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
Is al-Qaeda Winning?
What does it say about Washington's ''war on terror'' that dozen and
a half people with paper cutters forced hundreds of thousands of
Western troops into the battlefields of the "greater Middle East"
region;
That 100,000 foreign soldiers are bogged down in occupied Afghanistan
wondering how many dozens of al-Qaeda operatives have remained, if any;
That the most liberal democracy enacted new controversial illiberal laws and unpatriotic practices under its "Patriot Act";
Jan 16, 2010
What does it say about Washington's ''war on terror'' that dozen and
a half people with paper cutters forced hundreds of thousands of
Western troops into the battlefields of the "greater Middle East"
region;
That 100,000 foreign soldiers are bogged down in occupied Afghanistan
wondering how many dozens of al-Qaeda operatives have remained, if any;
That the most liberal democracy enacted new controversial illiberal laws and unpatriotic practices under its "Patriot Act";
That one shoe-bomber has forced millions of people to take off their shoes every time they take a flight;
That one underpants-bomber will expose every other traveler in most humiliating of ways;
That after US loss of deterrence and prestige as well as trillions of
dollars of military and other expenditures, al-Qaeda's top leadership
remains at large; its bases/cells proliferate globally; that volunteers
continue to flock into its ranks and young supporters to its websites. And above all that it continues to terrorize America and Americans.
So much that one gets the impression that America is fighting a world
superpower despite the incredible disparities in capacity, numbers and
support.
Is al-Qaeda winning? Has the United States lost?
Hitting the Jackpot
A dozen years ago, a demoralized group with nowhere to go but the hills
of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda began targeting America instead of the
region's authoritarian regimes hoping to destabilize the region, bloody
America's nose and gain popularity.
Its strategy was simple: Draw the US into direct confrontation against
and within the Muslim world. Like sheep to the slaughter house, America
walked right into its trap.
Al-Qaeda was lucky. With a 'cowboy' and so-called "chicken-hawks"
(militarists who ever served in the military) dominating the White
House and the Pentagon... military escalation was only a question of time
and intensity.
The Bush administration decided to "take the war to the enemy so as not
to fight it at home". This is exactly what al-Qaeda hoped for
considering it wasn't applying for Green cards for its members.
It all went as smooth as a scripted movie. After the 9/11 attacks at
the pillars of its world status, the Pentagon and Wall Street, the
wounded superpower went on a rampage. Like a bull in a china shop, it
responded with little or no thinking of the consequences of its
military actions.
Warmongers took advantage of the threat to US national security to
advance their military agenda in foreign policy and the radical
American Right exploited what they termed as the threat to "our way of
life" to transform America's way of life towards the Right.
Washington called for a "crusade", then changed it into a "war" on
terror and under its guise, went on to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and
support Israel's bloody wars in Lebanon andPalestine. It also
intervened in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan and put direct pressure on
its allies to confront their Islamist movements.
In no time, the US was preoccupied by its draining occupation and
costly military operations. And as expected, the terrible human cost
only added petrol to the flames of hatred.
Paradoxically, anti-Americanism has been more rampant under "friendly
regimes" like in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey etc. than others.
America's unfortunate and disproportionate use of military force to
defeat a segmented, mobile and polycentric movement of several hundred
core groups of fighters didn't make it any more secure or dissuasive.
As the Obama administration asks for $33 bn extra budget above the
already approved $660 bn for 2010, I remember what Richard Meyers, the
former head of the US joint chiefs of staff, told me several weeks ago how a decade later, the US still doesn't have a strategy to deal with "the global insurgency" facing America.
Beyond military
Popular opposition and world denunciations of US military campaign has
fallen on deaf ears in Washington. Instead of seriously reversing its
military expansion, the Obama administration has accelerated it in the
Afghan-Pakistan area and it seems adamant to repeat more of the same in
Yemen.
Needless to say, no serious strategic analyst would advise abandoning
military power all together. However, Washington's dependency on, even
addiction to, firepower has neutralized or nullified all other efforts
towards defusing support for al-Qaeda and truly winning hearts.
Good-will gestures provided by President Obama and his attempts to
reconnect to the Arab and Islamic world on the basis of "mutual
interest and mutual respect" can hardly be heard considering the echoes
of drone fired missiles, speeding F-15 jets and rolling tanks.
The more Washington used its military force, the less it won the minds
of those it needs most to defeat al-Qaeda: Americans, Arabs and Muslims.
Likewise, US military actions are harming its intelligence and law
enforcement work that over the last decade have dealt the greatest blow
to al-Qaeda's leadership and organisation.
Zero Sum strategy
As military adventures kill, maim and destroy lives, they create,
nurture and build animosities and "alliances" among most unlikely
allies, such as a young rich Nigerian that studies in London, a
Jordanian doctor that studies in Turkey and an Arab-American soldier
trained by the Pentagon, all whom were ready to die to hurt America.
And likewise, counter terror tactics and intelligence work has made it
ever more difficult for public diplomacy to "win hearts and minds".
Instead of listening to people of the region, it has been spying on
them and instead of reading them their rights, it has tortured them in
far-away prisons.
And instead of hearing out their concerns and fears, Washington has underlined its own above all others.
In that limited and limiting spirit, for example, mostly impoverished
Yemenis that suffer from war in the north, intensive conflict in the
south and three decade autocratic regime, must now worry about US
fears, and cater to US interests above their own.
Which brings us back to our initial question: al- Qaeda is winning only as far as Washington is running a self-defeating war.
However, one needs to remember that in the self-defeating war on terror, winner and loser is one and the same.
As long as America puts its security preoccupations and political
interests about those under its military and strategic domination, the
Pentagon and al-Qaeda will feed into one another and the Americans,
Arabs and Muslims will continue to be the ultimate losers.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Al-Jazeera English
What does it say about Washington's ''war on terror'' that dozen and
a half people with paper cutters forced hundreds of thousands of
Western troops into the battlefields of the "greater Middle East"
region;
That 100,000 foreign soldiers are bogged down in occupied Afghanistan
wondering how many dozens of al-Qaeda operatives have remained, if any;
That the most liberal democracy enacted new controversial illiberal laws and unpatriotic practices under its "Patriot Act";
That one shoe-bomber has forced millions of people to take off their shoes every time they take a flight;
That one underpants-bomber will expose every other traveler in most humiliating of ways;
That after US loss of deterrence and prestige as well as trillions of
dollars of military and other expenditures, al-Qaeda's top leadership
remains at large; its bases/cells proliferate globally; that volunteers
continue to flock into its ranks and young supporters to its websites. And above all that it continues to terrorize America and Americans.
So much that one gets the impression that America is fighting a world
superpower despite the incredible disparities in capacity, numbers and
support.
Is al-Qaeda winning? Has the United States lost?
Hitting the Jackpot
A dozen years ago, a demoralized group with nowhere to go but the hills
of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda began targeting America instead of the
region's authoritarian regimes hoping to destabilize the region, bloody
America's nose and gain popularity.
Its strategy was simple: Draw the US into direct confrontation against
and within the Muslim world. Like sheep to the slaughter house, America
walked right into its trap.
Al-Qaeda was lucky. With a 'cowboy' and so-called "chicken-hawks"
(militarists who ever served in the military) dominating the White
House and the Pentagon... military escalation was only a question of time
and intensity.
The Bush administration decided to "take the war to the enemy so as not
to fight it at home". This is exactly what al-Qaeda hoped for
considering it wasn't applying for Green cards for its members.
It all went as smooth as a scripted movie. After the 9/11 attacks at
the pillars of its world status, the Pentagon and Wall Street, the
wounded superpower went on a rampage. Like a bull in a china shop, it
responded with little or no thinking of the consequences of its
military actions.
Warmongers took advantage of the threat to US national security to
advance their military agenda in foreign policy and the radical
American Right exploited what they termed as the threat to "our way of
life" to transform America's way of life towards the Right.
Washington called for a "crusade", then changed it into a "war" on
terror and under its guise, went on to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and
support Israel's bloody wars in Lebanon andPalestine. It also
intervened in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan and put direct pressure on
its allies to confront their Islamist movements.
In no time, the US was preoccupied by its draining occupation and
costly military operations. And as expected, the terrible human cost
only added petrol to the flames of hatred.
Paradoxically, anti-Americanism has been more rampant under "friendly
regimes" like in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey etc. than others.
America's unfortunate and disproportionate use of military force to
defeat a segmented, mobile and polycentric movement of several hundred
core groups of fighters didn't make it any more secure or dissuasive.
As the Obama administration asks for $33 bn extra budget above the
already approved $660 bn for 2010, I remember what Richard Meyers, the
former head of the US joint chiefs of staff, told me several weeks ago how a decade later, the US still doesn't have a strategy to deal with "the global insurgency" facing America.
Beyond military
Popular opposition and world denunciations of US military campaign has
fallen on deaf ears in Washington. Instead of seriously reversing its
military expansion, the Obama administration has accelerated it in the
Afghan-Pakistan area and it seems adamant to repeat more of the same in
Yemen.
Needless to say, no serious strategic analyst would advise abandoning
military power all together. However, Washington's dependency on, even
addiction to, firepower has neutralized or nullified all other efforts
towards defusing support for al-Qaeda and truly winning hearts.
Good-will gestures provided by President Obama and his attempts to
reconnect to the Arab and Islamic world on the basis of "mutual
interest and mutual respect" can hardly be heard considering the echoes
of drone fired missiles, speeding F-15 jets and rolling tanks.
The more Washington used its military force, the less it won the minds
of those it needs most to defeat al-Qaeda: Americans, Arabs and Muslims.
Likewise, US military actions are harming its intelligence and law
enforcement work that over the last decade have dealt the greatest blow
to al-Qaeda's leadership and organisation.
Zero Sum strategy
As military adventures kill, maim and destroy lives, they create,
nurture and build animosities and "alliances" among most unlikely
allies, such as a young rich Nigerian that studies in London, a
Jordanian doctor that studies in Turkey and an Arab-American soldier
trained by the Pentagon, all whom were ready to die to hurt America.
And likewise, counter terror tactics and intelligence work has made it
ever more difficult for public diplomacy to "win hearts and minds".
Instead of listening to people of the region, it has been spying on
them and instead of reading them their rights, it has tortured them in
far-away prisons.
And instead of hearing out their concerns and fears, Washington has underlined its own above all others.
In that limited and limiting spirit, for example, mostly impoverished
Yemenis that suffer from war in the north, intensive conflict in the
south and three decade autocratic regime, must now worry about US
fears, and cater to US interests above their own.
Which brings us back to our initial question: al- Qaeda is winning only as far as Washington is running a self-defeating war.
However, one needs to remember that in the self-defeating war on terror, winner and loser is one and the same.
As long as America puts its security preoccupations and political
interests about those under its military and strategic domination, the
Pentagon and al-Qaeda will feed into one another and the Americans,
Arabs and Muslims will continue to be the ultimate losers.
What does it say about Washington's ''war on terror'' that dozen and
a half people with paper cutters forced hundreds of thousands of
Western troops into the battlefields of the "greater Middle East"
region;
That 100,000 foreign soldiers are bogged down in occupied Afghanistan
wondering how many dozens of al-Qaeda operatives have remained, if any;
That the most liberal democracy enacted new controversial illiberal laws and unpatriotic practices under its "Patriot Act";
That one shoe-bomber has forced millions of people to take off their shoes every time they take a flight;
That one underpants-bomber will expose every other traveler in most humiliating of ways;
That after US loss of deterrence and prestige as well as trillions of
dollars of military and other expenditures, al-Qaeda's top leadership
remains at large; its bases/cells proliferate globally; that volunteers
continue to flock into its ranks and young supporters to its websites. And above all that it continues to terrorize America and Americans.
So much that one gets the impression that America is fighting a world
superpower despite the incredible disparities in capacity, numbers and
support.
Is al-Qaeda winning? Has the United States lost?
Hitting the Jackpot
A dozen years ago, a demoralized group with nowhere to go but the hills
of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda began targeting America instead of the
region's authoritarian regimes hoping to destabilize the region, bloody
America's nose and gain popularity.
Its strategy was simple: Draw the US into direct confrontation against
and within the Muslim world. Like sheep to the slaughter house, America
walked right into its trap.
Al-Qaeda was lucky. With a 'cowboy' and so-called "chicken-hawks"
(militarists who ever served in the military) dominating the White
House and the Pentagon... military escalation was only a question of time
and intensity.
The Bush administration decided to "take the war to the enemy so as not
to fight it at home". This is exactly what al-Qaeda hoped for
considering it wasn't applying for Green cards for its members.
It all went as smooth as a scripted movie. After the 9/11 attacks at
the pillars of its world status, the Pentagon and Wall Street, the
wounded superpower went on a rampage. Like a bull in a china shop, it
responded with little or no thinking of the consequences of its
military actions.
Warmongers took advantage of the threat to US national security to
advance their military agenda in foreign policy and the radical
American Right exploited what they termed as the threat to "our way of
life" to transform America's way of life towards the Right.
Washington called for a "crusade", then changed it into a "war" on
terror and under its guise, went on to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and
support Israel's bloody wars in Lebanon andPalestine. It also
intervened in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan and put direct pressure on
its allies to confront their Islamist movements.
In no time, the US was preoccupied by its draining occupation and
costly military operations. And as expected, the terrible human cost
only added petrol to the flames of hatred.
Paradoxically, anti-Americanism has been more rampant under "friendly
regimes" like in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey etc. than others.
America's unfortunate and disproportionate use of military force to
defeat a segmented, mobile and polycentric movement of several hundred
core groups of fighters didn't make it any more secure or dissuasive.
As the Obama administration asks for $33 bn extra budget above the
already approved $660 bn for 2010, I remember what Richard Meyers, the
former head of the US joint chiefs of staff, told me several weeks ago how a decade later, the US still doesn't have a strategy to deal with "the global insurgency" facing America.
Beyond military
Popular opposition and world denunciations of US military campaign has
fallen on deaf ears in Washington. Instead of seriously reversing its
military expansion, the Obama administration has accelerated it in the
Afghan-Pakistan area and it seems adamant to repeat more of the same in
Yemen.
Needless to say, no serious strategic analyst would advise abandoning
military power all together. However, Washington's dependency on, even
addiction to, firepower has neutralized or nullified all other efforts
towards defusing support for al-Qaeda and truly winning hearts.
Good-will gestures provided by President Obama and his attempts to
reconnect to the Arab and Islamic world on the basis of "mutual
interest and mutual respect" can hardly be heard considering the echoes
of drone fired missiles, speeding F-15 jets and rolling tanks.
The more Washington used its military force, the less it won the minds
of those it needs most to defeat al-Qaeda: Americans, Arabs and Muslims.
Likewise, US military actions are harming its intelligence and law
enforcement work that over the last decade have dealt the greatest blow
to al-Qaeda's leadership and organisation.
Zero Sum strategy
As military adventures kill, maim and destroy lives, they create,
nurture and build animosities and "alliances" among most unlikely
allies, such as a young rich Nigerian that studies in London, a
Jordanian doctor that studies in Turkey and an Arab-American soldier
trained by the Pentagon, all whom were ready to die to hurt America.
And likewise, counter terror tactics and intelligence work has made it
ever more difficult for public diplomacy to "win hearts and minds".
Instead of listening to people of the region, it has been spying on
them and instead of reading them their rights, it has tortured them in
far-away prisons.
And instead of hearing out their concerns and fears, Washington has underlined its own above all others.
In that limited and limiting spirit, for example, mostly impoverished
Yemenis that suffer from war in the north, intensive conflict in the
south and three decade autocratic regime, must now worry about US
fears, and cater to US interests above their own.
Which brings us back to our initial question: al- Qaeda is winning only as far as Washington is running a self-defeating war.
However, one needs to remember that in the self-defeating war on terror, winner and loser is one and the same.
As long as America puts its security preoccupations and political
interests about those under its military and strategic domination, the
Pentagon and al-Qaeda will feed into one another and the Americans,
Arabs and Muslims will continue to be the ultimate losers.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Labor Statistics Pick Called Social Security a 'Ponzi Scheme' That Should Be Shuttered
"Bureau of Labor Statistics data is what determines the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits," said Rep. John Larson. "It should alarm everyone when a yes-man determined to end Social Security is installed in this position."
Aug 13, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's pick to replace the top labor statistics official he fired earlier this month has called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" that needs to be "sunset," comments that critics said further disqualify the nominee for the key government role.
During a December 2024 radio interview, Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni said it is a "mathematical fiction" that Social Security "can go on forever" and called for "some kind of transition program where unfortunately you'll need a generation of people who pay Social Security taxes, but never actually receive any of those benefits."
"That's the price to pay for unwinding a Ponzi scheme that was foisted on the American people by the Democrats in the 1930s," Antoni continued. "You're not going to be able to sustain a Ponzi scheme like Social Security. Eventually, you need to sunset the program."
Trump's choice for the Commissioner of the Bureau Labor Statistics called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" in an interview:
" What you need to do is have some kind of transition program where unfortunately you'll need a generation of people who pay Social Security taxes, but… pic.twitter.com/MXL7k1C644
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) August 12, 2025
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), one of Social Security's most vocal defenders in Congress, said Antoni's position on the program matters because "Bureau of Labor Statistics data is what determines the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits."
"It should alarm everyone when a yes-man determined to end Social Security is installed in this position," Larson said in a statement. "I call on every Senate Republican to stand with Democrats and reject this extreme nominee—before our seniors are denied the benefits they earned through a lifetime of hard work."
Trump announced Antoni's nomination to serve as the next commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) less than two weeks after the president fired the agency's former head, Erika McEntarfer, following the release of abysmal jobs figures. The firing sparked concerns that future BLS data will be manipulated to suit Trump's political interests.
Antoni was a contributor to the far-right Project 2025 agenda that the Trump administration appears to have drawn from repeatedly this year, and his position on Social Security echoes that of far-right billionaire Elon Musk, who has also falsely characterized the program as a Ponzi scheme.
During his time in the Trump administration, Musk spearheaded an assault on the Social Security Administration that continues in the present, causing widespread chaos at the agency and increasing wait times for beneficiaries.
"President Trump fired the commissioner of Labor Statistics to cover up a weak jobs report—and now he is replacing her with a Project 2025 lackey who wants to shut down Social Security," said Larson. "E.J. Antoni agrees with Elon Musk that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and said that middle-class seniors would be better off if it was eliminated."
US State Dept Releases 'Shameful' Human Rights Report Revamped to Shield Allies, Including Israel
"This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves," said one Amnesty campaigner.
Aug 12, 2025
After leaked drafts exposed the Trump administration's plans to downplay human rights abuses in some allied countries, including Israel, the U.S. Department of State released the final edition of an annual report on Tuesday, sparking fresh condemnation.
"Breaking with precedent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not provide a written introduction to the report nor did he make remarks about it," CNN reported. Still, Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director of government relations and advocacy, called him out by name in a Tuesday statement.
"With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries," Klasing said. "In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries—for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people—there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country."
Klasing explained that "we have criticized past reports when warranted, but have never seen reports quite like this. Never before have the reports gone this far in prioritizing an administration's political agenda over a consistent and truthful accounting of human rights violations around the world—softening criticism in some countries while ignoring violations in others. The State Department has said in relation to the reports less is more. However, for the victims and human rights defenders who rely on these reports to shine light on abuses and violations, less is just less."
"Secretary Rubio knows full well from his time in the Senate how vital these reports are in informing policy decisions and shaping diplomatic conversations, yet he has made the dangerous and short-sighted decision to put out a truncated version that doesn't tell the whole story of human rights violations," she continued. "This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves."
"Failing to adequately report on human rights violations further damages the credibility of the U.S. on human rights issues," she added. "It's shameful that the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio are putting politics above human lives."
The overarching report—which includes over 100 individual country reports—covers 2024, the last full calendar year of the Biden administration. The appendix says that in March, the report was "streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners, and to be more responsive to the underlying legislative mandate and aligned to the administration's executive orders."
As CNN detailed:
The latest report was stripped of many of the specific sections included in past reports, including reporting on alleged abuses based on sexual orientation, violence toward women, corruption in government, systemic racial or ethnic violence, or denial of a fair public trial. Some country reports, including for Afghanistan, do address human rights abuses against women.
"We were asked to edit down the human rights reports to the bare minimum of what was statutorily required," said Michael Honigstein, the former director of African Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor. He and his office helped compile the initial reports.
Over the past week, since the draft country reports leaked to the press, the Trump administration has come under fire for its portrayals of El Salvador, Israel, and Russia.
The report on Israel—and the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—is just nine pages. The brevity even drew the attention of Israeli media. The Times of Israel highlighted that it "is much shorter than last year's edition compiled under the Biden administration and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Israeli forces have slaughtered over 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to local officials—though experts warn the true toll is likely far higher. As Israel has restricted humanitarian aid in recent months, over 200 people have starved to death, including 103 children.
The U.S. report on Israel does not mention the genocide case that Israel faces at the International Court of Justice over the assault on Gaza, or the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The section on war crimes and genocide only says that "terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah continue to engage in the
indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
As the world mourns the killing of six more Palestinian media professionals in Gaza this week—which prompted calls for the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting—the report's section on press freedom is also short and makes no mention of the hundreds of journalists killed in Israel's annihilation of the strip:
The law generally provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right for most Israelis. NGOs and journalists reported authorities restricted press coverage and limited certain forms of expression, especially in the context of criticism against the war or sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.
Noting that "the human rights reports have been among the U.S. government's most-read documents," DAWN senior adviser and 32-year State Department official Charles Blaha said the "significant omissions" in this year's report on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank render it "functionally useless for Congress and the public as nothing more than a pro-Israel document."
Like Klasing at Amnesty, Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN's executive director, specifically called out the U.S. secretary of state.
"Secretary Rubio has revamped the State Department reports for one principal purpose: to whitewash Israeli crimes, including its horrific genocide and starvation in Gaza. The report shockingly includes not a word about the overwhelming evidence of genocide, mass starvation, and the deliberate bombardment of civilians in Gaza," she said. "Rubio has defied the letter and intent of U.S. laws requiring the State Department to report truthfully and comprehensively about every country's human rights abuses, instead offering up anodyne cover for his murderous friends in Tel Aviv."
The Tuesday release came after a coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department over its refusal to release the congressionally mandated report.
This article has been updated with comment from DAWN.
Watchdog Unveils Standards for Countermeasures to 'Authoritarian' GOP Gerrymandering
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
Aug 12, 2025
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
- Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
- Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
- Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
- Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
- Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse citizen-led independent redistricting commissions as the long-term solution.
- Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.