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
terrorism
God No Longer Blesses War: Ask the Children
What if I were under the rubble right now? What if I had I just learned that my daughter is 12 years old again and the girls’ school she attended in Iran—in Minab—had just been bombed by an American plane?
Jul 06, 2026
Writing a column is like sitting atop a large hill, looking down lovingly—and angrily—at the surrounding world, embracing it in a moral perspective and sharing your analysis of what you see. Primarily, this means telling people what’s wrong.
Today, as I climbed up the hill—this is called research—something felt different, troubling. Where I used to feel enthusiasm, I felt hollow: bereft of self-confidence and certainty. I’ve been writing a weekly column for nearly half of my life, first at a local paper in Chicago for 10 years, then the current column, syndicated until recently by the Chicago Tribune, for the last 27 years. What’s going on here?
I was no longer atop that hill. Suddenly I had nothing to say. The doubt I was feeling—that I had anything relevant and valuable to add to our collective grasp of the world—overwhelmed me.
I had decided to write about what I almost always write about... war. Both current and eternal. Indeed, I had begun scrolling the internet, looking for provocative points of view. I googled the words “terrorism vs. waging war,” seeking to learn what I already knew: that the “official” world has declared a distinction between the two terms as definite as the distinction between “evil” and “good.”
Perhaps the flow of pain I felt was the realization that opposing war in relative safety is too easy. It’s not enough.
My first pop-up response was an AI Overview: “Terrorism and waging war differ fundamentally in their targets, legal frameworks, and combatants. Terrorism targets civilians to induce fear for political or ideological goals. Waging war is typically an armed conflict between states or organized groups, where lawful combatants target military objectives.”
Of course, of course. Terrorists represent evil, plain and simple. They kill real people, always for selfish reasons. But war is official. It’s state-sponsored and legal. It’s registered with God, for God’s sake. And while there’s always an evil side—the enemy—the winners, the good guys, are simply doing what they must. Civilization couldn’t have evolved without it. And that’s how we organize history: from one war to the next. This is the official understanding, which we’re spoon-fed as we grow up.
I see beyond this official certainty and have devoted my life to dismantling it. But the AI Overview explanation, seemingly such an easy target for my ruthless analysis, had an unexpected effect. I felt stabbed with a sense of depression so sharp I could hardly move, let alone write. All I could do was go back to bed, cover my head with my pillow, I wanted to hide.
But the emotional pain didn’t stop. It continued piercing me. I got back up. I saw no relief. I was terrified that old age had set in. Oh my God, am I too old to write anymore (a month and a half away from age 80)? I was ready to give up, blow the column off... spend the rest of the day secretly crying.
Instead, I started writing—cluelessly. I had no idea where my words might go. I was no longer atop a hill. I didn’t know where I was. But an awareness started clutching me. What if I were under the rubble right now? What if I had I just learned that my daughter is 12 years old again and the girls’ school she attended in Iran—in Minab—had just been bombed by an American plane?
A hole had suddenly opened in my life. No, those imaginings aren’t real—not for me—but they are for some of us. Perhaps the flow of pain I felt was the realization that opposing war in relative safety is too easy. It’s not enough. And beyond the realization is simply a dark emptiness. I had nowhere to go. I couldn’t even cry.
All I can do, right now, is reach deeper into my soul, to bless every human I encounter, and to publicly share the largest cry I can make for change. The cry tears loose from a poem I wrote a decade ago, which I also shared in a column I sent out last December. It’s called “The Gods Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side:”
I stroke the unknown,
the dark silence, the
soul of a mother. I
pray, if that’s what
prayer is: to stir the certainties of
pride and flag and brittle
God, to stir
the hollow lost.
I pray open
the big craters
and trenches of
obedience and manhood.
Now is the time
to cherish the apple,
to touch the wound and love even
the turned cheeks and bullet tips,
to swaddle anew
the helpless future
and know
and not know
what happens next.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Travesty of Justice': UK Appeals Court Slammed for Upholding Ban on Palestine Action
"Classifying protest through direct action as terrorism brings Parliament and our judicial system into disrepute," said one Labour MP.
Jun 15, 2026
A UK appeals court is being accused of flouting the law to allow the government to suppress free speech after it upheld a ban on the direct action group Palestine Action.
Just days after four young activists with the group were hit with unprecedented “terrorism” sentences over their 2024 vandalism of an Israeli-owned weapons facility that was being used to supply the genocidal assault on Gaza, the Court of Appeal in London on Monday upheld the Labour government’s proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act of 2000.
The ban was approved in Parliament in July 2025 and outlawed expressions of support for the group. According to Amnesty International, more than 3,300 people have been arrested across Britain since last July "simply for their engagement in acts of peaceful protest opposing the proscription"—including more than 2,000 who have been arrested simply for holding signs that read "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
Outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the decision was handed down, hundreds more Britons rallied in opposition.
“We acknowledge the Court of Appeal’s judgment that the home secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was lawful,” the Metropolitan Police said in a statement shortly after. “This means that expressing support for the organization remains a criminal offense, and officers will arrest those who break the law.”
“Officers are policing a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice today where a number of people are displaying placards in support of Palestine Action," it continued. "Arrests are underway.”
Protesters were carried away, while onlookers shouted, “Shame” and “You’re complicit” at officers.
Arrests continue outside the Royal Courts of Justice after Court of Appeal find proscription of Palestine Action to be lawful.
We will continue to protest this Government’s embarrassing attempts to cover up its crimes with intimidation tactics.
Join us: https://t.co/XhFvPsZC3U pic.twitter.com/9okcFkVVtf
— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) June 15, 2026
As The New York Times pointed out:
Palestine Action, which no longer exists in its original form, did not promote violence against individuals. But its members damaged sites linked to Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons manufacturer, and last June broke into [Royal Air Force] Brize Norton, Britain’s largest air force base, in Oxfordshire, vandalizing two aircraft.
The activists who were given hefty sentences on Friday have argued that “innocent lives were saved” by their destruction of military equipment in the Elbit facility. Drones manufactured by the company have been documented in use during attacks on civilians, including the April 2024 strike on a World Central Kitchen convoy that killed seven aid workers.
But although members of the group have never been accused of any premeditated act of violence against other human beings, the British government’s terror designation puts it on the same level, legally speaking, as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division, and expressions of support can carry maximum sentences of 14 years in prison.
In February, the High Court sided with Palestine Action, ruling that the ban on support breached the rights to free expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, a five-judge appeals court panel overruled this decision on Monday, with Chief Justice Sue Carr writing that while the ban was “highly controversial,” and that the group “was supported by many otherwise law-abiding citizens,” it was a “fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promoted unlawful violence amounting to terrorism.”
Pointing to its sabotage of Elbit, she said the group's actions were “intended to close down lawful businesses” and said that "future threats and risks posed to third-party individuals and property by Palestine Action were perhaps the most important factors to weigh in the balance.”
Carr said that the ban would "not prevent public expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or opposition to Israel and to the Israel Defense Forces, or demonstrations targeted at Elbit."
But in the process, even she acknowledged that such a severe restriction on peaceful assembly in support of Palestine Action could indeed have a "chilling effect" on otherwise law-abiding citizens and cause them to be "deterred from assembling lawfully or making their strongly held anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian views public for fear of their actions being construed as support for Palestine Action."
Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, who challenged the ban in court, said her group would "fight this all the way" and planned to appeal to the UK Supreme Court and potentially even the European Court of Human Rights.
"We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history," she said. "This unprecedented abuse of power has devastated the lives of thousands of people while silencing dissent over Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people during the genocide, when that dissent could not be more urgent.”
Today's ruling by the Court of Appeal is deeply disappointing.
This case remains about much more than one group.
What’s important for all of us to understand is that proscription is one of the strongest powers the government has.
Treating protest as terrorism leaves the… pic.twitter.com/WI3O05LYEn
— Amnesty UK (@AmnestyUK) June 15, 2026
The ruling was met with outrage from supporters of Palestinian rights and human rights groups.
Ammar Kazmi, the senior legal coordinator for the Derby-based Left Legal Fighting Fund, said that with this ruling, the judges allowed the political objective of criminalizing pro-Palestine speech to take precedence over the law.
"The judges allowed policy reasons to override strictly legal arguments, and they showed deference to ‘national security’ questions," he wrote on social media. "They also said that proscription is a ‘proportionate’ interference with free speech rights. In other words, they allowed the government to ride roughshod over the law."
Amnesty UK called the ruling "deeply disappointing," adding that the case "remains about much more than one group."
"What’s important for all of us to understand is that proscribing a group as a terrorist organization is one of the strongest powers the government has," the human rights group said. "The banning of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization is a grave misuse of counterterrorism powers with serious consequences for human rights."
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn—whose successor, Prime Minister Keir Starmer—enacted the ban, said, "Today’s ruling to uphold the UK government's proscription of Palestine Action is a travesty of justice."
"One by one, the very foundations of our democracy are being destroyed—all to oil the wheels of British complicity in genocide," said Corbyn, who is leading an unofficial "tribunal" that presented evidence of UK participation in Israel's assault on Gaza to the International Criminal Court in March.
Noting the large number of pensioners who have been hauled off by police for holding protest signs opposing the ban—including dozens arrested on Friday for opposing the sentencing of those involved in the Elbit raid—Labour MP John McDonnell said, "Parliament should reverse the decision to proscribe Palestine Action urgently before we see large numbers of elderly people in particular being dragged before our courts."
He added that "classifying protest through direct action as terrorism brings Parliament and our judicial system into disrepute."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UK Palestine Action Activists Hit With ‘Completely Disproportionate’ Terrorism Sentences for Israeli Weapons Sabotage
Amnesty UK said the defendants "were sentenced as terrorists because prosecutors want to make an example of them."
Jun 12, 2026
In a decision that Amnesty International described as "completely disproportionate," four demonstrators with the outlawed group Palestine Action were sentenced as terrorists in the UK on Friday after being convicted for causing damage at an Israeli weapons factory in 2024 to protest the genocide in Gaza.
Supporters of the so-called "Filton 4" were filmed crying and embracing outside Woolwich Crown Court in London as the judge, Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson, handed down sentences ranging from four years and eight months to seven years and eight months to the four young defendants.
Charlotte Head, 30; Leona Kamio, 30; and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were convicted of criminal damage last month after a break-in at a factory in Bristol owned by the Israeli company Elbit Systems, where they smashed up over a dozen drones and other military equipment, causing around £1.2 million, or $1.6 million, of damage.
A fourth defendant, 23-year-old Samuel Corner, was also convicted for the damage, as well as grievous bodily harm without intent for striking a policewoman on the scene with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine.
🇬🇧 🇵🇸 Four Palestine Action Activists Sentenced as ‘Terrorists’ in UK Legal First
Four activists who raided an Elbit Systems arms factory near Bristol in 2024 were sentenced as “terrorists” Friday at Woolwich Crown Court, in what supporters said is the first time UK protesters… pic.twitter.com/gC4MvAXfz4
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 12, 2026
In what has been described as a legal first for Britain, Johnson sentenced the four defendants as terrorists, although three had only been convicted of property damage. He did so under the Sentencing Act of 2020, which allows nonterrorism crimes to be treated as terrorism if they meet certain criteria.
Elbit's drones have been documented in use during attacks on civilians, including the April 2024 strike on a World Central Kitchen convoy that killed seven aid workers.
Last month, 22-year-old Zoe Rogers, another activist who took part in the Elbit raid but was acquitted, said she believed that because of their sabotage of the drones, "innocent lives were saved" in Gaza.
However, Johnson did not allow the defendants to explain the reason for their actions as part of the trial, nor were jurors informed that the defendants could later receive sentences for terrorism.
Because the protesters had caused “serious damage to property” for the purpose of “advancing a political or ideological cause,” Johnson determined that the protesters could be sentenced as terrorists using the broad definition from the Terrorism Act 2000.
The terrorism designation means that defendants will have to serve a minimum of two-thirds of their sentences in prison and will be required to register as terrorists with the police for the next 15 years.
Attorneys for the defendants said they were not informed that their clients were at risk of being sentenced for terrorism and accused the prosecution of submitting key evidence, including a report on the cost of damage to the factory, “at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour," giving them little time to form a rebuttal.
The defendants’ attorneys described the precedent that someone could be sentenced for terrorism after being convicted of a nonviolent offense as unprecedented and dangerous to speech.
“It’s wrong for someone to be sentenced for a more serious offense of which they have not been convicted,” said Corner's attorney, Tom Wainwright, who noted that similar measures could have been used to sentence earlier protest movements, like the suffragettes or other anti-war demonstrators who sabotaged military equipment, for terrorism simply because their actions had a political motivation.
Head's attorney, Rajiv Menon, described the attempt to sentence his client as unprecedented, and warned that it was “an invitation to chilling, creeping authoritarianism that undermines the very fabric of our society."
After their conviction, Wainwright hailed the protesters as people of conscience: "[The drones] may have been involved in taking the lives of men, women, and children in Gaza. That is why they acted. That’s something that—in a sane world—would be commended.”
In a post to social media following news of the conviction, Amnesty UK condemned the use of terrorism powers in this case.
"It is completely disproportionate to punish protesters for criminal damage as if they were terrorists, a sentence which stays with you for life," the human rights group said.
More than 70 people were arrested for supporting the proscribed group Palestine Action outside Woolwich Crown Court.
The arrests happened as four members of Palestine Action were sentenced over a separate incident. pic.twitter.com/kRkXEjbPFm
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 12, 2026
The sentencing comes amid a broader crackdown in the UK against pro-Palestine speech and protest that has ramped up even under a Labour government, which has sought to label even peaceful demonstrations as terrorism.
Following another case in which Palestine Action protesters vandalized military equipment—this time on a UK Royal Air Force base—the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer in 2025 used the same terrorism law cited by Johnson to label the group as proscribed, effectively making it illegal to belong to it or publicly support it.
Police have arrested numerous peaceful protesters for no other crime than holding signs that read: "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action."
Amnesty said in May that more than 3,300 people had been arrested across the UK since the proscription took effect and that more than 1,200 protesters had been charged with terrorism-related offenses.
Eight other Palestine Action activists, including four others who have been accused of involvement with the Elbit break-in, went on a lengthy hunger strike this past winter to protest their confinement in prison for more than a year without trial, during which time they alleged that they were denied needed medical care and had their communication with the outside world censored.
Amnesty said the Filton 4 "were sentenced as terrorists because prosecutors want to make an example of them."
On Friday, as hundreds rallied outside the court against the terrorism sentence, more than 100 peaceful protesters were also arrested for allegedly supporting Palestine Action.
Video of one of the arrests, published by Channel 4 News, shows police officers lifting an elderly woman by her arms and legs and dragging her away from a larger group of people holding signs.
"You're under arrest under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act," one officer is heard saying.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details How Post-9/11 Legal Policies Laid Groundwork for Trump 'Terrorizing Migrants'
A legal expert explores how the administration is "weaponizing the law... to effectuate a widespread harassment and mass deportation campaign that is more akin to ethnic cleansing than routine immigration enforcement."
May 05, 2026
President Donald Trump's taxpayer-funded mass deportation campaign has tormented communities across the country with militarized federal agents, killed immigrants and US citizens alike, abused demonstrators and detainees of all ages, and sparked fears of an expansive effort to strip citizenship from Americans.
The "Terrorizing Migrants" report released Tuesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs details how Trump's xenophobic campaign reflects "specific law and policy options created and strengthened among all three branches of the US government, on a bipartisan basis, since 9/11."
"These law and policy options place heightened unchecked discretionary authority within the administration, and are particularly ripe for abuse against noncitizen persons of color by immigration authorities, law enforcement agents, and other executive branch officials," wrote Widener University Delaware Law School assistant professor Elizabeth Beavers, author of the report.
The publication focuses on five key post-9/11 precedents borrowed from the "War on Terror," though it acknowledges that "the Trump administration is relying on laws and policies far beyond those described in this paper to effectuate its broader anti-immigrant agenda, and justifying much of it in national security language."
The first of the five precedents is "conflation of immigration enforcement and counterterrorism." The report recalls that after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation "orchestrated a mass investigation" that "exclusively targeted Arab, Muslim, and South Asian immigrants in a dragnet roundup, subjecting them to secretive detention at locations inside the US," and holding many of them "for weeks or even months without any charges at all."
Beavers also pointed to the George W. Bush administration's launch of the National Security Entry and Exit Registration System, as well as the creation of the US Department of Homeland Security and the placement of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within DHS. ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents have been key to Trump's campaign.
The Muslim ban from Trump's first term "built upon the structures that came before it, but greatly expanded legal presumptions that people of particular races, religions, and nationalities carry inherent danger," Beavers wrote. His second term policies have "extended this precedent to its logical conclusion by framing migration itself as terrorism. And nearly 25 years after its post-9/11 creation, ICE has been unleashed and empowered to roam American streets, snatching and disappearing people they perceive as unlawfully present, often based solely on race, and often without verifying their immigration status."
The second precedent Beavers explored is "expanded and politicized 'terrorist' designation lists." She noted Trump's invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro, as well as his boat-bombing spree allegedly targeting drug traffickers in international waters.
The expert also dove into "deporting people as 'terrorists' without proving actual violent conduct," flagging Trump's "reverse migration" pledge after an Afghan man allegedly shot two National Guard members in Washington, DC, along with the administration's decision to "hold and review" asylum applications for people from "high-risk" countries.
That review, she warned, "could result in mass removal from the country of 'terrorist' noncitizens who involuntarily paid money to cartels at some point in their lives, whose family remittances have crossed hands with cartel-controlled actors, who have family members or other connections to a designated cartel but no involvement themselves, or who have unwillingly been pressed into service of a cartel at some point."
Much gratitude to @costsofwar.bsky.social for publishing my newest paper, highlighting how legal tools that started as post-9/11 counterterrorism abuses are now being weaponized further for Trump's anti-immigrant agenda:
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Beavers (@elizabethrb.bsky.social) May 5, 2026 at 10:49 AM
The fourth precedent examined in the analysis is "indefinite detention, torture, and rendition of noncitizens." Beavers began the section with the detention camp at US Naval Station Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, which she called "perhaps one of the most notorious features of the US government's post-9/11 'War on Terror.'"
"It is both a place where every post-9/11 president has detained Muslim men in connection with the post-9/11 counterterrorism wars, but it is also a place where unauthorized migrants are sometimes held," she wrote. "More than 700 migrants have been sent to and from Guantánamo in President Trump's second term, detained there by ICE with support from the military."
The expert also highlighted Trump's deportation of hundreds of men to El Salvador's infamous Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT)—based on often dubious claims that they belonged to the gang Tren de Aragua, which the president designated as a terrorist organization—as well as the "practice of disappearing people into secretive immigration detention" within the United States, and reports indicating that "abusive treatment in those facilities may amount to unlawful torture."
The final precedent Beavers explored is the "anti-democratic concentration of executive national security powers." She wrote that "the second Trump administration has made prompt use of this latitude" from federal courts since 9/11.
"This has included: manipulating the 'terrorist' designation lists in novel ways to include drug cartels without needing court approval, which has expanded the scope of people who can be deported as 'terrorists'; claiming a maximalist version of its immigration powers, daring courts to intervene; invoking the state secrets privilege to avoid accountability in cases challenging its deportation orders; and indefinitely detaining and torturing migrants," Beavers continued. "They have taken each of these actions without fear they will be meaningfully held accountable in court."
Based on her review, the professor concluded that "indisputably, administration officials are weaponizing the law in new and particularly indefensible ways to effectuate a widespread harassment and mass deportation campaign that is more akin to ethnic cleansing than routine immigration enforcement."
"Neither Congress nor the courts have meaningfully checked presidents or held them accountable for their expansive and spurious claims of war authorities, national security powers, and counterterrorism mechanisms to justify harmful and discriminatory practices against noncitizens and especially against people of color," she stressed. "In these and many other ways, US policymakers on a bipartisan basis built and sharpened the legal weapons that President Trump is now utilizing against immigrants."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cuba Says Men on Florida Boat 'Intended to Carry Out an Infiltration for Terrorist Purposes'
The Cuban Interior Ministry said it detained seven people involved in the plot, including one who "had allegedly been sent from the United States to facilitate the landing and reception of the armed group."
Feb 26, 2026
The Cuban government said Wednesday that the men on a Florida-registered boat who opened fire on Cuban soldiers in the island's territorial waters were bent on carrying out "an infiltration for terrorist purposes."
In a statement following news that Cuban forces had killed four people on the boat, the besieged Caribbean nation's Interior Ministry said the vessel was carrying 10 men, all "Cuban nationals residing in the United States."
The ministry said it seized assault rifles, explosives, body armor, and other items from the boat and identified seven of its passengers, six of whom were detained. Four men on the boat—which, according to reports, was last purchased in 2022—were killed in the gunfight with Cuban soldiers, who had reportedly "approached the vessel for identification."
Cuban authorities also said another individual, Duniel Hernández Santos, was arrested "within national territory." The Interior Ministry said Santos "had allegedly been sent from the United States to facilitate the landing and reception of the armed group and has confessed to his role."
"The investigation remains ongoing until all facts have been fully established," the ministry said.
Participants in Foiled Armed Infiltration in Villa Clara Identified
As part of the ongoing investigation into the armed attack against a patrol vessel of the Border Guard Troops of the Ministry of the Interior, in the northeastern area of the El Pino channel, at Cayo Falcones,… pic.twitter.com/s9IFmUkqvk
— Cuban Embassy in US (@EmbaCubaUS) February 26, 2026
The deadly incident came as Cuba continued to reel from the Trump administration's recent intensification of decades-long economic warfare against the island. The administration is "actively seeking regime change in Cuba," according to Wall Street Journal reporting from last month.
Wednesday's incident called to the minds of observers past efforts, backed by the US, to topple the Cuban government, from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to Operation Mongoose.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, denied that any American government personnel were involved in the incident and said it was under investigation.
"We're going to find out exactly what happened here, and then we'll respond accordingly," said Rubio, a longtime supporter of regime change in Cuba. "It is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that. It's not something that happens every day. It's something, frankly, that hasn't happened with Cuba in a very long time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nonviolent Climate Activist Group Says It's Been Targeted by FBI 'Terrorism' Task Force
"This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration's crackdown on dissent," said Extinction Rebellion.
Feb 18, 2026
As the Trump administration broadens its efforts to criminalize dissent, a nonviolent climate advocacy group says the FBI is targeting it with a terrorism investigation.
Using a dubious legal designation of "domestic terrorism," the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has ramped up its efforts to surveil those it considers to be domestic enemies—including members of left-wing groups with no history of violence.
The New York City chapter of the group Extinction Rebellion said one of its former members came into the crosshairs earlier this month.
In a statement on Wednesday, the group said that a former member was visited by two special agents, one of whom was from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces, at their residence 200 miles outside New York City.
They said the agents asked about their involvement with Extinction Rebellion. The member declined to respond, referring the questions to their attorney.
The former member, who has chosen to remain anonymous, told the Intercept that they hadn't been involved with the group in two years and hadn't participated in any actions they thought would warrant FBI involvement.
“I believe this to be a significant escalation of the criminal legal system against Extinction Rebellion and find it very troubling,” Ron Kuby, an attorney for Extinction Rebellion, said. “This is usually the way we find out an actual investigation is underway and is often followed by other visits and other actions.”
He said he found it strange that Extinction Rebellion would become the target of a terrorism investigation. Members of the group take part in acts of what they call "nonviolent civil disobedience" such as blocking roads, sit-ins at public buildings, and occasional vandalism.
The group has sought to use these tactics to draw attention to leaders' inaction in fighting the climate crisis. Increasingly, they have launched protests against the Trump administration's policies more broadly, including its deployment of federal immigration agents in cities across the country.
While its actions can be disruptive, Extinction Rebellion has always been nonviolent, Kuby said, and its tactics are at worst misdemeanor offenses, which typically wouldn't interest federal law enforcement.
"[Extinction Rebellion NYC] is a nonviolent, decentralized group of artists, small business owners, parents, retired teachers, and everyday New Yorkers. We are not terrorists!" said a statement from Extinction Rebellion Global posted to social media on Tuesday. "We use artistic nonviolent organized protests, community outreach, and strategic advocacy to empower everyday citizens and drive meaningful environmental change."
"This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration's crackdown on dissent that many of us have been expecting," the group continued.
The New York City chapter of Extinction Rebellion is not the first to receive FBI visits during the second Trump administration.
Last year, six members of its sister group in Boston said the feds came to their doors, all on the same day in March, and questioned them without providing any business cards or explanation for their visit.
According to WBUR reporting at the time, none of the activists questioned had a history of participating in violent protests or of facing felony charges in federal or Massachusetts courts.
Jeff Feuer, a lawyer in Cambridge who has represented climate activists for more than three decades, told the outlet, “Until this year, I have never heard about the FBI or any other federal law enforcement officer visiting or questioning any of the hundreds of climate activists that I have personally represented."
After months of denial, US Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month that the department does, in fact, have a list of "domestic terrorist organizations" being compiled under President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which was described as a national directive to use the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to focus on “leftist” political violence in America.
That memo, commonly referred to as NSPM-7, was first obtained by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein in September. It laid out a national strategy to “disrupt” individuals or groups that "foment political violence" before it takes place.
NSPM-7 described many vaguely defined political viewpoints as potential "indicators" that one is a possible domestic terorrist, including: "anti-Americanism," "anti-capitalism," and "Anti-Christianity"; "extremism" on "migration," "race," and "gender"; and "hostility to those who hold traditional views" on "family," "religion," and "morality."
In another memo that leaked in December, Bondi—who just months before pledged under oath there would “never be an enemies list” compiled by the DOJ—directed the department to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
It directs federal law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which will then undertake an “exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7” that will incorporate “a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities.”
During the hearing, Bondi refused to say which groups and entities were on the list of so-called "domestic terrorists," though she acknowledged it existed, saying, "I know antifa is part of that."
Trump designated "antifa," referring to a loose confederation of antifascist groups, as a "domestic terrorist organization" in October, even though there is no formal "domestic terrorism" statute in US law.
It is unclear whether a formal federal investigation into Extinction Rebellion is underway or if it is part of NSPM-7.
An internal document shared with the Guardian in November revealed that the FBI had launched “criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” into “threats against immigration enforcement activity” in at least 23 regions across the US—including New York. It acknowledged that some of the investigations were related to the "countering domestic terrorism" memo.
"'Domestic terrorism' may not yet be a criminal charge, but the Trump administration is gearing up to create it," Extinction Rebellion NYC said on Wednesday. "NSPM-7... will be the broadest criminalization of free speech since McCarthyism or the height of the Civil Rights Movement. And while this fossil-fueled administration has already failed in some attempts to silence critics, we understand the broader context within which our specific activities sit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Is Committing Terrorism in Venezuela; Why Will Nobody Say That?
Despite the candor with which US officials have stated their intent “to intimidate or coerce” Venezuelans and Cubans, US reporters and commentators seem unwilling to use the word “terror.”
Jan 10, 2026
The US government’s official definition of “international terrorism” includes “violent acts” intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” including through “kidnapping.” By the US definition, it’s hard to find a more textbook example than US actions toward Venezuela. Yet few US reporters or commentators seem willing to call the policy what it is.
Until the Government Cries Uncle
The aerial murder of at least 110 people in boats off the Venezuelan coast starting in September 2025 was aimed at toppling the Maduro government. As White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said on November 2, President Donald Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle.” The phrasing recalls Ronald Reagan’s 1985 demand that the Nicaraguan government “say uncle” while he bombed the Nicaraguan coast, a campaign the International Court of Justice ruled to be terrorism.
Since bombing the Venezuela mainland and kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on January 3, top US officials have repeatedly reiterated their terrorist intentions. They plan to use the “tremendous leverage” afforded by a US naval blockade to ensure that the remaining government “does what we want”: Fork over billions of dollars in “our oil”; give US companies control over your resources; and help us reestablish “dominance in the Western Hemisphere,” starting with your cooperation in starving Cuba of oil.
Keeping It on Venezuelan Civilians
The US definition of terrorism also includes actions intended “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” for political objectives. For nearly a decade the US government has pursued a bipartisan policy of making Venezuelan civilians suffer enough that they’ll rise up and overthrow their president.
In their first year alone, from 2017 to 2018, US financial sanctions led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths from lack of medicine and other essentials. The continuation and expansion of the sanctions under Presidents Trump and Joe Biden also foreclosed any possibility of resuscitating the Venezuelan economy after the depression that began in the mid-2010s.
Over just a 10-year period, from 2012–2021, economic sanctions have killed around 5.6 million people.
The official line is that Venezuelans’ economic suffering is the result of Maduro’s “mismanagement.” Periodically, however, US officials have claimed credit. In 2018 a State Department spokesperson crowed that “the financial sanctions we have placed on the Venezuelan Government has [sic] forced it to begin becoming in default.” Critics could shove it. “Our strategy is working and we’re going to keep it on the Venezuelans.”
In 2019 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejoiced that “the circle is tightening” around the Maduro government and “the humanitarian crisis is increasing by the hour.” His colleague Elliott Abrams warned that “a Venezuela in recovery” was “not going to happen under the Maduro regime.”
Five Million Other Times the Strategy Worked
Intimidating and coercing civilian populations has always been the conscious strategy of broad-based economic sanctions.
An early version of this policy was used by British colonizers, and later the US government, in their wars against Indigenous populations in North America. As military historian John Grenier details in his indispensable book The First Way of War, conquering the continent for the Anglo race involved systematically targeting noncombatants and their food, water, and shelter.
The strategy was refined in the 20th century. After World War I sanctions on a country’s economy were marketed by Western governments as a humane alternative to military warfare. In reality sanctions were an adaptation of the earlier terrorist strategy. They could be even more lethal than the earlier version, since the expansion of global capitalism left nations more dependent on imports and exports.
The authoritative study of sanctions’ impact on human welfare was published in The Lancet Global Health in 2025. Upon evaluating mortality rates in 152 countries, the authors found that unilateral economic sanctions like the ones on Venezuela and Cuba “were associated with an annual toll of 564,258 deaths.” That’s roughly equal to the death toll from military conflicts.
Over just a 10-year period, from 2012–2021, economic sanctions have killed around 5.6 million people.
So That the Cuban People Take Care of Their Government
Cuba has been the target of a US economic blockade since 1960, far longer than any other country. Although its healthcare system has greatly limited the death toll as compared with other countries targeted by US sanctions, no other case reveals the terroristic logic of sanctions with such clarity.
In October 1960, soon after the Eisenhower administration initiated its sanctions against Cuba, Vice President Richard Nixon boasted on national TV that “we are cutting off the significant items that the Cuban regime needs in order to survive. By cutting off trade, by cutting off our diplomatic relations as we have, we will quarantine this regime so that the people of Cuba themselves will take care of Mr. Castro.”
And that was the language approved for TV audiences. Six months prior, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Lester Mallory wrote privately that “every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” He proposed an embargo “which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”
Why is a fascist sociopath more honest than the press corps tasked with holding him to account?
This economic warfare proceeded in parallel with bombings and biological warfare carried out by right-wing Cuban exiles, acting with the consent and often direct sponsorship of the US government. Those terrorist operations have killed hundreds of Cubans since 1959.
Mallory and his colleagues candidly explained why these policies were necessary. “Latin America today is in a state of deep unrest,” noted the State Department in 1961, because “the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living.”
The “major threat” of Cuba, said another 1961 memo, was “the example and stimulus of a working communist revolution.” If the revolution “thrives,” hungry people around the world might believe they too could challenge capitalism. Maybe “a blacklist of Cuban commercial activities in Latin America,” including Cuba’s trade “in foodstuffs and medicines,” could disabuse the hungry of their fantasy.
The Kennedy administration liked that idea. In 1962 it expanded Eisenhower’s sanctions on Cuba into a full economic embargo. That policy remains intact today, now more brutal and punitive than ever.
The economic blockade against Cuba hasn’t yet toppled the government. But whatever happens in the future, the US strategy has already succeeded in its larger goal of preventing a “working communist revolution” that might inspire others.
Sanctions on Venezuela have similarly helped crush any chance of a functioning socialism, or even a robust social democracy, for the foreseeable future.
See No (US) Terror
Despite the candor with which US officials have stated their intent “to intimidate or coerce” Venezuelans and Cubans, US reporters and commentators seem unwilling to use the word “terror.” As of this writing, no one at the New York Times, Washington Post, National Public Radio, or CNN has labeled the January 3 invasion of Venezuela as terrorism.
The only mentions of terror are in reference to President Nicolás Maduro, whom the US government labels a “narco-terrorist.” The latter term is rarely defined, let alone coherently. Maduro’s recent indictment on “narco-terrorism” charges in the Southern District of New York has been widely mentioned as a legal rationale for the invasion. None of the four outlets listed above have mentioned that the US attorney who signed the indictment, Jay Clayton, was appointed by Trump, had no previous prosecutorial experience, and has behaved like Trump’s lapdog since he was installed. Failing to scrutinize Clayton lends legitimacy to the claim that the US was merely enforcing the law.
Maybe editors have forbidden use of the T word. The BBC has prohibited its writers from saying that Maduro and Flores were “kidnapped” on January 3. Trump himself has no objection to using the term. Why is a fascist sociopath more honest than the press corps tasked with holding him to account?
Even in the Orwellian dystopia of today’s United States, words still have meanings. If rational debate is to be possible we must defend them.
Correction: An earlier version of this piece mistakenly confused the time period of the overall 2025 Lancet study (1971-2021) with the specific time period that the authors used to calculate the finding of 564,258 annual deaths (2012-2021). The author had multiplied that figure by 50 to obtain a figure of "28 million" sanction deaths. While it is possible that the 28 million figure for 1971-2021 is still approximately accurate, the author has updated the piece with the sure calculation of 5.6 million sanction deaths for the years 2012-2021 (i.e., 564,258 x 10 years).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Hegseth's Boat Strikes Are International Terrorism
It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes.
Jan 06, 2026
There has been much heated discussion of the United States Navy’s attacks, ordered by the President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, against numerous unidentified boats and their unidentified occupants. Many have characterized these lethal strikes as crimes under international law, which is valid position. However, what is less understood and more relevant is that the attacks are crimes under United States law and that they also constitute “international terrorism” as that term is defined in United States law.
Title 18 USC §2331 defines international terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that:
- “Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…;”
- Either are a crime under United States law regardless of where they are committed or would be a crime if committed within the United States; that
- "Appear to be intended... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination...; and”
- “Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
The first, third, and fourth of those conditions are clearly met by the attacks off the coast of Venezuela because:
- 1) It is unquestionably true that the attacks on the boats have been violent and dangerous to human life because they have killed over 100 people;
- 3) Despite Trump’s and Hegseth’s ridiculous claim that the destruction of the boats and their occupants is necessary to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US, the real reason, as disclosed by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, is that they were using the attacks to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, i.e. “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination…;” and
- 4) They have occurred in international waters far outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
It is the second condition, i.e. whether the attacks (a) are a crime under United States law wherever they are committed or (b) would be a crime if committed in the United States, that determines whether they meet the definition of international terrorism under the law. If either or both are true, the condition is met.
As to the first alternative, i.e. whether the attacks are a violation of federal criminal law that applies regardless of where the attacks occur, the relevant federal criminal law is 18 USC § 2280. It provides that a person “who unlawfully and intentionally… performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship" or who "destroys a ship" commits a crime punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of "not more than 20 years, or both,” and if a death results from the violence or destruction, by a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law’s definition of “ship” includes “a vessel of any type whatsoever,” i.e. the boats are ships within the meaning of the law. Finally, there is jurisdiction under the law when a person who commits the action is a “national of the United States.”
It is indisputable that the attacks constitute acts of violence against the people on the boats and that all of the boats have intentionally been destroyed. And even though Trump, Hegseth, and others have claimed that the attacks are lawful, their arguments do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. Their claim of lawfulness is based on a fictional state of war against the US, but there is in fact no war, no direct threat to the United States or its citizens, and no authorization by Congress for use of deadly force. Therefore, the attacks are clearly unlawful. Finally, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command who participated in ordering and commission of the attacks are nationals of the United States, so they fall within the jurisdiction of USC § 2280. Because the attacks have caused the death of those on the boats, the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, which means it is a Class A felony per 18 USC § 3559. Therefore, the attacks are a crime under United States law.
The attacks on the boats also meet the alternative standard that they “would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.” That is, the intentional killing of people without due process, i.e. unlawfully, is the crime of murder pursuant to 18 USC §1111(a).
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name.
The conclusion is that the attacks clearly constitute crimes of violence against maritime navigation and murder under United States law. Therefore, the attacks are acts of international terrorism per 18 USC §2331. That is, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command that furthered the implementation of these attacks are international terrorists. And because the attacks are being made by the United States armed forces in the name of the United States government, it follows that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Even though the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity and impunity, and even though the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will never prosecute Hegseth, et al., under 18 USC § 2280 or for murder, that does not affect the conclusion that the attacks on the boats are acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 USC §2331, and that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism. The facts speak for themselves.
I believe it is important that the American people recognize that the attacks on the boats constitute international terrorism under United States law and that the United States has thus become a state sponsor of international terrorism. The United States government has condemned, and continues to condemn, foreign governments, e.g. Iran, as alleged state sponsors of international terrorism. That the United States government has now become the world’s most egregious state sponsor of international terrorism makes those condemnations of other countries utter hypocrisy.
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name. It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes. Only then can the United States begin to expunge the stain of being a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nigerian Village Bombed by Trump Has 'No Known History' of Anti-Christian Terrorism, Locals Say
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
Dec 27, 2025
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against "ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians."
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday's attack, which landed just feet away from the town's only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, told Al Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration's explanation that their home is at the center of a "Christian genocide" left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria's parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: "We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this."
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that "since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed" by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump's strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an "oversimplified" narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz's overwrought claims of "Christian genocide."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines."
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration's attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a "holy war."
"This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing," she told Democracy Now! in November. "It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people."
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of "taking back" that nation's oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump's concern for the nation's Christians due to his administration's denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: "I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
16 Dead After Shooters Target Hanukkah Celebration at Australia's Bondi Beach
"The images out of Bondi Beach in Australia this morning of a vile, antisemitic massacre at a Hanukkah celebration are shocking, disgusting, and heartbreaking," said Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a US Senate candidate.
Dec 14, 2025
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
At least 16 people are dead, including a gunman, and dozens of others were transported to various hospitals for injuries after shooters attacked a Hanukkah celebration at the iconic Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia.
New South Wales Police confirmed that one suspect was killed and another is in custody, and a suspected improvised explosive device (IED) was found in a nearby vehicle, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
"One of the gunmen has been identified as Naveed Akram from Bonnyrigg in Sydney's southwest," ABC also reported. "An official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says Mr Akram's home in Bonnyrigg is being raided by police."
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the shooting "a targeted attack on Jewish Australians on the first day of Hanukkah, which should be a day of joy, a celebration of faith," and "an act of evil, antisemitism, terrorism, that has struck the heart of our nation."
"There is no place for this hate, violence, and terrorism in our nation," he continued, noting that many people remain alive "because of the courage and quick action of the New South Wales Police, and the first responders who rushed to their aid, as well as the courage of everyday Australians who, without hesitating, put themselves in danger in order to keep their fellow Australians safe."
A video of one such bystander has swiftly circulated online: A man identified as Ahmed al Ahmed tackled one gunman and took his weapon. A 7NEWS reporter spoke with a cousin of the 43-year-old Muslim fruit shop owner and father of two at the hospital. The "hero," as his cousin and many others have called him, was shot twice and had surgery, but should be OK.
The video garnered attention around the world. Democratic congressional candidate and outgoing New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is Jewish, acknowledged the "extraordinary courage" of the man who "bravely risked his life to save his neighbors celebrating Hanukkah." Lander added: "Praying for his full and speedy recovery. And so deeply inspired by his example."
As the Associated Press noted Sunday:
Mass shootings in Australia are extremely rare. A 1996 massacre in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur, where a lone gunman killed 35 people, prompted the government to drastically tighten gun laws and made it much more difficult for Australians to acquire firearms.
Significant mass shootings this century included two murder-suicides with death tolls of five people in 2014, and seven in 2018, in which gunmen killed their own families and themselves.
In 2022, six people were killed in a shootout between police and Christian extremists at a rural property in Queensland state.
The attack in Australia followed a deadly shooting Saturday at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island in the United States, where such incidents are far more common.
In the largest US city, the New York Police Department said Sunday that "we are in touch with our Australian partners, and at this time we see no nexus to NYC. We are deploying additional resources to public Hanukkah celebrations and synagogues out of an abundance of caution."
American leaders and political candidates also condemned the Sunday attack, including Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic US Senate candidate in Michigan who said that "the images out of Bondi Beach in Australia this morning of a vile, antisemitic massacre at a Hanukkah celebration are shocking, disgusting, and heartbreaking. The shooters deliberately attacked families celebrating a holiday because of their faith. There is no justification for such a cowardly act of terrorism."
"Our family is praying for the victims and their families—and for Jewish communities in Australia and around the world," added El-Sayed, who is Muslim. "I join my Jewish sisters and brothers grieving these attacks. And we stand resolved to stamp out antisemitism and hate in all its forms."
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