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 Israeli newspaper Haaretz published the photos of 67 children who were killed in Gaza in the recent 11-day bombardment campaign by the Israel Defense Forces. (Photo: Haaretz)
Human rights advocates and journalists applauded the Israeli newspaper Haaretz for its "unprecedented" cover story Thursday--one featuring the photos and stories of 67 Palestinian children killed in the latest bombardment campaign by the Israel Defense Forces.
"This is the price of war," the headline read.
The article came a day after the New York Times published its own extensive account of the youngest victims of Israel's most recent 11-day offensive, in which the IDF frequently targeted residential areas of Gaza, known as the world's largest open-air prison.
Haaretz's focus on the children killed in Gaza was especially noteworthy, said author and Brooklyn College professor Louis Fishman, considering the newspaper's "readers also send their children to fight in Israel's wars."
"This is unprecedented," Fishman tweeted.
While Haaretz leans to the center-left editorially, Israeli's mainstream media has traditionally not covered the Palestinian casualties of the IDF's military campaigns and the Israeli government's violent policies, said journalist Khaled Diab.
As Diab tweeted, previous attempts by organizations in Israel to publicize the human cost of the IDF's assaults have been repressed.
\u201cGoing against Israel's mainstream media practices, today's Hebrew edition of Haaretz publishes the photos of the 67 children who were killed in Gaza.\n\n#Gaza\u201d— Khaled Diab (@Khaled Diab) 1622097663
\u201cDuring the 2014 war, human rights group @btselem tried to counter the wilful silence in the Israeli media about the victims of Israeli airstrikes. It paid for a radio spot naming the dead children. The Israel Broadcasting Authority banned it.\n\n#Gaza \nhttps://t.co/eSCDXJ92YF\u201d— Khaled Diab (@Khaled Diab) 1622097663
Haaretz's front page represented "a bold move," tweeted journalist Saima Mohsin, adding, "Will it make a difference?"
Others on social media took note of the unprecedented cover story.
\u201cWow. Front page of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz features the faces of the all the Palestinian children killed in Gaza.\n\nThe headline reads: \u201c67 kids were killed in Gaza. This is the price of war.\u201d\u201d— IfNotNow\ud83d\udd25 (@IfNotNow\ud83d\udd25) 1622115321
None— Chris Oliver \u2764\ufe0f\ud83e\udde1\ud83d\udc9b\ud83d\udc9a\ud83d\udc99\ud83d\udc9c (@Chris Oliver \u2764\ufe0f\ud83e\udde1\ud83d\udc9b\ud83d\udc9a\ud83d\udc99\ud83d\udc9c) 1622107713
\u201cPalestinian lives matter. \n\nThank you @Haaretz for publishing the faces of these 67 beautiful children. \n\nLike the Israeli kids killed, they were victims of the endless bloodletting of a conflict & an occupation that will only end with Palestinian freedom and self-determination.\u201d— Debra Shushan \ud83c\udf3b \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \ud83c\udf3b \u062f\u0628\u0631\u0627 \u0634\u0648\u0634\u0627\u0646 (@Debra Shushan \ud83c\udf3b \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \ud83c\udf3b \u062f\u0628\u0631\u0627 \u0634\u0648\u0634\u0627\u0646) 1622121932
"Conversations around Israel/Palestine are changing in Jewish communities across the globe," tweeted rabbi and author Abby Stein. "It's about time."
As Jewish Currents editor-in-chief Arielle Angell wrote last week in The Guardian, since Israel's 2014 50-day assault on Gaza, which killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, rights advocates have "seen the growth of a small but committed Jewish anti-occupation movement [and] the last week and a half have brought an even larger circle of the community to a place of reckoning."
We've seen Jewish politicians, celebrities, rabbinical students and others speak up loudly for Palestine. We've seen a powerful display of solidarity from Jewish Google employees, asking their company to sever ties with the IDF. At Jewish Currents, the leftwing magazine where I am now editor-in-chief, we asked for questions from readers struggling to understand the recent violence. We've been deluged. These questions taken in aggregate paint a striking portrait of a community at a turning point.
In Israel the Haaretz front page appeared to touch a nerve, garnering at least one outraged response from Oded Revivi, head of the Efrat Regional Council in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, who said Haaretz's article was evidence that "people pity the wrong mothers."
On social media, Mairav Zonszein of the International Crisis Group said rather than the "price of war," the Haaretz front page specifically shows the price of "Israel's "continued military rule, dispossession, discrimination, and violence."
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. |
Human rights advocates and journalists applauded the Israeli newspaper Haaretz for its "unprecedented" cover story Thursday--one featuring the photos and stories of 67 Palestinian children killed in the latest bombardment campaign by the Israel Defense Forces.
"This is the price of war," the headline read.
The article came a day after the New York Times published its own extensive account of the youngest victims of Israel's most recent 11-day offensive, in which the IDF frequently targeted residential areas of Gaza, known as the world's largest open-air prison.
Haaretz's focus on the children killed in Gaza was especially noteworthy, said author and Brooklyn College professor Louis Fishman, considering the newspaper's "readers also send their children to fight in Israel's wars."
"This is unprecedented," Fishman tweeted.
While Haaretz leans to the center-left editorially, Israeli's mainstream media has traditionally not covered the Palestinian casualties of the IDF's military campaigns and the Israeli government's violent policies, said journalist Khaled Diab.
As Diab tweeted, previous attempts by organizations in Israel to publicize the human cost of the IDF's assaults have been repressed.
\u201cGoing against Israel's mainstream media practices, today's Hebrew edition of Haaretz publishes the photos of the 67 children who were killed in Gaza.\n\n#Gaza\u201d— Khaled Diab (@Khaled Diab) 1622097663
\u201cDuring the 2014 war, human rights group @btselem tried to counter the wilful silence in the Israeli media about the victims of Israeli airstrikes. It paid for a radio spot naming the dead children. The Israel Broadcasting Authority banned it.\n\n#Gaza \nhttps://t.co/eSCDXJ92YF\u201d— Khaled Diab (@Khaled Diab) 1622097663
Haaretz's front page represented "a bold move," tweeted journalist Saima Mohsin, adding, "Will it make a difference?"
Others on social media took note of the unprecedented cover story.
\u201cWow. Front page of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz features the faces of the all the Palestinian children killed in Gaza.\n\nThe headline reads: \u201c67 kids were killed in Gaza. This is the price of war.\u201d\u201d— IfNotNow\ud83d\udd25 (@IfNotNow\ud83d\udd25) 1622115321
None— Chris Oliver \u2764\ufe0f\ud83e\udde1\ud83d\udc9b\ud83d\udc9a\ud83d\udc99\ud83d\udc9c (@Chris Oliver \u2764\ufe0f\ud83e\udde1\ud83d\udc9b\ud83d\udc9a\ud83d\udc99\ud83d\udc9c) 1622107713
\u201cPalestinian lives matter. \n\nThank you @Haaretz for publishing the faces of these 67 beautiful children. \n\nLike the Israeli kids killed, they were victims of the endless bloodletting of a conflict & an occupation that will only end with Palestinian freedom and self-determination.\u201d— Debra Shushan \ud83c\udf3b \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \ud83c\udf3b \u062f\u0628\u0631\u0627 \u0634\u0648\u0634\u0627\u0646 (@Debra Shushan \ud83c\udf3b \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \ud83c\udf3b \u062f\u0628\u0631\u0627 \u0634\u0648\u0634\u0627\u0646) 1622121932
"Conversations around Israel/Palestine are changing in Jewish communities across the globe," tweeted rabbi and author Abby Stein. "It's about time."
As Jewish Currents editor-in-chief Arielle Angell wrote last week in The Guardian, since Israel's 2014 50-day assault on Gaza, which killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, rights advocates have "seen the growth of a small but committed Jewish anti-occupation movement [and] the last week and a half have brought an even larger circle of the community to a place of reckoning."
We've seen Jewish politicians, celebrities, rabbinical students and others speak up loudly for Palestine. We've seen a powerful display of solidarity from Jewish Google employees, asking their company to sever ties with the IDF. At Jewish Currents, the leftwing magazine where I am now editor-in-chief, we asked for questions from readers struggling to understand the recent violence. We've been deluged. These questions taken in aggregate paint a striking portrait of a community at a turning point.
In Israel the Haaretz front page appeared to touch a nerve, garnering at least one outraged response from Oded Revivi, head of the Efrat Regional Council in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, who said Haaretz's article was evidence that "people pity the wrong mothers."
On social media, Mairav Zonszein of the International Crisis Group said rather than the "price of war," the Haaretz front page specifically shows the price of "Israel's "continued military rule, dispossession, discrimination, and violence."
Human rights advocates and journalists applauded the Israeli newspaper Haaretz for its "unprecedented" cover story Thursday--one featuring the photos and stories of 67 Palestinian children killed in the latest bombardment campaign by the Israel Defense Forces.
"This is the price of war," the headline read.
The article came a day after the New York Times published its own extensive account of the youngest victims of Israel's most recent 11-day offensive, in which the IDF frequently targeted residential areas of Gaza, known as the world's largest open-air prison.
Haaretz's focus on the children killed in Gaza was especially noteworthy, said author and Brooklyn College professor Louis Fishman, considering the newspaper's "readers also send their children to fight in Israel's wars."
"This is unprecedented," Fishman tweeted.
While Haaretz leans to the center-left editorially, Israeli's mainstream media has traditionally not covered the Palestinian casualties of the IDF's military campaigns and the Israeli government's violent policies, said journalist Khaled Diab.
As Diab tweeted, previous attempts by organizations in Israel to publicize the human cost of the IDF's assaults have been repressed.
\u201cGoing against Israel's mainstream media practices, today's Hebrew edition of Haaretz publishes the photos of the 67 children who were killed in Gaza.\n\n#Gaza\u201d— Khaled Diab (@Khaled Diab) 1622097663
\u201cDuring the 2014 war, human rights group @btselem tried to counter the wilful silence in the Israeli media about the victims of Israeli airstrikes. It paid for a radio spot naming the dead children. The Israel Broadcasting Authority banned it.\n\n#Gaza \nhttps://t.co/eSCDXJ92YF\u201d— Khaled Diab (@Khaled Diab) 1622097663
Haaretz's front page represented "a bold move," tweeted journalist Saima Mohsin, adding, "Will it make a difference?"
Others on social media took note of the unprecedented cover story.
\u201cWow. Front page of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz features the faces of the all the Palestinian children killed in Gaza.\n\nThe headline reads: \u201c67 kids were killed in Gaza. This is the price of war.\u201d\u201d— IfNotNow\ud83d\udd25 (@IfNotNow\ud83d\udd25) 1622115321
None— Chris Oliver \u2764\ufe0f\ud83e\udde1\ud83d\udc9b\ud83d\udc9a\ud83d\udc99\ud83d\udc9c (@Chris Oliver \u2764\ufe0f\ud83e\udde1\ud83d\udc9b\ud83d\udc9a\ud83d\udc99\ud83d\udc9c) 1622107713
\u201cPalestinian lives matter. \n\nThank you @Haaretz for publishing the faces of these 67 beautiful children. \n\nLike the Israeli kids killed, they were victims of the endless bloodletting of a conflict & an occupation that will only end with Palestinian freedom and self-determination.\u201d— Debra Shushan \ud83c\udf3b \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \ud83c\udf3b \u062f\u0628\u0631\u0627 \u0634\u0648\u0634\u0627\u0646 (@Debra Shushan \ud83c\udf3b \u05d3\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \ud83c\udf3b \u062f\u0628\u0631\u0627 \u0634\u0648\u0634\u0627\u0646) 1622121932
"Conversations around Israel/Palestine are changing in Jewish communities across the globe," tweeted rabbi and author Abby Stein. "It's about time."
As Jewish Currents editor-in-chief Arielle Angell wrote last week in The Guardian, since Israel's 2014 50-day assault on Gaza, which killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, rights advocates have "seen the growth of a small but committed Jewish anti-occupation movement [and] the last week and a half have brought an even larger circle of the community to a place of reckoning."
We've seen Jewish politicians, celebrities, rabbinical students and others speak up loudly for Palestine. We've seen a powerful display of solidarity from Jewish Google employees, asking their company to sever ties with the IDF. At Jewish Currents, the leftwing magazine where I am now editor-in-chief, we asked for questions from readers struggling to understand the recent violence. We've been deluged. These questions taken in aggregate paint a striking portrait of a community at a turning point.
In Israel the Haaretz front page appeared to touch a nerve, garnering at least one outraged response from Oded Revivi, head of the Efrat Regional Council in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, who said Haaretz's article was evidence that "people pity the wrong mothers."
On social media, Mairav Zonszein of the International Crisis Group said rather than the "price of war," the Haaretz front page specifically shows the price of "Israel's "continued military rule, dispossession, discrimination, and violence."
Any such effort, said one democracy watchdog, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
In his latest full-frontal assault on democratic access and voting rights, President Donald Trump early Monday said he will lead an effort to ban both mail-in ballots and voting machines for next year's mid-term elections—a vow met with immediate rebuke from progressive critics.
"I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election," Trump wrote in a social media post infested with lies and falsehoods.
Trump falsely claimed that no other country in the world uses mail-in voting—a blatant lie, according to International IDEA, which monitors democratic trends worldwide, at least 34 nations allow for in-country postal voting of some kind. The group notes that over 100 countries allow out-of-country postal voting for citizens living or stationed overseas during an election.
Trump has repeated his false claim—over and over again—that he won the 2020 election, which he actually lost, in part due to fraud related to mail-in ballots, though the lie has been debunked ad nauseam. He also fails to note that mail-in ballots were very much in use nationwide in 2024, with an estimated 30% of voters casting a mail-in ballot as opposed to in-person during the election in which Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took back the US Senate and retained the US House of Representatives.
Monday's rant by Trump came just days after his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Trump claimed commented personally on the 2020 election and mail-in ballots. In a Friday night interview with Fox News, Trump claimed "one of the most interesting" things Putin said during their talks about ending the war in Ukraine was about mail-in voting in the United States and how Trump would have won the election were it not for voter fraud, echoing Trump's own disproven claims.
Trump: Vladimir Putin said your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting… he talked about 2020 and he said you won that election by so much.. it was a rigged election. pic.twitter.com/m8v0tXuiDQ
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 16, 2025
Trump said Monday he would sign an executive order on election processes, suggesting that it would forbid mail-in ballots as well as the automatic tabulation machines used in states nationwide. He also said that states, which are in charge of administering their elections at the local level, "must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do."
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, which tracks voting rights and issues related to ballot access, said any executive order by Trump to end mail-in voting or forbid provenly safe and accurate voting machines ahead of the midterms would be "unconstitutional and illegal."
Such an effort, said Elias, "would violate the Constitution and is a major step to prevent free and fair elections."
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.