U.S. population growth dipped to its lowest rate since the nation’s founding during the first year of the pandemic as the coronavirus curtailed immigration, delayed pregnancies and killed hundreds of thousands of U.S. residents, according to figures released Tuesday. 

The United States grew by only 0.1%, with only an additional 392,665 added to the U.S. population, from July 2020 to July 2021, according to population estimates released by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

The U.S. has been experiencing slow population growth for years but the pandemic exacerbated that trend. This past year was the first time since 1937 that the nation’s population grew by less than 1 million people. 

“Population growth has been slowing for years because of lower birth rates and decreasing net international migration, all while mortality rates are rising due to the aging of the nation’s population,” said Kristie Wilder, a Census Bureau demographer. “Now, with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, this combination has resulted in an historically slow pace of growth.” 

The population estimates are derived from calculating the number of births, deaths and migration in the U.S. For the first time, international migration surpassed natural increases that come from births outnumbering deaths. There was a net increase of nearly 245,000 residents from international migration but only around 148,000 from natural increase. 

Between 2020 and 2021, 33 states saw population increases and 17 states and the District of Columbia lost population. 
…

your ad here

Hundreds of protesters marched through the streets of Kabul on Tuesday to demand the United States unfreeze Afghanistan’s financial assets.

The protesters chanted anti-America slogans and gathered in front of the shuttered U.S. embassy in the Afghan capital, with banners reading, “Give us our frozen money” and “Let us eat.”

Separately, dozens of Afghan private business representatives organized a demonstration in Kabul to call for Washington to unlock the foreign reserve. They insisted the punitive measure directed at the Taliban have had “a devastating impact” on “non-political” Afghan private sector and ordinary workers.

Organizers distributed copies of an open letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in which they wrote that the collapse of the Western-backed Afghan administration left behind $600 million in unpaid bills for the services rendered under government contracts and internationally funded projects.

Washington blocked Kabul’s access to roughly $9.4 billion, mostly held in the U.S. Federal Reserve, immediately after the Islamist Taliban took control of the war-torn country in mid-August.

The freezing of the money and international sanctions have brought the Afghan economy, which heavily depended on external aid over the past 20 years, to the brink of collapse. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have also halted financial assistance for the development projects.

The crisis has increased humanitarian needs to record levels in Afghanistan, stemming from years of war, drought and extreme poverty. The United Nations estimates more than half of the nearly 40 million population face starvation, with 1 million children at risk of dying of “severe acute malnutrition.”

Letter To Biden

On Monday, a group of 46 mostly Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to U.S. President Joe Biden, pressing him to ease ongoing punitive sanctions and unblock the Afghan reserves.

“The U.S. confiscation of $9.4 billion in Afghanistan’s currency reserves held in the United States is contributing to soaring inflation and the shuttering of commercial banks and vital private businesses, plunging the country…deeper into economic and humanitarian crisis,” the lawmakers wrote.

They argued “punitive economic policies” will not weaken Taliban leaders but will rather hurt innocent Afghans who have already suffered decades of war and poverty.

The Biden administration responded that its hands are tied regarding frozen funds but it continues to support humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki, responding to a VOA question about the letter, told reporters that the status of the Afghan reserves was the subject of an ongoing litigation brought by victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks and other terrorist attacks “who hold judgments against the Taliban.”

“The Taliban remain sanctioned by the United States as a specially designated global terrorist group. That certainly has not changed, but this is, of course, complicated by the ongoing litigation over those funds,” Pasaki argued.

Analyst Torek Farhadi, a former Afghan official, said the Taliban need to make the central bank completely independent, with non-Taliban professional leadership and auditable by the IMF.

“The U.S. needs funds to go for aid and not the security sector. Audits of the central bank can answer to that. This can pave the way for release of reserve funds in tranches through Afghanistan’s central bank and support the Afghan economy much more effectively,” Farhadi said.

The Biden administration is pressing the Islamist group to cut ties with terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, end reprisals against Afghans affiliated with the deposed government, rule Afghanistan inclusively, uphold human rights, and allow women to fully participate in public life and girls to seek an education.
…

your ad here

Political repression is prompting thousands of Chinese to seek asylum in countries outside of China, including the United States, each year, claiming persecution or well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or other factors. Mike O’Sullivan spoke with two immigrants from China who reached the United States by very different paths.

Camera: Mike O’Sullivan, Roy Kim
…

your ad here

A group of 46 mostly Democratic lawmakers Monday wrote a letter to U.S. President Joe Biden, pressing him to “conscientiously but urgently” take steps to help avert a looming humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan.  

The lawmakers asked Biden to quickly ease ongoing punitive sanctions and unblock the Afghan central bank’s foreign reserves, which Washington withheld immediately after the Taliban militarily seized control of the country from the U.S.-backed government in mid-August.  

“We are also deeply concerned that sanctions against Taliban officials now in charge of governmental functions are creating a chilling effect for financial institutions and aid organizations serving Afghanistan,” the letter read. 

 

The White House responded later in the day that its hands are tied regarding frozen funds but that the United States continues to support humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan.   

The sanctions and abrupt suspension of international assistance have left the Afghan economy, which heavily depended on external aid over the past 20 years, on the brink of collapse.    

The crisis has increased humanitarian needs, stemming from years of war, drought and extreme poverty in Afghanistan. The United Nations estimates more than half of the nearly 40 million population face starvation, with 1 million children at risk of dying of “sever acute malnutrition.”

“The U.S. confiscation of $9.4 billion in Afghanistan’s currency reserves held in the United States is contributing to soaring inflation and the shuttering of commercial banks and vital private businesses, plunging the country…deeper into economic and humanitarian crisis,” the lawmakers wrote.   

They argued “punitive economic policies” will not weaken Taliban leaders but will rather hurt innocent Afghans who have already suffered decades of war and poverty. “We fear, as aid groups do, that maintaining this policy could cause more civilian deaths in the coming year than were lost in 20 years of war.” 

The Afghan economic “pain and humanitarian collapse” both threaten to trigger a new refugee crisis throughout the region, the letter warned. 

Aid agencies working in Afghanistan are calling for scaling up relief efforts, but they say the financial sanctions are hampering their operations. 

Congressional Republicans say the U.S. must not allow the Taliban to access any amount of funding, the Washington Post reported.  

The United States has not recognized the Taliban government nor has the rest of the world.    

The Biden administration is pressing the Islamist group to cut ties with terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, end reprisals against Afghans affiliated with the deposed government, rule Afghanistan inclusively, uphold human rights, and allow women to fully participate in public life and girls to seek an education.   

The letter deplored the Taliban government’s grave human rights abuses, crackdowns on civil society and repression of women. 

“However, pragmatic U.S. engagement with the de facto authorities is nevertheless key to averting unprecedented harm to tens of millions of women, children and innocent civilians,” it added.   

“Ongoing engagement with the Taliban to coordinate access to urgently needed hard currency can provide the necessary leverage to secure human rights improvements,” argued the letter from U.S. lawmakers.   

White House press secretary Jen Psaki, responding to a VOA question about the letter, told reporters that the status of the Afghan reserves was the subject of an ongoing litigation brought by victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks and other terrorist attacks “who hold judgments against the Taliban.”   

Psaki stressed the legal proceedings cannot be disregarded and the administration continues to face difficult questions like how the funds can be made available to directly benefit the people of Afghanistan while ensuring the Taliban do not benefit from them. 

“The Taliban remain sanctioned by the United States as a specially designated global terrorist group. That certainly has not changed, but this is, of course, complicated by the ongoing litigation over those funds,” she argued.  

Washington has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan this year and vowed to work with international partners to facilitate the delivery of relief assistance to Afghans.    

The U.S. Treasury decided earlier this month to allow personal and non-personal remittances to be made to Afghans while donors agreed to transfer $280 million from the World Bank-administered Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund.  

However, the U.N.-led relief community says the scale of the rapidly deteriorating Afghan humanitarian emergency requires much more than what is currently being done.  

“Afghanistan’s economy is now in free fall, and that if we do not act decisively and with compassion, I fear that this fall will pull down the entire population with it,” U.N. humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths warned on Sunday.   

Griffiths told an Afghanistan conference of Islamic countries in neighboring Pakistan that Afghan health facilities are overflowing with malnourished children, some 70% of teachers are not being paid, and millions of Afghan children are out of school, noting that prices of key commodities continue to rise. 

Anita Powell contributed to this report.
…

your ad here

Warning that extremism in the ranks is increasing, Pentagon officials issued detailed new rules Monday prohibiting service members from actively engaging in extremist activities. The new guidelines come nearly a year after some current and former service members participated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol, triggering a broad department review. 

According to the Pentagon, fewer than 100 military members are known to have been involved in substantiated cases of extremist activity in the past year. But it warns that the number may grow given recent spikes in domestic violent extremism, particularly among veterans.

Officials said the new policy doesn’t largely change what is prohibited but is more of an effort to make sure troops are clear on what they can and can’t do, while still protecting their First Amendment right to free speech. And for the first time, it is far more specific about social media.

The new policy lays out in detail the banned activities, which include advocating terrorism, supporting the overthrow of the government, fundraising or rallying on behalf of an extremist group, or “liking” or reposting extremist views on social media. 

The rules also specify that for someone to be held accountable, commanders must determine two things: that the action was an extremist activity, as defined in the rules, and that the service member “actively participated” in that prohibited activity. 

Previous policies banned extremist activities but didn’t go into such great detail. They also did not specify the two-step process to determine whether someone was accountable.

What was wrong yesterday is still wrong today, one senior defense official said. But several officials said that as a study group spoke with service members this year, they found that many wanted clearer definitions of what was not allowed. The officials provided additional details about the rules on condition of anonymity because they were not made public.

Extremists in the ranks 

The military has long been aware of small numbers of white supremacists and other extremists among the troops. But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other leaders launched a broader campaign to root out extremism in the force after it became clear that military veterans and some current service members were present at the January 6 insurrection.

In a message to the force on Monday, Austin said the department believes that only a few service members violate their oath and participate in extremist activities. But, he added, “even the actions of a few can have an outsized impact on unit cohesion, morale and readiness — and the physical harm some of these activities can engender can undermine the safety of our people.” 

The risk of extremism in the military can be more dangerous because many service members have access to classified information about sensitive military operations or other national security information that could help adversaries. And extremist groups routinely recruit former and current service members because of their familiarity with weapons and combat tactics. 

The number of substantiated cases may be small compared with the size of the military, which includes more than 2 million active-duty and reserve troops. But the number appears to be an increase over previous years, where the totals were in the low two digits. But officials also noted that data have not been consistent, so it is difficult to identify trends. 

The new rules do not provide a list of extremist organizations. Instead, it is up to commanders to determine if a service member is actively conducting extremist activities based on the definitions, rather than on a list of groups that may be constantly changing, officials said.

Membership prohibited 

Asked whether troops can simply be members of an extremist organization, officials said the rules effectively prohibit membership in any meaningful way — such as the payment of dues or other actions that could be considered “active participation.” 

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters that “there’s not a whole lot about membership in a group that you’re going to be able to get away with.” He added, “In order to prove your membership, you’re probably going to run afoul of one of these criteria.” 

Kirby also said that commanders will evaluate each case individually, so simply clicking “like” on one social media post, for example, might not merit punishment depending on all the circumstances involved.

He also noted that the Pentagon does not have the ability or desire to actively monitor troops’ personal social media accounts. Those issues would likely come up if reported to commanders or discovered through other means. 

The regulations lay out six broad groups of extremist activities and then provide 14 different definitions that constitute active participation. 

Soon after taking office, Austin ordered military leaders to schedule a so-called “stand-down” day and spend time talking to their troops about extremism in the ranks.

The new rules apply to all the military services, including the Coast Guard, which in peacetime is part of the Department of Homeland Security. They were developed through recommendations from the Countering Extremist Activities Working Group. And they make the distinction, for example, that troops may possess extremist materials but can’t attempt to distribute them, and while troops can observe an extremist rally, they can’t participate, fund or support one.

The rules, said the officials, focus on behavior, not ideology. So service members can have whatever political, religious or other beliefs they want, but their actions and behavior are governed. 

In addition to the new rules, the Pentagon is expanding its screening of recruits to include a deeper look at potential extremist activities. Some activities may not totally prevent someone from joining the military but require a closer look at the applicant. 

The department is also expanding education and training for current military members, and, more specifically, those leaving the service who may be suddenly subject to recruitment by extremist organizations. 

More than 650 people have been charged in the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, including dozens of veterans and about a half dozen active-duty service members. 

 
…

your ad here

When the Biden administration and congressional Democrats revealed the climate change elements of the Build Back Better Act, environmentalist groups in the United States and around the world celebrated. The proposed $555 billion investment in renewable energy and other climate-friendly efforts would have been the largest in history, and it came with a promise that America would lead the way toward a greener future. 

On Sunday, though, that leadership role seemed to be suddenly snatched away, with the announcement by Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, that he would not support the bill.

Manchin has long made it known that he disagrees with some elements of the package, but he had been negotiating with his fellow Democrats as well as President Joe Biden as recently as a few days ago. White House officials reacted angrily to the announcement, which Manchin made in a Sunday morning television appearance, saying that his withdrawal of support amounted to a betrayal of a commitment he had made to the president. 

Manchin’s home state of West Virginia is disproportionately reliant on the fossil fuel industry for jobs and energy. A primary goal of the climate elements of the Build Back Better Act is to create economic incentives for American energy companies to transition away from fossil fuels. 

The $555 billion in climate spending in the bill was considered crucial to the U.S. being able to achieve its Nationally Determined Contribution – the reduction in emissions the U.S. pledged when it rejoined the Paris Climate agreement early this year. The pledge was to reduce total emissions to between 50% and 52% of 2005 levels by 2030. 

Blow to U.S. climate leadership 

John Noël, a senior climate campaigner with Greenpeace USA, called failure to pass the Build Back Better Act a “devastating” blow to the Biden administration’s ability to take a global leadership role on climate issues.

“It’s definitely hard for other countries to take us seriously when we talk such a big game on emissions cuts and try to show leadership, and then go back home and things are at a gridlock at the legislative level,” he told VOA. 

Michael Mehling, deputy director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told VOA that another about-face on climate policy by the U.S. risks creating a sense of pessimism about the possibility of progress. 

“The [European Union], for instance, has had so much historical whiplash from the U.S. joining the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the Kyoto Protocol, joining the Paris agreement, and leaving the Paris agreement … that this may sort of hit a groove that creates excessive pessimism.” 

Progress still possible 

Mehling, however, cautioned against assuming that all is necessarily lost.

“As always, with these kinds of Beltway politics, we’ll see the Senate regroup and the Democrats regroup in January, and there will probably be another version,” Mehling said. “That’s probably going to tone it down some more, make some more cuts. But it’s probably not all or nothing.” 

He also pointed out that there is still a lot that the Biden administration can do to address emissions by using executive orders and regulatory action rather than legislation. For example, he noted that the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to issue stricter emissions requirements for cars and light trucks. 

Noël, of Greenpeace, agreed, saying that Biden has alternatives. 

“Now that we know that Manchin is not going to cooperate, not going to do anything to help the Biden administration meet its greenhouse gas emissions goals and climate goals via legislation, that gives Biden a mandate to go all in on executive actions and do whatever it takes within his authority to constrain an out-of-control fossil fuel industry,” Noël said. 

Manchin’s concerns 

Manchin listed a number of reasons for his objections to the Build Back Better Act. Some were fiscal in nature. He said that he is concerned that the bill will add to the national debt and pointed out that many of the programs in the proposal have artificial “sunset” dates that make cost estimates come into line with Democratic promises that the bill would be fully paid for. 

Manchin argues that his colleagues don’t really plan on allowing provisions in the bill to expire, and that the true cost is therefore being hidden. 

Additionally, he has expressed concern about some of the nonclimate elements of the proposal, including a permanent expansion of a refundable child tax credit, implemented during the pandemic, that provides millions of American households with monthly checks worth several hundred dollars per child. 

Electrical grid worry 

However, some of Manchin’s stated concerns left experts puzzled. For example, the West Virginia Democrat claimed that the Build Back Better Act would “risk the reliability of our electric grid” by trying to transition to renewable energy more rapidly. He pointed to power outages in Texas and California over the past few years, saying similar crises would result from implementing the Build Back Better Act. 

Historically, objections to the transition to renewable energy have included the concern that the intermittent nature of some renewable power, like solar and wind, might mean power isn’t available when Americans need it most.

Experts disagreed sharply, arguing that the climate portions of the bill would make large investments in strengthening the U.S. electrical grid. 

“The Build Back Better Act would provide some key provisions like transmission support that would improve the reliability of the grid,” said Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies, a consulting firm that works on electricity transmission issues.

“Utilities in the industry have shown they can operate perfectly reliably with high penetration of wind and solar energy in the system, and Build Back Better advances wind and solar energy to get closer to climate goals,” Gramlich told VOA. “That shouldn’t, in any way, harm reliability.” 

Coal country support 

Manchin, as a senator from West Virginia, represents a constituency that has historically relied on the fossil fuel industry for many of its jobs. The state has large coal mining and natural gas extraction industries, which wield significant political power. 

Chris Hamilton, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, said his organization is grateful that Manchin blocked the bill. 

“We are fully supportive of the senator’s actions and his strong opposition to the Build Back Better legislation,” Hamilton told VOA. “We think that this provides a lot of relief to a lot of West Virginia workers, particularly those that work within the fossil fuel industries.” 

Manchin also has deep personal connections to the coal industry. He owns between $1 million and $5 million in shares of Enersystems, a coal brokerage that he founded. The company is now run by his son. Enersystems has paid him nearly $5 million over the past decade. 

When asked about this apparent conflict of interest, Manchin has historically protested that his assets are held in a blind trust. However, his Senate financial disclosure forms expressly name Enersystems. 

Republicans praise Manchin 

Republicans in Congress were quick to praise Manchin on Sunday for his decision to block the Biden administration’s top legislative priority. 

“President Biden’s mega-spending bill is dead and Joe Manchin put the nail in the coffin,” Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse said in a statement. “With a divided country, a 50-50 Senate, and blowout inflation, the American people don’t want to upend this country with nakedly partisan legislation.” 

Manchin has the ability to single-handedly scuttle the Build Back Better Act because the 100-member Senate is split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have control because Vice President Kamala Harris has the authority to cast tie-breaking votes.

But because most Senate business requires a 60-vote majority to overcome the delaying tactic known as the “filibuster,” Democrats have only a small number of opportunities to pass legislation with a simple majority. The Build Back Better Act takes advantage of one of those, in a process called “budget reconciliation.” 

 
…

your ad here

Former President Donald Trump sued New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, seeking to end a yearslong civil investigation into his business practices that he alleges is purely political.

In the lawsuit, filed two weeks weeks after James requested that Trump sit for a Jan. 7 deposition, Trump contends the probe into matters including his company’s valuation of assets has violated his constitutional rights in a “thinly-veiled effort to publicly malign Trump and his associates.”

The lawsuit describes James, a Democrat, as having “personal disdain for Trump” and points to numerous statements she’s made targeting him in recent years, including her support of “die-in” protests against him, her boast that her office sued his administration 76 times and tweets during her 2018 campaign that she had her “eyes on Trump Tower” and that Trump was “running out of time.”

“Her mission is guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent,” the former president’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Trump and his company, the Trump Organization.

James had announced a run for New York governor in late October, but earlier this month, she suspended that campaign and cited ongoing investigations in her decision to instead seek reelection as state attorney general.

Trump, a Republican, seeks a permanent injunction barring James from investigating him and preventing her from being involved in any “civil or criminal” investigations against him and his company, such as a parallel criminal probe she’s a part of that’s being led by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

Trump is also seeking a declaratory judgment stating that James has violated his free speech and due process rights and that her investigation constitutes “impermissible state action” to “retaliate against, injure and harass a political opponent,” in violation of the Constitution.

In a statement, James said: “The Trump Organization has continually sought to delay our investigation into its business dealings and now Donald Trump and his namesake company have filed a lawsuit as an attempted collateral attack on that investigation.”

“To be clear, neither Mr. Trump nor the Trump Organization get to dictate if and where they will answer for their actions. Our investigation will continue undeterred because no one is above the law, not even someone with the name Trump.”

News of the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Albany, was first reported by The New York Times.

James has spent more than two years investigating whether the Trump Organization misled banks or tax officials about the value of assets — inflating them to gain favorable loan terms or minimizing them to reap tax savings.

Last year, James’ investigators interviewed one of Trump’s sons, Trump Organization executive Eric Trump. Her office went to court to enforce a subpoena on the younger Trump and a judge forced him to testify after his lawyers abruptly canceled a previously scheduled deposition.

Trump’s lawsuit didn’t explicitly mention James’ request for his testimony, aside from a brief reference. But it’s clear he won’t be showing up Jan. 7, James’ requested date, to answer questions voluntarily. As with Eric Trump, James’ office will now likely have to issue a subpoena and go to a judge to order the former president to cooperate.

It is rare for law enforcement agencies to issue a civil subpoena for testimony from a person who is also the subject of a related criminal probe, in part because the person under criminal investigation could simply invoke the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. It is unlikely that Trump’s lawyers would allow him to be deposed unless they were sure his testimony couldn’t be used against him in a criminal case.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is conducting a parallel criminal investigation into Trump’s business dealings. Although the civil investigation is separate, James’ office has been involved in both. Earlier this year, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. gained access to the longtime real estate mogul’s tax records after a multiyear fight that twice went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Vance, a Democrat who is leaving office at the end of the year, recently convened a new grand jury to hear evidence as he weighs whether to seek more indictments in the investigation, which resulted in tax fraud charges in July against the Trump Organization and its longtime CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Weisselberg pleaded not guilty to charges alleging he and the company evaded taxes on lucrative fringe benefits paid to executives.

Both investigations are at least partly related to allegations made in news reports and by Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, that Trump had a history of misrepresenting the value of assets.

James’ office issued subpoenas to local governments as part of the civil probe for records pertaining to Trump’s estate north of Manhattan, known as Seven Springs, and a tax benefit Trump received for placing land into a conservation trust. Vance later issued subpoenas seeking many of the same records.

James’ office has also been looking at similar issues relating to a Trump office building in New York City, a hotel in Chicago and a golf course near Los Angeles. Her office also won a series of court rulings forcing Trump’s company and a law firm it hired to turn over troves of records.
…

your ad here

Israeli ministers on Monday agreed to ban travel to the United States, Canada and eight other countries amid the rapid, global spread of the omicron variant. 

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s office announced the decision following a Cabinet vote. 

The rare move to red-list the U.S. comes amid rising coronavirus infections in Israel and marks a change to pandemic practices between the two nations with close diplomatic relations. The U.S. will join a growing list of European countries and other destinations to which Israelis are barred from traveling, and from which returning travelers must remain in quarantine. 

A parliamentary committee is expected to give the measure final approval. Once authorized, the travel ban will take effect at midnight Wednesday morning. 

Israel has seen a surge in new cases of the more infectious coronavirus variant in recent weeks, and began closing its borders and restricting travel in late November. Foreign nationals are not allowed to enter, and all Israelis arriving from overseas are required to quarantine — including people who are vaccinated. 

Other countries that were approved to be added to the travel ban starting Wednesday are Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Morocco, Portugal, Switzerland and Turkey. 

Israel rolled out a world-leading vaccination campaign early this year, and more than 4.1 million of Israel’s 9.3 million people have received a third dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. 

In a prime-time address on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett urged parents to vaccinate their children, declaring that the country’s “fifth wave” of coronavirus infections had begun. As of Sunday, Israel’s Health Ministry has reported 175 cases of the new variant. 

Israel has recorded at least 8,232 deaths from coronavirus since the start of the pandemic. 
…

your ad here