SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A new analysis of how the insurance industry is managing its policies related to fossil fuels and the climate crisis reveals that major U.S. insurers continue to underwrite "the reckless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure."
"With the climate in crisis, U.S. insurers are pouring gasoline on the fire," tweeted the Insure Our Future campaign.
"As the global climate crisis escalates rapidly, U.S. insurers have fallen starkly behind their global peers when it comes to taking responsibility for their central role in the fossil fuel economy."
The campaign--an effort supported by global groups including Switzerland's Campax and Europe Beyond Coal as well as U.S. groups like Rainforest Action Network and Sierra Club--on Wednesday released its latest annual scorecard that evaluates 30 of the world's top insurers, including 10 North American companies. The analysis relied on questionnaires returned by 18 of the companies and publicly available information.
The publication says insurers must step away from propping up oil, gas, and coal activities especially in light of the growing climate emergency exemplified by this year's extreme weather events worldwide.
"When the world wasn't on fire, it flooded," the report states, "with extreme rainfall causing deadly emergencies across six continents." The report also points to recent warnings from the U.N. that keeping warming below the 1.5degC threshold would be impossible barring "immediate, rapid, and large-scale reductions" in CO2 emissions, and from the International Energy Agency that capping warming to 1.5degC necessitates no new oil and gas fields.
"Insurers are uniquely positioned to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels and transition to a low-carbon economy" because of their key role in providing needed underwriting for such projects, the report says, and those insurers "not aligning their business with the Paris Agreement are undermining global climate targets, contributing to mounting economic and social chaos, and threatening their own businesses."
Topping the scorecard for good marks in fossil fuel insurance policy were two European companies. Allianz, the German insurer, was praised for improvements on its coal exit plan and new tar sands exclusion policies. France's AXA was close behind in second place for fossil fuel insurance, with its recent adoption of an oil and gas exit policy welcomed.
\u201cCitizen\u2019s groups, US senators, UN Secretary General @antonioguterres & Indigenous leaders all have the same message for insurance companies: stop driving climate chaos, and #InsureOurFuture instead. \nRead more: https://t.co/xo7IHdBVu4\u201d— Insure Our Future U.S. (@Insure Our Future U.S.) 1635902137
A bright spot in the report is that most insurers have ruled out backing new coal, with such projects now "nearly uninsurable." The same cannot be said, however, of new oil and gas projects, even though "moving away from underwriting oil and gas would not only have benefits for the climate but could also create financial value for insurance companies," according to the analysis.
"Although all major insurers in Europe and Australia have now acted on coal and many on tar sands," the report stated, "few have made progress on oil and gas more broadly."
For the U.S. insurance industry, the findings were particularly damning.
"None of the U.S. insurers made any new commitments to withdraw from coal this year," the report states. "By underwriting the expansion of coal and other fossil fuels, companies such as AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Travelers, and W.R. Berkley are ignoring the growing public concerns about climate change in the U.S. and undermining the diplomatic efforts of the Biden administration to accelerate the phasing out of coal ahead of COP26."
The analysis found that none of the U.S. insurers examined have specific policies on providing insurance for new oil and gas projects, nor have any in that group made commitments to ensure their clients respect Indigenous Peoples' right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
Related Content
Another troubling finding was that six out of the 10 U.S. insurers--AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Travelers, W.R. Berkley, Everest Re, and Convex--continue to back fossil fuel projects without any restrictions, according to the report.
"As the global climate crisis escalates rapidly, U.S. insurers have fallen starkly behind their global peers when it comes to taking responsibility for their central role in the fossil fuel economy," said Ginger Cassady, executive director of Rainforest Action Network, in a statement. "While leading global peers are exiting the coal sector and starting to restrict oil and gas business, AIG, Liberty Mutual, Travelers, and other U.S. companies continue to prop up the struggling coal industry and support the reckless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure."
Peter Bosshard, global coordinator for Insure Our Future, said the insurance industry could play a key role in averting in further climate chaos.
"The scientific consensus is clear: there is no way to avoid a climate catastrophe if we expand fossil fuel production," he said. "Most insurers recognize the threat of climate change. Action by only a few major players on oil and gas could have a significant impact."
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
A new analysis of how the insurance industry is managing its policies related to fossil fuels and the climate crisis reveals that major U.S. insurers continue to underwrite "the reckless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure."
"With the climate in crisis, U.S. insurers are pouring gasoline on the fire," tweeted the Insure Our Future campaign.
"As the global climate crisis escalates rapidly, U.S. insurers have fallen starkly behind their global peers when it comes to taking responsibility for their central role in the fossil fuel economy."
The campaign--an effort supported by global groups including Switzerland's Campax and Europe Beyond Coal as well as U.S. groups like Rainforest Action Network and Sierra Club--on Wednesday released its latest annual scorecard that evaluates 30 of the world's top insurers, including 10 North American companies. The analysis relied on questionnaires returned by 18 of the companies and publicly available information.
The publication says insurers must step away from propping up oil, gas, and coal activities especially in light of the growing climate emergency exemplified by this year's extreme weather events worldwide.
"When the world wasn't on fire, it flooded," the report states, "with extreme rainfall causing deadly emergencies across six continents." The report also points to recent warnings from the U.N. that keeping warming below the 1.5degC threshold would be impossible barring "immediate, rapid, and large-scale reductions" in CO2 emissions, and from the International Energy Agency that capping warming to 1.5degC necessitates no new oil and gas fields.
"Insurers are uniquely positioned to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels and transition to a low-carbon economy" because of their key role in providing needed underwriting for such projects, the report says, and those insurers "not aligning their business with the Paris Agreement are undermining global climate targets, contributing to mounting economic and social chaos, and threatening their own businesses."
Topping the scorecard for good marks in fossil fuel insurance policy were two European companies. Allianz, the German insurer, was praised for improvements on its coal exit plan and new tar sands exclusion policies. France's AXA was close behind in second place for fossil fuel insurance, with its recent adoption of an oil and gas exit policy welcomed.
\u201cCitizen\u2019s groups, US senators, UN Secretary General @antonioguterres & Indigenous leaders all have the same message for insurance companies: stop driving climate chaos, and #InsureOurFuture instead. \nRead more: https://t.co/xo7IHdBVu4\u201d— Insure Our Future U.S. (@Insure Our Future U.S.) 1635902137
A bright spot in the report is that most insurers have ruled out backing new coal, with such projects now "nearly uninsurable." The same cannot be said, however, of new oil and gas projects, even though "moving away from underwriting oil and gas would not only have benefits for the climate but could also create financial value for insurance companies," according to the analysis.
"Although all major insurers in Europe and Australia have now acted on coal and many on tar sands," the report stated, "few have made progress on oil and gas more broadly."
For the U.S. insurance industry, the findings were particularly damning.
"None of the U.S. insurers made any new commitments to withdraw from coal this year," the report states. "By underwriting the expansion of coal and other fossil fuels, companies such as AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Travelers, and W.R. Berkley are ignoring the growing public concerns about climate change in the U.S. and undermining the diplomatic efforts of the Biden administration to accelerate the phasing out of coal ahead of COP26."
The analysis found that none of the U.S. insurers examined have specific policies on providing insurance for new oil and gas projects, nor have any in that group made commitments to ensure their clients respect Indigenous Peoples' right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
Related Content
Another troubling finding was that six out of the 10 U.S. insurers--AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Travelers, W.R. Berkley, Everest Re, and Convex--continue to back fossil fuel projects without any restrictions, according to the report.
"As the global climate crisis escalates rapidly, U.S. insurers have fallen starkly behind their global peers when it comes to taking responsibility for their central role in the fossil fuel economy," said Ginger Cassady, executive director of Rainforest Action Network, in a statement. "While leading global peers are exiting the coal sector and starting to restrict oil and gas business, AIG, Liberty Mutual, Travelers, and other U.S. companies continue to prop up the struggling coal industry and support the reckless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure."
Peter Bosshard, global coordinator for Insure Our Future, said the insurance industry could play a key role in averting in further climate chaos.
"The scientific consensus is clear: there is no way to avoid a climate catastrophe if we expand fossil fuel production," he said. "Most insurers recognize the threat of climate change. Action by only a few major players on oil and gas could have a significant impact."
A new analysis of how the insurance industry is managing its policies related to fossil fuels and the climate crisis reveals that major U.S. insurers continue to underwrite "the reckless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure."
"With the climate in crisis, U.S. insurers are pouring gasoline on the fire," tweeted the Insure Our Future campaign.
"As the global climate crisis escalates rapidly, U.S. insurers have fallen starkly behind their global peers when it comes to taking responsibility for their central role in the fossil fuel economy."
The campaign--an effort supported by global groups including Switzerland's Campax and Europe Beyond Coal as well as U.S. groups like Rainforest Action Network and Sierra Club--on Wednesday released its latest annual scorecard that evaluates 30 of the world's top insurers, including 10 North American companies. The analysis relied on questionnaires returned by 18 of the companies and publicly available information.
The publication says insurers must step away from propping up oil, gas, and coal activities especially in light of the growing climate emergency exemplified by this year's extreme weather events worldwide.
"When the world wasn't on fire, it flooded," the report states, "with extreme rainfall causing deadly emergencies across six continents." The report also points to recent warnings from the U.N. that keeping warming below the 1.5degC threshold would be impossible barring "immediate, rapid, and large-scale reductions" in CO2 emissions, and from the International Energy Agency that capping warming to 1.5degC necessitates no new oil and gas fields.
"Insurers are uniquely positioned to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels and transition to a low-carbon economy" because of their key role in providing needed underwriting for such projects, the report says, and those insurers "not aligning their business with the Paris Agreement are undermining global climate targets, contributing to mounting economic and social chaos, and threatening their own businesses."
Topping the scorecard for good marks in fossil fuel insurance policy were two European companies. Allianz, the German insurer, was praised for improvements on its coal exit plan and new tar sands exclusion policies. France's AXA was close behind in second place for fossil fuel insurance, with its recent adoption of an oil and gas exit policy welcomed.
\u201cCitizen\u2019s groups, US senators, UN Secretary General @antonioguterres & Indigenous leaders all have the same message for insurance companies: stop driving climate chaos, and #InsureOurFuture instead. \nRead more: https://t.co/xo7IHdBVu4\u201d— Insure Our Future U.S. (@Insure Our Future U.S.) 1635902137
A bright spot in the report is that most insurers have ruled out backing new coal, with such projects now "nearly uninsurable." The same cannot be said, however, of new oil and gas projects, even though "moving away from underwriting oil and gas would not only have benefits for the climate but could also create financial value for insurance companies," according to the analysis.
"Although all major insurers in Europe and Australia have now acted on coal and many on tar sands," the report stated, "few have made progress on oil and gas more broadly."
For the U.S. insurance industry, the findings were particularly damning.
"None of the U.S. insurers made any new commitments to withdraw from coal this year," the report states. "By underwriting the expansion of coal and other fossil fuels, companies such as AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Travelers, and W.R. Berkley are ignoring the growing public concerns about climate change in the U.S. and undermining the diplomatic efforts of the Biden administration to accelerate the phasing out of coal ahead of COP26."
The analysis found that none of the U.S. insurers examined have specific policies on providing insurance for new oil and gas projects, nor have any in that group made commitments to ensure their clients respect Indigenous Peoples' right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.
Related Content
Another troubling finding was that six out of the 10 U.S. insurers--AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Travelers, W.R. Berkley, Everest Re, and Convex--continue to back fossil fuel projects without any restrictions, according to the report.
"As the global climate crisis escalates rapidly, U.S. insurers have fallen starkly behind their global peers when it comes to taking responsibility for their central role in the fossil fuel economy," said Ginger Cassady, executive director of Rainforest Action Network, in a statement. "While leading global peers are exiting the coal sector and starting to restrict oil and gas business, AIG, Liberty Mutual, Travelers, and other U.S. companies continue to prop up the struggling coal industry and support the reckless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure."
Peter Bosshard, global coordinator for Insure Our Future, said the insurance industry could play a key role in averting in further climate chaos.
"The scientific consensus is clear: there is no way to avoid a climate catastrophe if we expand fossil fuel production," he said. "Most insurers recognize the threat of climate change. Action by only a few major players on oil and gas could have a significant impact."
"We now have a president-elect who, the weekend before inauguration, is launching new businesses along with promises to deregulate... those sectors in a way to just blatantly profit off his own presidency."
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump faced a flood of criticism throughout the weekend for launching a cryptocurrency token as the world prepared for his Monday inauguration and policies expected to benefit the industry that helped Republicans take control of the White House and Congress.
"It is literally cashing in on the presidency—creating a financial instrument so people can transfer money to the president's family in connection with his office," Campaign Legal Center executive director Adav Noti told The New York Times. "It is beyond unprecedented."
Jordan Libowitz, vice president for communications at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, also contrasted Trump's move with behaviors of past presidents, telling Politico, "It is absolutely wild."
"After decades of seeing presidents-elect spend the time leading up to inauguration separating themselves from their finances to show that they don't have any conflicts of interest, we now have a president-elect who, the weekend before inauguration, is launching new businesses along with promises to deregulate... those sectors in a way to just blatantly profit off his own presidency," said Libowitz.
The president-elected announced the $TRUMP meme coin, hosted on the Solana blockchain, via his Truth social media platform and X—owned by Elon Musk, his ally and the richest person on the planet—on Friday, declaring that "it's time to celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING!"
He linked to a website that explains "there are 200 million $TRUMP available on day one and will grow to a total of 1 billion $TRUMP over three years." It also states that "Trump Memes are intended to function as an expression of support for, and engagement with, the ideals and beliefs embodied by the symbol '$TRUMP' and the associated artwork, and are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type."
Forbes reported that "the remaining 80% of tokens that have yet to be publicly released are owned by the Trump Organization affiliate CIC Digital LLC and Fight Fight Fight LLC, a company formed in Delaware on January 7, according to state filings, and both companies will receive an undisclosed amount of revenue derived from trading activity."
The president-elect's son Eric Trump, who helps run Trump Organization, told the Times that "this is just the beginning."
"I am extremely proud of what we continue to accomplish in crypto," he said in a statement. "$TRUMP is currently the hottest digital meme on Earth."
In an article simply headlined, "Donald Trump, crypto billionaire," Axios noted that by Sunday morning, "Trump's crypto holdings were worth as much as $58 billion on paper, enough—with his other assets—to make him one of the world's 25 richest people."
Responding to Axios' report, Wa'el Alzayat, who served as a Middle East policy expert at the U.S. Department of State for a decade, said that "when I was in government I couldn't accept a lunch over $20. Now anyone can give our next president millions."
Predicting that "this is going to end VERY badly for everyone except Donald Trump and his cronies," journalist Jeff St. John said that "it is a scandal and an outrage."
The meme coin announcement came as "the elite of the crypto world" gathered in Washington, D.C. for the first-ever Crypto Ball.
The president-elect did not attend the event, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the nominees for commerce and treasury secretary, Howard Lutnick and Scott Bessent, were there. Reporting on the gala, Reuters pointed out that the Trump "courted crypto campaign cash with promises to be a 'crypto president,' and is expected next week to issue executive orders aimed at reducing crypto regulatory roadblocks and promoting widespread adoption of digital assets."
Trump is no stranger to ethics scandals. As Mother Jones detailed:
The meme coin is just the latest in a bizarre line of grifty, super-weird takes on "merch." Last February, Trump showed off gold "Never Surrender High-Tops" for $399 at Sneaker Con, which had Fox News applauding his appeal to Black voters. In March, he began endorsing the $59.99 "God Bless the USA Bible," which includes the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and handwritten lyrics to the chorus of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." (Trump's inaugural committee has confirmed that he will not be using one of these Bibles to swear the presidential oath of office on Monday.) In August, Trump released a new round of his "baseball card" NFTs.
S.V. Dáte, a senior White House correspondent at HuffPost, highlighted Sunday that during the Republican's first term, "Trump's D.C. hotel was a convenient way for foreign and domestic lobbyists to put cash directly into his pocket."
"This crypto thing is next level. Anyone on the planet can put money directly into his pocket. Huge," Dáte added. "The efficiency here is a thing of beauty. With a hotel, you have all the costs of owning the property as well as paying cleaning staff, front desk staff, and so on. This selling of fake money is almost pure profit."
The Trump Organization sold the D.C. hotel in 2022, but The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that his "real estate company is in talks to reclaim" the property.
"The Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
After starting Sunday with a Truth Social post declaring " SAVE TIKTOK!" U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced plans for an executive order delaying a nationwide ban on the global video-sharing platform—which some political observers framed as a "win" for the Republican that was made possible by Democrats in Washington, D.C.
Trump actually kicked off efforts to force TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest with an August 2020 executive order, citing national security concerns. Three months later, he lost an election to Democratic President Joe Biden, who ultimately reversed the order. However, Biden then signed the legislation currently impeding the platform's availability in the United States.
"Congratulations, Democrats," said Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate from Ohio, as the platform began informing U.S. users that it was no longer available late Saturday. "This could've been avoided had you listened to progressives last year when this bill was being forced through Congress."
U.S. Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) last March
led a bipartisan coalition that introduced a bill targeting TikTok's parent company—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—in the House of Representatives, where it swiftly approved in a 352-65 vote.
A version of the bill—which forces ByteDance to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese company or face a U.S. ban—ultimately passed both chambers with bipartisan support as a rider to a $95 billion military assistance package for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, as it waged a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza. Biden signed it in April.
The resulting legal battle reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Friday unanimously upheld the law, "giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn't like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of 'national security' will trump our constitutional rights," in the words of ACLU National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey.
The court's decision meant TikTok would "go dark" on Sunday without action from Biden, who declined to give ByteDance a 90-day extension to sell or accept the ban, despite pressure from First Amendment advocates like the ACLU, the platform's 170 million American users—including content creators and small businesses facing financial impacts—and some lawmakers.
In a Friday statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
pointed to Trump's Monday inauguration, saying that "given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration."
Late Saturday, TikTok users in the United States began seeing a pop-up message that the platform was unavailable, stating: "A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"
In response to former Obama administration staffer and podcaster Tommy Vietor calling TikTok's message an advertisement from the Chinese Communist Party, leftist political commentator Hasan Piker highlighted Trump's opportunity to restore access to the platform, saying that "the Democrats handed him the easiest w of all time if he's smart enough to seize it."
Others were also critical of the Democratic Party—which is wrapped up in debates over how to move forward from devastating electoral losses in November—with independent journalist Ken Klippenstein saying that "this reminds me of when Trump put his name on the stimulus checks but Biden didn't. Historic own goal by the Democrats here."
Jacobin podcast host Daniel Denvir similarly said on X—the platform owned by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person—that "the Democratic Party setting up Trump to play the part of the zoomer savior after Trump got this all rolling in the first place is... the sort of self-inflicted wound that only the Democratic Party could accomplish."
Lynese Wallace—who was the chief of staff for former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a progressive who opposed the law— said that "the TikTok ban was always bad policy and bad politics. Let's not forget it was folded into a $95 billion foreign aid package passed in the last Congress—and has since paved way for Trump to now 'save' it, despite his own support for a ban during his first term. So dumb."
Seizing the opportunity, Trump said Sunday on his Truth social media platform that "I'm asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law's prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order."
Although Trump can't take action before he is sworn in, he continued:
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.
By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to [stay] up. Without U.S. approval, there is no TikTok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
Responding with a statement on X, TikTok said that "in agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties [for] providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive. It's a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States."
Even before Trump's post, Musk—who is expected to co-lead a presidential advisory commission— said on X that "I have been against a TikTok ban for a long time, because it goes against freedom of speech. That said, the current situation where TikTok is allowed to operate in America, but X is not allowed to operate in China is unbalanced. Something needs to change."
ByteDance's Chinese version of TikTok, called Douyin, was introduced in China in September 2016. The New York Times reported last April that "TikTok has more users on its platform, but Douyin is ByteDance's cash cow. Roughly 80% of ByteDance's $54 billion revenue in the first half of [2023] came from China."
Critics of bipartisan efforts to ban TikTok in the United States have blasted lawmakers for their priorities throughout the process.
"America: Where it's OK to ban TikTok, books, and abortions, but not OK to ban assault weapons, bombs for genocides, or student debt," said Warren Gunnels, Democratic staff director for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted against the TikTok legislation.
Just hours ahead of a cease-fire taking effect in Gaza, Turner, who co-chaired Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, also emphasized that "they really banned TikTok before they banned sending weapons to Israel during a genocide."
"If Congress actually gave a damn about our data privacy," she added, "they would've passed a sweeping data privacy bill, not a bill targeting TikTok."
In a Sunday email to supporters, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—who also voted against the law—agreed, stressing that "the answer is not just playing endless whack-a-mole with apps."
"We should have real privacy legislation in the United States," she said. "We should help people have greater agency over their personal information so that they're not being spied on all the time, whether it's a domestic company or a foreign company."
"To which, of course, Big Tech and their lobbies are going to fight against," she warned. "So they just target an
app instead of targeting the problem."
Israeli forces killed at least 19 Palestinians during the delay, on top of nearly 47,000 others slaughtered since October 2023.
Israeli forces killed at least 19 Palestinians across the Gaza Strip on Sunday morning during a three-hour delay in implementing a cease-fire and hostage-release deal that Israel's Cabinet finally approved the previous day.
After over 15 months of a U.S.-backed military assault for which Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strikes on Gaza were set to stop at 8:30 am local time, due to a three-phase agreement negotiated by Egypt, Qatar, and the outgoing Biden and incoming Trump administrations.
They did not, with deadly results. Mahmoud Basal, a spokesperson for Gaza's Civil Defense, said Sunday that at least 19 people were killed and over 36 were injured from 8:30 am to 11:30 am. That's on top of the tens of thousands of people the Israeli assault and restrictions on humanitarian aid have killed since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
As of midnight Saturday, the Gaza Ministry of Health put the official death toll in the besieged Palestinian enclave at 46,913, with another 110,750 people injured and over 10,000 others missing in the rubble of former homes, hospitals, schools, and mosques, though experts warn the number of deaths is likely far higher.
At 9:17 am on Sunday, the IDF said that it was "continuing to operate and strike terrorist targets in Gaza," adding: "A short while ago, IDF artillery and aircraft struck a number of terrorist targets in northern and central Gaza. The IDF remains ready in offense and defense and will not allow any harm to the citizens of Israel."
Muhammad Shehada, a Gazan writer, called the delay a "last-minute trick" by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and explained on social media that it was "under the pretext that Hamas hasn't submitted the list of three captives it'll release today."
As Shehada detailed:
Israel also reneged on the arrangement needed for Hamas to be able to submit such list; suspending surveillance drones and bombardment in the hours preceding the cease-fire so that it becomes logistically possible for Hamas' members on the ground and abroad to contact each other and figure out which hostages are alive and where without compromising their whereabouts and risking being bombed or raided by the IDF.
Hamas was forced to submit the list under fire and spy drones, which meant Israel exploited this to try to locate and snatch some captives last minute. Israel now succeeded in reaching the body of the soldier Oron Shaul, whom Hamas had been holding captive since 2014.
Ultimately, Hamas submitted the list and the pause in fighting took effect—at least for now—enabling displaced Palestinians to start returning to what is left of their communities and the process of releasing captives to begin with three Israelis and 90 Palestinians. During the deal's first 42-day phase, there are plans to free 33 Israelis taken hostage by Palestinian militants, 737 Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, and 1,167 Palestinians detained by Israeli forces in Gaza.
The three Israeli hostages—Emily Damari, Romi Gonen, and Doron Steinbrecher—were transfered to the International Committee of the Red Cross at a square in central Gaza City. The IDF confirmed that the Red Cross was bringing the women to Israeli troops.
The Associated Press on Sunday obtained from Hamas a list of the first 90 Palestinian prisoners set to be freed. They included 15-year-old Mahmoud Aliowat; 53-year-old Dalal Khaseeb, the sister of former Hamas second-in-command Saleh Arouri; 62-year-old Khalida Jarrar, a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine leader; and 68-year-old Abla Abdelrasoul, the wife of detained PFLP leader Ahmad Saadat.