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.

Three Children, Grandmother Killed in Their Car
An unlawful Israeli strike on a family in a car on November 5, 2023, should be investigated as an apparent war crime, Human Rights Watch said today. The attack killed three girls and their grandmother and wounded their mother.
The family had been traveling from south Lebanon to Beirut in the late afternoon, following heavy shelling by Israeli forces in the area earlier that day, Samir Ayoub, the girls’ uncle, said in a televised interview the night of the attack. Ayoub, a journalist, was traveling in a separate car in front of the car that was hit.
“This attack by Israeli military forces that struck a car carrying a family fleeing violence shows a reckless disregard for civilian life,” said Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Three young girls and their grandmother have lost their lives, our investigations show, as a result of the Israeli military’s failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Their killing is a violation of the laws of war, and Israel’s allies, like the US, should respond to this apparent war crime by demanding accountability for this unlawful strike.”
That evening, the Israeli military admitted carrying out the strike, telling the Times of Israel it “struck a vehicle in Lebanese territory that was identified as a suspicious vehicle containing several terrorists […] The claim that there were several uninvolved civilians in the vehicle is being examined. The event is under review.” According to Human Rights Watch research, they have provided no further evidence to justify their claim.
Human Rights Watch interviewed Ayoub and an official of the civil defense team that responded to the site after the attack. Human Rights Watch also reviewed videos of the aftermath, CCTV footage of the family’s vehicle captured before the strike, and statements by the head of the hospital to which the victims were carried. Human Rights Watch geolocated the videos to confirm the locations.
The girls—Rimas, 14, Taline, 12, and Liane, 10, Chour—their mother, Hoda Hijazi Chour, who was driving the car, and their grandmother, Samira Ayoub, were the only people in the car, Ayoub and the civil defense official said. The head of the Salah Ghandour Hospital in Bint Jbeil was quoted as saying that the bodies of the girls and their grandmother were completely burned, while the mother was injured but in stable condition.
Ayoub said that he had used that particular road daily when traveling from his house in Aitaroun to visit his sister’s house in Blida. “All people in the town use that road when they go to buy groceries or get supplies,” he said. “There are no military targets there.”
Human Rights Watch found no evidence of a military target in the vicinity. But if there were one, targeting a car carrying civilians, along with the Israeli military’s admission of targeting the car while failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, makes the strike unlawful. Under the laws of war, all parties must do everything feasible to verify that targets are valid military objectives. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person must be considered a civilian.
In a televised interview the night of the attack, Ayoub said that shortly before the strike, the two cars had stopped at a small shop in Aitaroun. Human Rights Watch reviewed a video recording provided by Ayoub from the CCTV camera at the shop showing the family’s vehicle and geolocated it to be around 1.7 kilometers from the attack site, confirming Ayoub’s account.
The CCTV footage shows a child and a woman, identified as the mother and Liane, with Ayoub, leaving the shop. The footage shows at least two young girls in the back seat of the car and two women in the front seats.
A recording of a live TV transmission from the site of the strike shows the civil defense team taking a charred body from the car and putting it into an ambulance. Ayoub, with blood on his shirt, can be heard saying that the children and their grandmother had been killed, while the mother was injured.
In a TV interview recorded shortly after the strike, Ayoub said that the family had planned to drive to his house before heading to Beirut. “I told them to play in front of the car since a [surveillance drone] was flying over them. I told them the drone will see you now and know there are children in the car. The three little girls, they were burned in the car before my eyes, and their mother was screaming. I pulled her out. But we couldn’t do anything. The children were burning, screaming but we couldn’t do anything.”
Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported that Ayoub was driving the first car while the others followed behind in the second car. The second car was hit directly, causing it to flip onto the side of the road as it was engulfed in flames, according to the agency.
The latest Israeli strikes come in the context of increased tensions along the Lebanon-Israel border, where rocket attacks and armed clashes between the Israeli army and various Lebanese and Palestinian armed groups have been ongoing since October 8. As of November 10, Israeli attacks in Lebanon have reportedly killed at least 10 civilians, in addition to at least 70 Hezbollah fighters. Rocket strikes and other attacks into Israel by Hezbollah and Palestinian groups have reportedly killed at least two civilians and six soldiers.
In a statement it published on November 5, Hezbollah said that it responded to the strike on the civilian car with a barrage of Grad rockets on Kiryat Shmona. While Israeli media reports indicated that there were no injuries from the attack on Kiryat Shmona, one Israeli civilian was killed by Hezbollah rocket strikes in Kibbutz Yiftah in northern Israel on the same day. On October 20, the Israeli Ministry of Defense had ordered the evacuation of Kiryat Shmona, which, alongside other towns within four kilometers of the border, the Israeli military has declared a closed military zone.
Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, suggested in a televised speech on November 3 that attacks by Israel on civilians would be met with retaliatory attacks on civilians. Under international humanitarian law, belligerent reprisals against civilians are prohibited. Parties to a conflict are obligated to abide by international humanitarian law irrespective of the conduct of the other party. Laws-of-war violations by one side do not justify violations by the other side.
On October 7, a Hamas-led attack in southern Israel resulted in the killing of about 1,200 people, hundreds of them civilians, according to the Israeli government. Hamas and Islamic Jihad took more than 200 people hostage, including children, people with disabilities, and older people.
Heavy bombardment of Gaza by Israeli forces since October 7 has killed, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, more than 11,000 Palestinians, including thousands of civilians and more than 4,500 children, and displaced more than 1.5 million people. Israeli authorities have cut electricity, water, fuel, and food into Gaza, exacerbating an already dire humanitarian situation as a result of Israel’s 16-year unlawful closure of the strip. In the West Bank, Israeli forces and settlers have killed 169 Palestinians as of November 11, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
Israel’s key allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany—should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel, and Iran and other governments should cease providing arms to Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses.
Under international humanitarian law, all parties to the conflict are under a duty, at all times during the conflict, to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to target only combatants. Individuals who commit serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent—that is, intentionally or recklessly—may be prosecuted for war crimes. Individuals may also be held criminally liable for assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime. All governments that are parties to an armed conflict are obligated to investigate alleged war crimes by members of their armed forces.
The attack on a vehicle containing only fleeing civilians shows reckless disregard by the Israeli military for its obligation to distinguish between civilian and military objects and a significant failure to take adequate safeguards to prevent civilian deaths, Human Rights Watch said.
“Israeli authorities have long failed to credibly investigate their own serious abuses, even when they acknowledge they carried them out,” Kaiss said. “With Israeli authorities continuing to commit abuses with impunity, Israel’s allies should insist on accountability for Israel’s violations of the laws of war and this apparent war crime.”
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.
"Fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said the speaker of the Iranian Parliament.
As the Iranian government denied President Donald Trump's claim on Monday that "productive" talks are taking place between the US and the Middle Eastern country, which the White House has joined Israel in attacking for close to a month, a top Iranian lawmaker accused the president of attempting to manipulate global markets with his claim.
"No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, in a post on X.
Ghalibaf's theory appeared to be supported by developments in the financial markets shortly after Trump's seemingly significant announcement Monday morning.
As the market analysis and commentary website The Kobeissi Letter reported, by 7:10 am Eastern—six minutes after Trump appeared to allude to diplomatic strides toward ending his unprovoked war—the S&P 500 surged by more than 240 points, adding more than $2 trillion in market capitalization.
Iran's Foreign Ministry denied Trump's claim 27 minutes later, and by 8:00 AM Eastern the S&P 500 had fallen by 120 points, erasing nearly $1 trillion in market value.
"That's a $3 TRILLION swing market cap in 56 minutes, just in the S&P 500," said The Kobeissi Letter. "What is happening here?"
Ahead of Ghalibaf's remarks, The New Republic also posited that Trump's "news" of productive discussions was "just a ploy at market manipulation."
The quick denial of talks from the Foreign Ministry raised "serious doubts as to whether the president is telling the truth or just saying whatever he can to stop gas prices from rising more and more as Iran locks down the Strait of Hormuz."
Since the US and Israel began its assault on Iran on February 28, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows, and sent gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon, up from $2.91 before the war.
The war, which has killed more than 3,200 Iranians and exploded into a larger conflict, with more than 1,000 people killed in Lebanon and at least 60 killed in Iraq, has appeared politically toxic for Trump, who campaigned on "no new wars" and making life more affordable for Americans.
Nearly 80% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 said last week that they hope for a quick end to the war.
Some observers noted that even the president's five-day deadline for negotiations to conclude—after which he suggested the US could launch strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure—appeared to revolve around the week's closing of energy markets on Friday.
"Every week, when markets open, Trump makes these kinds of statements to drive down oil prices," said Iranian academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi. "Even his five-day deadline aligns with the closure of the energy market. But in reality, there are no negotiations underway, nor does Trump have the capability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's firm threat has once again forced Trump to back down."
On Saturday, Trump had threatened to "obliterate" Iran's power plants if it didn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Monday. Iran responded with a threat to target energy infrastructure across the region, including in Israel.
A senior Iranian official told Drop Site News that "no new developments have occurred” diplomatically between the US and Iran.
Iran's conditions for ending the war, the official said, include a simultaneous ceasefire in Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq. The government is also demanding an end to US sanctions on Iran's procurement of defensive weapons and equipment.
“The fact that he publicly responds to [Iran’s position] by posting a tweet," the official said, "is solely intended to manage the financial markets—nothing more."
"The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close," said one critic.
Critics slammed the Trump administration on Monday after it announced a deal to pay almost $1 billion to a French energy company to cancel its plans to construct wind farms across the eastern US.
As reported by The New York Times, French firm TotalEnergies has agreed to forfeit its leases in federal waters off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, and will instead invest the money it received from the Trump administration into oil and gas projects in the US, "including a facility in Texas that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets."
TotalEnergies paid nearly $928 million for the rights to access federal waters during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The Times described the agreement as "an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, while throttling offshore wind power."
Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of TotalEnergies, said that the firm decided to abandon its US wind farm plans due to "practical" considerations, while emphasizing that the firm wasn't giving up on wind power all together.
"When the Trump administration came to power and began setting US energy policy, we said that we’ll have to reconsider, clearly, these offshore wind project developments," explained Pouyanné, adding that "we continue to invest in onshore solar, onshore wind, batteries."
Many critics expressed disbelief that the Trump administration would go to such extraordinary lengths to kill a clean energy project, especially after the president sent oil and gasoline prices soaring earlier this month when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
"Let’s call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives," wrote climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action in a social media post. "Trump is once again making Americans pay more for energy so his Big Oil donors can rake in even more profits."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, expressed a similar sentiment.
"$1 billion of our tax dollars to kill a clean energy program that creates jobs, just so Trump's Big Oil donors can make more profit," D'Arrigo wrote. "The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at press watchdog Media Matters for America, argued that the agreement was a corrupt bargain aimed at hurting the president's political foes, including the Democratic leaders of New York and North Carolina.
"Climate/renewables arguments aside, this is the president's administration paying a foreign company to invest in states where Republicans are in charge rather than ones where Democrats are in charge," Gertz wrote, "using tax dollars to punish people who didn't vote for his party."
US Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) said that the deal to kill the planned wind farms was yet another example of the Trump administration making life in the US less affordable.
"This administration just spent $1 BILLION of your money to make sure wind farms don't get built," Blunt Rochester wrote. "You''ll have them to thank for higher electric bills each month."
Mail-in voting "is relied upon by nearly one million Americans serving in the military abroad and nearly 50 million Americans living in the US," noted one expert.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case in which Republicans are trying to ban states from accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day—a development that opponents warned could disenfranchise many of the roughly 50 million Americans who voted by mail in 2024.
Watson v. Republican National Committee challenges Mississippi's grace period for accepting mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. While most states require mailed ballots to arrive by that date, 14 states provide extra time ranging from days to weeks. Such grace periods allow the votes of people including US troops stationed overseas, Americans living abroad, disabled people, and others to be counted.
The case is partly driven by President Donald Trump's unfounded assertion that mail-in voting is riddled with fraud. Following Trump's 2020 election loss, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—created by the president in 2018—called the contest “the most secure in American history.” Trump promptly fired the head of the agency before leaving office.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider a GOP effort to dramatically restrict mail-in voting Monday, when it hears oral arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
[image or embed]
— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) March 22, 2026 at 8:31 AM
Legal experts observing Monday's oral arguments said that some of the six Republican-appointed justices appeared sympathetic to arguments for restricting mail-in voting.
University of Michigan Law School professor Leah Litman said on Bluesky that Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas "sound like complete MAGA-pilled 'absentee voting/mail in voting is fraudulent' brains" who are "open to invalidating state laws allowing vote counting after Election Day—and perhaps more voting forms."
"They are doing what they often do in these cases with unhinged theories—invent far fetched hypos (could a state allow you to retract your vote, or say your vote is cast when you give your brother a ballot) to distract from what the case is about (is mail-in absentee voting going to be banned)," Litman added.
Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern said on Bluesky that Justice Samuel Alito "strongly implied that vote-by-mail, as practiced in most of the country today, is highly susceptible to fraud," adding that Gorsuch and Thomas "leaned in that direction as well," while Justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts "are harder to read."
"SO many questions from the Republican-appointed justices so far having little or nothing to do with the law—they're venting their evident frustrations about modern election laws that broadly authorize mail voting and fretting that they're spoiling elections with distrust and fraud," Stern continued. "Really bad!"
"It's also pretty clear that the Republican-appointed justices do not understand a great deal about how elections are actually administered," he added. "Their questions (and especially hypotheticals) are built on weird, paranoid fantasies that do not align with reality."
Others warned of the high likelihood of voter disenfranchisement should the justices limit mailed ballots.
“Watson v. RNC is a brazen Republican effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans seeking to vote in the midterm elections," said Court Accountability co-founder Lisa Graves. "Mail-in voting has been part of the American election system since the Civil War, and this method of voting is relied upon by nearly one million Americans serving in the military abroad and nearly 50 million Americans living in the US."
“Of course, the hyper-partisan Roberts Court is considering using the power of the nation’s highest court–again–to put its thumb on the scale of justice in ways sought by the Republican Party," Graves continued. "Three Trump appointees on the Supreme Court are poised to join three other Republican appointees to side with the radical ruling of a trio of operatives Trump appointed to the Fifth Circuit."
Last November, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down a Mississippi law that allowed mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days, setting up the Supreme Court showdown.
“Vote-by-mail is a secure and widely used way to participate in our elections," Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said Monday. "It’s a lifeline for military and overseas voters, voters with disabilities, elderly voters, and rural voters living far from their polling places. Nearly one-third of the votes cast in the 2024 election were cast by mail, proving just how essential this option has become."
“Watson v. RNC is part of a broader effort to dismantle voting options ahead of this year’s midterms," Harvey continued. "After pushing congressional Republicans to eliminate vote-by-mail and adopting [United States Postal Service] policy changes that could disqualify ballots sent on time, Donald Trump and his allies are asking the Supreme Court to finish the job."
"If the court rules in their favor, they’ll be making it easier for politicians to hold onto power without answering to voters," she added.
Critics allege that disenfranchisement is the point of policies like limiting mail-in voting or requiring voter ID. Republicans have implied—and even admitted outright—that these policies help Republicans win elections. During a 2020 interview, Trump said he opposed expanding mail-in voting, saying such a move would mean the country would "never have a Republican elected... again."
Last year, Trump signed the Orwellian-named “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” executive order, which critics argued would do just the opposite by making it more difficult for millions of voters to cast their ballots. Among other things, the decree pushes states to require proof of citizenship when voting—a policy that opponents warn disproportionately disenfranchises lower-income individuals, elderly, and adopted people without easy access to their birth certificates and those born at home in rural areas whose birth records were never officially filed.
Congressional Republicans are also pushing the SAVE Act and Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, the latter of which was described by one analyst as the “most dangerous attack on voting rights ever" proposed in Congress. The SAVE Act—which would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of US citizenship—passed in the House last month.