SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. Photograph: Alberto Pizzoli/AFP/Getty Images
Food has become subject to one of the sharpest global debates, with rising
anxiety about how the world's growing population is going to feed
itself. Increasingly, Olivier de Schutter,
the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, is establishing himself
as one of its key protagonists with an unapologetically radical agenda.
In
London this week to give evidence to a UK parliamentary working group
on food and agriculture, he explained the challenge he is putting to the
donors and the international community.
Chronic underinvestment
in agriculture over the last 20 years combined with trade liberalisation
has trapped many developing countries in a vicious cycle of low
agricultural productivity and dependence on cheap food imports, he
argues. The one exacerbates the other as local farmers struggle, and
fail, to get a decent price for their produce in competition with
imports, which have often benefited from government subsidies.
Local farming goes into steep decline leading to migration to the cities. This is a serious market failure.
Faced
with large hungry (and often jobless) urban populations, government
policy is driven by the need to keep food cheap at all costs or risk
political instability, such as the rioting seen recently in countries such as Algeria.
"In
the short term, lower import tariffs to let in food ensure urban
populations are fed, but in the long term it is a disaster because local
farmers can't compete," says de Schutter, adding that cheap food
imports make the country extremely vulnerable to price hikes in the
global markets - such as those we are now seeing.
"Since the early
1990s, the food bills of developing countries have increased by five-
or six-fold," says de Schutter. "This addiction to cheap food leads to
balance-of-payments problems and then political instability. It deprives
countries of their abilities to feed themselves."
This situation
has skewed the politics of countless countries where the priority has
been to maintain calm in urban areas while squeezing any value they can
from farmers. Farmers are marginalised politically and become
increasingly poor, further accelerating the migration to cities.
Donors
are finally recognising the need to invest in agriculture, but the
danger is that they put money into monoculture cash crops for export, a
strategy that that has no impact on improving food security for the poorest, argues de Schutter.
Another
major mistake being made by donors, he adds, is to offer inputs to
farmers such as subsidised fertiliser. This works in the short term but
is not sustainable in the longer term because the price of fertilisers
are linked to the rising price of oil, and the urgent task is to
decouple agriculture from oil.
The environmental challenge is
huge. "A third of all greenhouse emissions come from agriculture, so we
need to focus our efforts on an agriculture which does not degrade the
soil and which increases carbon capture," he explains, adding that he
will be presenting a paper on agroecology to the UN Human Rights Council in March.
He
wants donors to move away from the model of subsisidised fertilisers
and seeds - which he calls "private goods", to supporting "public goods"
such as better infrastructure, strengthening local markets, ensuring
access to credit and building storage capabilities. Much of this needs
farmers to organise themselves to really bring benefits to rural areas.
"Farmers'
co-operatives emerged from the bottom-up in the 90s, and they now need
to move up the value chain into processing and packaging. Farmers can
get a better price if they organise together. And if they are organised,
then governments have to engage with them. Farmers need a greater voice
in the political process otherwise they don't get consulted and are
cheated," he says.
But he acknowledges that this is not always a
popular message. In many countries governments are wary of a strong,
well-organised farmers' co-operative movement that could threaten their
strategy to feed urban populations.
The challenge is huge because
in the last 25 years state agricultural extension services have been
dismantled, largely at the behest of structural adjustment programmes,
and farmers have been left to fend for themselves. To increase
productivity and introduce agroecology techniques in places such as sub
Saharan Africa requires institutions that can disseminate knowledge into
remote rural areas. This is no easy task.
Finally, de Schutter
has one other urgent recommendation. The G20 in May will be considering
measures to manage food-price volatility and he believes that food
reserves are an essential tool.
"My view is that food reserves
could be used to support the income of farmers, buying at a good price
and then make food affordable during times of rising prices. If a food
reserve is well managed and transparent, it could limit volatility and
secure incomes," he says.
He points out that China now has huge
food reserves in wheat, maize and rice that can shield the population
from price spikes. There are ongoing negotiations to arrange regional
collaboration across south-east Asia and to mutualise national food
reserves. Similar discussions took place last December in West Africa.
The G20 must put greater impetus behind such regional co-operation.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Food has become subject to one of the sharpest global debates, with rising
anxiety about how the world's growing population is going to feed
itself. Increasingly, Olivier de Schutter,
the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, is establishing himself
as one of its key protagonists with an unapologetically radical agenda.
In
London this week to give evidence to a UK parliamentary working group
on food and agriculture, he explained the challenge he is putting to the
donors and the international community.
Chronic underinvestment
in agriculture over the last 20 years combined with trade liberalisation
has trapped many developing countries in a vicious cycle of low
agricultural productivity and dependence on cheap food imports, he
argues. The one exacerbates the other as local farmers struggle, and
fail, to get a decent price for their produce in competition with
imports, which have often benefited from government subsidies.
Local farming goes into steep decline leading to migration to the cities. This is a serious market failure.
Faced
with large hungry (and often jobless) urban populations, government
policy is driven by the need to keep food cheap at all costs or risk
political instability, such as the rioting seen recently in countries such as Algeria.
"In
the short term, lower import tariffs to let in food ensure urban
populations are fed, but in the long term it is a disaster because local
farmers can't compete," says de Schutter, adding that cheap food
imports make the country extremely vulnerable to price hikes in the
global markets - such as those we are now seeing.
"Since the early
1990s, the food bills of developing countries have increased by five-
or six-fold," says de Schutter. "This addiction to cheap food leads to
balance-of-payments problems and then political instability. It deprives
countries of their abilities to feed themselves."
This situation
has skewed the politics of countless countries where the priority has
been to maintain calm in urban areas while squeezing any value they can
from farmers. Farmers are marginalised politically and become
increasingly poor, further accelerating the migration to cities.
Donors
are finally recognising the need to invest in agriculture, but the
danger is that they put money into monoculture cash crops for export, a
strategy that that has no impact on improving food security for the poorest, argues de Schutter.
Another
major mistake being made by donors, he adds, is to offer inputs to
farmers such as subsidised fertiliser. This works in the short term but
is not sustainable in the longer term because the price of fertilisers
are linked to the rising price of oil, and the urgent task is to
decouple agriculture from oil.
The environmental challenge is
huge. "A third of all greenhouse emissions come from agriculture, so we
need to focus our efforts on an agriculture which does not degrade the
soil and which increases carbon capture," he explains, adding that he
will be presenting a paper on agroecology to the UN Human Rights Council in March.
He
wants donors to move away from the model of subsisidised fertilisers
and seeds - which he calls "private goods", to supporting "public goods"
such as better infrastructure, strengthening local markets, ensuring
access to credit and building storage capabilities. Much of this needs
farmers to organise themselves to really bring benefits to rural areas.
"Farmers'
co-operatives emerged from the bottom-up in the 90s, and they now need
to move up the value chain into processing and packaging. Farmers can
get a better price if they organise together. And if they are organised,
then governments have to engage with them. Farmers need a greater voice
in the political process otherwise they don't get consulted and are
cheated," he says.
But he acknowledges that this is not always a
popular message. In many countries governments are wary of a strong,
well-organised farmers' co-operative movement that could threaten their
strategy to feed urban populations.
The challenge is huge because
in the last 25 years state agricultural extension services have been
dismantled, largely at the behest of structural adjustment programmes,
and farmers have been left to fend for themselves. To increase
productivity and introduce agroecology techniques in places such as sub
Saharan Africa requires institutions that can disseminate knowledge into
remote rural areas. This is no easy task.
Finally, de Schutter
has one other urgent recommendation. The G20 in May will be considering
measures to manage food-price volatility and he believes that food
reserves are an essential tool.
"My view is that food reserves
could be used to support the income of farmers, buying at a good price
and then make food affordable during times of rising prices. If a food
reserve is well managed and transparent, it could limit volatility and
secure incomes," he says.
He points out that China now has huge
food reserves in wheat, maize and rice that can shield the population
from price spikes. There are ongoing negotiations to arrange regional
collaboration across south-east Asia and to mutualise national food
reserves. Similar discussions took place last December in West Africa.
The G20 must put greater impetus behind such regional co-operation.
Food has become subject to one of the sharpest global debates, with rising
anxiety about how the world's growing population is going to feed
itself. Increasingly, Olivier de Schutter,
the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, is establishing himself
as one of its key protagonists with an unapologetically radical agenda.
In
London this week to give evidence to a UK parliamentary working group
on food and agriculture, he explained the challenge he is putting to the
donors and the international community.
Chronic underinvestment
in agriculture over the last 20 years combined with trade liberalisation
has trapped many developing countries in a vicious cycle of low
agricultural productivity and dependence on cheap food imports, he
argues. The one exacerbates the other as local farmers struggle, and
fail, to get a decent price for their produce in competition with
imports, which have often benefited from government subsidies.
Local farming goes into steep decline leading to migration to the cities. This is a serious market failure.
Faced
with large hungry (and often jobless) urban populations, government
policy is driven by the need to keep food cheap at all costs or risk
political instability, such as the rioting seen recently in countries such as Algeria.
"In
the short term, lower import tariffs to let in food ensure urban
populations are fed, but in the long term it is a disaster because local
farmers can't compete," says de Schutter, adding that cheap food
imports make the country extremely vulnerable to price hikes in the
global markets - such as those we are now seeing.
"Since the early
1990s, the food bills of developing countries have increased by five-
or six-fold," says de Schutter. "This addiction to cheap food leads to
balance-of-payments problems and then political instability. It deprives
countries of their abilities to feed themselves."
This situation
has skewed the politics of countless countries where the priority has
been to maintain calm in urban areas while squeezing any value they can
from farmers. Farmers are marginalised politically and become
increasingly poor, further accelerating the migration to cities.
Donors
are finally recognising the need to invest in agriculture, but the
danger is that they put money into monoculture cash crops for export, a
strategy that that has no impact on improving food security for the poorest, argues de Schutter.
Another
major mistake being made by donors, he adds, is to offer inputs to
farmers such as subsidised fertiliser. This works in the short term but
is not sustainable in the longer term because the price of fertilisers
are linked to the rising price of oil, and the urgent task is to
decouple agriculture from oil.
The environmental challenge is
huge. "A third of all greenhouse emissions come from agriculture, so we
need to focus our efforts on an agriculture which does not degrade the
soil and which increases carbon capture," he explains, adding that he
will be presenting a paper on agroecology to the UN Human Rights Council in March.
He
wants donors to move away from the model of subsisidised fertilisers
and seeds - which he calls "private goods", to supporting "public goods"
such as better infrastructure, strengthening local markets, ensuring
access to credit and building storage capabilities. Much of this needs
farmers to organise themselves to really bring benefits to rural areas.
"Farmers'
co-operatives emerged from the bottom-up in the 90s, and they now need
to move up the value chain into processing and packaging. Farmers can
get a better price if they organise together. And if they are organised,
then governments have to engage with them. Farmers need a greater voice
in the political process otherwise they don't get consulted and are
cheated," he says.
But he acknowledges that this is not always a
popular message. In many countries governments are wary of a strong,
well-organised farmers' co-operative movement that could threaten their
strategy to feed urban populations.
The challenge is huge because
in the last 25 years state agricultural extension services have been
dismantled, largely at the behest of structural adjustment programmes,
and farmers have been left to fend for themselves. To increase
productivity and introduce agroecology techniques in places such as sub
Saharan Africa requires institutions that can disseminate knowledge into
remote rural areas. This is no easy task.
Finally, de Schutter
has one other urgent recommendation. The G20 in May will be considering
measures to manage food-price volatility and he believes that food
reserves are an essential tool.
"My view is that food reserves
could be used to support the income of farmers, buying at a good price
and then make food affordable during times of rising prices. If a food
reserve is well managed and transparent, it could limit volatility and
secure incomes," he says.
He points out that China now has huge
food reserves in wheat, maize and rice that can shield the population
from price spikes. There are ongoing negotiations to arrange regional
collaboration across south-east Asia and to mutualise national food
reserves. Similar discussions took place last December in West Africa.
The G20 must put greater impetus behind such regional co-operation.
"What is it going to take for Senate Republicans to oppose this unfit nominee? Every Republican senator who votes to confirm Bove will be complicit in undermining the rule of law and judicial independence."
After a second whistleblower came forward claiming that Emil Bove III instructed attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice to ignore federal court orders, his critics on Friday renewed calls for the Senate to reject the DOJ official's appointment as an appellate judge.
"Evidence is growing that Emil Bove urged Department of Justice lawyers to ignore federal court orders. That alone should disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful courts in our country," said Sean Eldridge, president and founder of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, in a statement.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced in late May that he would nominate Bove, his former personal attorney, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Then, last month, a whistleblower complaint was filed by Erez Reuveni, who was fired from the DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation in April after expressing concerns about the Kilmar Ábrego García case.
On Friday, as the Republican-controlled Senate was moving toward confirming Bove, the group Whistleblower Aid announced that another former Justice Department lawyer, whose name is not being disclosed, "has lawfully disclosed evidence to the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General that corroborates the thrust of the whistleblower claims" from Reuveni.
"Loyalty to one individual must never outweigh supporting and protecting the fundamental rights of those living in the United States."
"What we're seeing here is something I never thought would be possible on such a wide scale: federal prosecutors appointed by the Trump administration intentionally presenting dubious if not outright false evidence to a court of jurisdiction in cases that impact a person's fundamental rights not only under our Constitution, but their natural rights as humans," said Whistleblower Aid chief legal counsel Andrew Bakaj in a statement.
"What this means is that federal career attorneys who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution are now being pressured to abdicate that promise in favor of fealty to a single person, specifically Donald Trump. Loyalty to one individual must never outweigh supporting and protecting the fundamental rights of those living in the United States," Bakaj added. "Our client and Mr. Reuveni are true patriots—prioritizing their commitment to democracy over advancing their careers."
Bove has also faced mounting opposition—including from dozens of former judges—due to his embrace of the so-called "unitary executive theory" as well as his positions on a potential third Trump term and the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by the president's supporters.
The Senate on Thursday voted 50-48 to proceed with the consideration of Bove's nomination. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) joined all Democrats in opposition. Responding in a statement, Demand Justice interim executive director Maggie Jo Buchanan warned that "Bove will be a stain on the judiciary if confirmed."
"Voting to confirm Trump's judicial nominees to lifetime seats on the federal bench, as he wages a war on the very idea of judicial independence, is an unacceptable choice for any senator who believes in our democracy and the importance of individual rights," said Buchanan, who also blasted the Senate's Tuesday confirmation of Joshua Divine to be a U.S. district judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.
"Trump and his MAGA allies are helping him consolidate power in the executive branch, attacking judges who dare to rule against his interests, and targeting Trump's perceived political enemies—all while seemingly unconcerned about the future this sets up for our nation," she stressed. "Every senator will have to decide where they stand when it comes to this assault on our country's values—and that choice will not be forgotten."
After news of the second whistleblower complaint broke on Friday, Stand Up America's Eldridge declared that "again and again, Bove has proven he lacks the temperament, integrity, and independence to serve on the federal bench. He's nothing more than a political foot soldier doing Trump's bidding."
"What is it going to take for Senate Republicans to oppose this unfit nominee?" he added. "Every Republican senator who votes to confirm Bove will be complicit in undermining the rule of law and judicial independence."
"This administration deserves no credit for just barely averting a crisis they themselves set in motion," said one Democratic senator.
While welcoming reporting that the Trump administration will release more than $5 billion in federal funding for schools that it has been withholding for nearly a month, U.S. educators and others said Friday that the funds should never have been held up in the first place and warned that the attempt to do so was just one part of an ongoing campaign to undermine public education.
The Trump administration placed nearly $7 billion in federal education funding for K-12 public schools under review last month, then released $1.3 billion of it last week amid legal action and widespread backlash. An administration official speaking on condition of anonymity told The Washington Post that all reviews of remaining funding are now over.
"There is no good reason for the chaos and stress this president has inflicted on students, teachers, and parents across America for the last month, and it shouldn't take widespread blowback for this administration to do its job and simply get the funding out the door that Congress has delivered to help students," U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Friday.
"This administration deserves no credit for just barely averting a crisis they themselves set in motion," Murray added. "You don't thank a burglar for returning your cash after you've spent a month figuring out if you'd have to sell your house to make up the difference."
🚨After unlawfully withholding billions in education funding for schools, the Trump Admin. has reversed course.This is a massive victory for students, educators, & families who depend on these essential resources.And it's a testament to public pressure & relentless organizing.
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@pressley.house.gov) July 25, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward—which represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's funding freeze—said Friday that "if these reports are true, this is a major victory for public education and the communities it serves."
"This news following our legal challenge is a direct result of collective action by educators, families, and advocates across the country," Perryman asserted. "These funds are critical to keeping teachers in classrooms, supporting students in vulnerable conditions, and ensuring schools can offer the programs and services that every child deserves."
"While this development shows that legal and public pressure can make a difference, school districts, parents, and educators should not have to take the administration to court to secure funds for their students," she added. "Our promise to the people remains: We will go to court to protect the rights and well-being of all people living in America."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes—a plaintiff in a separate lawsuit challenging the withholding—attributed the administration's backpedaling to litigatory pressure, arguing that the funding "should never have been withheld in the first place."
They released the 7 B IN SCHOOL FUNDS!! This is a huge win. It means fighting back matters. Fighting for what kids & communities need is always the right thing to do! www.washingtonpost.com/education/20...
[image or embed]
— Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten.bsky.social) July 25, 2025 at 11:46 AM
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association—the largest U.S. labor union—said in a statement: "Playing games with students' futures has real-world consequences. School districts in every state have been scrambling to figure out how they will continue to meet student needs without this vital federal funding, and many students in parts of the country have already headed back to school. These reckless funding delays have undermined planning, staffing, and support services at a time when schools should be focused on preparing students for success."
"Sadly, this is part of a broader pattern by this administration of undermining public education—starving it of resources, sowing distrust, and pushing privatization at the expense of the nation's most vulnerable students," Pringle added. "And they are doing this at the same time Congress has passed a budget bill that will devastate our students, schools, and communities by slashing funds meant for public education, healthcare, and keeping students from their school meals—all to finance massive tax breaks for billionaires."
While expanding support for private education, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month weakens public school programs including before- and after-school initiatives and services for English language learners.
"Sadly, this is part of a broader pattern by this administration of undermining public education."
Trump also signed an executive order in March directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin the process of shutting down the Department of Education—a longtime goal of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led roadmap for a far-right takeover and gutting of the federal government closely linked to Trump, despite his unconvincing efforts to distance himself from the highly controversial and unpopular plan.
Earlier this week, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office determined that the U.S. Health and Human Services Department illegally impounded crucial funds from the Head Start program, which provides comprehensive early childhood education, health, nutrition, and other services to low-income families.
"Instead of spending the last many weeks figuring out how to improve after-school options and get our kids' reading and math scores up, because of President Trump, communities across the country have been forced to spend their time cutting back on tutoring options and sorting out how many teachers they will have to lay off," Murray noted.
"It's time for President Trump, Secretary McMahon, and [Office of Management and Budget Director] Russ Vought to stop playing games with students' futures and families' livelihoods—and end their illegal assault on our students and their schools," the senator added.
"You want history books to not record you as an evil genocide supporter?" said one organizer. "You need to actually make an impact, NOW."
U.S. college students are still facing punishment for protesting Israel's U.S.-backed bombardment of Gaza and its starvation of more than 2 million Palestinians there, with Columbia University announcing this week the suspension and expulsion of dozens of students who spoke out over the past year.
But a number of observers have pointed to a shift in the rhetoric of some of the student organizers' biggest detractors in recent days, with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notably saying Thursday that "thousands of children in Gaza are at risk of starvation while trucks full of food sit waiting across the border" and calling for "the full flow of humanitarian assistance" to be restored.
Clinton didn't mention the Israeli blockade that has kept food from reaching Palestinians, more than 120 of whom have now died of starvation, or the at least $12.5 billion in military aid the U.S. has provided to Israel since the blockade first began in October 2023—in violation of U.S. laws prohibiting the government from giving military aid to countries that block humanitarian aid.
The former Democratic presidential nominee also didn't acknowledge the remarks she made in May 2024 about the campus protests that were spreading across the country, with students demanding that their schools divest from companies that work with the Israeli government and that the country end its support for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
At the time, Clinton said students who oppose Israel's policies in Gaza and the West Bank "don't know very much" about the conflict there. Clinton and other politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have repeated the familiar phrase, "Israel has a right to defend itself" as the IDF has attacked so-called "safe zones," hospitals, and refugee camps.
Some suggested her comments on Thursday appeared to be those of an influential political figure who's come to a realization about the situation that both the Biden and Trump administrations, with bipartisan support from Congress, have helped to bring about in Gaza.
"Seems mostly like all the recent photos of starving children are responsible for this shift, though humanitarian aid groups have been warning about this for months and months," said Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein.
One observer said Clinton and a number of European leaders are speaking out now because Israel has already "carried out their final solution."
As Common Dreams reported this week, Integrated Food Security Phase Classification has said that 85% of people in Gaza are now in Phase 5 of famine, defined at "an extreme deprivation of food."
New York Times columnist Megan Stack said she welcomed anyone who is "[waking] up" to the reality of man-made mass starvation made possible by U.S. support, but called it "an absolute indictment of the center-left, such as it is, that it took pictures of dying, skeletal babies with trash bags for diapers to muster this pale response."
"Subtext: We can stomach mass bombings, but starvation is a bridge too far," said Stack.
The comments from Clinton coincided with a shift in the corporate media's coverage of Gaza, with major outlets focusing heavily on the impact of starvation.
Organizer and attorney Aaron Regunberg said that instead of simply doing "reputational damage control by speaking up in these very last moments," powerful political leaders must "shut shit down."
"You want history books to not record you as an evil genocide supporter?" said Regunberg. "One speech now—after countless speeches condemning those who have been speaking out—ain't gonna cut it... You need to go to Gaza. You need to actually make an impact, NOW."
Progressive organizer Lindsey Boylan wondered whether establishment leaders "will ever admit that smearing all protests to stop the genocide actually contributed to the genocide."
"Few people could have played a more pivotal role in shaping the democratic response to prevent genocide," said Boylan of Clinton's comments. "Now here we are. Watching mass death of kids."
On Friday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has consistently demanded that the Biden and Trump administrations stop funding Israel's assault on Gaza and warned of the impact mass starvation would have, issued his latest call for U.S. support to end immediately.
"American taxpayer dollars are being used to starve children, bomb civilians, and support the cruelty of [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his criminal ministers," said Sanders. "Enough is enough. The White House and Congress must immediately act to end this war using the full scope of American influence. No more military aid to the Netanyahu government. History will condemn those who fail to act in the face of this horror."