Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
A Gazan man kisses the foot of his dead baby, killed in an Israeli strike
Further

A War Against Humanity Itself

Amidst the ongoing, unfathomable slaughter, hunger, maiming, razing in Gaza at the hands of Israel's "voracious death machine," its leaders now openly vow "total and utter destruction" by what they still grotesquely call "one of the most moral militaries in the world," murdered newborns and all. But the hypocrisies and protests mount. "One of this genocide’s aims is to drown us in our own sorrow," says one of Balfour's "savages." Part of their resistance, in turn, "is to talk about tomorrow in Gaza."

The litany from Israel's mass killing, "monstrous and largely indiscriminate," to date: Almost 35,000 dead Palestinians, including well over 14,000 "ungrievable" children; more than 77,000 wounded, half children; at least 17,000 orphans, 5,000 children whose limbs have been amputated, thousands more buried under rubble, a child killed or injured every 10 minutes; hundreds of dead journalists, doctors, teachers, poets, aid workers, academics; most homes leveled, along with 400 schools, 12 universities, over 30 hospitals; starvation levels "the highest ever recorded." Thanks in part to $26 billion more the U.S. just awarded  Israel, its "most decisive vote of confidence in genocide since the Indian Removal Act of 1830," the hellfire still rains down. Each day, the count grows: Air strikes kill 22, mostly children, kill 20, mostly children, kill 13, nine of them children, kill eight children and two women from one family, kill three women and six children. Fathers sob over small bodies, mourning "a world devoid of all human values." A strike killed a man, his very pregnant wife, and their three-year-old; doctors saved the baby. A sniper killed a West Bank man for going up on his roof; days later, his wife named their new son after him as their toddler played in sand strewn with his father's blood.

When upright IDF forces retreated from Nasser and Al-Shifa hospitals after mindlessly pulverizing them, rescue workers uncovered mass graves - up to 400 bodies in one, over 200 in another - of bodies mutilated, beheaded, hands tied behind them. The IDF detain medics, block Red Crescent ambulances, storm hospitals and attack staff even as new victims "pile up," bloody and stick-thin, in rubble-strewn facilities with no supplies. "You can't imagine it unless you see it," says an Egyptian doctor working in the north. His most haunting memory: One orphan, an arm amputated, a leg broken, almost entirely burned, "constantly asking where her father, mother and siblings were." Say other doctors, Gazan and foreign, of amputating limbs without anaesthesia, delivering babies at risk of starvation, laboring beneath the relentless noise and threat of drones where there is "no safe plae, even in our minds," "We are alive, but we are not OK." One Gazan doctor recalls a broken fellow-psychologist, leaning his head on his knees, in tears. "He asked me what he was supposed to do, where he was supposed to go," he said. "I had no answers to give him."

Still, Israel, "whose founders longed to be a light unto the nations," persists in its "gallop into the abyss" by blocking food aid and facilitating "catastrophic levels of hunger and starvation," a preventable famine “unprecedented in modern history." Rights workers say Gaza's entire population of 2.2 million do not have enough available calories; half are on the brink of starvation; a third of Gazan infants are acutely malnourished. In Rafah, where half of Gaza has taken shelter, dazed people spend their days "in a perpetual state of survival," seeking or standing in line for water and food. The trickle of aid is grossly inadequate, and often fatal: Having survived an air strike that killed 17 relatives but only wounded him - "God saved him," said his grandfather - Zein Oroq, 13, was killed when a pallet of beans, rice and other food dropped by an unopened parachute hit him in the head; the stampede of people "were also hungry" and didn't stop for him. When a pharmacist mother of three, displaced six times, got a text message of an UNRWA food voucher, she stood in line five hours to get two eggs. En route home, crying, she met her 70-year-old aunt who had lost her husband and two chiuldren in an airstrike. She gave her one egg; at the tent, "We divided the egg into portions to share."

Last month's targeted killing of sevenWorld Central Kitchen aid workers in a well-marked convoy - "it was very clear who we are and what we do" - seemed a sort of turning point: In what some called "a story of Western racism." The deaths of white foreigners, who "risked everything to feed people they did not know and will never meet," caused an outcry that many, while not diminishing their generous courage, couldn't help but note: "We need not delude ourselves that (media) would have run the story on its front page had the dead carried Arab names, (when) countless Palestinians, equally heroic and innocent, have been slaughtered by Israeli forces’ actions in the same way." The workers - a Palestinian, Australian, Pole, three Brits and a dual US-Canada national - were "the best of humanity," saidWCK founder and chef José Andrés. "The seven souls we mourn today were there so that hungry people could eat," he said at a remembrance. "There is no excuse for these killings." Angrily rejecting Israeli claims of "mistakes" - "the perpetrator cannot be investigating himself” - he argued "the death of one humanitarian, one child, one civilian is too many." "This doesn't seem anymore a war about defending Israel," he said. "At this point, it seems it’s a war against humanity itself.”

In the midst of Israel's far-right "Kahanist Spring," its political and military leaders are astonishingly unshy on that genocidal score. This week, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly called for "total annihilation" of Gaza: "There are no half measures - Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat...'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek'...There is no place for them under heaven." Echoing fellow war-monger Itamar Ben-Gvir - "God forbid, Israel does not enter Rafah, God forbid, we end the war" - Smotrich is so opposed to "strategic concessions" that would mean "the surrender of the State of Israel," he's threatened to boltNetanyahu's coalition if he doesn't invade Rafah: "I will pursue my enemies and destroy them. We should deliver the decisive blow." "In any normal country," notedHaaretz' lead editorial the next day, five minutes after his remarks (Netanyahu) would have convened a press conference, fired the minister in disgrace, and publicly declared (that) people with such a worldview have no place in the Israeli government." Instead, in Netanyahu's Israel, "the leader of the far right is openly advocating genocide, but there's not one person in the government willing to stand up and say 'enough'." Because, in Netanyahu's Israel, it apparently never is.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich calls for ‘utter destruction’ in Rafahwww.youtube.com

The grisly evidence is everywhere. On Friday, the eldest daughter, two-month-old grandson, and son-in-law of beloved Palestinian poet and mentor Refaat Alareer, assassinated last year in a targeted airstrike that also killed his brother, sister, and her four children, were reported killed in another strike in Gaza City. "I have beautiful news for you," wrote illustrator Shaima Refaat Alareer to her slain father after giving birth. "Do you know you have just become a grandfather? This is your first grandchild, Abdul Rahman...I never imagined I’d lose you so soon before you got to meet him." Heartbreak upon heartbreak, much like the murder of six-year-old Hind Rajab, who became a symbol of the carnage visited upon Gaza when she called for help - "I'm so scared, please come" - while trapped in a car with dead relatives under Israeli fire; weeks later, her decomposed body was found alongside them and an ambulance crew sent to rescue her, because in Netanyahu's Israel, nothing is still ever enough. "For too long, Palestinians have been lectured about the value of human life and dignity," says Gazan AFSC worker Yousef Aljamal of the "deafening international silence" on Israel's atrocities, "only to discover that the value of their lives and their dignity are exceptions to the rule."

Finally, though, the horrors have "struck a chord" on American campuses with the largest student anti-war protests since the end of the Vietnam War. Nationwide, dozens of solidarity encampments have sprung up, from UCLA to New York's NYU and Columbia University, where protesters unfurled a banner renaming the historic Hamilton Hall "Hinds Hall,” for Hind Rajab. Insisting they'll remain "inescapably visible," students cite the hypocrisies and contradictions "between what our governments say they stand for in terms of democracy, human rights, freedom, and (the) actions they are supporting in Gaza" - ostensibly promoting human rights but enabling genocide, supporting free speech but siccing violent police on peaceful protests, etc. Some schools - Northwestern, Johns Hopkins - have successfully negotiated compromises, like agreeing to review college investments in return for limiting protests; laudably - "This is democracy at work" - Brown agreed to a formal divestment vote from Israel. Still, the "unhinged" response by many school administrations and riot-geared law enforcement, including a Strategic Response Group meant to combat public unrest and “counter-terrorism," aka young people opposed to genocide, has been blasted as "an authoritarian escalation."

Speaking of: Netanyahu, meanwhile, clings to the rabid, rigid rhetoric he's used since Oct. 7, declaiming his "iron-clad determination to achieve the goals of our war" against "an outrageous assault on Israel's inherent right to self-defense" by "barbarians" and "genocidal terrorists," which evidently include newborns, six-year-olds, entire families and thousands of children, journalists, doctors, aid workers and other innocents. Reportedly worried the ICC may soon issue arrest warrants for himself and other Israeli leaders as "war criminals," he's made the "very unusual appeal" to families of the hostages - whom in his venomous investment in war he's declined to free when he repeatedly could have - "asking" them to lobby Hague officials not to arrest him. Posting a surreal speech with, "You have to hear this to believe this," he argues "trying to put Israel in the dock" for genocide would be "an outrage of historic proportions," the "first time a democratic country fighting for its life according to the rules of war is itself accused of war crimes," "fueling the fires of anti-Semitism already raging on campuses" and, by targeting "the democracy called Israel, (the) targeting of all democracies" in their fight against "savage terrorism and wanton aggression." Yes: phantasmal pot/kettle.

As he harangues, lest we forget, the head of UNICEF just declared of the harrowing conditions in Gaza, "Nearly all of the some 600,000 children now crammed into Rafah are either injured, sick, malnourished, traumatized, or living with disabilities." A UNICEF spokesperson began an op-ed with, "The war against Gaza's children is forcing many to close their eyes. Nine-year-old Mohamed's eyes were forced shut, first by the bandages that covered a gaping hole in the back of his head, and second by the coma caused by the blast that hit his family home. He is nine. Sorry, he was nine. Mohamed is now dead." In central and northern Gaza, surviving Palestinians seeking to return to their homes have found "only ruins, and the smell of death...The streets have turned to sand....It is not fit for life." And still they are terrorized: Rights groups say the IDF is luring returnees into the open with recordings of cries and screams to be shot at by snipers or drones. At Nuseirat refugee camp, a 35-year-old "son of this city" found only "mountains of rubble." Yet Gaza, he insists, has risen before: "I will wait for the water lines to be extended in the area, and I will put up a tent and sleep in it with my children." Says another former resident, "We will teach our children in tents, under the sun, and anywhere else."

"What does the liberation of Palestine mean?" asks philosopher Judith Butler, when "the grief over Jewish lives lost is very often humanized and memorialized in ways that Palestinian deaths are not." Simply, she offers "a vision of cohabitation," that Palestinians and Jews and other inhabitants of that land find a way to live together. Either next to each other or with one another, under conditions of radical equality," where occupation is dismantled. As a Jew, she also dismantles the myth that Jews, having suffered genocide, cannot be enacting genocide: "There is nothing that keeps a people who have suffered massively in life from afflicting massive suffering on others...There is nothing in the history of the world that precludes that." Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah, newly installed as Glasgow University Rector, has seen and lived that reality. Except for himself, all his forefathers were born in Palestine, a land given away by Arthur Balfour, a former Glasgow rector who in his 46-word declaration announcing British support for Palestine noted, "A survey of the world (shows) a vast number of savage communities." After a lifetime as a war surgeon, said Abu-Sittah, students at the school once headed by Winnie Mandela reached out to him, and "one of Balfour’s savages" was elected.

"Students understood what we have to lose when we allow our politics to become inhuman," said Abu-Sittah of what he views as a vote of solidarity with too-long-ignored Palestinian suffering. Citing "the ravening beast" that is "the genocidal erasure of a people," he argued Gaza is the "axis of genocide" by western powers: "The quadcopters and drones fitted with sniper guns - used so efficiently (one) night at Al-Ahli hospital we received over 30 wounded civilians shot outside our hospital - today in Gaza will be used tomorrow in Mumbai, Nairobi and Sao Paulo." For those who have "seen, smelt, and heard what the weapons of war do to a child’s body," have "amputated the unsalvageable limbs of wounded children," have witnessed the "othering" by which many would be horrified by "the barbarity" of Israel killing 14,000 puppies or kittens, but not children - for all those, somehow, he urged hope. "When powerlessness is at its most acute, the determination to think like a human being, creatively, courageously, complicatedly matters the most," he said. "It is your world to fight for. It is your tomorrow to make." Dedicating his address to dead family and colleagues, "but mostly to our land," he ended with the words of Bobby Sands: "Our revenge will be the laughter of our children."

SEE ALL
Plastics Treaty sculpture.
News

Lobbyist-Dominated Plastics Talks End Without Clear Path to Production Cuts

The fourth and second-to-last round of negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty concluded Tuesday with what campaigners called a "weak" and "disappointing" compromise, as countries did not agree to discuss curbing primary plastic production before the final session later this year.

The "underwhelming" result came at the close of talks in Ottawa, Canada, at which 196 fossil fuel or chemical industry lobbyists attended, a 37% increase from the third round of negotiations and more than the entire delegation of the European Union.

"People are being harmed by plastic production every day, but states are listening more closely to petrochemical lobbyists than health scientists," Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation to the negotiations and Greenpeace USA's global plastics campaign lead, said in a statement. "Any child can see that we cannot solve the plastic crisis unless we stop making so much plastic."

"The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations."

Civil society and frontline groups called reducing plastics production a "nonnegotiable" component of the treaty heading into the fourth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to advance a plastics treaty (INC-4), the continuation of a process launched at a United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi in 2022. However, when delegates agreed at the end of the latest negotiations to continue discussions of certain issues in "intersessional" work, this did not include a discussion of primary plastic polymers.

"From the beginning of negotiations, we have known that we need to cut plastic production to adopt a treaty that lives up to the promise envisioned at UNEA two years ago," said David Azoulay, the director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "In Ottawa, we saw many countries rightly assert that it is important for the treaty to address production of primary plastic polymers. But when the time came to go beyond issuing empty declarations and fight for work to support the development of an effective intersessional program, we saw the same developed member states who claim to be leading the world toward a world free from plastic pollution, abandon all pretense as soon as the biggest polluters look sideways at them."

The negotiations, which began April 23, were pulled between more ambitious countries—particularly Global South countries in Africa, Latin American, and the Pacific Islands—and the so-called "Like-Minded Group" of fossil fuel and polymer producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Kuwait, Qatar, and India. On the more ambitious side of the spectrum, Rwanda and Peru spearheaded a call for intersessional work on a plan to cut production of primary polymers by 40% of 2025 levels by 2040, which was backed by Malawi, the Philippines, and Fiji.

"While not high enough to avoid breaching the 1.5°C climate target, Rwanda and Peru's proposal is the first time a group of countries have put forward a specific target for plastic production cuts," environmental coalition GAIA said in a statement.

Another promising development was the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers, in which signatories promised to work toward maintaining a plastic production reduction commitment in line with the Paris agreement in the final treaty text, to be set in Busan, South Korea, at the end of 2024.

On the other hand, Break Free From Plastics said that some countries had obstructed the process by pressuring negotiators to agree to consensus, even though the procedure allows for voting when consensus cannot be reached. They also interfered with the drafting of the treaty itself.

"A small number of countries continued their obstructionist and low-ambition tactics—watering down, adding countless brackets, and shamelessly twisting the language across the different provisions in an attempt to narrow the scope and lower the ambitions of the treaty," the group said.

However, GAIA said that negotiations did make progress on a draft treaty text that included a reduction of plastic production, the banning of toxic chemical additives, a financial mechanism to help countries meet targets, and a commitment to a just transition. After this progress, the chair's proposal that intersession work would not consider polymers came as a surprise.

"Tonight's upsets show that historical injustices have made their way into the halls of the plastics treaty negotiations," Camila Aguilera, communications officer for GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean, said in a statement. "The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations. The debate over intersessional work is a proxy for these geopolitical divides between the Global North and the Global South."

CIEL said that several countries in the self-described "High Ambition Coalition," (HAC) including the European Union, had not pushed back sufficiently on attempts to weaken the treaty and the process. It, along with many other environmental groups, also criticized the United States, which is not an HAC member, for failing to stand up for an ambitious treaty.

"Negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."

"The United States needs to stop pretending to be a leader and own the failure it has created here," said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "When the world's biggest exporter of oil and gas, and one of the biggest architects of the plastic expansion, says that it will ignore plastic production at the expense of the health, rights, and lives of its own people, the world listens. Even as the U.S. signaled to the G7 that it would commit to reduce plastic production, it intentionally blocked efforts to do that in the global talks most relevant to the issue. It's time to ask whether the U.S. delegation to the plastics treaty simply missed the memo on protecting health and human rights from the plastic threat, or whether the Biden administration forgot to send it."

Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Julie Teel Simmonds said that "rather than showing leadership, the United States has remained disappointedly in the middle."

"The U.S. proposals lack binding targets and focus on cutting demand for plastic rather than production itself," Simmonds continued. "And they don't go beyond existing U.S. policy, which has failed to curb plastic production or protect frontline communities and the environment from harm."

Frankie Orona, the executive director of the Society of Native Nations, recounted that "negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."

On the final day of negotiations, Break Free From Plastics published a statement calling out the U.S. for not committing to legally binding plastic production cut targets, underselling its own regulatory apparatus, and overemphasizing recycling.

"As the world's largest consumer and exporter of plastic waste, purporting to recognize the severity of the crisis, the U.S. must act decisively on these imperatives rather than negotiating an ineffective treaty that will sacrifice the public health and human rights of all to the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries," the group said.

It demanded that the U.S. delegation support a legally binding treaty that includes set global targets; production caps, phaseouts, and phasedowns for plastic polymers; the health-based control of toxic chemicals in production; a just transition for all communites impacted by the plastics lifecycle; and waste management that protects health and the environment and rejects false solutions.

Civil society groups also argued that negotiators should heed the demands of Indigenous peoples, and that they should be given more resources and support to participate. However, CIEL found that plastics lobbyists outnumbered the 28 representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus by a rate of seven to one.

"We need intersessional work with the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples—who are rights holders with traditional knowledge and a deep understanding of sustainable resource management—as well as frontline and fenceline communities—who, for generations, have borne the brunt of environmental damage from fossil fuels and petrochemical production," Orona said. "By including these often-marginalized groups, we can move beyond 'business as usual' to achieve an ambitious treaty that protects our environment, respects human rights, and fosters a more equitable and sustainable future for all of us and Mother Earth."

Green groups also called for conflict-of-interest policies to reduce the role of industry lobbyists.

"Despite mounting proof of plastics' enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty," Teel Simmonds said. "We'll keep fighting their deception and obstruction because the world desperately needs a treaty that protects us from plastic production and pollution. And we'll keep pushing the United States to lead."

The next and last round of negotiations is set to begin on November 25. In the meantime, intersessional work will move forward on a financial mechanism, plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reusability, and recyclability. Observers will be able to contribute to these sessions, while another group conducts a legal review of the treaty.

"The success of the International Plastics Treaty depends on the reduction of primary plastic polymers," said Yu Hyein from the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements and Friends of the Earth, South Korea. "There was not enough discussion on this at INC-4, and it is likely that this will continue at INC-5. As a host country and a member of the High Ambition Coalition, the Korean government should make an ambitious declaration on reducing primary plastic polymers."

Greenpeace's Forbes added, "The entire world is watching, and if countries, particularly in the so-called 'High Ambition Coalition,' don't act between now and INC-5 in Busan, the treaty they are likely to get is one that could have been written by ExxonMobil and their acolytes."

SEE ALL
Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad
News

Top G20 Ministers Back 2% Wealth Tax for Global Billionaires

Ministers from four major economies on Thursday called for a 2% wealth tax targeting the world's billionaires—who currently only pay up to 0.5% of their wealth in personal income tax—to "invest in public goods such as health, education, the environment, and infrastructure."

Fernando Haddad, Brazil's finance minister; Svenja Schulze, Germany's minister for economic cooperation and development; Enoch Godongwana, South Africa's finance minister; Carlos Cuerpo, Spain's minister of economy, trade, and business; and María Jesús Montero, Spain's first vice president and finance minister, made their case in an opinion piece for The Guardian.

"The argument behind such tax is straightforward: We need to enhance the ability of our tax systems to fulfill the principle of fairness, such that contributions are in line with the capacity to pay," they explained. "Persisting loopholes in the system imply that high-net-worth individuals can minimize their income taxes."

"What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."

Brazil, Germany, and South Africa are all Group of 20 members while Spain is a permanent guest. The ministers noted that "Brazil has made the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality a priority of its G20 presidency, a priority that German development policy also pursues and that Spain has ambitiously addressed domestically and globally."

"By directing two-thirds of total expenditure on social services and wage support, as well as by calibrating tax policy administration, South Africa continues to target a progressive tax and fiscal agenda that confronts the country's legacy of income and wealth inequality," they wrote.

The ministers continued:

It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods. One of the key instruments that governments have for promoting more equality is tax policy. Not only does it have the potential to increase the fiscal space governments have to invest in social protection, education, and climate protection. Designed in a progressive way, it also ensures that everyone in society contributes to the common good in line with their ability to pay. A fair share contribution enhances social welfare.

With exactly these goals in mind, Brazil brought a proposal for a global minimum tax on billionaires to the negotiation table of the world's major economies for the first time. It is a necessary third pillar that complements the negotiations on the taxation of the digital economy and on a minimum corporate tax of 15% for multinationals. The renowned economist Gabriel Zucman sketched out how this might work. Currently, there are about 3,000 billionaires worldwide. The tax could be designed as a minimum levy equivalent to 2% of the wealth of the superrich. It would not apply to billionaires who already contribute a fair share in income taxes. However, those who manage to avoid paying income tax would be obliged to contribute more towards the common good.

The five ministers cited estimates suggesting that "such a tax would potentially unlock an additional $250 billion in annual tax revenues globally—this is roughly the amount of economic damages caused by extreme weather events last year."

"Of course, the argument that billionaires can easily shift their fortunes to low-tax jurisdictions and thus avoid the levy is a strong one. And this is why such a tax reform belongs on the agenda of the G20," they added. "International cooperation and global agreements are key to making such tax effective. What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."

Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott reported Thursday that "Zucman is now fleshing out the technical details of a plan that will again be discussed by the G20 in June. France has indicated support for a wealth tax and Brazil has been encouraged that the U.S., while not backing a global wealth tax, did not oppose it."

The French economist told Elliott that "billionaires have the lowest effective tax rate of any social group. Having people with the highest ability to pay tax paying the least—I don't think anybody supports that."

Except the billionaires, of course. "I don't want to be naive. I know the superrich will fight," Zucman added. "They have a hatred of taxes on wealth. They will lobby governments. They will use the media they own."

The ministers' opinion piece follows the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank's Spring Meetings last week, during which anti-poverty campaigners pressured the largest economies to address inequality with policies like taxing the superrich and to pour resources into the global debt and climate crises.

"The IMF and World Bank say that tackling inequality is a priority but in the same breath back policies that drive up the divide between the rich and the rest," Kate Donald, head of Oxfam International's Washington D.C. office, said last week. "Ordinary people struggle more and more every day to make up for cuts to the public funding of healthcare, education, and transportation. This high-stakes hypocrisy has to end."

Oxfam America policy lead Rebecca Riddell declared Thursday that "extreme inequality stands in the way of solving our most urgent global challenges. We need to tax the ultrawealthy."

"Read this brilliant new op-ed on the case for a global tax on billionaires, by ministers from Brazil, Germany, South Africa, and Spain," Riddell added, posting the piece on social media.

SEE ALL
Gray wolf pup.
News

House GOP Anti-Wildlife 'Extremists' Approve Boebert's Delisting of Gray Wolves

Overriding the opposition of more than 100 environmental groups, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday that would strip gray wolves in the Lower 48 states of their protections under the Endangered Species Act.

The so-called Trust the Science Act, which was introduced by far-right election denier Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), passed by a narrow 209-205 margin. It would reimpose a Trump administration decision to delist gray wolves that was later overturned in federal court.

"This move by extremists in Congress to push forward an anti-wolf, anti-science bill is irresponsible and emboldens cruelty towards gray wolves," said Endangered Species Coalition executive director Susan Holmes.

"This is yet another troubling sign that our elected leaders in the House are increasingly choosing to subvert our nation's landmark environmental laws and ignore the biodiversity crisis that threatens wildlife populations around the globe with extinction."

There were once around 2 million gray wolves in North America, but they were nearly hunted to extinction with government support. After the federal government began to protect them in the 1960s, their numbers rebounded to around 6,000, but they only roam through less than 10% of their historic range in the lower 48 states.

Scientists have discovered that wolves are very beneficial for the ecosystems they inhabit; their reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park increased the park's biodiversity by controlling elk and deer that had overgrazed trees, allowing willows and aspens to thrive and attract the song birds and beavers that depend on them.

"The inappropriately named 'Trust the Science Act' not only puts endangered gray wolves at risk for extinction, but it completely undermines the purpose of the Endangered Species Act," Raena Garcia, senior fossil fuels and lands campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. "The ESA is essential environmental legislation that needs to be strengthened, not weakened. As a keystone species that plays a vital role in preserving biodiversity, the livelihood of gray wolves can't be dictated by industry-driven politicians."

The Endangered Species Act Coalition and Friends of the Earth Action were two of the more than 100 groups that sent a letter to representatives on Monday urging them to oppose the bill. In the letter, they pointed out that the Trump-era ruling it is based on was overturned because of its faulty science: It based its determination for national wolves on only two populations, it did not define what it meant by a "significant" portion of the species' range, it did not consider what it means for gray wolves to have lost so much of their historic range, and it did not account for the fact that West Coast wolves and northern Rocky Mountain wolves have different ancestries. Despite these flaws with the decision, the bill would also prohibit courts from weighing in a second time.

"The 'Trust the Science Act' undermines the integrity of the ESA by forcing the reinstatement of the Trump administration's scientifically indefensible delisting rule and precluding judicial review, undermining the rule of law that holds government officials accountable in the courts," the conservation groups wrote.

Environmental organizations also argue that the bill would put wolves at even greater risk from human violence. In Wyoming, where wolves are delisted, a man recently injured a young wolf and showed it off at a local bar before killing it. When wolves were delisted during the Trump administration, a hunt reestablished in Wisconsin killed off up to a third of the state's wolves.

"The recent torture and killing of a young gray wolf in Wyoming shows how critical the Endangered Species Act protections are for the survival of this species core to our country's natural heritage," Holmes said.

The bill also comes as the Earth is losing species at such alarming rates that scientists say humans have likely instigated a sixth mass extinction.

"This is yet another troubling sign that our elected leaders in the House are increasingly choosing to subvert our nation's landmark environmental laws and ignore the biodiversity crisis that threatens wildlife populations around the globe with extinction," Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations for Defenders of Wildlife, said in a statement. "Wolves play hugely important roles in maintaining healthy ecosystems and cutting short their recovery will only harm our nation."

"The majority of Americans believe that protecting biodiversity should be a national priority and today their voices were stifled," Dewey continued. "We urge the Senate to take the scientifically sound path forward and not take up this bill."

Whatever the Senate decides, it is unlikely the bill would become law while President Joe Biden is in office. The Executive Office of the President's Office of Budget and Management issued a statement on Monday saying the Biden administration "strongly opposes" the bill, arguing that its passage "would undermine America's proud wildlife conservation traditions and the implementation of one of our nation's bedrock environmental laws."

SEE ALL
U.S. President Joe Biden
News

Biden Condemned for Ahistorical and 'Politically Suicidal' Attack on Campus Protests

President Joe Biden faced immediate backlash Thursday for characterizing pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have erupted on university campuses across the country as lawless and violent, a narrative likely to further alienate the thousands of students who have joined peaceful protests against Israel's U.S.-backed war on Gaza in recent weeks.

In brief, unscheduled remarks delivered from the White House, Biden acknowledged that "peaceful protest is in the best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues."

But he then proceeded to cast recent campus demonstrations as abhorrent, using instances of property damage to broadly paint student protesters as out of control—giving a pass to police forces and pro-Israel mobs that have brutally attacked peaceful encampments.

Biden, who has armed Israel's military to the hilt, also conflated trespassing and disruptions of day-to-day campus activities—including classes and graduations—with violence, saying, "None of this is a peaceful protest."

"Dissent must never lead to disorder," the president said, ignoring the long history of disruptive civil rights and anti-war protests in the U.S. "There's the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos."

Watch Biden's remarks in full:


Edward Ahmed Mitchell, a civil rights attorney and national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said Thursday that "President Biden's claim that 'dissent must never lead to disorder' defies American history, from the Boston Tea Party to the tactics that civil rights activists, Vietnam War protesters, and anti-apartheid activists used to confront injustice."

"And if President Biden is truly concerned about the conflict on college campuses, he should specifically condemn law enforcement and pro-Israel mobs for attacking students, and stop enabling the genocide in Gaza that has triggered the protests," Mitchell added.

Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), wrote following the president's remarks that "the best speech of Biden's campaign was in June 2020, amid the nationwide protests against the murder of George Floyd."

"He could've given a very similar speech today, if only he thought the same rights and principles applied to Palestinians," Duss added. "In June 2020, Biden criticized violence but also refused to paint the protests with that broad brush. He acknowledged the root causes, the pain driving them. He could've made some effort to do the same today, instead he chose to amplify a right-wing caricature."

Countering suggestions that criticism of Biden could harm his reelection chances against former President Donald Trump, Duss pointed to an old social media post in which he explained: "One of my concerns here is that Biden is undermining his re-election. In addition to being morally and strategically awful, I think his Gaza policy is alienating and demobilizing constituencies he will need."

At the end of his speech, a reporter asked Biden whether the mass demonstrations on college campuses have led him to reconsider his approach to Israel's assault on Gaza, which to date has been unconditionally supportive even in the face of horrific Israeli war crimes.

"No," Biden said in response to the reporter's question.

"Apparently Biden is not swayed by the mass killing of children, international law, or an election as a growing number of Americans are appalled by his policies," Assal Rad, an author and Middle East analyst, wrote in reply to the president.

Justice Democrats called Biden's speech "shameful," writing that "as campuses have unleashed police on students—he blames protesters as the problem and ignores the violence they've faced."

"If dissent was crucial to our democracy," the progressive group added, "you would spend more time listening to their demands than lying about their tactics."

Biden's address came hours after Los Angeles police launched a violent attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators at UCLA, where a pro-Israel mob brutally assaulted student protesters just a day earlier.

In a statement earlier this week, College Democrats of America endorsed the Gaza solidarity protests that have swept the nation and warned Democratic leaders that each day they "fail to stand united for a permanent cease-fire, two-state solution, and recognition of a Palestinian state, more and more youth find themselves disillusioned with the party."

"We condemn those politicians, like MAGA Republicans and many other lawmakers, for smearing all protesters as hateful when, according to reports, the overwhelming majority of protests are peaceful," said the College Democrats.

In a floor speech on Wednesday, Sanders called out his colleagues who "are spending their time attacking the protesters rather than the Netanyahu government, which has caused and has created this horrific situation."

Sanders noted that the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) "was arrested 45 times for sit-ins and protests, 45 times for protesting segregation and racism."

"Protesting injustice and expressing our opinions is part of our American tradition," said the Vermont senator. "And when you talk about America being a free country, well, you know what, whether you like it or not, the right to protest is what American freedom is all about."

SEE ALL
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan
News

ICC Condemns Efforts to 'Intimidate' the Court as Netanyahu Arrest Warrant Looms

The office of International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan issued a statement Friday denouncing threats of retaliation after Israel's prime minister and U.S. lawmakers attacked the intergovernmental body over reports that it is preparing arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials related to the war on Gaza.

The ICC statement, which does not mention any individual or country by name, says the court's "independence and impartiality are undermined" when "individuals threaten to retaliate against the court or against court personnel should the office, in fulfillment of its mandate, make decisions about investigations or cases falling within its jurisdiction."

"Such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute an offense against the administration of justice under Art. 70 of the Rome Statute," the statement continues. "The office insists that all attempts to impede, intimidate, or improperly influence its officials cease immediately."

The statement comes days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he "expects the leaders of the free world to stand firmly against" any ICC arrest warrants for officials in Israel's government.

"We expect them to use all the means at their disposal to stop this dangerous move," said Netanyahu.

The New York Timesreported over the weekend that Israeli officials "increasingly believe" that the ICC, which is based in The Hague, is preparing arrest warrants for top members of the country's government, including Netanyahu. The ICC is also believed to be weighing arrest warrants for Hamas leaders.

"If the court proceeds, the Israeli officials could potentially be accused of preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and pursuing an excessively harsh response to the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel," the Times reported.

Bipartisan members of the U.S. Congress who have supported Israel's devastating assault on Gaza have joined Netanyahu in condemning the ICC in recent days, pushing the Biden administration to fight any arrest warrants even though—like Israel—the U.S. is not a state party to the statute that created the court. Palestine joined the ICC in 2015.

"If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel," House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a statement earlier this week.

On Wednesday, according toAxios, a bipartisan group of senators held a virtual meeting with senior ICC officials to voice "their concern about possible arrest warrants being issued for Israeli leaders over the war in Gaza."

"If this is true, it should never have happened," said Mark Kersten, an assistant professor focusing on human rights law, international criminal law, and Canadian law at the University of the Fraser Valley. "The U.S. is not a member-state of the ICC, and the court should not be holding meetings or accepting calls from the senators of a non-member state trying to undermine the institution's independence and interfere with its work."

Axios noted that Republican lawmakers have "threatened to pass legislation against the ICC if it moves forward with the arrest warrants, which the Biden administration has said it opposes."

The Israeli government, for its part, has reportedly told the Biden administration that it would retaliate against the Palestinian Authority if the ICC issues arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.

The Biden White House has publicly spoken out against the ICC's probe of Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, an investigation that began in 2021.

The U.S. stance has been slammed as hypocritical given the Biden administration's vocal support for the ICC's decision last year to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over war crimes committed in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are parties to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.

In an op-ed for The Guardian earlier this week, former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote that while "the Israeli government is not about to surrender Netanyahu or his deputies for trial," their "travel would suddenly be limited" if the ICC moves ahead with arrest warrants.

"Although the U.S. never joined the court, European governments have, meaning that suddenly Europe and much of the rest of the world would be out of bounds for those charged without risking arrest," Roth observed. "It would also make it more difficult for Washington and London to pretend that their ongoing arming of the Israeli military is not contributing to war crimes."

"In addition, an initial round of charges would be an implicit threat of more," he continued. "As Netanyahu contemplates a potential invasion of Gaza's southernmost city of Rafah despite 1.4 million Palestinians sheltering there, he must worry about whether more civilian deaths would spur Khan to intensify investigation of Israel's apparently indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians. The ICC thus may live up to its potential not only to provide retrospective justice, but also to deter future war crimes."

SEE ALL