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
nicaragua
Nicaragua Banned US-Backed Coup Leaders From Elections, and Corporate Media Lost It
In his national address on July 19, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega stated that when the country’s next elections take place, none who promoted a violent anti-government insurrection in 2018 will be allowed to stand for office. Western media outlets reported this as a total ban on voting.
Aug 01, 2026
July 19 is a key date in Nicaragua’s calendar—the anniversary of the victory of its Sandinista revolution in 1979 and the overthrow of the vicious US-backed Somoza dictatorship that terrorized Nicaraguans for 43 years prior. Every year, huge crowds gather in celebrations across the country, culminating in a nationally broadcast speech by President Daniel Ortega. In recent years, Ortega has used the moment to discuss the country’s successes in the year prior, and lay out the agenda for the following year, while lauding not just the Sandinista Revolution’s triumph in 1979 but also the country’s resistance to the 2018 coup attempt—and lamenting the death and destruction it caused before peace was restored.
This July 19, while discussing that violence, Ortega proposed a blanket electoral ban on candidates who participated in fomenting the riots which plagued Nicaragua for months in a violent, US government-sponsored coup attempt that left hundreds dead:
There will be no elections like that again here—no more elections through which they can try cheating their way to government or cheat their way to taking power. We need to create laws that will put up a wall, a barrier, against the coup-plotters, against those who are traitors to their country. And no matter how much money the Yankees give them, they won’t succeed!
Even for casual observers, it was clear that the head of the Nicaraguan government was proposing restrictions on candidates funded and directed by a hostile foreign power situated in the US. But in corporate newsrooms across the country, editors pounced on the phrase “there will be no elections.”
Only days before Ortega’s speech, Trump railed against foreign interference in US elections, promising measures to protect their integrity.
Quoting the president’s statement completely out of context, The New York Times shrieked that Daniel Ortega planned to abolish elections completely, strengthening his “authoritarian grip” on the country. A headline in business journal Bloomberg blared: “Nicaragua’s Dictatorship Should Be Marco Rubio’s Next Problem.” Right on cue, Rubio issued a statement accusing the Nicaraguan government of “thwarting the basic tenets of our democratic hemisphere.”
At US legacy media outlets, clarification was sought not from the government or its supporters, but from right-wing apparatchiks financed and directed by Washington. The Times went to Felix Maradiaga, leader of an opposition group which “operates in secret in Nicaragua,” who claimed that “Ortega buried Nicaraguan democracy a long time ago.” Unmentioned by the NY Times was that Maradiaga is aligned with the far-right Atlas Network and was a key actor in the 2018 coup attempt, for which he received copious US funding.
As Max Blumenthal revealed in The Grayzone in 2018, the Yale-trained Maradiaga’s Institute for Strategic Studies and Public Policy (IEEPP) had received at least $260,000 from the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy since 2014.
The BBC, falsely asserting that Nicaragua’s next elections were now “cancelled,” rolled out another opposition activist, Juan Sebastián Chamorro, who labelled Nicaragua “the North Korea of Latin America.” Chamorro and his oligarchic family have historically been the biggest recipients of US funding directed at regime change in Nicaragua and almost certainly still are.
During the 2018 coup, Juan Sebastián Chamorro promoted the strategy of erecting tranques, or roadblocks, where opposition hooligans kidnapped, brutalized, raped, and even killed common Nicaraguan citizens in a failed bid to strangle the country’s economy and ultimately take over its cities.
It’s no secret that Maradiaga and Chamorro are competing to be Washington’s favored candidate if regime change were to ever occur. Reuters described Maradiaga as a “presidential hopeful,” while Chamorro is joint author of a new Atlantic Council report calling for Washington to back his “transition plan” for Nicaragua. Opposition media put this pair at the top of a list of eight potential candidates.
Washington’s plans for regime change in Nicaragua are hardly a secret, either. The National Endowment for Democracy’s president, Damon Wilson, bragged to a House committee in February that his organization is funding media in Nicaragua with an eye to undermining its Sandinista government. Commenting on latest developments, he said: “The Ortega-Murillo regime may seek to abolish elections, but it cannot abolish the Nicaraguan people’s desire for democracy. We will stand with them until that right is restored.”
The NED, a CIA cutout, currently spends over $2 million annually on Nicaraguan opposition groups—its highest funding level for any country in the region. And of course, the NED is only one source of US regime-change support for political groups who failed to overthrow Nicaragua’s government in 2018 and intend to try again.
In Nicaragua itself, figures such as Maradiaga and Chamorro have little credibility. Opinion polls consistently show that the government has significant popular support. For example, its approval levels ranged from 40-60% in Argentina’s CB Global Data polls over the course of 2026. This is hardly surprising in a country which now has the most modern and extensive public health system in Central America, the region’s best highways, and is building over 7,000 homes each year for those on the lowest incomes, all the product of 19 years of Sandinista rule.
Most Nicaraguans are well aware of what a government headed by the likes of Maradiaga or Chamorro would entail. Not only do they recall the violence and destruction of the coup attempt, but many remember that the last US regime-change operation—a heavily manipulated election in 1990—resulted in 16 years of neoliberal government which left the country with barely functioning schools, potholed highways, and only intermittent electricity supply. Ortega’s call for elections that bar the golpistas (coup mongers) from taking part was therefore met with cheers from the July 19 crowds.
Next-door Honduras provides a lesson of US electoral interference. Not only did President Donald Trump threaten Hondurans with aid cuts if they failed to vote as he wanted in last December’s poll, he also freed the convicted, narco-trafficking former president, Juan Orlando Hernández. To the horror of most Hondurans, he is returning to the country as I write this.
Now, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being pushed by Florida Republicans such as Reps. María Elvira Salazar and Carlos Giménez to ensure that “after Cuba, Nicaragua is next.” Yet he must be aware the opposition has virtually no support in Nicaragua itself. This week, one of Ortega’s most prominent critics, Manuel Orozco of the Inter-American Dialogue, admitted to CNN, “Nobody is thinking about what it would mean for the United States to remove these people from power when there is no opposition, the public does not know who the leaders in exile are, and there is economic stability.”
While proclaiming “the statement by Daniel Ortega that under his family’s dictatorship Nicaragua will never again hold elections lays bare their true authoritarian nature,” Rubio threatened, “The Trump Administration and the international community will not stand by as the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship deepens repression at home and manufactures instability that threatens US national security.”
Nicaragua has already been included in a fresh round of US tariffs, and economic sanctions and attacks on its trade with the US will certainly continue. However, the political focus is likely to stay on electoral interference, now that Nicaragua’s National Assembly president has repeated earlier assurances that elections will indeed take place.
This brings us back to Daniel Ortega’s declaration during the celebrations in Managua. His government has the sovereign right to fight foreign interference in its electoral process. The US exercises the same right itself: Only days before Ortega’s speech, Trump railed against foreign interference in US elections, promising measures to protect their integrity.
Rubio’s statement supporting Trump’s address seems especially ironic in light of his escalation against Nicaragua. “Under @POTUS,” Rubio declared, “the Trump Administration will rout out foreign interference in our elections and safeguard our democracy. America’s future belongs to Americans.” Change the wording to refer to Nicaragua rather than the US, and you have a summary of what Daniel Ortega promised to Nicaraguans just two days afterward.
The original version of this piece appeared in The Grayzone.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Democrats Offer No Real Alternative to Trump's 'Donroe Doctrine' for Latin America
In Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, both parties agree with the assumption that Washington has the right to shape the political future of other nations.
Jun 18, 2026
Donald Trump’s second term has precipitated a tsunami of criticism from Democrats over his foreign policy. Yet when it comes to Washington's efforts to dominate Latin America and the Caribbean, the substantive dispute—if there is any substance remaining, once stripped of partisan bickering—is less about ends than means.
Beneath the rhetoric of inter-party conflict lies a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of promoting US hemispheric hegemony and crushing governments that resist it—with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua at the forefront. While Democrats frequently portray Trump as reckless, they generally accept the underlying premises of economic coercion, political intervention, and regime-change pressure. Their objections mainly focus on the execution of policy rather than its legitimacy.
The Central Role of Sanctions in Projecting Imperial Coercive Power
Under Democratic administrations, the US forged and institutionalized what may be its most effective instrument of hegemony. Coercive economic measures, commonly called “sanctions,” were first deployed by Franklin D. Roosevelt against Mexico in the 1930s. They were used by Dwight D. Eisenhower to pressure Guatemala in 1954 and then—most drastically—against Cuba by both Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in 1960. Today, one-third of the world’s nations are under US sanctions.
Sanctions—a form of collective punishment—are held by legal experts to be contrary to international law. Paradoxically, not only does Washington disregard international law in imposing sanctions, but the US then behaves as if they are applying the law when, for example, they pirate a ship delivering humanitarian supplies to a sanctioned country.
The shared strategic objective of the bipartisan Washington consensus is the projection of US hemispheric dominance.
Use of sanctions has accelerated because successive administrations have seen their unique advantages. Compared with “forever wars,” they are more easily justified to US voters as cost free and as not imperiling US lives. If sanctions are the precursor to military intervention—as in Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1961, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989 and, of course, Venezuela in 2026—the interventions have usually been limited, with few US casualties.
Yet sanctions are very potent: Between 2010 and 2021, they caused around 560,000 deaths globally each year—more than five times the number of people killed annually in direct armed combat.
While sanctions are made more palatable by being described as “targeted” at governments or individuals seen as undesirable by Washington, in practice the “targeting” is deliberately far wider. Sanctions do most damage to the poorest sectors of societies—the sectors most likely to support progressive governments. The barely veiled message is that only by withdrawing this support will such communities be able to prosper and avoid the threat of even greater US intervention.
The frequent description of sanctions as “targeted” carries another implication—that they are intended to have a precise and conclusive effect. However, while sanctions cause severe economic damage, there is little evidence that they achieve intended regime change. Even so, sanctions on countries which refuse to change are maintained and—very frequently—intensified. Democrats are as guilty of this folly as Republicans.
Indeed, US sanctions have imperial utility through their “demonstration effect”: attempting to cripple progressive alternatives to the neoliberal world order. Recently subjected to draconian sanctions, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel proclaimed, “Cuba is not a failed state; Cuba is a besieged state.” Still, infant mortality in Cuba is lower than among African Americans.
Transitioning to “Democracy” in Venezuela
In the case of Venezuela, the Democrats have criticized the Republicans from the right, complaining that the cudgel of imperial power against essentially defenseless small states has not been wielded with sufficient malice.
Washington has imposed illegal unilateral coercive measures on Venezuela since 2015 in efforts to asphyxiate its Bolivarian Revolution. The transparently false rationale for continuing sanctions is that Venezuela poses an “extraordinary threat” to the national security of the US. Although the threat is obviously the other way around, mainstream Democrats have not exposed this lie. How could they, when it originated with President Barack Obama and was subsequently echoed by President Joe Biden and then Trump?
Despite the horrific toll of an estimated 100,000 excess deaths attributed to US-imposed sanctions, Venezuela has resisted and maintained an unbroken continuity of leadership from Hugo Chávez to Nicolás Maduro and to now Delcy Rodríguez. And that’s the rub for the Democrats.
Ranking Democrat members of the House and Senate foreign affairs committees, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY) and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), issued a “request [for] a clear explanation” of Trump’s Venezuela policy. Their meek missive came a full five months after the abduction of the Venezuelan president, an operation that resulted in more than 100 collateral deaths. Meanwhile, more than 200 occupants of small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have been subjected to extrajudicial murder by the Trump administration.
Yet these inconvenient facts are absent from the June 8 Democratic Party congressional foreign-policy leadership’s statement on Venezuela. Their complaint is that Trump’s White House has failed to sufficiently “exercise its leverage.” As they put it, “As of today, the [state] department has yet to provide any evidence the Trump administration is doing any of this hard work.”
The contradiction of kidnapping a lawful head of state in the name of restoring democracy does not trouble the Democrats. Rather, they “strongly support the Venezuelan people’s right to choose their leaders”… after the US abducts their president.
These Democrat leaders are also troubled that Venezuelan authorities were allowed to appoint a new attorney general and defense minister without apparent US interference. In addition, they express impatience with Trump’s lethargy in not yet overhauling Venezuela’s supreme court and electoral council.
To the extent that they make any concrete demand, the putative opposition party wants Trump to impose an “electoral timeline” on Venezuela. Yet, the same party has no problem with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine who suspended elections after his legal term in office expired two years ago, banned opposition parties, shuttered critical media, and arrested political opponents.
Restoring “Democracy” in Cuba
Democratic Party policy toward Cuba is perhaps best exemplified by Biden’s retention of the State Sponsor of Terrorism designation, which he inherited from Trump. Then, just six days before leaving office, Biden rescinded the designation with full certainty that the incoming Republican would—and did—reverse his decision.
Former National Security Council officer Ricardo Zúñiga was Obama’s adviser for the Americas and Biden’s special envoy for the Northern Triangle. He writes in Foreign Affairs offering advice on, rather than criticism of, Trump’s Cuba policy.
Republicans may be more inclined toward overt confrontation, selective military assaults, and maximal pressure; Democrats typically prefer a combination of inhumane sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and multilateral coercion.
Zúñiga advocates achieving regime change in Cuba through “diplomacy” rather than “force.” Scare quotes are used because, for this Democrat, brute economic strangulation is regarded as diplomacy. Zúñiga would “forswear military action,” but only if Cuba submits to US dictates. And so long as “pro-market reforms” are adopted, “democracy” can wait.
Without a hint of opprobrium, Zúñiga casually references the US invasion of Iran and the kidnapping of the Venezuelan president as policy options that would not be effective in Cuba. Given these examples, he then complains that Cubans remain resistant to “American views on democracy and human rights.”
He acknowledges that even if Trump wished to selectively roll back the murderous sanctions currently imposed on Cuba, he would face opposition not only from Republicans but also from Democrats. Where this Democrat differs from Republicans is in his supremely hypocritical conclusion: “It is ultimately Cuban citizens who will determine their country’s future”… after the US overthrows their government.
Promoting “Democracy” in Nicaragua
Tiny Nicaragua is also labelled an “extraordinary threat” to the US. While the harshest and most successful sanctions against it were applied during the Reagan administrations, when an economic blockade and the US-financed Contra war eventually unseated the Sandinista government in 1990, economic pressure quickly resumed once the Sandinistas returned to power in 2007. Both the Bush and then Obama administrations made cuts in aid, and it was under Obama that Democrats joined with Republicans to launch the NICA Act, eventually implemented (under Trump) in 2018.
While Trump signed the NICA Act and sanctioned various Nicaraguan functionaries, Democrat senators took the lead in formulating stronger measures in the RENACER Act, signed by Biden in 2021. This led to an estimated loss of $500 million annually in development finance that would have been directed at Nicaragua’s poorest communities. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), with Marco Rubio, put forward new legislation in 2023 that was intended to strengthen the RENACER Act and ensure even greater damage.
Biden officials were consistently aggressive toward Nicaragua. In 2022, his nominee for ambassador to Managua, Hugo Rodríguez, promised the US Congress that he would “support using all economic and diplomatic tools to bring about a change in direction in Nicaragua.” As a result, Rodríguez was never accepted as ambassador and the post remains unfilled.
In 2024, Biden’s trade representative launched a hostile investigation clearly aimed at disrupting trade with Nicaragua and possibly at excluding it from the regional trade treaty, CAFTA. When it eventually reported in late 2025 it recommended punitive tariffs, but only relatively mild penalties were actually implemented by Trump.
Marco Rubio regularly imposes sanctions on individual Nicaraguans, including 100 more just this month. More than 2,300 have now been sanctioned by successive administrations. Nevertheless, hard-line Democrats, as well as Republicans, are pushing Rubio to do far more.
Two Parties, One Strategy
The shared strategic objective of the bipartisan Washington consensus is the projection of US hemispheric dominance. The two major parties differ mainly in messaging and, to a lesser extent, on tactics. Their theatrical contention is neither between intervention and nonintervention, nor between coercion and diplomacy. More often, it is between competing methods for achieving the same strategic objective.
Republicans may be more inclined toward overt confrontation, selective military assaults, and maximal pressure; Democrats typically prefer a combination of inhumane sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and multilateral coercion. But both approaches rest on the assumption that Washington has the right to shape the political future of other nations.
Despite differences in tone and tactics, the supposed opposition party offers not an articulated alternative to the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine but, at the very most, a variation of it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Germany Pulls Legal Support for Israel in ICJ Gaza Genocide Case
Berlin says it needs to focus on its defense in a separate ICJ case in which Nicaragua accuses Germany of supporting Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
Mar 19, 2026
Germany said Wednesday that it will drop its planned intervention in the International Court of Justice genocide against Israel so that it can better focus on its own defense in a separate ICJ case filed by Nicaragua accusing Berlin of enabling Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza via arms sales.
Deputy German Foreign Minister Josef Hinterseher said during a press conference in Berlin that his country "will not intervene" on Israel's side in the South Africa v. Israel genocide case filed at the Hague-based tribunal in December 2023.
This is a marked departure from Germany's January 2024 announcement that it would intervene on behalf of Israel in the case, arguing that the genocide allegation made by South Africa had "no basis whatsoever."
Nearly two dozen nations, most recently the Netherlands, Namibia, and Iceland, have either formally intervened on the side of South Africa or announced their intent to do so. The Herero and Nama peoples of modern-day Namibia suffered a genocide during the region's colonization by Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A handful of countries including the United States, Hungary, and Fiji have also intervened on behalf of Israel.
In 2024, Nicaragua filed a case against Germany at the ICJ, arguing that the European nation “has not only failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent the genocide committed and being committed against the Palestinian people... but has contributed to the commission of genocide in violation" of the Genocide Convention.
Germany has provided financial, military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel. It also temporarily halted financial contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) based on unsubstantiated Israeli claims that a dozen of its worjers were involved in the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
Unlike Germany, the US and Israel are not members of the ICJ. The US quit the tribunal after it ruled against the Reagan administration in Nicaragua v. United States, a 1984 ruling that determined the US illegally supported Contra terrorists and mined Nicaraguan harbors.
However, under the court's territorial jurisdiction powers, countries that are not members of the court can still be brought before it for crimes committed in member states.
Further complicating matters, Germany is one of numerous countries which have intervened in Gambia v. Myanmar, which the African nation filed at the ICJ in 2019 amid the Burmese junta's ongoing genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
The ICJ has issued several provisional orders in South Africa v. Israel, including directives to prevent genocidal acts and allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip amid a burgeoning famine. Israel has been accused of ignoring these orders.
The US under the Biden and Trump administrations pressured ICJ members to refrain from intervening on behalf of South Africa. The Trump administration has also sanctioned members of the International Criminal Court (ICC)‚ which in 2024 issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
In Germany, as in several other Western nations, authorities have cracked down on pro-Palestine protests, free expression of support for Palestinian rights, and criticism of Israel. Critics say the persistent framing of German national identity around enduring guilt for the Nazis' wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust is driving overzealous policing of dissent and conflation of pro-Palestinian activism with antisemitism.
This perceived moral burden, say observers, risks stifling legitimate political debate, curtailing free speech, and criminalizing solidarity with Palestinians under the pretext of historical responsibility. This has driven German actions from secretly funding Israel's development of nuclear weapons over half a century ago to brutally assaulting and arresting pro-Palestine protesters—including women, elders, minors, and people with disabilities—after the October 2023 attack.
German police punch an anti-genocide woman in front of the cameras.
[image or embed]
— Antifa_Ultras (@antifa-ultras.bsky.social) October 7, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Amnesty International's latest annual human rights report on Germany notes "excessive use of force by police during peaceful protests by climate activists and supporters of Palestinians’ rights," as well as Berlin's "irresponsible arms transfers" to not only Israel but also Saudi Arabia.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ripping DHS Chief's Racism, Judge Extends Protections for 60K Hondurans, Nepalis, and Nicaraguans
"Secretary Noem's statements perpetuate the discriminatory belief that certain immigrant populations will replace the white population," the judge wrote, stressing that "color is neither a poison nor a crime."
Aug 01, 2025
"The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The court disagrees."
That's how U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson began a Thursday order postponing recent moves by President Donald Trump's administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues TPS designations for countries impacted by war, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions, allowing migrants from those nations to legally live and work in the United States.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced in June and July that the administration would end TPS for people from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua this summer. The decisions followed similar attempts to terminate those designations during Trump's first term—efforts blocked by U.S. courts and then ended under former President Joe Biden.
"As a TPS holder and mother, this victory means safety, hope, and the chance to keep building our lives here."
When Trump returned to power in January, he issued an executive order titled "Protecting the American People Against Invasion," which was "cited in later decisions vacating or terminating TPS designations," Thompson pointed out. The judge, who was appointed to the Northern District of California by Biden, also highlighted "repeated rhetoric by administration officials that associated immigrants and TPS holders with criminal activity or other undesirable traits."
The 37-page order details some of Noem's comments during her confirmation hearing and news interviews. Thompson wrote that "these statements reflect the secretary's animus against immigrants and the TPS program even though individuals with TPS hold lawful status—a protected status that was expressly conferred by Congress with the purpose of providing humanitarian relief."
"Their presence is not a crime. Rather, TPS holders already live in the United States and have contributed billions to the economy by legally working in jobs, paying taxes, and paying contributions into Medicare and Social Security," she noted. "By stereotyping the TPS program and immigrants as invaders that are criminal, and by highlighting the need for migration management, Secretary Noem's statements perpetuate the discriminatory belief that certain immigrant populations will replace the white population."
"Color is neither a poison nor a crime," stressed the judge, who is Black. She concluded that the various TPS holders who are the plaintiffs provided "sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the secretary's TPS Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua terminations were based on a preordained determination to end the TPS program, rather than an objective review of the country conditions."
Thompson ordered the TPS terminations for the three countries postponed until a November 18 hearing on the merits of the case, at which point her decision will be subject to extension.
🚨 JUST IN: A district court has ruled that TPS for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua cannot be terminated at this time — protections will remain in place through at least November 18, 2025 as the case continues.
[image or embed]
— Haitian Bridge Alliance (@haitianbridge.bsky.social) July 31, 2025 at 11:57 PM
"Judge Thompson's decision renews hope for our immigrant communities—especially for the tens of thousands of TPS holders from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal who have lived here for decades and are part of the National TPS Alliance," said Teofilo Martinez, a Honduran TPS holder, plaintiff, and an alliance leader, in a statement.
"This ruling gives us strength, affirms the power of organizing, and reminds us what's at stake: the right to stay in the only home many of us have ever known," Martinez added. "We will keep fighting for permanent protections and to stop the cruel separation of our families."
Sandhya Lama, another plaintiff and TPS holder from Nepal, described the judge's order as "a powerful affirmation of our humanity and our right to live without fear."
"As a TPS holder and mother, this victory means safety, hope, and the chance to keep building our lives here," she said. "We stand united, grateful, and determined to continue the fight for a permanent future in the country we call home."
The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU Foundations of Northern California and Southern California, Haitian Bridge Alliance, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.
"The Trump administration is aggressively, and illegally, seeking to dismantle TPS. But they will not do so without a fight," said ACLU of Northern California attorney Emi MacLean. "Today is a good day. Sixty60,000 long-term residents of the U.S., who have followed all the rules, will be allowed to remain in the U.S. and continue to defend their rights inside and outside of court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Dissent, Jackson Warns of 'Devasting' Impacts as Supreme Court OKs Trump Ending Protections for 500K Migrants
One immigration lawyer wrote that the order "simply ignores the human costs and blesses the Trump admin's stripping of status of hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally."
May 30, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to end, for now, legal protections for more than 500,000 Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan migrants with a ruling that liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted in a dissent as deeply harmful.
The decision puts on hold a ruling from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who in April issued a stay on the Trump administration's move to end a humanitarian program extended to this group under former U.S. President Joe Biden. The ruling means the immigrants are at risk of being deported under President Donald Trump's mass deportation effort, even as the core legal issues in the case continue to play out in lower courts.
The unsigned order from the Supreme Court focuses on the so-called CHNV parole program, which allows certain individuals from those four nations to apply for entry into the U.S. for a temporary stay, so long as they have a U.S.-based sponsor, go through security vetting, and meet other conditions. In some cases, beneficiaries of the program work in the U.S.
On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive instructing the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security to "[t]erminate all categorical parole programs," including CHNV.
"The court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the government with respect to irreparable harm" wrote Jackson in her dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives of and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."
Friday's ruling is the second time this month that the Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to halt a program aimed at protecting immigrants who leave their home countries for humanitarian reasons. Earlier in May, the court issued an unsigned order allowing Trump to cancel Temporary Protected Status protections specifically extended to 350,000 Venezuelans immigrants while the legal case winds its way through lower courts.
The court's decision on Friday is a temporary order and litigation is still playing out, but it signals that a majority of the justices think the Trump administration is likely to prevail in the case, according to The New York Times.
"Respondents now face two unbearable options," according to Jackson's dissent. Jackson wrote that immigrants in the program could either chose to leave the U.S. and potentially confront dangers in their home countries, and other adverse outcomes, or "risk imminent removal at the hands of government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences."
"The court allows the government to do what it wants to do regardless, rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation in the process," she concludes in the dissent.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote: "an incredibly devastating decision which simply ignores the human costs and blesses the Trump admin's stripping of status of hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally."
Josh Gerstein, a legal reporter at Politico, wrote that the ruling "may spell trouble for Ukrainians/Afghans with similar status."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Orders Nearly 1 Million Migrants Who Entered US Legally to Leave Now
"It was never about 'legal' immigration, but always about upholding white supremacy," said one human rights lawyer.
Apr 08, 2025
In yet another Trump administration attack on migrants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Monday announced that nearly 1 million migrants who entered the country legally using a Customs and Border Protection mobile application must leave "immediately" or face consequences including potential criminal prosecution.
DHS notified migrants who were granted temporary parole protection after entering the country using the CBP One app—which was launched by the Biden administration in 2020 and upgraded in 2023—that "it is time for you to leave the United States."
The department "mis now exercising its discretion to terminate your parole," the agency said in an email to affected—and more than 200,000 unaffected—migrants. "Unless it expires sooner, your parole will terminate seven days from the date of this notice."
"If you do not deport from the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal," the notice continues. "You will be subject to potential criminal prosecution, civil fines, and penalties, and any other lawful options available to the federal government."
"DHS encourages you to leave immediately on your own," the notice stresses, providing a link to a new app—called CBP Home—containing "a self-deportation reporting feature for aliens illegally in the country."
"Do not attempt to remain in the United States. The federal government will find you," DHS ominously added.
Approximately 985,000 migrants used the problem-plagued CBP One app to schedule appointments with U.S. immigration officials when arriving at ports of entry and were generally permitted to remain in the country for two years with work authorization.
However, DHS claimed Monday that "the Biden administration abused the parole authority to allow millions of illegal aliens into the U.S. which further fueled the worst border crisis in U.S. history."
"Canceling these paroles is a promise kept to the American people to secure our borders and protect national security," the agency added.
President Donald Trumpended new CBP One entries on January 20, his first day in office, via executive order, a move that left thousands of vulnerable migrants stranded in Mexico after their immigration appointments were canceled.
Monday's announcement does not affect people who entered the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome for Afghans or the Uniting for Ukraine program—although more than 200,000 Ukrainian beneficiaries last week received a separate jarring email mistakenly informing them that their status had been revoked.
The new policy also "should not immediately affect migrants who entered via CBP One and applied for asylum and have pending cases in immigration court," according to CBS News immigration and politics reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez, who noted that "the government generally has to wait for those cases to be adjudicated or terminated before moving to deport."
More than 500,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan migrants who entered the country via the CBP One app with U.S.-based financial sponsors are also bracing for the loss of their protected status on April 24. Additionally, the Trump administration announced the revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 1 million Haitian and Venezuelan migrants.
However, on March 31 a federal judge in San Francisco blocked the administration's effort to expel 350,000 Venezuelan TPS recipients, finding that the deportations were "motivated by unconstitutional animus" and would "inflict irreparable harm" upon affected migrants.
Critics have accused the Trump administration and its supporters of reveling in the cruelty inherent in forcibly removing migrants.
Proponents, meanwhile, say Trump is keeping his promise to carry out the largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history—even as statistics show that the Biden administration deported people at a faster rate last year.
Migrants and other immigrants, including those who legally sought asylum in the United States—at least one of whom was wrongfully expelled—are being sent by the Trump administration to destinations including a camp in the Panamanian jungle and an ultra-high security prison in El Salvador.
Advocacy groups argue that such deportations are unlawful and violate deportees' rights. Human Rights Watch has documented cases of "torture, ill-treatment, incommunicado detention, severe violations of due process, and inhumane conditions, such as lack of access to adequate healthcare and food" in Salvadoran prisons.
Responding to Monday's DHS announcement, U.S. human rights attorney Qasim Rashid noted on social media that "985K migrants entered [the] USA through legal means during the previous administration."
"Trump just unilaterally revoked their legal status," Rashid added. "It was never about 'legal' immigration, but always about upholding white supremacy. This man is a fascist."
Allen Orr Jr., a Washington, D.C.-based immigration lawyer, lamented Tuesday that "migrants who followed the rules and entered legally through CBP One are now being punished."
"Not because they broke the law, but because of who granted them the benefit," he added. "This isn't about security; it's about revenge."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICJ Rejects Nicaragua's Request to Block German Arms Sales to Israel
However, the World Court did not grant Germany's request to dismiss the case‚ in which Nicaragua accuses Berlin of enabling Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Apr 30, 2024
The top United Nations court on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Nicaragua's request for an emergency order directing Germany to halt arms sales to Israel as it wages what the tribunal previously called a "plausibly" genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) judges voted 15-1 against the Nicaraguan motion, finding an absence of legal conditions for issuing an order blocking Germany from selling arms to Israel.
"Based on the factual information and legal arguments presented by the parties, the court concludes that, at present, the circumstances are not such as to require the exercise of its power... to indicate provisional measures," ICJ President Nawaf Salam wrote in the ruling.
However, the court did not grant Germany's request for an outright dismissal and will hear arguments on the merits of the Nicaraguan case, a process expected to take months to complete.
Carlos José Argüello Gómez, the head of Nicaragua's legal team and its ambassador to the Netherlands, said after the ruling that the court's decision "doesn't mean that Germany hasn't violated... international law."
"Germany has—from our point of view—violated international law" by providing weapons for Israel, Argüello contended.
Nicaragua’s representative Carlos Jose Arguello Gomez says ICJ ruling doesn't mean that Germany has not violated international law by providing military aid to Israel.
🟠 LIVE updates: https://t.co/FqbkLyF2ZA pic.twitter.com/3cnPizIXps
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) April 30, 2024
Nicaragua asserts that Germany—which provided nearly 30% of Israel's exported arms last year—is complicit in Israeli war crimes and is enabling genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinian and international officials say that more than 123,000 Palestinians have been killed, maimed, or left missing by Israel's relentless 207-day onslaught and siege, which has also displaced around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people and driven at least hundreds of thousands of people to the brink of starvation. The majority of those killed have been women and children.
"Germany is failing to honor its own obligation to prevent genocide or to ensure respect of international humanitarian law," Argüello argued during case hearings earlier this month.
According to the Lawyers' Collective—a Berlin-based group that is suing to stop German arms sales to Israel—Germany's government issued €326.5 million ($348.7 million) worth of weapons export licenses for Israel last year, the majority of which were approved after October 7, 2023. That's a tenfold increase from 2022. The group says these transfers violate Germany's obligations under the War Weapons Control Act, which requires arms exports to comply with international humanitarian law.
Germany counters that its weapons sales to Israel have decreased since the October 7 attack and emphasizes what it says are the defensive nature of recent arms transfers. Berlin also says it has robust internal mechanisms and processes to consider the human rights implications of German arms sales.
Top German diplomat Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, who is leading Germany's legal team at the ICJ, said during hearings that Nicaragua's allegations "have no basis in fact or law."
Reacting to the ICJ ruling, the German Foreign Office said that "Germany is not a party to the conflict in the Middle East. On the contrary, we are working day and night for a two-state solution."
"We are the largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians," the ministry added. "We are working to ensure that aid reaches the people in Gaza."
The German government has been intensely criticized for its stauch support for Israel and for violently cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests since October. Numerous observers contend that Germany's actions are driven by historical guilt over the Holocaust, with some critics claiming the German government is weaponizing that guilt in order to demonize Palestinians and their defenders.
Israel—which is not a party to the case—vehemently denies genocide charges, arguing it is defending itself in the wake of the Hamas-led attacks that left more than 1,100 people dead and around 240 others taken hostage. Israeli forces are believed to have killed numerous Israelis on October 7 and an unknown number of hostages since then during the bombardment and invasion of Gaza.
In addition to Nicaragua's motion, the ICJ is considering a case brought by South Africa and supported by over 30 nations asserting that Israel's Gaza assault is genocidal because it is "intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group."
On January 26, the tribunal issued a provisional ruling that found Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza and ordered the country to prevent genocidal acts. Critics accuse Israel of ignoring the order by continuing to block humanitarian aid from reaching Gazans as children and other vulnerable people starve to death.
Citing "the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation," the ICJ last month issued another provisional order directing Israel to allow desperately needed aid into the embattled enclave and reiterating its earlier order to prevent genocidal acts.
Also last month, the U.N. Human Rights Council
published a draft report that found "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Namibia to Gaza With Love
The Israeli brutality in Gaza, but also the Palestinian sumud, resilience and resistance, are inspiring the Global South to reclaim its centrality in anti-colonial liberation struggles.
Apr 21, 2024
The distance between Gaza and Namibia is measured in the thousands of kilometers. But the historical distance is much closer. This is precisely why Namibia was one of the first countries to take a
strong stance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Namibia was colonized by the Germans in 1884, while the British colonized Palestine in the 1920s, handing the territory to the Zionist colonizers in 1948.
Though the ethnic and religious fabric of both Palestine and Namibia are different, the historical experiences are similar.
Though intersectionality is a much-celebrated notion in Western academia, no academic theory is needed for oppressed, colonized nations in the Global South to exhibit solidarity with one another.
It is easy, however, to assume that the history which unifies many countries in the Global South is only that of Western exploitation and victimization. It is also a history of collective struggle and resistance.
Namibia has been inhabited since prehistoric times. This long-rooted history has allowed Namibians, over the course of thousands of years, to establish a sense of belonging to the land and to one another, something that the Germans did not understand or appreciate.
When the Germans colonized Namibia, giving it the name of “German Southwest Africa,” they did what all other Western colonialists have done, from Palestine to South Africa to Algeria, to virtually all Global South countries. They attempted to divide the people, exploited their resources, and butchered those who resisted.
Although a country with a small population, Namibians resisted their colonizers, resulting in the German decision to simply exterminate the natives, literally killing the majority of the population.
Since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Namibia answered the call of solidarity with the Palestinians, along with many African and South American countries, including Colombia, Nicaragua, Cuba, South Africa, Brazil, China, and many others.
Though intersectionality is a much-celebrated notion in Western academia, no academic theory is needed for oppressed, colonized nations in the Global South to exhibit solidarity with one another.
So when Namibia took a strong stance against Israel’s largest military supporter in Europe—Germany—it did so based on Namibia’s total awareness of its history.
The German genocide of the Nama and Herero people (1904-1907), is known as the “first genocide of the 20th century.” The ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza is the first genocide of the 21st century. The unity between Palestine and Namibia is now cemented through mutual suffering.
But it is not Namibia that has launched the legal case against Germany at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) but, rather, Nicaragua, a Central American country that is also thousands of miles away from both Palestine and Namibia.
The Nicaraguan case accuses Germany of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It rightly sees Germany as a partner in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians.
This accusation alone should terrify the German people, in fact the whole world, as Germany is affiliated with genocides from its early days as a colonial power. The horrific crime of the Holocaust, and other mass killings carried out by the German government against Jews and other minority groups in Europe during WWII, is a continuation of other German crimes committed against Africans, decades earlier.
The typical analysis of why Germany continues to support Israel is explained on the basis of German guilt over the Holocaust. This explanation, however, is partly illogical and partly erroneous.
Illogical, because, if Germany has, indeed, internalized any guilt from its previous mass killings, it would make no sense for Berlin to add yet more guilt by allowing Palestinians to be butchered, en masse. If guilt indeed exists, it is not genuine.
And erroneous, because it completely overlooks the German genocide in Namibia. In fact, it took the German government until 2021 to acknowledge the horrific butchery in that poor African country, ultimately agreeing to pay merely 1 billion euros in “community aid,” which will be allocated over the course of three decades.
The German government’s support of the Israeli war on Gaza is not motivated by guilt, but by a power paradigm that governs the relations among colonial countries. Many countries in the Global South understand this logic very well, thus the growing solidarity with Palestine.
The Israeli brutality in Gaza, but also the Palestinian sumud, resilience and resistance, are inspiring the Global South to reclaim its centrality in anti-colonial liberation struggles.
The revolution in the Global South outlook—culminating in South Africa’s case at the ICJ, and also the Nicaraguan lawsuit against Germany—indicates that the change is not the outcome of a collective emotional reaction. Instead, it is part and parcel of the shifting relationship between the Global South and the Global North.
Africa has been undergoing a process of geopolitical restructuring for years. The anti-French rebellions in West Africa, demanding true independence from the continent’s former colonial masters, in addition to the intense geopolitical competition—involving Russia, China and others—are all signs of changing times.
And, with this rapid rearrangement, a new political discourse and popular rhetoric are emerging, often expressed in the revolutionary language emanating from Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, and others.
But the shift is not happening on the rhetorical front only. The rise of BRICS as a powerful new platform for economic integration between Asia and the rest of the Global South has opened up the possibility that alternatives to Western financial and political institutions are very much possible.
In 2023, it was revealed that BRICS countries are now holding 32% of the world’s total GDP, compared to 30% held by the G7 countries. There is much political value to this as four of the five original founders of BRICS are strong and unapologetic supporters of the Palestinians.
While South Africa has been championing the legal front against Israel, Russia and China are battling the U.S. at the United Nations Security Council to institute a cease-fire. Beijing’s ambassador to The Hague went as far as defending the Palestinian armed struggle as legitimate under international law.
Now that global dynamics are working in favor of Palestinians, it is time for the Palestinian struggle to return to the embrace of the Global South, where common histories will always serve as a foundation for a meaningful solidarity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hey Germany, Stop Arming Israel’s Genocide in Gaza!
On April 8, 2024, the first day of ICJ proceedings in Nicaragua v. Germany, CODEPINK and other antiwar activists staged pickets and delivered letters to German consulates and embassies across the U.S.
Apr 10, 2024
From coast to coast, CODEPINK delegations protested at German diplomatic missions in support of Nicaragua’s case against Germany at the International Court of Justice, or ICJ, for complicity in Israel’s genocide that has killed or maimed over 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza.
On April 8, 2024, the first day of ICJ proceedings in Nicaragua v. Germany, pickets and letter deliveries took place in Washington, D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, and Seattle. Demonstrators echoed Nicaragua’s requests of the World Court to order Germany and the United States to stop supplying weapons to Israel. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. supplies 69% of Israel’s arsenal; Germany supplies 30% of the weaponry.
Benjamin Alvarez Gruber, U.S. correspondent for Deutsche Welle (DW), state-owned German television, covered the story at the D.C. German Embassy, where CODEPINK organizers Medea Benjamin, Julia Norman, and Palestinian American Moataz Salim led the delegation. Participants headed into the embassy office to deliver a “stop the arms, restore UNRWA aid” letter from CODEPINK.
The pickets, rallies, and petition deliveries were part of an international call for solidarity with Palestinian Germans who risk beatings and arrest when they protest Germany’s complicity in Israel’s slaughter in Gaza.
“We were fed a lot of formality,” said Norman, summarizing the embassy’s response for the crowd. “There needs to be a lot of investigations… investigations take a lot of time… there’s no way to prove yet that war crimes are occurring.”
“Shame, shame,” cried the crowd outside the embassy.
Norman continued, “While there was a sense of grief in that room, there was no sense of urgency.”
This despite the threat of mass starvation looming over Gaza as a result of Israel’s refusal to allow food, water, and medicine into the densely populated coastal strip.
“It also leads me to believe that they are in total support of what’s going on,” Salim added.
D.C. peace activists gather outside the Germany Embassy.(Photo: Michelle Ellner/CODEPINK)
In Los Angeles, an angry defender of Israel’s genocide confronted a protester before the action began, and when it looked like an assault might be imminent, building security called the police. Five officers responded, lining up patrol cars in front of the consulate building, as 50 picketers—some driving three hours to participate in the protest—chanted in front of the office building housing the German Consulate on the fifth floor.
Palestinian American Mirvette Judeh, whose family is from the West Bank, told the crowd it was the power of the people’s protests that propelled 40 members of Congress, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to sign a letter to President Joe Biden calling for a halt to weapons shipments to Israel. When it came time to deliver the CODEPINK letter to German Consul General Andrea Sasse, the building security guard allowed only one member of the delegation, Judeh, up to the fifth floor.
While the doors to the consulate had earlier swung open to visitors, Judeh said they were shut tight when she arrived with the letter for the German consul general. She knocked. The door opened.
“I said could I speak to someone about Germany needing to stop funding the genocide and ethnic cleansing, and providing weapons and support to Israel, and they said, ‘If you keep talking, we’re not going to deliver the letter.’”
Mirvette Judeh speaking outside the German Consulate in Los Angeles.(Photo: Rick Chertoff)
Later the Israel defender returned with three menacing others spewing four-letter words, itching for a fight and videotaping protesters.
Three Dubai women visiting relatives in San Diego drove three hours to participate in the protest. “We are forbidden from protesting in Dubai,” said the women, CODEPINK Instagram followers anxious to participate in another action.
In San Francisco, 20 picketers gathered in front of the German Consulate in the city’s posh neighborhood of Pacific Heights, where CODEPINK participants took turns reading the letter, discussing the genocide, and attempting to go inside the consulate to deliver the letter.
“The security guard asked the consulate staff if we could come in and the staff declined to allow that, but the guard took the letter inside for us and we confirmed that the staff received it and would pass it along to the consul,” said Cynthia Papermaster, organizer of the delegation.
CODEPINK San Francisco members stand outside the German Consulate in San Francisco.(Photo: Phil Pasquini)
In Chicago, a 10-member delegation of Muslims and Jews met for over an hour with Michael Ahrens, German consul general, who began the meeting saying Israel had a right to defend itself but listened intently and took notes while participants told heartbreaking stories from both Gaza and the West Bank.
Peace activists gather outside the German Consulate in Chicago.
In New York City, the German mission’s First Secretary Daniel Drescher came down to the street to meet with the CODEPINK delegation and receive their letter. Participant Leigha Gillespie spoke of the harm resulting from Germany’s UNRWA defunding, which was based on testimony now debunked as false confessions made under Israeli torture.
The German mission diplomat said no funding had actually been cut because this year’s budget had already been allocated. Gillespie retorted, “Then why did you announce that you were cutting the funding instead of merely investigating the allegations?”
Delegation organizer Robert Jereski said, “He had no sound answer and clearly understood the damage that Germany’s contribution to the campaign against UNRWA had done. He also had no answer to the disparate response of Germany to Israel’s bald allegations against UNRWA and the ICJ’s finding of plausible genocide, especially where the former had no proof while the decision of the highest court was replete with evidence.”
Imam Catovic, a former diplomat originally from Bosnia, who joined the CODEPINK picket, urged the first secretary to recognize that Germany’s own history makes it particularly well placed to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it takes place, and that Germany’s guilty conscience should not cloud judgement about what is right, echoing the position of the Jewish activists present that Germany’s policies do not align with Jewish values or safety. They all underscored that a demand to end Palestinian suffering is not antithetical to Jewish safety but in fact a requirement for the safety of all people.
The New York delegation of peace activists speak with the German U.N. Mission’s First Secretary Daniel Drescher.(Photo: Maha Alami)
In Seattle, a contingent delivered the CODEPINK letter to the honorary consulate, where a staffer welcomed antiwar activists into the office, only to have the Honorary Consul General Uli Fischer,, formerly in the German Air Force and a retired Boeing employee, refuse to meet with them. Nevertheless, participants said they could see through a crack in the door that the Consul General was reading the letter also signed by Veterans for Peace and the Seattle Antiwar Coalition.
Seattle peace activists pose with signs outside the German Consulate.
In Boston, activists with Massachusetts Peace Action delivered the letter to the German Consulate.
The pickets, rallies, and petition deliveries were part of an international call for solidarity with Palestinian Germans who risk beatings and arrest when they protest Germany’s complicity in Israel’s slaughter in Gaza. Without U.S. and German weapons, Israel’s genocide might well come to an end, sparing the lives of over a million Palestinians uprooted from their homes to struggle with mass starvation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawyers Sue Germany in Bid to Block Arms Exports to Israel
"There is reason to believe that these weapons are being used to commit grave violations of international law, such as the crime of genocide and war crimes."
Apr 06, 2024
The Berlin-based Lawyers' Collective on Friday sued the German government in an effort to stop weapons transfers to Israel, whose government and military are waging a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany is the second-largest arms exporter to Israel, providing 30% of its imported weaponry from 2019-23. The top exporter, the United States, provided 69% of Israel's imported armaments during that same period.
"As there is reason to believe that these weapons are being used to commit grave violations of international law, such as the crime of genocide and war crimes, the applicants are hereby demanding that the German government protect their right to life," groups supporting the lawsuit—including the European Legal Support Center, Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy, Law for Palestine, and Forensis—said in a statement.
Ahmed Abed, an attorney in the case who is representing Palestinian families, said during a Friday press conference in Berlin that "Germany has a constitutional responsibility to protect human life."
"The German government must stop its arms exports to Israel, as they are in violation of international law," he added. "The government cannot claim that it is not aware of this."
According to the Lawyers' Collective:
In 2023, the German government issued arms exports licenses to Israel worth €326.5 million, the majority of which were approved after October 7, 2023, a tenfold increase compared to 2022. The German government is currently supporting the Israeli army by approving the supply of 3,000 portable anti-tank weapons, 500,000 rounds of ammunition for machine guns, submachine guns, or other fully or semi-automatic firearms, as well as other military equipment, while in early 2024 Germany was preparing the authorization of 10,000 rounds of 120mm tank ammunition...
The arms deliveries and support provided by the Federal Government to Israel violate the Federal Republic's obligations under the War Weapons Control Act. The criteria for the approval of arms exports include, among other things, that the weapons are not used against Germany's obligations to international law.
The groups said that since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found in January that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza, they believe that "the delivery of weapons is contrary to these obligations."
In February, lawyers from some of the same groups involved in the new lawsuit sued senior German officials, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, for "aiding and abetting" Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Last month, Nicaragua filed an ICJ lawsuit against Germany accusing its government of helping Israel commit genocide against Palestinians.
In addition to exporting hundreds of millions of euros worth of arms to Israel, Germany also suspended contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in response to unsubstantiated Israeli accusations that 12 of the agency's 13,000 workers in Gaza were involved in the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel. This, as Palestinians starve to death.
The German government has been intensely criticized for its nearly unconditional support for Israel and for violently cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests. Numerous observers contend that Germany's actions are driven by historical guilt over the Holocaust, with some critics claiming the German government is weaponizing that guilt in order to demonize Palestinians and their defenders.
The new lawsuit came as the United Nations Human Rights Council on Friday voted 28-6 with 13 abstentions in favor of a resolution demanding that Israel be held accountable for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The United States and Germany were the two biggest countries to vote against the measure.
Palestinian and international human rights officials say at least 33,173 Palestinians—most of them women and children—have been killed by Israel's bombing, invasion, and siege of Gaza since October 7. More than 75,800 others have been wounded, while over 7,000 Gazans are missing and believed dead and buried beneath the rubble of the hundreds of thousands of homes and other structures damaged or destroyed by Israeli attacks.
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