Feed aggregator

A striking new monument on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., is honoring generations of American military personnel by displaying the names of more than 41 million veterans, active-duty service members and others who have served the country.

The National Military Monument, which is a temporary installation, is scheduled to remain on display through Nov. 12, giving visitors several months to view the tribute and search for the names of relatives and other service members.

Designed as a sweeping recognition of military service across American history, the monument includes more than 41 million names representing different generations and every branch of the U.S. armed forces.

The names continuously scroll across lines incorporated into large American flag displays, two of which have been erected on the National Mall. With tens of millions of individuals included, cycling through the complete list takes several days.

The United States Automobile Association (USAA), which sponsored the monument, said public interest has far exceeded expectations, with large numbers of visitors coming to locate their own names or those of relatives and loved ones who served.

“This was the first time for USAA to do something like this. We wanted to do something big for America 250, and just the feedback has been tremendous and overwhelming. You know, the lines of people hours long just to come pull up a loved one’s name or their own name on the monument and people told us they wanted it here longer,” said Christian Bove, USAA communications director. “So we listened and with the support of the National Park Service, we’re able to have this out here through November 12.”

A key element of the installation is its interactive design. Staff members are available to assist visitors in searching the enormous database and bringing a particular service member’s name onto the display.

Visitors can then pose for photographs alongside the displayed name, turning the massive national tribute into a personal memorial for families seeking to recognize an individual veteran or service member.

{Matzav.com}

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani opened a legal battle with the City Council on Wednesday, filing a lawsuit challenging legislation that would provide $10,000 bonuses to public-school paraprofessionals and arguing that lawmakers improperly interfered with the collective bargaining process.

The RESPECT Check Act, approved unanimously by the City Council in mid-July, awards every New York City school paraprofessional a $10,000 “workforce stabilization” payment. The measure attracted 47 co-sponsors, giving it more than enough support to override a mayoral veto.

Mamdani’s administration, however, contends that the legislation intrudes on authority that belongs to unions and the collective bargaining process. The mayor’s office argues that the measure runs afoul of New York’s Taylor Law, which governs labor relations involving public employees and requires compensation disputes to be handled through collective bargaining.

“We will not allow the political process to replace the collective bargaining table,” a Mamdani spokesperson, Matt Rauschenbach, said in a statement. “Instead of protecting that process, the City Council has passed legislation that undermines collective bargaining and sets a dangerous precedent: allowing politicians to bypass workers and their unions and dictate the terms of employment themselves.”

“A one-time payment does not solve the underlying, long-term pay inequities facing paraprofessionals,” Rauscenbach added.

The court fight puts Mamdani at odds not only with City Council Speaker Julie Menin, but also with powerful organized-labor groups that supported the legislation, including the New York City Central Labor Council and the United Federation of Teachers.

“The City Council would not have introduced — let alone passed — this bill if it were illegal, and we would not have supported a bill that threatened our collective bargaining rights,” UFT President Michael Mulgrew told The Hill Wednesday.

Menin and Council Member Carmen De La Rosa defended the measure in a joint statement Wednesday, arguing that the payments are both justified and financially prudent.

“This law is not only the right thing to do, it is also the fiscally responsible thing to do.”

The council members said the RESPECT Check program could help New York City combat its shortage of paraprofessionals, which they contend contributes to the roughly $1.5 billion the city spends resolving Carter Cases involving special-education services.

“The Council will vigorously defend the law,” the council members concluded.

Rauschenbach later said the Mamdani administration was already engaged in discussions with the UFT aimed at developing a permanent solution to shortages among school paraprofessionals. The UFT estimated in July that approximately 1,600 paraprofessional positions remained vacant across New York City.

The lawsuit also comes after Mamdani backed an earlier version of the proposal in 2025. That measure would have provided the supplemental payment as an annual recurring bonus, while the legislation ultimately enacted guarantees the $10,000 payments for only one year.

The City Council can renew the program after its initial year unless a collective bargaining agreement incorporates the expense by providing paraprofessionals with a pay increase of at least $10,000. Under that scenario, the city would repeal the bonus law.

{Matzav.com}

Iran is demanding financial compensation from Ukraine over a July strike on an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea, rejecting Kyiv’s assertion that the ship was hit accidentally and warning that Tehran will pursue reparations if Ukraine refuses to pay.

The dispute centers on a vessel struck last month that Iran insists was carrying civilian cargo. Ukrainian officials, however, have alleged that the ship was transporting Iranian weapons or military components to Russia for use in its war against Ukraine, while President Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Tehran of providing Moscow with drone weaponry.

The incident occurred in the Caspian Sea on July 25, when Ukraine initially reported that drones had attacked two Russian vessels carrying “military cargo from Iran.”

Iran subsequently said that one of the vessels was Iranian and maintained that it was a civilian ship transporting iron from Russia to an Iranian port. According to Tehran, one crew member was killed and two others were wounded in the attack.

Iran reacted furiously, branding the strike a “hostile and criminal” act of “terrorism” and summoning Ukraine’s charge d’affaires in Tehran to deliver an official protest. Iranian officials also accused Kyiv of attempting to link the Russia-Ukraine war with the U.S.-Iran confrontation and draw European countries into that conflict.

Zelensky initially defended Ukraine’s actions while expanding his allegations about cooperation between Moscow and Tehran. He charged that Iran was supplying Russia with drone weapons while Russia, in return, was giving Tehran “active Russian satellite surveillance of the Gulf states and U.S. military facilities located there.”

“There is a clear correlation between Russia’s satellite imagery ⁠of these sites and Iranian strikes — both before the attacks, in preparation for them, and afterward, to assess the damage inflicted,” he said.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel, Yevgen Korniychuk, also disputed Iran’s description of the vessel as an ordinary commercial ship, claiming it had been transporting drone and missile components from Iran to Russia rather than civilian goods.

Several days after the strike, the New York Times reported on July 28 that Tehran had considered retaliating by firing a ballistic missile at a Ukrainian seaport. The contemplated strike was reportedly designed to “make a symbolic point but cause relatively little damage.”

Diplomatic intervention reportedly persuaded Iran not to proceed with the proposed missile attack, with Tehran being warned that a Ukrainian response could prove considerably more serious than Iranian officials anticipated. Some analysts in Ukraine also cautioned that Kyiv could ill afford to become involved in another confrontation while continuing to battle Russia’s invasion.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later spoke by telephone with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, who told his Iranian counterpart that the attack on the cargo vessel had been “unintentional.” Sybiha had earlier rejected Araghchi’s allegations against Ukraine on social media, describing them as “Iranian lies.”

The dispute resurfaced on Aug. 10 when Tehran publicly rejected Kyiv’s explanation that the vessel had been struck by mistake and formally demanded compensation for the damage.

“We still believe that we have not been convinced by the Ukrainian side’s claim that this action was unintentional,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei.

“They must certainly compensate us. Naturally, if they do not compensate us, we will seek compensation ourselves,” he said.

Iran’s ambassador to Russia, Kazem Jalali, said Wednesday that Kyiv has still not provided compensation for what Tehran continues to describe as an “act of terrorism,” although he indicated that “negotiations” over the matter remain underway.

Jalali also argued that responsibility should extend beyond Ukraine to the Western countries supporting Kyiv.

“Ukraine’s European and American supporters must also accept their responsibility for Kyiv’s actions and hold them accountable,” he added.

British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband sharply escalated London’s criticism of Israel on Wednesday, demanding that the Israeli government immediately cancel a major housing tender in the E1 area and warning that Britain is preparing a broader package of measures targeting Israeli policies in Yehuda and Shomron.

Miliband’s condemnation came one day after Israel published a tender covering seven residential complexes with a combined 1,234 housing units in E1, located between Yerushalayim and Ma’ale Adumim. The project is part of a larger plan for roughly 3,400 homes in the area that received approval last August.

The British foreign secretary denounced the latest step and called on the Israeli government to rescind the tender and stop moving forward with the broader construction plans.

“This Israeli Government’s publication of a tender for the E1 settlement project is an unacceptable and destructive act. E1 would cut across the heart of Palestine and risks separating the West Bank from East Jerusalem, which would endanger the viability of a two-state solution,” Miliband said in a statement condemning the move.

Miliband maintained that Britain’s objections to construction in E1 have been repeatedly communicated to Israel, while reiterating London’s position that the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel remains necessary for achieving lasting peace.

“The UK has been clear privately and publicly in our opposition to E1 and our support for a two-state solution as the only way to ensure long-term security and peace for both Palestinians and Israelis. All settlements damage that prospect and are a flagrant breach of international law,” he claimed.

According to Miliband, he personally confronted Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar over the decision. Britain also summoned Israel’s Chargé d’Affaires to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to formally protest the tender.

“Today, I made clear to the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar that the Israeli Government must halt E1 plans immediately, retract the tender and stop all settlement expansion. In addition, the Israeli Chargé d’Affaires has been summoned to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where we set out the UK’s profound objection to this move by the Netanyahu government and demanded an immediate reversal,” said Miliband.

Miliband went further, signaling that the dispute would not end with diplomatic protests and saying the British government intends to unveil additional steps against Israeli policies in the coming weeks.

“Britain will not stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution. In the coming weeks we will set out a comprehensive set of measures to respond to Israeli government policies, protect the viability of the Palestinian state, target sanctions at those who participate in illegal settlement expansion and support a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians,” the UK Foreign Secretary declared.

The E1 project has long been a source of international pressure on Israel. After the broader construction plan was approved last year, approximately 20 countries joined together in a letter opposing development in the area.

David Lammy, who was serving as Britain’s foreign secretary at the time, similarly attacked the project, describing the construction as “a flagrant breach of international law.”

Miliband assumed the post of British foreign secretary last month as part of a sweeping Cabinet reshuffle carried out by newly installed Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

His latest criticism of Israeli building in Yehuda and Shomron is consistent with positions he has taken on Israel for more than a decade. As Labour Party leader in 2014, Miliband shifted the party away from its previous approach and adopted a more confrontational posture toward the Israeli government.

During Israel’s 2014 war against Hamas in Gaza, Miliband called the Israeli military campaign “wrong and unjustifiable” and took then-Prime Minister David Cameron to task over Britain’s response to Palestinian civilian casualties.

Later in 2014, Miliband instructed Labour members of Parliament to back a nonbinding motion supporting unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. That decision generated friction between Labour and some Jewish donors and communal organizations.

Miliband also toured a Bedouin site during a visit to the region and criticized the expansion of Israeli communities, calling it “wrong and illegal.”

Despite his repeated criticism of Israeli government policies, Miliband has also taken positions supportive of Israel on several major issues. In the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas massacres, he resisted demands for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, instead supporting temporary humanitarian pauses.

Miliband has additionally identified Hamas as a terrorist organization, characterized rocket fire targeting Israeli communities as “totally unjustified and appalling,” and rejected the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, arguing that BDS undermines prospects for peace.

Burnham, who replaced Keir Starmer as Britain’s prime minister, has likewise signaled that his government intends to pursue a tougher policy toward Israel. He apologized for Labour’s initial reaction to Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza and promised greater British pressure on the Israeli government.

Burnham has said his government would weigh further sanctions against Israeli individuals and organizations while also considering restrictions on trade involving products originating in areas he has characterized as “illegal settlements.”

The British prime minister has stopped short of labeling Israel’s military campaign in Gaza a genocide, saying that question should be determined by international courts rather than politicians. He has simultaneously pledged to continue combating antisemitism and has reiterated his condemnation of the October 7 Hamas attacks.

{Matzav.com}