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
united states
With Genocide Confirmed and Gaza City a 'Lifeless Wasteland,' US Vetoes Another UN Ceasefire Resolution
“Israel kills every day and nothing happens," said Algeria's UN ambassador. "Israel starves a people and nothing happens. Israel bombs hospitals, schools, shelters, and nothing happens."
Sep 18, 2025
Against a backdrop of Israel's genocidal obliteration of Gaza City and a worsening man-made famine throughout the embattled Palestinian exclave, the United States on Thursday cast its sixth United Nations Security Council veto of a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the release of all hostages held by Hamas.
At its 10,000th meeting, the UN Security Council voted 14-1 with no abstentions in favor of a resolution proposed by the 10 nonpermanent UNSC members demanding "an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire" in Gaza, the "release of all hostages" held by Hamas, and for Israel to "immediately and unconditionally lift all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid" into the besieged strip.
Morgan Ortagus, President Donald Trump's deputy special envoy to the Middle East, vetoed the proposal, saying that the move "will come as no surprise," as the US has killed five previous UNSC Gaza ceasefire resolutions under both the Biden and Trump administrations, most recently in June.
Ortagus said the resolution failed to condemn Hamas or affirm Israel's right to self-defense and “wrongly legitimizes the false narratives benefiting Hamas, which have sadly found currency in this council."
The US has unconditionally provided Israel with billions of dollars worth of armed aid and diplomatic cover since October 2023 as the key Mideast ally wages a war increasingly viewed as genocidal, including by a commission of independent UN experts this week.
Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour said the torpedoed resolution represented the "bare minimum" that must be accomplished, adding that “it is deeply regrettable and painful that it has been blocked.”
“Babies dying of starvation, snipers shooting people in the head, civilians killed en masse, families displaced again and again... humanitarians and journalists targeted... while Israeli officials are openly mocking all of this," Mansour added.
Following the UNSC's latest failure to pass a ceasefire resolution, Algerian Ambassador to the UN Amar Bendjama asked Gazans to "forgive" the body for not only its inability to approve such measures, but also for failing to stop the Gaza famine, in which at least hundreds of Palestinians have died and hundreds of thousands more are starving. Every UNSC members but the US concurred last month that the Gaza famine is a man-made catastrophe.
“Israel kills every day and nothing happens," Bendjama said. "Israel starves a people and nothing happens. Israel bombs hospitals, schools, shelters, and nothing happens. Israel attacks a mediator and steps on diplomacy, and nothing happens. And with every act, every act unpunished, humanity itself is diminished.”
Benjama also asked Gazans to "forgive us" for failing to protect children in the strip, more than 20,000 of whom have been killed by Israeli bombs, bullets, and blockade over the past 713 days. He also noted that upward of 12,000 women, 4,000 elderly, 1,400 doctors and nurses, 500 aid workers, and 250 journalists “have been killed by Israel."
Condemning Thursday's veto, Hamas accused the US of “blatant complicity in the crime of genocide," which Israel is accused of committing in an ongoing International Court of Justice (ICJ) case filed in December 2023 by South Africa and backed by around two dozen nations.
Hamas—which led the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and is believed to be holding 20 hostages left alive out of 251 people kidnapped that day—implored the countries that sponsored the ceasefire resolution to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who along with former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, to accept an agreement to halt hostilities.
Overall, at least 65,141 Palestinians have been killed and over 165,900 others wounded by Israeli forces since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry—whose figures have not only been confirmed by former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, but deemed a significant undercount by independent researchers. Thousands more Gazans are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the ruins of the flattened strip.
UK Ambassador to the UN Barbara Woodward stessed after Thursday's failed UNSC resolution that "we need a ceasefire more than ever."
“Israel’s reckless expansion of its military operation takes us further away from a deal which could bring the hostages home and end the suffering in Gaza," Woodward said.
Thursday's developments came as Israeli forces continued to lay waste to Gaza City as they push deeper into the city as part of Operation Gideon's Chariots 2, a campaign to conquer, occupy, and ethnically cleanse around 1 million Palestinians from the strip's capital. Israeli leaders have said they are carrying out the operation in accordance with Trump's proposal to empty Gaza of Palestinians and transform it into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
In what some observers said was a bid to prevent the world from witnessing fresh Israeli war crimes in Gaza City, internet and phone lines were cut off in the strip Thursday, although officials said service has since been mostly restored.
Gaza officials said Thursday that at least 50 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces since dawn, including 40 in Gaza City, which Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Abu Azzoum said is being pummeled into "a lifeless wasteland."
Azzoum reported that tens of thousands of Palestinians "are moving to the south on foot or in carts, looking for any place that is relatively safe—but with no guarantee of safety—or at least for shelter."
Israel has repeatedly bombed areas it advised Palestinians were "safe zones," including a September 2 airstrike that massacred 11 people—nine of them children—queued up to collect water in al-Mawasi.
"Most families who have arrived in the south have not found space," Azzoum added. "That’s why we’ve seen people setting up makeshift tents close to the water while others are left stranded in the street, living under the open sky."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Wants 'Denuclearization,' But Does Washington?
The only hope for peace, and particularly for a reduction of nuclear arsenals, is that American citizens will relentlessly pressure their elected representatives to stop marching toward Armageddon and act to ensure human survival.
Sep 17, 2025
In the grim competition between environmental destruction and nuclear war over which one will cause the demise of civilization, the nuclear option gets considerably less media coverage than global warming. This is unfortunate, for nuclear weapons are no less of a threat. In fact, given how many close calls there have been since the 1950s, it’s miraculous that we’re still around to discuss the matter at all. In a global geopolitical environment that continues to see rising tensions between the West and both China and Russia, as well as between India and Pakistan and between a genocidal nuclear-armed Israel and much of the Middle East, few political agendas are more imperative than, to quote US President Donald Trump in early 2025, denuclearization.
The signs are not auspicious, however. For one thing, the last remaining missile treaty between Russia and the US, New START, expires in February 2026. New START limits both countries to 1,550 deployed warheads on no more than 700 long-range missiles and bombers. If Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin don’t come to an agreement before then, the end of this treaty could lead to a dangerous increase of deployed nuclear arsenals, and possibly a new arms race. On the other hand, if the two countries embrace the opportunity presented by the impending expiration of New START to forge a new and ambitious arms control regime, that could at least set the Doomsday Clock back a few seconds.
Russia wants a new treaty to limit arms, as it proposed that topic for discussion at the Alaska summit in August between Trump and Putin. Sadly, it is doubtful that Washington wants the same thing. On multiple occasions Trump has said he wants “denuclearization” talks with Russia and China, but the Washington establishment is much more ambivalent. In October 2023, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the US endorsed a very belligerent stance. Among other things, it recommended that the US fully modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal; mount on delivery vehicles “some or all” of the nuclear warheads it holds in reserve; increase the planned procurement of B-21 bombers, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles; “re-convert” SLBM launchers and B-52s that New START rendered incapable of launching a nuclear weapon; deploy nuclear delivery systems in Europe and the Asia-Pacific; and prepare for a two-theater war against China and Russia.
Similarly, in February 2024 the head of the US Strategic Command recommended a return to deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with multiple nuclear warheads. Incredibly, some officials even advocate resuming explosive nuclear testing, on which the US declared a moratorium in 1992. Such a resumption would doubtless encourage other nuclear states to do the same thing, which could trigger an arms race.
If there is a danger of a two-front war with Russia and China, as the Congressional Commission reported in 2023, the obvious way to avoid such a horror is through diplomacy. Not through a massive arms race that could precipitate this very war.
It is worth noting that Washington’s aggressive posture is nothing new. Since the start of the Cold War, the US has been by far the most globally imperialistic state and by far the most responsible for escalating arms races. Its military and Central Intelligence Agency interventions in countries around the world have been on a vastly larger scale than the Soviet Union’s or Russia’s, and it has typically rebuffed Russia’s frequently expressed desire for peace. In their magisterial book The Limits of Power (1972), the historians Joyce and Gabriel Kolko argued that as early as the 1940s, “Russia’s real threat [to Washington] was scarcely military, but [rather] its ability to communicate its desire for peace and thereby take the momentum out of Washington’s policies.” Because of the Soviet Union’s relative economic and military weakness, Joseph Stalin sponsored international peace conferences and made numerous peace overtures to the Truman administration, all of which were dismissed. Such overtures continued in the months and years after Stalin’s death, but in most cases they met with a chilly reception.
Decades later, Mikhail Gorbachev enraged American officials by pursuing “public diplomacy” around nuclear disarmament. In 1985 he unilaterally declared a moratorium on nuclear weapons tests, hoping the US would follow suit. It didn’t. The following year, he announced his hope of eliminating all nuclear weapons everywhere by the year 2000. The Reagan administration was flabbergasted and generally appalled by the idea, though Ronald Reagan himself was sympathetic. But at the summit later that year, Reagan followed his advisers’ recommendations and rejected Gorbachev’s pleas to eliminate nuclear weapons. At least something was salvaged the following year, when Reagan and Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty.
In our own century, as NATO expanded ever farther east—blatantly threatening Russia—the Kremlin responded, yet again, with what amounted to peace initiatives. Putin floated the idea of joining NATO (as Boris Yeltsin and even Gorbachev had), but the US had no interest in that. A few years later, in 2008, Moscow proposed a pan-European security treaty, arguing that this was necessary in order to overcome all vestiges of the Cold War. That idea went nowhere, much like Moscow’s 2010 proposal of an EU-Russia free-trade zone to facilitate a Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, “which would provide mutual economic benefits and contribute to mitigating the zero-sum format of the European security architecture,” to quote the analyst Glenn Diesen. In the end, the US rebuffed all Russian attempts to thaw relations.
Evidently, for many decades the US has rarely had much interest in respectful coexistence with Russia. As outlined in a very revealing RAND Corporation report from 2019, its priority has been to “stress” Russia, to “overextend” it, for instance by provoking it to invade Ukraine. Because “some level of competition with Russia is inevitable,” Washington has to wage a “campaign to unbalance the adversary” and “caus[e] the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.” This campaign has been going on since the 1940s.
Indeed, in its report RAND even tentatively suggested that “US leaders could probably goad Russia into a costly arms race by breaking out of the nuclear arms control regime. Washington could abrogate New START and begin aggressively adding to its nuclear stockpile and to its air and missile delivery systems. Moscow would almost certainly follow suit, whatever the cost.” In 2023, as we have seen, the Commission on the US Strategic Posture endorsed these recommendations.
The only hope for peace, and particularly for a reduction of nuclear arsenals, is that American citizens will relentlessly pressure their elected representatives to stop marching toward Armageddon and act to ensure human survival. After all, if there is a danger of a two-front war with Russia and China, as the Congressional Commission reported in 2023, the obvious way to avoid such a horror is through diplomacy. Not through a massive arms race that could precipitate this very war.
From the anti-war left to the MAGA right, we all must demand that, for once, politicians choose the path of sanity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Without Free Speech, Democracy Dies
To avoid past failures, we must remember freedom of expression is for everyone, including those who we disagree with.
Sep 16, 2025
Democracy is hanging precariously in a world tilted upside down in the face of today’s endless crises. Our rights and freedoms are dwindling. Free speech, an essential precursor to all human rights, is faltering.
Less than 4% of the world’s citizens enjoy a wide range of civic freedoms, and nearly three-quarters live in countries with little. With 1,100 violations and 45% of all violations, freedom of expression topped the CIVICUS Monitor list of global attacks on rights.
States that once set an example as bastions of free speech are also faltering.
United States ‘Leads’ Western Democracies’ Backslide
United States first amendment to the Constitution once stood out as a north star for freedom of expression. Creative freedom, critical journalism, dissent, and mockery of leaders were all a go.
When attacks against journalists and activists took place around the world, the US and Western democracies stood up. They helped protect journalists, activists, and groups persecuted by strongmen leaders.
But today, that legacy is fading. Freedom of expression and free press are struggling in the West. Political commitment to defend free speech both at home and abroad is waning.
The current administration has hurt free expression and journalism more than any modern American government.
Leaders and influencers from the left and right distorted public narratives to win elections or push through their agenda. Big tech, media, and corporations too have played similar games to build traction and profit.
Leading up to last election, US President Donald Trump and allies cried foul at the left’s attacks at free speech. Democrats’ use of the Espionage Act on whistleblowers and influencing of tech and media to promote narrative compliance and political correctness were called out, albeit exaggerated.
Despite that rhetoric, the current administration has hurt free expression and journalism more than any modern American government.
The president himself has sued major media outlets that criticized him. Two outlets, ABC and CBS, settled, putting profits ahead of defending truth and integrity. Days after comedian Stephen Colbert called the settlement “a big fat bribe,” CBS announced cancellation of the "Late Show," the most popular nightly show in the US.
The list of recent attacks is worryingly long. The Federal Communications Commission threatened broadcast licenses. The White House banned journalists and cut funds to public service broadcasters. A bill to protect journalists from state surveillance stalled, and the executive blacklisted law firms defending critics.
While the US’ butchering of free speech stands out, it’s not alone. The United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, Spain, and other Western democracies are seeing free expression dwindling, though at a slower pace.
The hits come diguised as national security, surveillance, anti-extremism and hate speech, anti-defamation, and protest restrictions. These are the same excuses used in countries with fewer civic freedoms. It is the playbook of extreme authoritarian states China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia.
Global Failure to Protect Free Speech
The world is failing miserably at protecting free speech. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe journalists have faced bloody clampdowns or arrests in attempts to expose the truth. Two hundred journalists have been reportedly killed in Gaza. That the international community took no action shows its gross incompetence or a complete lack of will.
Many governments around the world use censorship to silence truth, block criticism, and deny access to information. Public information and narratives are also perverted by political, business, military, or other interests.
Where there is a lack of transparency of ownership and capture, vested influence stalls open and democratic public conversation. This is particularly the case where civic and democratic freedoms are limited.
Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia continue to use technology, social media, and artificial intelligence to destabilize global democracies. As we speak, the Kremlin is flooding social media with false information and using artificial intelligence tools to influence Moldova’s elections. China has used similar tactics to create anti-democratic narratives in Taiwan.
Effective counter measures seem non-existent on a global scale today. When and where they existed, countering disinformation and fact-checking efforts often were flawed or exclusive. Even the sincere efforts have been seen as partisan by masses owing to more visible and large-scale efforts excluding voices that didn’t fit convenient political and profit motivations.
Only Citizen Demand Can Save Free Speech
Given failures to defend free speech and acceleration attacks, a silver lining seems illusive. While governments, global organizations, and civil society have proposed plenty of solutions, they often end up as mere rhetoric or at best half-baked projects.
Promoting constitutional freedoms, free speech laws, media transparency, journalistic independence, platform accountability, and such only ever get discussed in technocratic forums. In action, they reach only select groups of society, without ever being inclusive.
Bold action is needed but by movements of citizens. We must start by exercising our free speech to demand the same rights and protections be afforded to all. People’s power standing up and demanding change may just tilt the needle beyond rhetoric. Citizens can force significant action by governments, media houses, or tech platforms.
To avoid past failures, we must remember freedom of expression is for everyone, including those who we disagree with. Pope Leo XIV’s wisdom comes handy here, “We have to know how to listen—not to judge, not to shut doors as if we hold all the truth and no one else has anything to offer.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular