SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ann wright
'Up in Arms': Ben & Jerry's Co-Founder Launches New Campaign Against Bloated Pentagon Budget
"If we take half the money budgeted for the Pentagon and invested in the things people need and want," said Ben Cohen, "the American Dream can become a reality again."
Jun 14, 2025
Joined by retired military officers and national security experts, Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen on Thursday launched a campaign targeting the nearly $900 billion Pentagon budget and the $100 billion spent on nuclear weapons and "to get our country to start funding the American Dream instead of the death of millions of people."
Standing near Union Station in Washington, D.C. beside a towering sculpture showing what $100 billion looks like, supporters of the Up in Arms campaign—a planned four-year public education and advocacy project "to bring common sense to the Department of Defense and the country's budgetary bottom line"—chanted, "Money for the poor, not nuclear war!"
"There will be no peace, there will be no security, until we start using our resources to provide for the needs of our people at home and around the world," Cohen said at the event. "And we have the money to do it, at no additional taxpayer expense. If we take half the money budgeted for the Pentagon and invested in the things people need and want, the American Dream can become a reality again."
The peace group Ploughshares, which moderated a press conference for the launch of Up in Arms, said that the faux-$100 billion installation could be the tallest protest structure ever erected in Washington, D.C.
"This is a structure that represents the $100 billion that our country spends each year on nuclear weapons," Cohen said while standing in front of the tower and embracing Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of the peace group CodePink. "Fifty percent of that is for a whole new generation of nuclear weapons."
"Ice cream not bombs!" Benjamin said next. "Ice cream not nuclear weapons!"
The $100 billion figure includes spending on modernizing the nuclear arsenal, supporting its infrastructure, and addressing legacy issues like nuclear waste.
"Congress could make it easier for Americans to buy homes and save on gas or they could tackle the opioid epidemic–but those are clearly NOT their priorities," Up in Arms says on its website. "We have all the money we need to create a good life for all Americans. For half the money we spend on nuclear bombs, we could stop poisoning kids with lead, provide funding for public schools, and make childcare affordable."
Former U.S. military officers-turned-peace defenders Dennis Laich, Lawrence Wilkerson, Ann Wright, Karen Kwiatkowski, William Astore, and Dennis Fritz, as well as FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley and former CIA officer Ray McGovern, are taking part in the Up in Arms campaign.
"We're here today to say we don't want our money spent this way, we want our money spent… on things that keep people alive, not on things that kill people," said Wright, a former U.S. Army colonel and current member of the Eisenhower Media Network and Veterans Against Genocide.
"We're up in arms and down on these damn nuclear weapons," she added, "and We the People have to be able to go to each one of these congresspeople and say, 'We don't care how much money you're getting from all of these companies that make a killing out if killing with these nuclear weapons.'"
Laich, a former U.S. Army general also with the Eisenhower Media Network, noted that the U.S. military budget "is larger than the next 10 countries combined, and what do we get for it?"
"Since World War II, we tied in Korea, we lost in Vietnam, we won the first Gulf War, we lost in Iraq, and we lost in Afghanistan," he said. "They always say we have the greatest military on earth; I don't buy it."
President Donald Trump is proposing a record $1 trillion Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2026 while backing legislation that would dramatically slash spending on vital social programs in order to fund a massive tax break that would overwhelmingly benefit the rich and corporations.
On Friday, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons—which earned the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for spearheading the landmark Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—published an analysis showing the world's nine nuclear powers spent a combined baseline $100 billion on their arsenals last year, an 11% increase from 2023. The United States alone accounted for well over half of that amount.
Cohen is a longtime anti-war activist. Last month, he was arrested after disrupting a Senate hearing, shouting, "Congress kills poor kids in Gaza by buying bombs and pays for it by kicking kids off Medicaid in the U.S." as he was hauled off by police.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Underhanded Israeli Tactic Delays Flotilla Departure
This is not the first time that Israel has used these kinds of tactics to stop our ships from sailing. We have overcome them before and are diligently working to overcome this latest attempt.
Apr 26, 2024
The Freedom Flotilla is ready to sail. All the required paperwork has been submitted to the port authority, and the cargo has been loaded and prepared for the trip to Gaza.
However, today we received word of an administrative roadblock initiated by Israel in an attempt to prevent our departure. Israel is pressuring the Republic of Guinea Bissau to withdraw its flag from our lead ship—Akdeniz (“Mediterranean”).
This triggered a request for an additional inspection, this one by the flag state, that delays our April 26 planned departure.
How many more children will die of malnutrition and dehydration because of this delay and an ongoing siege which must be broken?
This is another example of Israel obstructing the delivery of life-saving aid to the people in Gaza who face a deliberately created famine. How many more children will die of malnutrition and dehydration because of this delay and an ongoing siege which must be broken?
This is not the first time that Israel has used these kinds of tactics to stop our ships from sailing. We have overcome them before and are diligently working to overcome this latest attempt.
Our vessels have already passed all required inspections and we are confident that the Akdeniz will pass this inspection provided there is no political interference.
We expect this to be no more than a few days delay. Israel will not break our resolve to reach the Palestinians of Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gaza-Bound Flotilla Aims to End Inhumane Israeli Blockade
"What more can I do?" asked one peace campaigner. "I can go on this flotilla to try to break the criminal siege that Israel has imposed on Gaza."
Apr 05, 2024
As Israel continues to starve Palestinians to death in the Gaza Strip, an international coalition on Friday was preparing to set sail with humanitarian aid and human rights observers "to challenge the ongoing illegal Israeli blockade."
Israel has limited the flow of people and essential goods in and out of Gaza for nearly two decades but dramatically increased those restrictions in response to the Hamas-led October 7 attack. Six months later, Israeli bombs, bullets, and limits on necessities have killed and wounded over 108,000 people and displaced most of the Palestinian territory's 2.3 million residents.
The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC), which has "sailed since 2010 with the goal of breaking the blockade of Gaza," plans to head toward the besieged enclave with 5,500 tons of humanitarian aid and hundreds of observers in mid-April.
In a Thursday statement about the effort, Ismail Moola of South Africa's Palestine Solidarity Alliance—which is part of the FFC—highlighted the January ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that said Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza.
"While our governments fail to lead in these urgently required humanitarian responses, people of conscience and our grassroots organizations must act to take leadership."
While the South Africa-led case is ongoing, the United Nations court directed Israel to prevent genocidal acts and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza—an order the ICJ reiterated last week, noting the "the spread of famine and starvation."
"The International Court of Justice's preliminary measures ordered against Israel are very clear," Moola said. "The court's ruling requires the whole world to play their part to stop the genocide unfolding in Gaza, including unobstructed access to vital aid."
"While our governments fail to lead in these urgently required humanitarian responses, people of conscience and our grassroots organizations must act to take leadership," Moola asserted. "When governments fail, we sail!"
The top international funder of the Israeli assault on Gaza is the U.S. government, which gives the country nearly $4 billion in annual military support. Since October 7, the Biden administration has sought billions more while also repeatedly bypassing Congress to send more weapons to Israeli forces.
As the death toll in Gaza has soared, U.S. President Joe Biden has urged Israel's leaders to precisely target Hamas militants while also refusing to cut off armed assistance, despite pressure from Americans and people worldwide. In a Thursday call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden reportedly threatened to condition future military support. Shortly after that, Israeli officials approved reopening the Erez crossing to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.
"President Biden waited six months, waited until 33,000 had been killed, mostly women and children, before picking up the phone and demanding that Netanyahu reduce civilian harm, allow more aid in, and protect aid workers," said Ann Wright, a retired U.S. Army colonel and State Department official who is now with the women-led peace group CodePink, in a statement Friday.
"But even if Israel allows more humanitarian aid in, it is still bombing Gaza with U.S. bombs, shooting innocent people and imprisoning the... people that live in Gaza," she added. "Getting humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza is urgent, but it is not sufficient. We must end Israel's unlawful, deadly blockade as well as Israel's overall control of Gaza. That's why we need this flotilla, filled with unarmed civilians, human rights observers from 30 countries, to challenge Israel’s brutal grip on the Gaza Strip."
"Even if Israel allows more humanitarian aid in, it is still bombing Gaza with U.S. bombs."
Wright plans to join the flotilla later this month, along with CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin.
"I have been walking the halls of Congress every day since October, going to rallies every weekend, writing letters of outrage to President Biden every night—and nothing has worked to stop Israel from murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent people," said Benjamin. "What more can I do? I can go on this flotilla to try to break the criminal siege that Israel has imposed on Gaza."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Can't the US Media Ever Seem to Get It Right on War?
There seems to be something about war that journalists can’t resist and blind spots they can’t overcome.
Mar 10, 2024
War, what is it good for? Well, the media for starters.
Shortly after the Biden administration responded to the killing of three American soldiers in a drone attack on a base in Jordan by bombing 85 Iran-connected targets in Iraq and Syria, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) asked in a headline: “Is the press dragging America to war again?”
Again? I thought. Shouldn’t that be “still”?
That headline was on a recent Media Today newsletter by Jon Allsop who regularly covers what could be considered the favorite topic of journalists: themselves. He was mulling over media criticism of how the government had (or hadn’t) disclosed information about that just-launched bombing campaign, as well as its goals, while considering the accusation that some news platforms were rooting for a wider regional war. CJR is a fair-minded publication, so Allsop warned against generalizing (as I’m about to do), pointing out that “asking questions about planned strikes isn’t the same as advocating them.” Yes, I thought, but when you focus your questions on that subject, as so many media reports did after those American deaths and before the Biden administration launched its attacks, not surprisingly it can have that effect.
Reporting doesn’t necessarily intend to make us uneasy, alarmed, or generally bummed out, but that’s often its result.
As the death toll in Gaza passed 30,000, on-the-ground reporting on the increasingly impossible living conditions there was making Israel’s belligerence seem ever less defensible. Little wonder coverage in the American media focused ever more on prospects for a cease-fire. And seemingly in tandem with that possibility, coverage of anxiety over the course of the war in Ukraine returned to the digital equivalent of the front page, making me wonder whether the media requires at least one war to cheerlead for or fret about at any given time.
The situations in Ukraine and Gaza are anything but the same militarily, strategically, politically, morally, or journalistically, and there are timely reasons for focusing once again on Ukraine. It was, after all, the second anniversary of Russia’s February 24, 2022 invasion. Cue up the requisite assessments of the situation, with predictions about Ukraine’s military prospects ranging from grim to dire, and photos showing the hard, inglorious miseries of war. The U.N. verified that at least 10,582 Ukrainian civilians had been killed by late February, while estimates—assumed to be wild undercounts—put soldiers’ deaths at more than 45,000 for Russia and 31,000 for Ukraine, with tens of thousands more wounded on both sides.
Add to the list of news pegs Donald Trump’s extortionate claim that, were he to win the presidency again, he would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to any NATO country that doesn’t ramp up its military funding to his standards; the opportunely revealed threat that Russia might put a nuclear weapon into orbit; and the suspicious death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, and you’ve certainly got the attention of American news consumers. Meanwhile, funding for U.S. military aid to Ukraine has become a political football in Congress, whose dysfunction, while hardly new, was still headline-making.
So, war in Ukraine certainly counted as newsworthy, but beyond that there does seem to be something about war that journalists can’t resist and blind spots they can’t overcome.
The Wages of Fear
It’s an open debate whether the press, the mainstream media, the legacy media, whatever you want to call it, leads or follows public opinion. Polls show Americans increasingly go to social media and podcasts for their news. Only 5% of adults now prefer to get it from print publications, and no one seems to trust any news outlet other than The Weather Channel very much. Yet, like it or not (and usually we don’t), the news media continue to influence what we know and how we think about world events, as they set the priorities, language, framework for, and spectrum of public discussion.
Even at a time when a scoop, or exclusive, seldom lasts more than a couple of minutes and news sources from around the world offer alternative reporting and viewpoints, it’s still the newsrooms of a handful of newspapers, magazines, and broadcast and cable channels that generate much of the news we consume on our various devices and apps. That’s especially true for international issues and even truer for the wars the U.S. gets itself involved in, distant as they are.
It’s not that journalists are a particularly callous or bloodthirsty lot. It’s that war makes good copy. Accounts like former war correspondent Chris Hedges’s anguished War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning attest to its seductions. As he wrote, “War is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble.” That “us” includes politicians whom war spurs to soaring pledges of fealty to principles and journalists who thrive on quoting them.
A complicated situation can quickly be reduced to a few catchphrases and, repeated often enough, such phrases become our only reality.
“In the battle between democracy and autocracies, democracies are rising to the moment, and the world is clearly choosing the side of peace and security,” President Joe Biden said of the just-begun Ukraine war in his 2022 State of the Union address. Never mind that his version of peace and security would be propped up by more than $44 billion in military assistance by the time he delivered his 2023 State of the Union address. The president, of course, reaffirmed then that, when tested, America would stand up for democracy. “For such defense matters to us because it keeps peace.” (I don’t quite get how war keeps peace, but we’re undoubtedly not supposed to probe such rhetoric too deeply.)
Not only was democracy imperiled, we were told, but so, too, were neighboring NATO countries. In March 2023, exercising his skill at engaging allies, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, “If we are no more, then, God forbid, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia will be next.” Eleven months later at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Kamala Harris amplified the threat: “If we stand by while an aggressor invades its neighbor with impunity, they will keep going—and in the case of Putin, that means all of Europe would be threatened.” And, predictably, such war rhetoric reminded us again and again and again that history, that relentless scold, is watching.
Politicians say such things and journalists, of course, report them. Moreover, journalism’s portfolio isn’t history, but what’s happening now, giving us an eternal snapshot of an evanescent present. Not surprisingly, then, a complicated situation can quickly be reduced to a few catchphrases and, repeated often enough, such phrases become our only reality. (Just ask Donald Trump how that works, if you don’t believe me.) In the process, it can become an underlying and unchallenged assumption that the pathway to future security and peace is ineluctably through war. And when, according to your government and the media, you have democracy and history on your side, it’s hard to imagine an alternative like negotiating with the enemy as anything less than craven betrayal.
I don’t question that Ukraine’s sovereignty is in danger; or that a country under attack has a right to defend itself; or that Russian President Vladimir Putin will continue to live up to his reputation for provocation and brutality, offing his opponents by defenestration, poison, or means yet to be revealed. The Western commentariat has been fooled before and even Putin may not know what he’s going to do next. Still, there are knowledgeable sources who think that, even with a victory in Ukraine, he would leave NATO alone, at least for the foreseeable future. However, you’d have to read deep into most recent U.S. news stories on the topic to find that side of the argument.
Who Benefits?
On The New York Times podcast “The Daily,” diplomatic correspondent Steven Erlanger observed of European countries now increasing their military spending, “I mean, there’s nothing like scaring people to get them to do things.” And who benefits from a fearful political class and citizenry anywhere? How about the news media?
Reporting doesn’t necessarily intend to make us uneasy, alarmed, or generally bummed out, but that’s often its result. Such results are baked into our idea of news, which, to be news, must be ever-evolving. If you turn away, however anxious you may feel, the implication is that you’ll miss it. What that it you’ll miss is may not always be clear, but social media and its attendant technologies have trained us to thirst for a bottomless tumbler of “content” replenishing itself in lickety-split time.
Fear is profitable not only for the media, but also, of course, for defense contractors. It may be a flaw in our natures or an instinctual reflex, but Americans respond to national anxieties, real or imagined, by arming themselves to the teeth, both personally and nationally, and their allies, too. In 2022, a typical year, this country spent more on “defense” than the next 10 countries combined and, in the two years since Russia invaded Ukraine, it has sent $46.3 billion in military assistance to that country alone (and that’s not even counting other spending related to that war).
“The win-win is for the military-industrial complex and the politicians and retired government officials who receive senior positions in the weapons industry after their retirements.”
And still, if you’re to believe the media, it’s not been faintly enough. Current reporting from Ukraine seldom fails to stress its army’s desperate need for more weapons, equipment, and ammunition. One opinion piece, headlined “This is no time to give up on Ukraine,” even resurrected the tired trope that the Ukrainians are being forced to fight with one arm tied behind their back. And assuming Congress finally passes the necessary appropriation bill, who must step up and produce that weaponry, equipment, and ammunition? Why, the giant American weapons manufacturers of the military-industrial-congressional complex, of course, and if they make a bundle in the process, that’s the definition of good business, right?
It isn’t all a one-way deal, you’ll be relieved to know. The U.S. military, having completed a classified year-long study, is using the Ukraine war to rethink its playbook. And not surprisingly, that war coincides all too well with American economic interests. Speaking at the U.N. Security Council’s 11th meeting on arms transfers to Ukraine last December, Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel, retired State Department official, and peace activist, quoted Secretary of State Antony Blinken as saying that 90% of what this country invested in Ukraine’s defense was spent in the United States, making it a boon for the American economy. “So this has also been a win-win that we need to continue,” he added all too tellingly.
“The ‘win-win’ is not for civilians in conflict areas,” Wright observed. “The win-win is for the military-industrial complex and the politicians and retired government officials who receive senior positions in the weapons industry after their retirements.”
But Enough About Ukraine, What About the U.S.?
By the way, that U.N. meeting wasn’t covered in the media. Why would you report on the 11th meeting of anything? But the Ukraine war remained a lead domestic story before its anniversary in part because of Congress’ deadlock over that supplemental aid package and the way support for and opposition to it tended to break down along ever fiercer and more Trumpian party lines. As a result, the media gets to treat the situation in Ukraine as another American political horserace to hell and back.
After Senate Republicans insisted that funding for Ukraine be tied to Mexican border-security changes and then killed an aid package that did just that, a number of them finally agreed to join Democrats in giving bipartisan approval to a stand-alone military aid bill that included $60.1 billion for Ukraine. That package passed the Senate with the support of 22 Republicans, six military veterans among them. But House Speaker Mike Johnson declined to bring the package to the floor, where it would undoubtedly pass, and instead sent everyone home for two weeks.
“The Republican-led House will not be jammed or forced into passing a foreign aid bill that was opposed by most Republican senators and does nothing to secure our own border,” Johnson said on Valentine’s Day. “The weight of history is on [Mike Johnson’s] shoulders,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer responded not long after, while on a visit to Ukraine.
So, in a roundabout and unintended way, it may end up that a group of American politicians who don’t give a damn about the well- being of Ukraine, following a man who gives a damn only about himself, could be the impetus for negotiations toward peace to begin.
And all of a sudden, with Republicans stalling and Trump bad-mouthing NATO, the media are talking about American isolationism, a wildly Trumpian America First phenomenon that hasn’t been truly fashionable here since 1941, when the attack on Pearl Harbor shifted the support of the American public—and the American press—toward internationalism. Of course, today’s “isolationists” are anything but doves. They want lots of money for weapons, too, but they want to put a lot of those weapons to use right here at home by militarizing the Texas border, big-time.
This may all seem topsy-turvy—once upon a time, Democrats talked peace dividends used for civic programs—until you recall that defense spending has long had bipartisan support in Congress, thanks to giant weapons makers who spread their largesse to politicians of every stripe in a staggering fashion.
Amid all of this, the American public seems to be rethinking its support for Ukraine. A healthy majority supported funding for the war there from the start, but over the last year that support has been weakening (as, far more quickly, has support for the war in Gaza). An October 2023 poll found that, for the first time, a plurality of those asked, 41%, thought the U.S. was doing too much to help Ukraine, while about two-thirds thought neither side was winning there. A poll from early February found, surprisingly enough, that 69% of respondents wanted the U.S. to urge Ukraine to negotiate with Russia as quickly as possible.
Polls, like journalism, show a single moment and can tell us only so much, but public sentiment and news coverage do interact, and, over time, both can influence public policy. No one other than a coalition of stalwart antiwar groups is yet truly beating the drums of peace, but there are reasons why both Ukraine and Russia could benefit from talking to each other now, not the least of which should be the recognition that this devastating war, like most wars, has gone on too long. So, in a roundabout and unintended way, it may end up that a group of American politicians who don’t give a damn about the well- being of Ukraine, following a man who gives a damn only about himself, could be the impetus for negotiations toward peace to begin.
Now, wouldn’t that be something worth reporting?
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Ongoing Dread in Gaza: So Many Names, So Many Lives
"Free Gaza Chicago River Flotilla," three days of action calling for an end to Israeli attacks and blockades in Palestine
Jul 23, 2019
Jehad Abusalim, a Palestinian now living in the United States, grew up in Gaza. Last week, while addressing Chicago activists committed to ending Israeli attacks and blockades in the region, he held up a list of the names of 1,254 Palestinians living in Gaza killed in just one month of Israel's "Operation Protective Edge" attacks five years ago.
"I felt shaky and uneasy all day preparing for this talk," he told the group. He described his dismay when, looking through the list of names, he recognized one of a young man from his small town.
"He was always friendly to me," Abusalim said. "I remember how he would greet me on the way to the mosque. His family and friends loved him, respected him."
Abusalim recalled the intensity of losing loved ones and homes; of seeing livelihoods and infrastructure destroyed by aerial attacks; of being unable to protect the most vulnerable. He said it often takes ten years or more before Palestinian families traumatized by Israeli attacks can begin talking about what happened. Noting Israel's major aerial attacks in 2009, 2013, and 2014, along with more recent attacks killing participants in the "Great March of Return," he spoke of ongoing dread about what might befall Gaza's children the next time an attack happens.
US Boats to Gaza
The day before going on the river, members of the Freedom Flotilla for Gaza joined Voices For Creative Nonviolence in a protest outside of Boeing's offices.
Eighty people gathered to hear Abusalim and Retired Colonel Ann Wright, of US Boat to Gaza, as they helped launch the "Free Gaza Chicago River Flotilla," three days of action culminating on July 20 with a spirited demonstration by "kayactivists" and boaters, along with onshore protesters, calling for an end to the siege of Gaza. Wright resigned from her post as a U.S. diplomat when the United States launched the 2003 Shock and Awe bombing of Iraq. Having participated in four previous internationals flotillas aiming to defy Israel's naval blockade of Gaza's shoreline, Wright is devoting her energies preparing for a fifth in 2020.
Another organizer and member of US Boat to Gaza, Elizabeth Murray, who like Wright formerly worked for the U.S. government, recalled being in a seminar sponsored by a prestigious think tank in Washington, D.C., when a panel member compared Israeli attacks against Palestinians with routine efforts to "mow the lawn." She recounted hearing a light tittering as the D.C. audience members expressed amusement. But, Murray said, "Not a single person objected to the panelist's remark." This was in 2010, following Israel's 2009 Operation Cast Lead, which killed 1,383 Palestinians, 333 of whom were children.
Abusalim's colleague at the American Friends Service Committee, Jennifer Bing, had cautioned Chicago flotilla planners to carefully consider the tone of their actions. A colorful and lively event during a busy weekend morning along Chicago's popular riverfront could be exciting and, yes, fun.
But Palestinians in Gaza cope with constant tension, she noted. Denied freedom of movement, they live in the world's largest open-air prison, under conditions the United Nations has predicted will render their land uninhabitable by 2020. Households get four to six hours of electricity per day. According to UNICEF, "sewage treatment plants can't operate fully and the equivalent of forty-three Olympic-sized swimming pools of raw or partly treated sewage is pumped into the sea every day."
Facing cruel human rights violations on a daily basis, the organizers urge solidarity in the form of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. U.S. residents bear particular responsibility for Israel's military attacks against civilians, they note, as the United States has supplied Israel with billions of dollars for military buildup.
U.S. companies profit hugely from selling weapons to Israel. For example, Boeing, with headquarters in Chicago, sells Israel Apache helicopters, Hellfire and Harpoon missiles, JDAM guiding systems and Small Diameter Bombs that deliver Dense Inert Metal Explosive munitions. All of these weapons have been used repeatedly in Israeli attacks on densely populated civilian areas.
During the 2009 Operation Cast Lead, I was in Rafah, Gaza, listening to children explaining the difference between explosions caused by F-16 fighter jets dropping 500-pound bombs and Apache helicopters firing Hellfire missiles.
Israel continues using those weapons, and Israeli purchases fatten Boeing's financial portfolios.
On July 19, young Palestinians outside of the Israeli consulate read aloud the names of people who had, five years ago, been killed in Gaza. We listened solemnly and then proceeded to Boeing's Chicago headquarters, again listening as youngsters read more names, punctuated by a solemn gong after each victim was remembered. Ultimately, 2,104 Palestinians, more than two-thirds of whom were civilians, including 495 children, were killed during the seven-week attack on the Gaza Strip in 2014.
During the Free Gaza Chicago River flotilla on July 20, Husam Marajda, from the Arab American Action Network, sat in a small boat next to his grandfather, who was visiting from Palestine. A chant, "From Palestine to Mexico, all the walls have got to go!" echoed from the water to the shore. Banners were dropped from bridges above, the largest reading, "Israel, Stop Killing Palestinians."
Kayakers wore red T-shirts announcing the "Gaza Unlocked" campaign and managed to display flags, connected by string, spelling out "Free Gaza." Passengers on other boats flashed encouraging peace signs and thumbs up signals. Those processing along the shore line, carrying banners and signs, walked the entirety of our planned route before a sergeant from the Chicago Police Department arrived to say we needed a permit.
We can't permit ourselves to remain silent. Following the energetic flotilla activity, I sat with several friends in a quiet spot. "So many names," said one friend, thinking of the list Abusalim had held up. "So many lives," said another.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dogs of War Howl for Blood in Iran While Americans Cheer US Bombers on July 4th
Last week's display was a chilling reminder of the horrific deaths caused by successive administrations' propensity for war
Jul 08, 2019
President Trump's order to the Pentagon to have an aerial parade of military aircraft over Washington, DC on July 4 provided a history lesson of America's war mongering in the past two decades, and a terrifying view of what might appear in the skies of Iran if John Bolton gets his way.
The combat aircraft that were cheered by Trump's supporters as they flew low over the monuments in the nation's capital have not been cheered by people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Palestine as the same type of planes fly over their homes--terrifying and killing their children and wreaking havoc on their lives.
"With the U.S. political and media dogs of war howling again for blood in Iran, Trump's decision to showcase America's aerial firepower must have been cheered by the war hawks in the administration and Congress, and their friends in the weapons industry."
Over those countries, Air Force B-2 Spirit, Air Force F-22 Raptor, Navy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18 Hornet stealth fighters and bombers fly so high they are not seen or heard--until the massive explosions from their 500- to 2,000-pound bombs hit and obliterate everything and everyone in their radius. The blast radius of a 2,000-pound bomb is 82 feet, but the lethal fragmentation reaches 1,200 feet. In 2017, the Trump administration dropped the most massive non-nuclear bomb in its inventory--the 21,000 pound "mother of all bombs"--on a cave tunnel complex in Afghanistan.
While most Americans have probably forgotten we are still at war in Afghanistan, the Trump administration "eased" the rules of engagement, allowing the military to drop more bombs in 2018 than in any other year since the war began in 2001. The 7,632 bombs dropped by American aircraft in 2018 made U.S. weapons makers rich, but hit 1,015 Afghan civilians.
The Boeing-made combat attack Apache helicopters, a crowd pleaser on July 4, have been used by the U.S. Army to blow up homes and cars filled with civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Israeli military uses them to kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the Saudi military has killed children in Yemen with these death machines.
Billions of dollars worth of U.S. planes and bombs sold to Saudi Arabia raked in record profits for weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. But they pummeled Yemeni civilians since the air war started in 2015, killing people in marketplaces, weddings, funerals, and 40 children on a summer outing in a school bus. Radhya al-Mutawakel, chairwoman of the Yemeni human rights organization Mwatana, says the U.S. has legal and moral responsibility for selling weapons to the Saudi-led coalition. "Yemeni civilians are dying every day because of this war and you (America) are fueling this war," al-Mutawakel said. "It is a shame that financial interests are worth more than the blood of innocent people."
One notorious vehicle of death that was not flown above Washington was America's assassin drone. Perhaps it was too dangerous for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to be flown close to the President of the United States and a crowd of American citizens with its history of numerous inexplicable crashes and intelligence failures that have caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Iraq.
John Bolton, who has the ear of the president every day, wrote in an op-ed in 2015 saying that in order to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, the U.S. should bomb Iran. Now that he has goaded Iran into stepping up its enrichment of uranium as a result of the U.S. reneging on the nuclear deal and European signatories bailing out on their responsibilities in the agreement, Bolton is itching to start the bombing. So are Bibi Netanyahu and Mohammad Bin Salman. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have been trying for years to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran. Colleagues in the humanitarian and refugee arenas in the Middle East tell us a war is coming and are preparing for its nightmarish consequences throughout the region.
With the U.S. political and media dogs of war howling again for blood in Iran, Trump's decision to showcase America's aerial firepower must have been cheered by the war hawks in the administration and Congress, and their friends in the weapons industry. But to those of us who want peaceful resolutions to international disputes, the Fourth of July display was a chilling reminder of the horrific deaths caused by successive Administrations' propensity for war and the terror that might soon be raining down on the people of Iran if John Bolton gets his way.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Celebrates Himself on July 4th
This isn't the first time a U.S. president has militarized Fourth of July celebrations for cynical and political purposes, but hopefully it's the last
Jul 04, 2019
This year's Fourth of July celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC has become a stop on the Trump for President re-election campaign trail. His "Salute to America" has become a "Salute to Donald Trump." He has called the events the "show of a lifetime!" and an unprecedented celebration of American military strength.
Presidents have traditionally stayed away from July 4 celebrations out of concern that it would politicize independence day. The last time there was a similar attempt at a Presidential take-over of the Fourth of July was fifty years ago in 1970 when President Nixon, appearing by video from the White House, wanted a huge display for support for the Vietnam War. However, the Mall ending up being filled with anti-war protesters whose presence symbolized the outrage at the war on Vietnam.
The last time a president took part in a July 4 program in Washington DC was in 1987 and the last time military tanks were seen on DC streets was 27 years ago during the 1991 Gulf War parade.
Trump's militarized Mall has the feeling of Red Square and Pyongyang--and France's Bastille Day which Trump seems to be trying to replicate his trip to Paris two summers ago. The "supreme leader" wannabe of the United States will preside over jet fly-overs, including one from the Air Force One fleet, and tanks, admittedly, not many of them because the crumbling roads of the nation's capital cannot withstand the weight of the huge military equipment.
Joining the Air Force One plane will be Blue Angels, an F-35 jet from the Navy, at least one aircraft from Marine Helicopter Squadron One, a B-2 stealth bomber, and F-22 Raptor fighter jets. Commercial air traffic into National Airport will be disrupted for three hours as Trump smiles triumphantly from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Trump's decision to capture the Fourth of July for his personal use and the huge expense that U.S.military, National Park Service and the City of Washington is incurring, no doubt is causing great heartburn in career government employees in the Pentagon, State Department and probably even in the White House, as well as from the general public. Pentagon officers refuse to provide information on the costs of the planes, tanks and other military equipment and are "hiding out and hoping it all blows over.'
US Congressional Representative Elijah Cummings tweeted that: "President Trump is willing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars and accept donations of fireworks for his partisan Fourth of July celebration while his Administration is turning away donations of diapers and toothpaste for immigrant children."
Presidential candidate Marianne Williamson reflected the sentiments of many people throughout the country when she tweeted: "Watching army tanks being hauled through DC for Trump's July 4 celebration is heartbreaking & repugnant."
Despite complaints from Congresspersons, the DC city council and civil society, the military dominated Fourth of July will go forward. However, 12 years ago, during the Bush administration's wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, citizen activism forced the Bush administration to end its military equipment display on the Mall that would take place every year on Mother's Day, a day that was created as a call by mothers to end all wars. For five years, CODEPINK: Women for Peace organized demonstrations against the having military equipment on the National Mall. CODEPINKers climbed onto and into tanks and unfurled Stop the Wars and peace flags. We sang peace songs and gave away peace buttons while the military was giving away foam grenades as gifts. Finally, after five years, the military ended their equipment displays on the Mall on Mother's Day.
This year, CODEPINK is challenging Trump and his policies by flying the internationally famous Trump Baby Balloon on the National Mall on July 4, and having a "Trump is a Big Baby Festival." The 20-foot balloon that features Trump in a diaper and with a cellphone for his tweets is an apt symbol for a president who is so erratic, self-centered, prone to tantrums, and doesn't care about the consequences of his actions. If Trump ties to do this antic again next year--politicizing and militarizing our national holiday--we better have more than a big balloon to greet him.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Venezuela Embassy Protection Collective Defies Unlawful "No Trespass" Order
As this saga of the future of the Venezuela Embassy in Georgetown continues to unfold, history will record this as a key turning point in U.S.-Venezuela relations
May 14, 2019
An extraordinary set of events has been unfolding at the Venezuela Embassy in Washington DC, ever since the Embassy Protection Collective began living at the embassy with the permission of the elected government of Venezuela on April 10 to protect it from an illegal takeover by Venezuela's opposition. The actions of the police on the evening of May 13 added a new level of drama.
Since the cutting off of electricity, food and water inside the embassy has not been enough to force the collective to leave, late Tuesday afternoon, the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police handed out a trespassing notice that was printed without letterhead or signature from any U.S. government official.
The notice said that the Trump administration recognizes Venezuela opposition leader Juan Guaido as the head of the government of Venezuela and that the Guaido-appointed ambassador to the United States, Carlos Vecchio, and his appointed ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), Gustavo Tarre, were to determine who is allowed into the Embassy. Those not authorized by the ambassadors were to be considered trespassers. Those inside the building were "requested" to depart the building.
The notice appeared to have been written by the Guaido faction, but was posted and read by the DC police as if it were a document from the U.S. government.
The police taped the notice to the doors all around the Embassy and later called in the fire department to cut the lock and chain that had been on the front door of the Embassy since diplomatic relations were broken between Venezuela and the United States on January 23.
Adding to the drama, supporters of both sides began to gather. The pro-Guaido forces, who had erected tents around the perimeter of the embassy and had set up a long-term encampment to oppose the collective inside the building, were ordered to take down their encampment. It seemed as though this was part of moving them from outside the embassy to the inside.
Two hours later, some members of the collective inside the embassy voluntarily left to reduce the load on food and water, and four members refused to obey what they considered an illegal order to vacate the premises. The crowd waited in anticipation of the police going inside and physically removing, and arresting, the remaining collective members. The pro-Guaido forces were jubilant, crying "tic-toc, tic-toc" as they were counting down the minutes before their victory.
In a remarkable turn of events, however, instead of arresting the collective members who remained inside, a lengthy discussions ensued between them, their lawyer Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and the DC police. The discussion focused on the reason collective members were in the Embassy in the first place--trying to stop the Trump administration from violating the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Facilities by turning over the diplomatic premises to a coup government.
Collective members reminded police officers that following illegal orders does not protect them from being charged with criminal actions.
After two hours, instead of arresting the collective, police turned around, locked the door behind them, posted guards and said they would ask their superiors how to handle the situation. The crowd was stunned that the State Department and DC police, after having over a month to organize the eviction, had begun this operation without a full plan to include arrests warrants in case the Collective members did not vacate the building voluntarily.
Kevin Zeese, a Collective member, wrote a statement concerning the status of the Collective and the Embassy:
This is the 34th day of our living in the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, DC. We are prepared to stay another 34 days, or however long is needed to resolve the embassy dispute in a peaceful way consistent with international law...Before doing so, we reiterate that our collective is one of independent people and organizations not affiliated with any government. While we are all US citizens, we are not agents of the United States. While we are here with permission of the Venezuelan government, we are not their agents or representatives... The exit from the embassy that best resolves issues to the benefit of the United States and Venezuela is a mutual Protecting Power Agreement. The United States wants a Protecting Power for its embassy in Caracas. Venezuela wants a Protecting Power for its embassy in DC.
The Embassy Protectors will not barricade ourselves, or hide in the embassy in the event of an unlawful entry by police. We will gather together and peacefully assert our rights to remain in the building and uphold international law. Any order to vacate based on a request by coup conspirators that lack governing authority will not be a lawful order. The coup has failed multiple times in Venezuela. The elected government is recognized by the Venezuelan courts under Venezuelan law and by the United Nations under international law. An order by the US-appointed coup plotters would not be legal... Such an entry would put embassies around the world and in the United States at risk. We are concerned about US embassies and personnel around the world if the Vienna Convention is violated at this embassy. It would set a dangerous precedent that would likely be used against US embassies... If an illegal eviction and unlawful arrests are made, we will hold all decision-makers in the chain of command and all officers who enforce unlawful orders accountable... There is no need for the United States and Venezuela to be enemies. Resolving this embassy dispute diplomatically should lead to negotiations over other issues between the nations.
We anticipate that the Trump administration will go to court today, May 14 to request an official U.S.-government order to remove the Collective members from the Venezuelan Embassy.
Members of the National Lawyers Guild wrote a statement challenging the Trump administration's handing over of diplomatic facilities to unlawful persons:
The undersigned write to condemn the violations of law which are occurring at the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington D.C. and to demand immediate action be taken. Prior to April 25, 2019, a group of peace activists were invited to the Embassy by the government of Venezuela--recognized as such by the United Nations--and continue to be lawfully on the premises.
Nonetheless, the United States government, through various law enforcement agencies, have condoned and protected violent opponents in support of an attempted siege of the Embassy. In so doing, the U.S. government is creating a dangerous precedent for diplomatic relations with all nations. These actions are not only illegal, but they put embassies around the world at risk. [...]
The contempt shown by the Trump Administration for these principles and for international law puts at risk the entire system of diplomatic relations which could have a reverberating effect in nations throughout the world.
The undersigned demand that the United States immediately cease its ongoing state-sponsored assault and illegal intervention in Venezuela and against its government, which continues to be recognized by the United Nations and the majority of the world. We demand that local and federal law enforcement immediately refrain from exposing the peaceful invitees and their supporters inside and outside the Embassy to harm in violation of their fundamental human rights.
As this saga of the future of the Venezuela Embassy in Georgetown continues to unfold, history will record this as a key turning point in U.S.-Venezuela relations, U.S. violation of a key tenet of international law and most of all, as a heroic example of US citizens doing everything in their power--including going without food, water and electricity and facing daily assaults by the opposition--to try to stop a US-orchestrated coup.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Prevent Victory for Hard-Liners, Calls for Iran's Leaders to Refuse Resignation of Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
"Should Zarif bow out of Iran's political theater, Trump and his team may be getting exactly what they wish for—and the world will be worse for it."
Feb 25, 2019
The pending resignation of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif--which the diplomat announced on Instagram Monday but has not yet been accepted by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani--has sparked international alarm over the future of the Iran nuclear deal, which Zarif and European leaders have been trying to save since U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the agreement and reimposed economic sanctions last year.
"[If] Zarif reverses his decision in the wake of public outcry over his resignation announcement... he could return with increased legitimacy and decision-making power."
--Jamal Abdi, NIAC
"While Zarif is not above criticism, over the past forty years, the U.S. and Iran have had few clear channels for negotiations, and Zarif has long been a major proponent of U.S.-Iran negotiations and deescalation," noted National Iranian American Council (NIAC) president Jamal Abdi. "Hard-liners in the U.S. have long cheered for Iran to be led by radical elements to make engagement difficult and validate calls for sanctions and military action. Should Zarif bow out of Iran's political theater, Trump and his team may be getting exactly what they wish for--and the world will be worse for it."
The U.S.-educated Zarif, a longtime critic of hard-liners in both the United States and his own country, was instrumental in securing the landmark 2015 nuclear deal, officially titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Iran has continued to comply with despite Trump's withdrawal--along with other moves by the administration to ramp up tensions--and mounting frustration among the Iranian people over the impact of U.S. sanctions.
The vague Instagram post--in which Zarif offered an "apology" for his "inability to continue to his service" but didn't detail the reasoning behind his decision--came just hours after he met with a delegation of peace activists with the U.S.-based group CodePink. Medea Benjamin, the group's co-founder, and U.S. Army veteran Ann Wright wrote that they were "deeply saddened" by the development but also shed some light on the frustrations he shared with them.
During their meeting, Benjamin and Wright explained,
Zarif talked at length about how dissatisfied the Iranian people had become with the Iran nuclear agreement, and the pressure this put on him... Now just 51 percent of Iranians think the nuclear agreement is a good idea because it has brought no economic relief to the Iranian people. Jarif expressed frustration with the Europeans, who say they want to salvage the deal but refuse to provide real economic relief.
We left the meeting feeling so impressed by the depth of Zarif's knowledge, his diplomatic skills, and his commitment to finding peaceful ways to deal with conflicts--including his efforts to solve the crisis in Yemen. We also left understanding the difficult position he was in, having staked his reputation on the success of the nuclear deal.
An ally of Zarif who spoke with Reuters on the condition of anonymity also suggested the resignation was tied to public unrest over JCPOA and American sanctions, explaining that "there were closed-door meetings every week, where top officials were bombarding him with questions about the deal and what will happen next and so on... He and his boss [Rouhani] were under a huge amount of pressure."
Citing Iranian news sources, The Associated Press reported Tuesday on political divisions within Iran that likely contributed to Zarif's decision:
The state-run IRNA news agency said Zarif told colleagues his resignation would aid in "restoring the ministry to its legal position in foreign relations."
Zarif elaborated in an interview published Tuesday by the daily Jomhuori Eslami.
"A deadly poison for foreign policy is that it becomes the subject of factionalism and parties' quarrel," Zarif reportedly said. "There should be trust toward servants of foreign policy on the national level. Without trust in them, everything will go with the wind."
While warning that Zarif's pending resignation "reflects a hardening posture in Iran following the U.S. withdrawal" and "would be a boon for radical forces in Tehran who oppose the JCPOA and further engagement with the West," NIAC's Abdi also emphasized that if "Zarif reverses his decision in the wake of public outcry over his resignation announcement... he could return with increased legitimacy and decision-making power."
NIAC founder Trita Parsi concurred, pointing out in a series of tweets that support from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could "give him an important layer of protection" against hard-liners who want Zarif out of the position for his deal-making with the West:
The majority of Iranian lawmakers on Tuesday joined with international observers to call on Rouhani to reject Zarif's latest resignation--which, a Tehran-based political analyst told the AP, is the third time he's tried to step down within the past year.
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, chairman of the Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, has called an extraordinary session to address the matter, PressTV reported Tuesday, and committee spokesman Ali Najafi Khoshroudi has collected signatures from about 160 parliamentarians for a letter to Rouhani urging him to rejected the resignation.
Rouhani has not yet addressed Zarif's announcement but praised him in a speech on Tuesday. Rouhani Chief of Staff Mahmoud Vaezi, in an Instagram post, highlighted that praise as "a clear sign of the satisfaction of the representative of the people of Iran about the wise and effective positions and work of Dr. Zarif and a tough response to some biased and incorrect analyses," according to a translation from PressTV. As Vaezi put it, "In the view of Dr. Rouhani, the Islamic Republic of Iran has only one foreign policy and one foreign minister."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Resigns Hours After Meeting With US Peace Delegation
In the meeting, Jarif expressed frustration with the Europeans, who say they want to salvage the nuclear deal—which he helped forge with the Obama administration—but have refused to provide real economic relief to the Iranian people since Trump ditched the agreement
Feb 24, 2019
We are deeply saddened by the resignation of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Monday afternoon, which occurred just hours after he met with our 28-person American peace delegation led by CODEPINK: Women for Peace. Zarif talked at length about how dissatisfied the Iranian people had become with the Iran nuclear agreement, and the pressure this put on him. He said that when the agreement was signed in 2015 over 80 percent of the Iranian people supported it, as they hoped it would bring Iran back into the international community and improve their economy.
"Looking back on the remarkable length of time Foreign Minister Zarif spent with our delegation, it seems that he was pouring his heart out in frustration at the way the international community was thwarting this latest attempt by Iran to be respected in the community of nations."
Instead, President Trump quit the agreement and implemented even more sanctions on Iran and on any international company that has economic dealings with Iran. Now just 51 percent of Iranians think the nuclear agreement is a good idea because it has brought no economic relief to the Iranian people. Jarif expressed frustration with the Europeans, who say they want to salvage the deal but refuse to provide real economic relief.
We left the meeting feeling so impressed by the depth of Zarif's knowledge, his diplomatic skills and his commitment to finding peaceful ways to deal with conflicts--including his efforts to solve the crisis in Yemen. We also left understanding the difficult position he was in, having staked his reputation on the success of the nuclear deal.
Looking back on the remarkable length of time Foreign Minister Zarif spent with our delegation, it seems that he was pouring his heart out in frustration at the way the international community was thwarting this latest attempt by Iran to be respected in the community of nations.
We will write more about his remarkable talk to our delegation and post a video of his interaction with the delegation in the next hours.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy