

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.

Syrian security forces responded to a large peaceful protest on July 1, 2011, in Syria's central city of Hama with a series of deadly raids, killing at least 16 people in the last 48 hours, Human Rights Watch said today. Security forces and pro-government armed groups, known locally as shabiha, raided homes, opening fire several times, and set up checkpoints encircling Hama, Syria's fourth-largest city.
"Hama is the latest city to fall victim to President Bashar al-Asad's security forces despite his promises that his government would tolerate peaceful protests," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Security forces have responded to protests with the brutality that's become familiar over the past several months."
Security forces had been largely absent from Hama, a city of 800,000, since June 3, when they opened fire on anti-government protesters, killing at least 60 people, according to media reports. In the following weeks, Hama residents took to the streets for regular protests that participants and media reports consistently reported as peaceful.
The marches culminated in a massive demonstration in al-Assi square on July 1, which drew tens of thousands of protesters - hundreds of thousands by some estimates. Syrian activists hailed it as the largest protest in Syria since the uprising began in mid-March. The protest was peaceful and unimpeded by government forces, according to witnesses, media reports, and videos reviewed by Human Rights Watch.
The next day, however, President al-Asad fired the governor of Hama, Ahmad Khaled Abdel Aziz, and security forces began a campaign of arrests, local residents and human rights activists told Human Rights Watch. A human rights lawyer, Razan Zeitouneh, told Human Rights Watch that security forces entered the outskirts of the city on July 2 and began arresting people, prompting residents to set tires on fire to prevent security forces from entering their streets. One resident described his neighborhood's response:
We had a system prepared for when the security forces came to arrest people. When we saw them coming, we would bang pots and pans to alert everyone else so the young men in the neighborhood could leave their homes and escape. After a few hours, security forces caught on to the system, so they started throwing teargas and stun grenades so people would be too scared to leave their homes and run away. Security forces then arrest people in bulk and load them into big cars; we don't know where they're taking them. They're targeting men between 10 and 45 years old.
The following day, in the early hours of July 3, security forces deployed in large numbers in the city, witnesses told Human Rights Watch, setting up checkpoints at the city entrances at 4 a.m. One resident said he heard gunfire starting at 2 a.m., then saw the military deploy at 5 a.m.
Residents told Human Rights Watch that arrests subsequently took place in the Hama neighborhoods of `Ain Louza, Gharab al-Mashtal, Janoub al-Mal`ab, al-Jaraajmah, al-Gharayah, al-Hadr, and al-`Alaliyat. Witnesses said that most of the security forces carrying out arrests were wearing military clothing, but there were also men dressed in civilian clothes armed with rifles.
"The forces would surround a building with a big number of cars, then go inside to arrest their targets," one witness told Human Rights Watch. "They also drove tanks through the streets to scare us by reminding us of the 1982 massacre." In February 1982, Syrian army commandos brutally crushed an anti-government rebellion in Hama, destroying entire neighborhoods and killing an estimated 10,000 people.
Another resident, who said he personally knew of at least 20 people who had been arrested, described what happened in his neighborhood, al-Mahatta, in the early hours of July 3:
When people heard the commotion [of security forces approaching], they ran outside and started chanting "Allah akbar," using megaphones to wake up everyone else. More and more people then came outside and started burning tires to block the roads. There was a small confrontation between those people and the security forces, who started shooting at the people. The people fought back by throwing stones.
Residents told Human Rights Watch that security forces opened fire in certain areas during the raids, killing at least 16 people and wounding dozens more. The National Organization for Human Rights, a Syrian human rights group, published a list of 22 killed.
On July 4, security forces shot `Amer Khalouf, 13, from Kazo village just west of Hama, while he stood in the street with other boys, said a local resident. Security forces also shot Naser al-Shami on al-Marabet Street while he stood with a group of young men who were watching their neighborhood, and residents took him to a local hospital, said a doctor and local activists interviewed by Human Rights Watch. They reported that al-Shami subsequently died from his injuries. A witness who was at the Hourani hospital at the end of the afternoon on July 4 reported that he saw nine wounded people who appeared to be in critical condition.
The arrest campaign and the shooting intensified on July 5, residents told Human Rights Watch. They provided Human Rights Watch with the names of 14 residents killed that day: Muhammad Bitar, Imad Khallouf, Ali al-Nahar, Hassan Sarakbi, Baha' Hablousi, Jamal Dalati, Khaled Dalati, Muhammad al-Qasem, `Imad Khalouf, Baha' Fayez al-Nahar, Ahmad Bitar, Fuad Mukhalalati, Abdel Salam Ibrahim al-`Ar`our, and Muhammad Sueid. All died from bullet wounds, based on the testimony and videos of their bodies posted on YouTube, though the exact circumstances of their deaths remain unclear.
A Hourani hospital official told Human Rights Watch that the hospital received the bodies of four people on July 5 and treated 60 people with gunshot wounds, 7 of whom remained in critical condition. The Syrian army surrounded the Hourani hospital on July 5 scaring many of those who had assembled around the hospital, but did not enter the facility or arrest any of the wounded there.
"Syria's security forces still believe they can shoot their own people into submission," Whitson said. "But their bloody tactics only serve to deepen the gap between citizens and the institutions that are supposed to protect them."
Among those arrested on July 3 were Mohammed Sayed al-Sayed, from al-Baath neighborhood; Amr al-Aqrah, from al-Sejouah; Nadim Hassan al-Qar'aour, from al-Sejouah; Hashim al-Aqrah; and Hossan Lebaniyah. A family member of Mohammed Sayed al-Sayed told Human Rights Watch that security forces arrested 35 young men in al-Hadr neighborhood at 5 a.m. on July 3, some from their homes and some from al-Manakh mosque, and arrested three women in al-Salumiyah neighborhood. Women were also assaulted and beaten in al-Arbayin neighborhood, this person said.
Those arrested on July 4 and 5 include Ashraf Daood, Hamzi Hawa, Hazem Ajneed, Tarek al-Judu`, Ezz al-Deen Malas, `Amer al-Shami, Hamdo al-Judu`, Faraj al-Judu`, Sam al-Achkar, Abdel Azeez Handawi, Muhammad Telkawi, Mu`ad Zaydan, Ziad Zaydan, Abdel Aziz Zaydan.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"The only real energy independence from the Middle East is renewables," said one policy expert.
Average gas prices in the United States are quickly climbing toward $5 per gallon this week as US President Donald Trump's war with Iran shows little sign of resolution.
Where average prices were about $2.98 the day before the war's launch, they had shot up to $4.48 as of Tuesday, according to AAA's gas price tracker, as Iran's restriction of ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz has squeezed global oil shipping and the shipping of other fuel sources like liquefied natural gas (LNG), causing global price hikes.
And while Trump has touted America’s supposed “energy independence” as an ace in the hole, achieved by ratcheting up fossil fuel production while canceling solar and wind power projects, data shows that the US has been hit harder by the price shocks than any other major economy in the world, with those that have embraced renewable energy being especially resilient.
Although the US leads the world in oil production by a large margin, data from JP Morgan Commodities research, analyzed Friday by MarketWatch, showed that between February 23 and April 27, the US experienced about a 42% increase in gas prices, the fifth-highest in the world.
"The spike in US gasoline prices over the past two months has outpaced everywhere except Southeast Asia, the region most dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf," explained Yahoo Finance geopolitics reporter Jake Conley.
Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader and managing director at CIBC Private Wealth, explained to MarketWatch last week that while increased fuel production gives the US a "buffer," oil is a global market and "it doesn’t operate in a vacuum." She said, "Global tightness and domestic bottlenecks still show up in gasoline prices."
Meanwhile, some of the countries that have best survived the price hikes include France and Spain, which derive large shares of their power from nuclear energy and renewables, respectively.
Craig Hanson and Jessica Isaacs, a pair of researchers at the World Resources Institute, explained last month that while a mix of factors is at play, countries less reliant on fossil fuels generally "find themselves in a better position to withstand the current crisis."
"Every country has homegrown access to at least two clean energy resources—the sun shines, and the wind blows just about everywhere at some point," they said. "The same cannot be said of oil and gas, where production is concentrated in a small number of countries and exposed to geopolitical disruption."
"Renewable resources like wind, solar, and geothermal have zero fuel costs, and the fuel cost of nuclear power is quite low. Again, the same cannot be said of fossil fuels, which have costs set by volatile global markets," they added. "These two advantages are why some of the world’s clean energy frontrunners are faring better than other countries amidst the Iranian energy crisis."
As Reuters reported in late April, the contrast between Europe's biggest gas guzzlers and green energy adopters is particularly stark.
While Albania has kept energy prices in check and even lowered them compared to last year by using its large system of hydroelectric dams, which supply much of its power, countries like Germany and Italy, which still rely heavily on gas, have seen electricity prices spike.
Hanson and Isaacs noted that while clean energy investments have helped soften the blow of global price shocks, the effects are not the same across the board. While price hikes for the electricity used to power factories, homes, and cars have been blunted by the availability of alternative energy sources, others, like heat—which are more reliant on natural gas—have still been affected.
Still, though, they said the crisis has shown that in addition to environmental sustainability, "clean energy systems’ greatest benefits today might actually be price stability and domestic energy resilience."
While Trump has continued his efforts to choke off any federal investment in renewable energy and double down on oil and gas production, other nations have taken the war’s price hikes as a sign to further accelerate their transition away from fossil fuels.
Germany and several other European Union members, for example, have announced expedited timelines to expand offshore wind and solar investments, explicitly citing the volatility in oil markets caused by the war.
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the energy price shocks showed that "the only real energy independence from the Middle East is renewables."
"The language of the constitutional amendment... makes it clear that no, he is not eligible for a third term," Sen. Chris Coons informed one Trump judicial nominee.
Political observers are expressing alarm after several of President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees refused to say whether he is eligible to run for a third term.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked Trump judicial nominee John Marck to describe the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that "no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."
"The 22nd Amendment... senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution, I haven't had an opportunity to use that one, specifically," Marck replied.
JUST IN: A Trump judicial nominee was asked point blank: is Trump eligible to run for a third term?
Their answer: “I would have to review the actual wording…”
Sen. Chris Coons then asked every nominee in the room to confirm the Constitution bars a third term.
Silence.
Every… pic.twitter.com/LzUZxFzaOL
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) May 4, 2026
"Anyone able to help on the 22nd Amendment?" Coons asked the other judicial nominees at the hearing, one of whom explained that it was the amendment that sets a two-term limit for the presidency.
"Correct," Coons replied. "It states that no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. Mr. Marck, is President Trump eligible to run again for president in 2028?"
"Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this, to me, strikes as something more of a hypothetical..."
"It's not a hypothetical," Coons interjected. "Has President Trump been elected president twice?"
"President Trump has been certified as president of the United States two times," Marck acknowledged.
"Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?" Coons asked.
"Uhm, I would have to review the..." Marck began before Coons again interjected.
"All I need to tell you is the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that no, he is not eligible for a third term," the senator said.
Coons then challenged other Trump judicial nominees at the hearing—Southern District of Florida nominee Jeffrey Kuntz, Southern District of Texas nominee Arthur Roberts Jones, and Northern District of Ohio nominee Michael Hendershot—to say if they believed the Constitution barred Trump from running for a third term, and none of them did.
After watching video of Coons' exchange with Trump judicial nominees, investigative journalist and author Nick Bryant declared the whole episode to be "really chilling."
"Like a scene from a dystopian movie, and alarming for anyone who cares about democracy," Bryant wrote in a Monday social media post. "A judicial nominee flagrantly flouting the Constitution about Trump's eligibility for a third term. The Constitution is unambiguous. He is not eligible."
Former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson noted that the Trump nominees were "not even pretending to honor the Constitution" during the hearing, while former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) simply declared the entire exchange "unreal."
While the chances of Trump being allowed to stand for an unconstitutional third term at the moment are very low, the president has repeatedly teased plans to run for president again in 2028, telling an audience on Monday that he would be leaving the White House "eight or nine years from now."
Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and current professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, said that Trump's declared intention to run for a third term should not be brushed off as mere trolling.
"This is how he started with the whole 'if I lose the election is fraudulent' shtick," she wrote. "If we don’t listen to this, shame on us. That man isn’t building a ballroom for the next guy."
"Washington’s silence on the program is indefensible amid the war in Iran and the acute threat of military escalation, they argue. And they are right," said one arms control expert.
More than two dozen Democratic lawmakers in the US House of Representatives are urging the Trump administration to break its official silence on Israel's nuclear weapons program, whose existence is almost universally acknowledged even as its origins and status remain shrouded in secrecy.
In a letter to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday, the group of House Democrats led by Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas wrote that "Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be fully informed about the nuclear balance in the Middle East, the risk of escalation by any party to this conflict, and the administration's planning and contingencies for such scenarios," particularly as it wages war on Iran in partnership with the Israeli government.
"The risks of miscalculation, escalation, and nuclear use in this environment are not theoretical," the lawmakers wrote. "A policy of official ambiguity about the nuclear capabilities of one party to this conflict makes coherent nonproliferation policy in the Middle East impossible, for Iran, for Saudi Arabia, and for every other state in the region making decisions based on their perceptions of the capabilities of their neighbors."
The House Democrats pressed Rubio to provide detailed information the US possesses about Israel's nuclear weapons program, including the country's current fissile material capability, nuclear doctrine, and "any indications of Israel planning to use or deploy nuclear weapons during the recent Iran conflict or during other conflicts."
Israeli leaders have for decades maintained a posture of deliberate ambiguity regarding their country's nuclear weapons capacity, even as some officials have at times tacitly acknowledged the nation's nukes—including by suggesting they could be dropped on Gaza—and falsely claimed that Iran was on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon.
Israel is believed to have begun producing nuclear weapons in the 1960s, helped in part by uranium that US intelligence agencies suspected was obtained from a factory in the United States.
Analysts estimate that Israel currently has between 90 and 300 nuclear warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
"The United States’ indulgence of Israeli nuclear weapons has not escaped international attention, and the evident hypocrisy has undermined US nonproliferation policy," Victor Gilinsky, a former commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Leonard Weiss, a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, wrote in a March op-ed for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
"The US government’s public position continues to be that it does not know anything about Israeli nuclear weapons, and this will apparently continue until Israel releases the United States’ gag," Gilinsky and Weiss continued. "This policy is allegedly enforced by a secret federal bulletin that threatens disciplinary actions for any US official who publicly acknowledges Israel’s nuclear weapons."
Experts and anti-war campaigners applauded the group of House Democrats for demanding an end to the US government's official silence on Israel's nuclear weapons program.
"Washington’s silence on the program is indefensible amid the war in Iran and the acute threat of military escalation, they argue. And they are right," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association.
The advocacy group Win Without War thanked Castro and his colleagues for "breaking DC’s 'taboo' over the Israeli government's nuclear weapons—especially concerning as US and Israeli leaders wage a disastrous war of choice in the Middle East."