again attacked loggers. The group said in their statement that even though they advised the government of the risk of a rise in violence, nothing has been done.

“It’s a heated and tense situation,” said Cesar Ipenza, an Amazon-based lawyer who specializes in environmental law in Peru. “Undoubtedly, every day there are more tensions between Indigenous peoples in isolation and the different activities that are within the territory that they ancestrally pass through.”

There have been several other previous reports of conflicts. In one incident in 2022, two loggers were shot with arrows while fishing, one fatally, in an encounter with tribal members.

In January, Peru loosened restrictions on deforestation, which critics dubbed the “anti-forest law.” Researchers have since warned of the rise in deforestation for agriculture and how it is making it easier for illicit logging and mining.

Ipenaza said some effort has been made by authorities in the area, like mobilizing a helicopter, but overall there has been “little commitment” by Peru’s Ministry of Culture, responsible for the protection of Indigenous peoples.

The Ministry of Culture did not immediately respond to a message Wednesday seeking comment on the attack and their protection efforts.

The attack took place a day before the Forest Stewardship Council suspended the sustainability certification of a logging company for eight months which rights groups and activists have accused of encroaching on the Indigenous group’s land.

“It’s absurd that certifiers like the FSC keep the certification of companies that clearly and openly violate basic human rights and Indigenous rights,” said Julia Urrunaga, director of the Peru program at the Environmental Investigation Agency. “How terrible that people have to keep dying and that it has to be an international scandal for action to be taken.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

World News

Vladimir Putin trolls US presidential race with ‘endorsement’ of Kamala Harris

Russian President Vladimir Putin raised eyebrows Thursday when he expressed his support for US Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid, flattering the Democratic nominee with some curiously timed remarks.

“Our ‘favorite,’ if you can call it that, was the current president, Mr. [Joe] Biden. But he was removed from the race, and he recommended all his supporters to support Ms. Harris. Well, we will do so – we will support her,” Putin said Thursday at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. “She laughs so expressively and infectiously that it means that she is doing well.”

Putin also criticized former president and current Republican nominee Donald Trump for placing “so many restrictions and sanctions against Russia like no other president has ever introduced before him.”

Putin’s comments come on the heels of sweeping sanctions announced by the Biden administration to combat a Russian government-backed disinformation effort to influence the 2024 elections and boost Trump’s candidacy.

So what is Putin trying to accomplish?

If the past is any guide, Putin is simply stirring the pot of US domestic politics. In December 2015, Putin praised Trump, calling him the front-runner months before the businessman secured the Republican nomination.

And despite the Russian leader’s vocal support of the Democrats, US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said on Wednesday that three Russian companies – at Putin’s direction – used fake profiles to promote false narratives on social media. Internal documents produced by one of those Russian companies show one of the goals of the propaganda effort was to support Trump’s candidacy or whoever emerged as the Republican nominee for president, according to an FBI affidavit.

“He is a bright and talented person without any doubt,” Putin said, calling Trump “an outstanding and talented personality.”

Did Putin know something about the 2016 US presidential elections that the pollsters didn’t? No, but the Kremlin leader did little to conceal his dislike of Hillary Clinton, then the likely Democratic nominee.

And when purloined Democratic National Committee emails were leaked just ahead of the Democratic National Convention, Putin did not hide his glee.

While US officials pointed a firm finger of blame at Russia for the hack, Putin denied the Russian state had anything to do with it. And in remarks at the same forum in September 2016, he praised the leak as a sort of service to the voters, saying, “The important thing is the content that was given to the public.”

That content being the embarrassing revelation in the leaked emails that Democratic officials gave preferential treatment to Clinton.

In other words, the whole DNC hack episode supported the Kremlin’s view that American democracy is a sham: Nothing matters but power, everything is decided in smoke-filled rooms, and hectoring countries like Russia about adherence to democracy and human rights is hypocritical.

Putin’s view of the American political system makes even more sense when we are reminded of an insight from exiled Russian political journalist Mikhail Zygar, the author of “All the Kremlin’s Men.”

Zygar noted that Putin loved “House of Cards” – the darkly cynical television series about Washington politics – and even recommended it to his ministers.

“That’s his American politics textbook,” Zygar said in an interview.

It’s also possible that Putin was simply trolling Harris by winking at a consistent insult from Trump about the way she laughs.

So if Putin’s take on US election politics is seen through the lens of “House of Cards,” then, Putin’s support of Harris is a sort of Frank Underwood move: A kind of endorsement poisonous to its recipient.

Additional reporting by Anna Chernova and Christian Edwards.

This post appeared first on cnn.com