 Salam from the People's Dispatch studios here in New Delhi. I'm Siddhanthani and you're watching Daily Debrief. It's a packed show today and on the show we're talking about who gains from sabotaging gas pipelines between Russia and Europe, why the Israeli police provide cover for extremist intrusions into the Al Aqsa Mosque complex, and why the United States of America is unable to meet its own targets for admitting refugees. In a dramatic escalation, seismologists reported explosions around the two parallel Nord Stream pipelines that European leaders including the head of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen and the Danish and Swedish governments have said sabotage is the likely cause for. Russia says it's not ruling out any of the options either. Nord Stream 1 suffered two leaks, the northeast of the Danish island of Bornholm, while Nord Stream 2 was damaged south of Tverode, a beach located on the island's southernmost tip. The energy aspect of the Russia-Ukraine war is increasingly important as both a negotiating tool and even a potential means to an end to the conflict, given that Ukraine's military is functioning largely on European and of course American money. The question that naturally arises is if these two pipelines are rendered nothing more than scrap metal at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, who stands to benefit, and who of course will face the most serious impact. I spoke to news click editor-in-chief Pribir Bukhaisa to figure that part out. Pribir, first up, the leaders of the EU as well as the prime ministers or the heads of government of Denmark and Sweden are calling these acts of sabotage. So who in this case would be the saboteurs and how are you viewing what is going on exactly under the sea? Well, since neither they nor we have any evidence who are the saboteurs, we are only getting into conjectures who benefits as the argument would be who benefits most from the crime. Now, if you take the obvious issue that the two countries which have the most to benefit from the crime would be United States, because they have been asking for a complete embargo on all Russian gas to be used by the EU and of course Ukraine who also would like the gas to be stopped completely. Of course, nothing was flowing to Nord Stream 1 or 2 at the moment. Nord Stream 1 was essentially something which the Germans were willing to buy from, but Russia had actually stopped it saying that the turbines are not working, maintenance problems are there, sanctions are there for the siemens to really service those turbines and so on. So Nord Stream 1 was in that way in a bit of a suit right now, but Russia had also said Nord Stream 2 they could supply it anytime they want and all that Germany has to say is yes. It's also true the pressure has been building up in Germany. In fact, the vice president of the parliament had also said that we should not wait for winter in our economy to collapse. We should already start Nord Stream 2 so that we can get adequate gas and that was Russia's offer that yes, Nord Stream 2 was in trouble technically, but Nord Stream 1 is in trouble. Nord Stream 2 we have the ability there are no sanctions because they're all Russian turbines and compressors so we can supply to Nord Stream 2 and it's a fully pressurized pipe. So therefore it does appear that it is completely counter-intuitive to argue that is Russia who sabotaged the pipeline because that is their only source of pressure right now. On European Union and particularly in the general, which is the linchpin of the European Union sanctions at the moment and then lose that leverage for no particular reason. I've heard conspiracy theories that somehow Putin did not want to get deposed. Therefore he calls the sabotage. These are actually very very panciful. So I would go by the old fashioned principle who benefits. And in this case obviously the US was most interested in continuing EU sanctions, particularly German sanctions are not buying gas from Russia. And of course Ukraine is involved but there's also another interesting sideline which somebody has written about. Aaron Johnson, he again is someone who's been writing on this issue. He said that the Polish Baltic pipeline just started on the same day. So his argument is of course Poland could also be a part of it. Again amount of gas flowing into Poland from the pipeline that started is only a small amount compared to what Nord Stream 1 and 2 can do. So I don't see that as a major issue really. It's not a competition to Nord Stream 1 or 2 in terms of capacity. It's just about supplies Poland Polish needs. So I still would find it difficult to understand who would be involved in the in the summertime except it does seem the US, the UK of course also has the capability. These are two parties who don't need your gas from Russia. So they could have an interest in it. I don't really see anybody else who has a stake in some of the pipeline, but if we look at the sequence of events, that's not an interesting part. One explosion takes place at 2am or so but thereabouts in the morning. Other one takes in the evening at about 8pm or so. So it is not something which is therefore unplanned. It seems to have been planned and it seems that the same set of some of the years could be involved moving from one side to the other. That's what the logical interpretation would be and the Nord Stream 1 of course does not contain much gas. The pressure is low but Nord Stream 2 is a pressurized pipeline with a lot of gas. And of course that once these pipelines have been sabotaged at the level that they have, it's really virtually at the bottom of the sea. Of course the shallow sea, so it's not a deep ocean or sea. But it's still, it's the repair is not going to be something that's easy, even if there is no more. Europe's energy supplies and security as well as of course the impact that it's having on consumers and people who are facing a massive cost of living crisis is going to worsen before it gets better. That much is clear. But it's also probably going to be a decisive factor in that war that you were mentioning and how long it continues. What's the larger picture on that front? Again the question of war really depends on both the sides having the will to fight. And as of now NATO is willing to pump weapons into Ukraine, is willing to support its falling economy and Russia is willing to fight and Ukraine is also willing to fight. So I don't see any massive change in the scenario. In fact, what could have happened is if the winter really comes where the heating needs go up of the people and they run out of stored gas, which is the argument is they have about two to half months of stored gas, after which they have to face winter without stored gas. And the regular supply of LNG is not going to be enough to keep Germany and other European countries war. So given that there was to the pressure and maximum pressure to be faced by Germany, cold and also dependent on Russian gas. So the fact that they are going to be under pressure means the economy is also going to be under pressure because the German industry would also come to a halt. High prices of gas and high prices of electricity, which have discussed earlier. So Germany was the one which could break ranks and that was the fear which was there. It is true during this winter, we are going to see large scale problems for Western Europe and also for the United Kingdom because of the price of electricity, we have discussed it earlier why this to some extent it's an artificial prices, but nevertheless, given the way the grid behaves, the bulk of the responsibility for paying the high cost of gas and the high cost of electricity, which is not why it should have been like that because after all gas only supplies about 10-12% of German electricity. But the way the grid is structured, the high price gets fixed to the price of gas. Given that the European people are going to face, particularly Germany are going to face a difficult winter. And the industry is going to face a very difficult scenario and a lot of them have stopped working already because the cost of electricity is too high particularly for industries which need a lot of electricity. So given that the pressure that is going to mount on the German economy, other European countries, I don't see a way out at the moment for them. And it does seem there is going to be to some extent the de-industrialization over the same Western Europe. How the people will react? What are the long term political implications? We don't know. But sabotaging a pipeline is a escalation of the war. And we should not only think of the economic implications because if you are physically willing to up the ante and that's what a sabotage of the gas pipeline means, that is really a physical act of war. And this is a physical act of war against Russian asset, which is the two pipelines. So this is a very dangerous point because if Russia also escalates, what is escalation going to be, response is going to be, is a difficult question to answer. But it's very unlikely that they will have no response. So because after all, if you allow your assets to be attacked like this, and you see common assets for everybody are at risk because after all pipelines do go over oceans, transatlantic cables go over oceans, then till date the argument is we don't touch it even during war because both are vulnerable. But if you break the taboo, then it's all very dangerous escalation. All right. Thank you very much for your time today, Prabir. Ultra nationalist Israeli settlers on Tuesday for the third day running entered the Al Aqsa mosque in occupied East Jerusalem. They were backed by Israeli police and other government forces and performed prayers inside the mosque compound. Several Palestinians have been injured during these intrusions and many more arrested. While access to the complex was largely blocked off to Palestinians. The mosque is a powerful symbol of the Palestinian resistance and as the Jewish New Year passes and Yom Kippur approaches, those on the ground fear more such violent incursions will follow. Abdul Rehman has all the details. Abdul at a time that is a time of celebration, I guess a time of some prayer and I suppose doing things with your closest and your dearest. Instead this group of ultra nationalists is choosing a very sort of violent and aggressive approach to things and it's not something new either. We've seen this becoming almost a serial sort of practice now. What is the latest you're hearing and how are you, what are the reports coming in from the ground? As for the reports from the ground, the Israeli security forces were basically attacking the Palestinians again yesterday night. That is the latest we know about and they have barricaded as it is already reported the different parts of the old Jerusalem. And they are not they were not allowing the Palestinians to move to go to Al Aqsa and pray there. Only the people who were above Koti that some reports argue that only they were allowed to go. Some of them are saying that even they were not allowed to go and pray. Meanwhile, the ultra nationalist settlers primarily who have been campaigning for a very long time to basically something against the Al Aqsa mosque. They have questioned the religious sanctity of the mosque itself. And basically moving inside the compound freely. Descorating the religious symbols and religious sanctity of the compound dancing provocative provocative way. And all those things are already have there were happening until very recently. Apart from that there are also reports of kind of these settlers also attacking the Palestinians who have been allowed to go in and pray on some occasions. We saw the video from Monday in which one of the elder elder elderly Palestinian worshipper was pushed by a crowd which basically consists of Israeli security forces and these settlers. We have also seen visuals from the mosque compound in which we see Israeli security forces provocatively pushing and asking the people who are already inside Palestinians who are already inside to locate the premises. So all these things are happening and this is nothing new we have seen it happening many times in the past. Particularly it reminds what happened last year during the month of Ramadan when hundreds of Palestinians were injured and arrested during similar attacks by the Israeli security forces and the extremist, internationalist Jewish settlers. Given sort of the kind of backing that these extremists have it's very clear that they have I mean state sanctions so it's not can't be regarded as the actions of just a small fringe. It's very much sort of and again the number of occasions on which these incidents are taking place. It is sort of almost seeming like it's part of the policy. It is if you see, see at this moment we can say that there is an election coming and the right government in Israel do not want to antagonize these their potential voters. So of course that that thinking is still there the unfortunately Israelis in election for last for last two and a half years. This is an election coming. So, so the incidents, which times of Israel also reports have increased the repeated attacks on us. Alexa has increased tremendously in last few years. One of the reasons of course is the popular need of allowing such extremists to kind of garner votes. So Israeli state in general is not expected to allow such movements of extremist Jews, allowing them to train site to do all kinds of rituals inside that is not allowed at all. As per the 1967 68 agreement with Jordanian, the Jews are only allowed to visit them to the mosque as a tourist. They can pray but pray outside the mosque compound. So it is allowed primarily because of course there's an element of appeasement, which is there. But apart from that, I think this will be very, it will be a simplification to see only as an appeasement. It is also a structural attempt to change the facts on the ground. Continuous regular allowance. This also leads to different kinds of legal cases in the Israeli codes. And we have seen that in last two, three years Israeli courts have have gone on and off on the rights of Jews to pray inside the mosque compound. So this deliberate attempt to create confusion about the status of the compound on the one side and allowing physical influence inside the compound on the other side should be seen together as a base as an attempt to change the facts on the ground to basically gradually kind of create grounds for expropriation of the Palestinian land. But it will not be easy of course we have seen that this is also today by the way is the 22nd anniversary of the second Intifada when Israel tried to do similar provocation in 2000 visited the mosque compound which led to a mass uprising all across the Palestine. Hamas and other Arab countries, including the Arab League have warned of similar consequences if Israel continues to try this attempted change of the status quo. So I think there is also kind of we can see what is happening in Al-Aqsa as a case study of what has happened to the Palestinians since 1967. Gradual attempt to expropriate and a fierce resistance from the Palestinians. Thanks for putting that in a very clear picture and perspective Abdul. And finally the US government's budget year comes to a close at the end of this week and President Joe Biden has said his administration will keep the target for admitting refugees into the country at 125,000 per year. Activists and advocates for refugees have been clamoring for an increase and demanding the US do much more particularly given its role in conflicts and other conditions leading to mass displacement around the world. The other interesting part of the story is that the government has failed to come anywhere close to meeting this target. Only about 20% of that 125,000 number were admitted in the 11 months leading up to the end of August this year. Anish Tadakrishan covers the region for People Dispatch and joins us for more. Anish, why is the Joe Biden administration finding it so difficult to meet its own targets for the number of refugees it allows to admit or it admits into the US? Well, part of that and what the White House often gives as a reason for the low intake of refugees is the fact that the refugee resettlement system, the entire machinery was essentially dismantled under the Trump administration. To the point where more than a third of these refugee centers were closed down, many of the workers were let go because there were not many people to take in because a large part of the efforts were put under the Trump administration were put to detain and deport the asylum seekers rather than take them in. Now, the thing is that while the Biden administration did hike the refugee cap, it didn't barely anything to actually make it easier for that many refugees to enter. So it's pretty much staying at the same level that the Trump administration basically it's about 20, 25,000 per annum. And that's the cap that that is pretty much where the levels of refugee admission is happening right now in the United States. On top of that, there was also the whole thing about the US focusing a large part of its efforts to rehabilitate political refugees in focusing more specifically on Ukraine and Afghanistan, because obviously it has been supposed to make in those countries. And so it pretty much focused much of its efforts and resources into rehabilitating refugees from those countries, rather than a large number of refugees that do come from across the border, or even in from other parts of the world. So it's pretty much 100 and the figures estimate something around 180,000 people were put under what is called as humanitarian parole and that itself shows that the US is definitely capable of making things happen and making admissions. Not quickly as well. Exactly, exactly. It happened in a span of a very short period of time, with at least 100,000 of these being just from Ukraine. And that shows that the capability exists, but it's just that the US, the Biden administration has done very, very little, almost nothing in many ways to actually make sure that the refugee admission system is rebuilt or at least brought to working capacity. So clearly I reach the capabilities there, but the political will is lacking. And now with global numbers of those displaced for various reasons, a conflict being of course the prime among them, having reached over 90 million, and the US being the richest country in the world and able to deploy the kind of resources that it can. I guess the question is, shouldn't they be doing more even this gap that the Biden administration calls ambitious is only 125,000 is a very small fraction of the global number of people looking for refuge. Yes, definitely. I mean, one part of one way to look at it is the fact that a large number of these conflicts that we're talking about that is displaced millions, tens of millions of people around the world has more or less something to do with the United States to begin with. So there is definitely a greater responsibility on the part of the United States to actually make sure that it's refugee admission system work, but that is not happening. We very recently talked about this whole Republican Democrat conflict over refugee admissions and my immigrant entry in Texas and the whole bus thing that were where you had migrants being busted to New York City and DC, but if you look at the very nuances of things. The differences between the two factions is very, very little, to the point that it's very difficult to actually pinpoint that it's just the part, it's just the rhetoric part that they are, that any kind of distinction. And it shows that any effort because Biden administration has been criticized time and again for falling short in making any efforts to deliver on whole host of campaign promises that it had brought up before coming to power. And this refugee admission is just one of them, even the 125,000 which is freed from era kind of refugee admission numbers at the time when global displacement at refugee numbers were also low, much lower than what we have today. It's trying to call, as you said, trying to call it ambitious even though there are actual social workers on the ground who say that this is really not enough and this needs to be amended to actually cater to the real needs where large number of refugees are trying to resettle and find refuge in the United States. And this, again, this is all part of the very lack of political will or any kind of will to begin with are the part of the Biden administration to actually make efforts to make things smoother and, you know, workable rather than actual lack of resources or, you know, machinery. Right. So as things stand, the can is just kicked down to the next financial year and we'll see what efforts may or may not be made, but indicators are that pretty much very little focus, yeah, there. All right. Thanks very much, Anish, for that update. That brings this episode of Daily Debrief to a close. As always, thank you very much for watching. For more details on these stories and all of the other work we do, head over to our website peoplesdispatch.org and don't forget to follow us on the social media platform of your choice. Thanks again for watching. We'll see you tomorrow. Goodbye.