

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
When someone is apathetic to a group identity, or denies an ethnic cleansing, sometimes the simplicity of one name, a face, a young girl dreaming about her future despite the uncertainty of her death, can clarify the human impact of genocide.
There are few tools left for a young girl coping with the reality of surviving a genocide, and so she writes in her journal.
Rachel Corrie was 23 years old when she left her hometown of Olympia, Washington in 2003 to volunteer in Rafah and Gaza City. It was her second time ever leaving the United States.
While in the occupied territories in Israel, Rachel wrote furious to-do lists about possible next steps she should take as a volunteer acclimating to a new country. From getting a new phone number to call her mom, to calling the other organizers she worked with, her journals quickly filled with reminders about the next important thing she needed to do, and the larger questions she wrestled with as she dreamed and planned for her future.
In the safety of her diary, Rachel reckoned with the US military-industrial complex and Israeli soldiers shooting at children, and how these forces overshadowed the nonviolent activism she engaged in.
Rachel, Anne, and Aysenur are dead because genocide does not differentiate the joyful young girl from the villainized political “threat” to the supremacist military state.
On March 16, 2003 Rachel Corrie stood outside the home of a Palestinian family to position herself as an unwavering obstacle in the face of a bulldozer driven by Israeli soldiers intending to violently wreck the 600th Palestinian home that week. Despite her privileged white skin and neon orange jacket demanding the protections that an American citizen is supposedly entitled to, the bulldozer pushed her down a mound of dirt and drove over her body, crushing and killing her while an audience of activists and families watched in powerless dismay.
Rachel’s journal entries and emails to her parents in the weeks leading up to her murder were collected and curated into a play called My Name is Rachel Corrie. Recently, I watched a powerful production of this play at the Mirage Theatre in Kendall, Florida and it reminded me of three other girls whose documentation of their daily life became a historic tool for the world to understand a genocide, and how the precarity of the life and death of one young girl can touch a million hearts and humanize the victims who experience war.

The story of Rachel Corrie mirrors that of Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, another American from Washington who went to volunteer in the West Bank in 2024 after graduating college. Like Rachel, Aysenur was moved by the ongoing oppression of Palestinians, and the current genocide. She traveled to the West Bank and was trained in nonviolent activism practiced to show resistance to injustice without provoking violent reaction. On September 6, 2024, just three days into her volunteer mission, Aysenur peacefully ended a protest, followed Israeli military orders to vacate and disperse, and was standing with other activists in an olive orchard when an Israeli soldier shot her through her head. This murder of a US citizen happened during the Biden administration, and despite urgency from Aysenur’s congressional Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), her murder was never prosecuted as a war crime, violation of international law, or example of a larger practice of unjustified murders Israeli soldiers have committed since 1948.
Rachel Corrie and Aysenur Ezgi Eygi were young, hopeful, and driven by a deep sense of compassion and justice. They were courageous to risk their safety by volunteering in Gaza and the West Bank, but no volunteer participating in a peaceful demonstration should be murdered. The loss of two extremely bright girls with impressive futures ahead is devastating and cruel.
When discussing young girls who keep diaries during genocides, I don’t need to introduce the world to Anne Frank, or the power of her diary as an educational tool about the Holocaust that has been translated into dozens of languages across the world. Her father, Otto Frank, decided to publish Anne’s diary to memorialize his grief, love, and pride for his daughter’s unbridled spirit and unfinished life, and thanks to him millions of non-Jewish people are introduced to the Holocaust and emotionally moved to believe that an atrocity like that should never happen again.

My mom is a Holocaust educator who takes hundreds of Florida students every year through a model of the annex Anne Frank hid in. She introduces students to this girl named Anne who was around their age when she hid from Nazis, and died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp just weeks before it was liberated by British forces.
While my Mom and I often disagree about the politics of Israel, we share an extensive education on the Holocaust, and the firm values that human rights should be respected, and that never again means never again for anyone. During one of our disagreements about whether or not a genocide was occurring in Gaza, I reminded her of our shared values, and shared the name of a young girl my age: Bisan Owda.

Bisan is a 29-year-old journalist in Gaza, whose charm and unwavering spark of life reaches millions of people across the world through her daily Instagram videos titled: It’s Bisan from Gaza, and I’m Still Alive. I told my mom that Bisan’s Instagram posts remind me of a modern Anne Frank’s diary, and that every time I see her face on my feed I am relieved she survived another day of these three years of Hell.
Rachel Corrie, Anne Frank and Aysenur Ezgi Eygi are dead, but I hope Bisan Owda lives to see the end of this genocide, and a world where Palestinians have the same safety, peace, dignity, and sovereignty that others are granted, entitled to, and have the privilege and power of possessing. Now that my mom knows Bisan’s name and watches her Instagram videos, she also hopes that Bisan survives this genocide.
When someone is apathetic to a group identity, or denies an ethnic cleansing, sometimes the simplicity of one name, a face, an innocent spirit, a young girl dreaming about her future despite the uncertainty of her death, can clarify the human impact of genocide.
Her name is Rachel Corrie. Anne Frank. Aysenur Ezgi Eygi. Bisan Owda
She is one precarious life in a war of indiscriminate massacre. One flower in a bloodied field.
Rachel, Anne, and Aysenur are dead because genocide does not differentiate the joyful young girl from the villainized political “threat” to the supremacist military state.
Bisan is still alive. We can follow her story, share her name, and find the individual humanity that she shares with the millions of Palestinian children, mothers, fathers, uncles, and brothers immensely suffering that all deserve to live in peace with dignity.
Recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.
A major showdown on the House floor seemed imminent. An amendment, advanced by the Rules Committee, was poised to force a rare and telling record vote on stripping Israel of $3.3 billion in annual US military aid.
Brought forward by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and drawing support from key progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Greg Casar (Texas), the measure was set to put every lawmaker's stance on unconditional foreign assistance under a public microscope.
However, the high-stakes vote never actually happened. On June 30, the entire legislative package collapsed under the weight of Washington's internal political warfare. In a dramatic procedural twist, a coalition of Democrats and disgruntled conservative Republicans voted down the mandatory "rule" required to even begin debating the underlying State Department spending bill.
But even if the vote on Massie's amendment had occurred, the result would have been entirely predictable. It would have been defeated, as support for Israel on both sides of the congressional aisle remains structurally entrenched—even as the American public shifts against Israeli policy in historic numbers.
The strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.
According to a watershed Gallup poll published on February 27, a plurality of Americans now sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, leading by a margin of 41% to 36%. This marked the first time since Gallup began tracking the metric over two decades ago that Israel did not hold the upper hand in public sympathy.
Yet the shift is part of a broader, undeniable trend. A nationwide survey published in late June 2026 by Quinnipiac University revealed that an unprecedented 48% of American voters now think the United States is “too supportive” of Israel—the highest percentage recorded since the pollster first began tracking the question in 2017.
This is precisely why Massie's amendment carries such profound weight. It is significant not because US politicians have suddenly developed a collective moral conscience, but because recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.
For years, conventional political analysts dismissed pro-Palestinian mobilization, claiming Americans only vote based on immediate socioeconomic interests and rigid party loyalties. That assessment has since proven faulty.
The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable following the fallout of the 2024 presidential race, a reality later confirmed by those within the inner sanctums of power. In the post-election debates, senior administration insiders admitted that the handling of the Gaza genocide alienated core voter blocks.
The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable after the 2024 presidential race. According to Axios, top Democratic strategists conducting the party's post-election audit explicitly admitted to advocacy groups that internal party data proved the administration's Gaza policy was a "net-negative" on the ballot.
This finding—disclosed during internal briefings by Democratic National Committee autopsy author Paul Rivera—confirmed that the party's unconditional backing of Israel directly fractured its base, and ultimately contributed to its loss of the elections.
The upcoming November elections are expected to be fiercely contested, and Gaza will, once more, be on the ballot. Following a series of progressive, anti-war victories in local primaries, The Guardian reported that US foreign policy toward the conflict has effectively "turned into something of a litmus test for the left."
This historic transformation in the popular American perception of Palestine and Israel does not indicate that a political rupture is soon to follow, as US politicians are notorious for their moral flexibility and their ability to spin language in whatever way is necessary to remain in power.
Indeed, the evolution of the language used by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez regarding the word "genocide" in Gaza tells the entire story of how the Democratic establishment is never compelled by genuine moral urgency, but rather by sheer political expediency.
In the early months of the genocide, Ocasio-Cortez hesitated to adopt the term, acutely aware of the deep sensitivities surrounding such language in US media and mainstream society.
"The fact that this word is even in our discourse... demonstrates the mass inhumanity that Gaza is facing," she stated, attempting to navigate an acceptable rhetorical middle ground in January 2024 during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Yet, under the relentless weight of pressure from an increasingly mobilized progressive constituency, she systematically upgraded her language in March of the same year, declaring on the House floor: "If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes. It looks like the forced famine of 1.1 million innocents."
This linguistic shift continued to intensify until it reached the Munich Security Conference last February, where Ocasio-Cortez finally deployed the term without any qualification. Unconditional US aid, she flatly argued, "enabled a genocide in Gaza."
Ocasio-Cortez is just one of many Democratic progressives who carefully filtered their vocabulary to avoid the political fallout of using the term genocide too early, or too late. Her position was eventually corrected not because of a sudden moral awakening or the discovery of new information regarding the "unfolding genocide," but because the margins of error allowed by a newly conscious American public have completely closed.
Therefore, the strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.
Ultimately, the current movement serves as a crucial barometer, proving that sustained, grassroots, anti-war pressure is successfully destabilizing Israel's traditionally unquestioned shield in Washington.
Private creditors’ current power to disrupt sovereign debt resolution has negative ripple effects on our own people in the US, especially the most vulnerable.
Amid a succession of financial shocks, the Middle East war being only the most recent, developing countries’ debt levels are alarmingly high and continuing to rise. These burdens make it even more difficult for governments in the Global South to meet the basic needs of their populations. And because the world is interconnected through international trade and financial markets, these developing country debts boomerang back to harm ordinary people in the United States and other advanced economies as well.
To effectively address this growing crisis, we need to recognize that the debt landscape is very different today than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when global leaders agreed on relief initiatives worth more than $130 billion. Back then, private creditors held only about 5% of developing country debt. The rest was in the hands of public creditors, including the United States, UK, Germany, and other Group of 7 rich country governments, as well as multilateral financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which the G7 largely control.
Today, more than 60% of developing country debt is owed to private creditors who typically have the power to sue for full payment even when collective talks or international community initiatives for debt relief are ongoing. The mere threat of litigation gives these private creditors disproportionate leverage that puts debtors at a disadvantage and erodes debt relief gains. During Ethiopia’s prolonged struggle to access debt reductions under the G20 Common Framework, for example, private bondholders threatened to sue rather than make an effort similar to that of public creditors.
What can be done? One promising approach involves working the levers of power in the jurisdictions that govern private debt contracts. More than 90% are issued in New York and the UK. And over the past year, a bill to crack down on predatory private creditors gained real traction in the New York legislature. The “Champerty Fix Act” would prevent private creditors with debt contracts in that state from purchasing heavily discounted debt and then litigating to collect in full, instead of constructively engaging in debt negotiations. The bill would also significantly cut the high interest rates that debt crisis countries pay on claims under litigation.
Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.
With support from a coalition of religious, business, union, anti-poverty, environmental, development, and diaspora organizations, the bill passed the New York Senate and had enough support to pass in the Assembly, but that chamber’s leader chose not to bring it up for a vote by the time the session ended in early June. Supporters continue to demand that the Assembly be re-opened for a vote on the matter before the end of the year.
This legislation would be a huge win for the billions of people in countries where high debt payments divert essential financing for poverty reduction, social services, and development progress. It would also benefit workers, savers, consumers, and taxpayers in advanced economies—including the United States. Private creditors’ current power to disrupt sovereign debt resolution has negative ripple effects on our own people, especially the most vulnerable.
When debt crises affect US trade partners, jobs and wages that depend on import- and export-dependent companies in the United States inevitably suffer. And when inflation goes up due to supply chain disruptions in countries undergoing debt crises, consumers quickly feel it in the prices of their groceries and other everyday goods.
Pensions and other savings vehicles in the United States have exposure to indebted developing economies either directly—when they invest in instruments they issue—or indirectly—when they invest in US companies that have trade or investment in such countries. Reducing the time it takes a country to go from a debt crisis to a lasting restructuring—which currently averages 10 years—would significantly improve returns for our pensions and savers.
Taxpayers also have a stake in ensuring that taxpayer-funded debt relief does not bail out private creditors unwilling to negotiate fairly. In current restructuring deals, private creditors typically get repayments that are 20 percentage points higher than those received by public lenders.
Debt relief for the poorest has strong religious foundations that cut across multiple faith traditions and has been a landmark bipartisan pillar of US policy under every administration since the late 1990s.
Last year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his counterparts in all G20 countries adopted a declaration on debt sustainability. As the United States took over this year’s Presidency of the G20, he reaffirmed this direction by making the improvement of debt restructurings and debt transparency a priority. Building checks on private creditors in jurisdictions whose courts they use as leverage would go a long way toward supporting these goals by facilitating successful debt renegotiations.
Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.
"This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration," said Arizona's secretary of state.
US President Donald Trump late Thursday forced out the remaining three members of an independent, bipartisan commission that assists state election officials across the country, a move that critics condemned as a "pathetic power grab" ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The two Democratic members of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks, were fired, and Republican Commissioner Christy McCormick resigned at the White House's request, according to ProPublica. The agency, established by Congress more than two decades ago, now lacks leadership and any ability to make decisions, just months before the 2026 elections.
The EAC, as its website states, is "an independent, bipartisan commission whose mission is to help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process." In an executive order last year, Trump ordered the EAC to implement proof-of-citizenship requirements in the federal voter registration process, along with other changes. The president's effort to impose his policy demands on the EAC was mostly blocked in federal court.
Trump, who has said he wants his administration to "take over" voting nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterms, has since taken other steps that watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers say amount to an attempt to preemptively subvert the coming elections, including a sweeping assault on mail-in voting—which is also facing legal challenges. Legislatively, Trump is pushing Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that experts say would prevent millions of Americans from voting.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, said Thursday's EAC firings "are deeply concerning in light of President Trump’s relentless efforts to try to interfere in elections."
"These removals leave the agency without leadership and unable to carry out its major responsibilities," said Waldman. "The guardrails Congress placed on this agency are clear and must be followed: The Election Assistance Commission was designed to be bipartisan with four members, no more than two of which can be from the same political party. The agency cannot make any significant decisions or take any significant actions unless three confirmed commissioners agree. Until bipartisan replacements are confirmed, the agency cannot lawfully make any decisions that affect how Americans vote."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said Trump's termination of EAC commissioners underscores that "he’s scared of the voting power of the American people."
"This move is another pathetic attempt to sow doubt in our elections, which are safely and expertly run by states and localities," said Gilbert. "This agency deserves a steady hand and expert leadership. That said, it is important for voters to know that states and localities, not the EAC, run our elections. Even more importantly, it is the voters who decide who takes office."
The EAC firings came less than two weeks after the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court handed Trump the power to purge independent agencies at will with its Trump v. Slaughter ruling, erasing around 90 years of precedent.
Election law expert Rick Hasen warned in a blog post on Thursday that Trump "could try to direct the commissioner-less EAC to do his bidding, for example by stating that the EAC must amend the federal voter registration form that states must accept for federal elections to include documentary proof of citizenship."
"Trump’s first voting-related EO tried to do this, and he was stymied. But that was acting through the commissioners and before the Slaughter case," Hasen noted. "If he tries anything like this, it will be high-profile and very important litigation that will end up at the Supreme Court on the emergency docket over the summer."
Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, said in a statement late Thursday that the EAC purge was "irresponsible and dangerous," accusing the administration of remaining "dead set on causing chaos for our election officials across this country."
"This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration," Fontes added.