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.
U.S. President Donald Trump is flanked by National Security Advisor John Bolton as he speaks about the FBI raid at his lawyer Michael Cohen's office, while receiving a briefing from senior military leaders regarding Syria, in the Cabinet Room, on April 9, 2018 in Washington, DC. The FBI raided the office of Michael Cohen on Monday as part of the ongoing investigation into the president's administration. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Donald Trump went too far Monday.
And I'm not just talking about the president's frightening, arms-crossed and panicked-sounding rant on national TV late Monday, when news that FBI agents had raided the home, office, and hotel room of Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, sent the commander-in-chief into a tizzy in which he called a legitimate probe (approved by a judge and federal prosecutors appointed by Trump) a break-in and a "witch hunt" that was "an attack on our country."
\u201cA TOTAL WITCH HUNT!!!\u201d— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1523358498
That was pretty outrageous, and yet another case of the president confusing what's good for the country with what's good for him -- which so often are polar opposites. But I was just as concerned -- maybe more so -- by a fresh report that got buried, perhaps understandably, in the blizzard of news about the President and the Porn Star Payoff.
The Washington Post reported that lawyers for the company still owned by and still profiting the sitting president, the Trump Organization, sent a letter to the leader of Panama warning that his Central American nation might face "repercussions" if his government didn't intervene on the side of the U.S. president's business in a dispute involving a Trump hotel in Panama City. (You may have forgotten -- the president of Panama almost certainly hasn't -- that U.S. troops overran the tiny nation back in 1989, so "repercussions" is a pretty loaded term.)
We often say that the Founding Fathers who gathered here in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution in 1787 never could have anticipated our modern world of AR-15s and Cambridge Analytica. But they actually were spot on when it came to anticipating the sleazeball tactics of the Trump Organization and its owner, who currently sits in the Oval Office. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution spelled out in plain old English that presidents are barred from profiting in their dealings with foreign powers. Trump's refusal to divest his global business interests while making life-or-death foreign policy decisions is a clear-cut case of the short-fingered vulgarian in the White House once again flipping the bird to constitutional law and democratic principles.
And the legislative branch of government is either too cowardly or too bought off to do anything about this -- which is probably exactly what President Trump expected would happen. The parameters of time and space don't allow me to list all the various transgressions that have occurred since the 45th president took the oath on Jan. 20, 2017. To be sure, a lot of it -- from the vulgarity of his Twitter feed, which has worn out even Trump's die-hard supporters, to the policies that scar our environment just when climate change is becoming an existential threat -- is simply very bad presidenting that's not criminal, where the most effective punishment will come at the ballot box.
But other acts -- most notably, the blatant conflict of interest between his presidency and his high-profile business empire, and the powerful case for a campaign of obstruction of justice and abuse of power aimed at shutting down the criminal probe into possible collusion with Russia during the 2016 election -- scream out for a serious House investigation into Trump's "high crimes" or "misdemeanors."
Pause for a moment and consider Trump in the context of what Congress has considered an impeachable offense during my lifetime. Richard Nixon faced certain impeachment, and thus resigned, for interfering with the FBI probe into the crimes of Watergate -- which is exactly what Trump has done in the firing of former FBI chief James Comey and a host of related actions. Bill Clinton was impeached -- fairly or not -- for lying to the public (and in legal proceedings) about his extramarital affair, and the evidence that Trump also lied publicly in a nearly identical fashion is mounting.
Yet in 2018, with the most dangerous U.S. president in our history with his stubby fingers on the nuclear football, impeachment has suddenly become the political act that dare not speak its name.
Just this week, the New York Times came down from the mountaintop bearing tablets that impeachment -- an idea which so far has animated the so-called Trump resistance to become the nation's most potent political force, defeating pro-Trump Republicans in special elections from Alabama to Oklahoma -- is a suicide pact for the Democratic Party. Wrote the Paper of Record: "Many top [Democratic] officials in the capital fear it is a political trap that would distract from their core message and possibly even boomerang to harm them in November" -- mainly by animating GOP voters to rise up and defend Trump from this supposed lynch mob. Democratic political guru David Axelrod -- a really smart guy who helped Barack Obama become president in 2008 -- buys into this.
\u201cDems should NOT commit to impeachment unless & until there\u2019s a demonstrable case for one.\nIt is not just a matter of politics. It\u2019s a matter of principle.\nIf we \u201cnormaiize\u201d impeachment as a political tool, it will be another hammer blow to our democracy.\nhttps://t.co/vTcaDfknlC\u201d— David Axelrod (@David Axelrod) 1523195814
As much as I respect Axelrod, I have to respectfully disagree on this. The American people, and our elected representatives, are at a dangerous crossroads. We need to own up -- and own up quickly -- to the reality that Donald Trump isn't just a normally bad president, but a clear and president danger to the experiment in republican democracy that was launched in Philadelphia nearly 242 years ago.
The risk we face is not in normalizing impeachment, which is the tool that the Founding Fathers created to deal with the threat posed by the kind of president that they feared -- and that Donald Trump has become. The real hazard is normalizing Trump's conduct over the last 15 months -- profiting off the presidency, interfering with an independent system of criminal justice, governing in opposition to a free press and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties, and violating human rights through mass deportations engineered by an agency, ICE, that is becoming a secret police force.
Look around the world, and you'll see that autocracy is rising all over the map -- in Turkey, China, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Hungary and Poland, to name just a few. We've been here before -- in the 1920s and '30s, when a string of once-great nations succumbed to fascism, but America elected a small-d democrat in Franklin Roosevelt, who rebuilt a prosperous nation with strong but constitutional methods. Today, Trump is the anti-FDR -- a beacon to the world's new generation of dictators, not a foe. As citizens, we and our representatives can watch this nightmare unfold over the next 33 months with our thoughts and prayers that it will somehow end well. Or we can take affirmative action.
We don't need to elect a Congress that will slam-dunk guarantee Trump's impeachment. What we do desperately need, though, are House members who will vote next January to begin a bipartisan impeachment probe with public hearings -- modeled after the way that Congress got it right with Nixon in 1973-74 -- leading to a fair vote on the evidence.
The scary part is that this might come too late. The worst thing about Monday's unhinged rant by Trump against special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia probe is that it happened right before a cabinet meeting where an angry, boxed-in, and probably scared president was going to be deciding on U.S. military action in the tinderbox of Syria that has all the elements -- including the involvement of Russia, Iran, Israel, etc. -- that could trigger a global war. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a tool to ensure these decisions aren't made by a morally compromised president.
What are we waiting for?
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. |
Donald Trump went too far Monday.
And I'm not just talking about the president's frightening, arms-crossed and panicked-sounding rant on national TV late Monday, when news that FBI agents had raided the home, office, and hotel room of Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, sent the commander-in-chief into a tizzy in which he called a legitimate probe (approved by a judge and federal prosecutors appointed by Trump) a break-in and a "witch hunt" that was "an attack on our country."
\u201cA TOTAL WITCH HUNT!!!\u201d— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1523358498
That was pretty outrageous, and yet another case of the president confusing what's good for the country with what's good for him -- which so often are polar opposites. But I was just as concerned -- maybe more so -- by a fresh report that got buried, perhaps understandably, in the blizzard of news about the President and the Porn Star Payoff.
The Washington Post reported that lawyers for the company still owned by and still profiting the sitting president, the Trump Organization, sent a letter to the leader of Panama warning that his Central American nation might face "repercussions" if his government didn't intervene on the side of the U.S. president's business in a dispute involving a Trump hotel in Panama City. (You may have forgotten -- the president of Panama almost certainly hasn't -- that U.S. troops overran the tiny nation back in 1989, so "repercussions" is a pretty loaded term.)
We often say that the Founding Fathers who gathered here in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution in 1787 never could have anticipated our modern world of AR-15s and Cambridge Analytica. But they actually were spot on when it came to anticipating the sleazeball tactics of the Trump Organization and its owner, who currently sits in the Oval Office. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution spelled out in plain old English that presidents are barred from profiting in their dealings with foreign powers. Trump's refusal to divest his global business interests while making life-or-death foreign policy decisions is a clear-cut case of the short-fingered vulgarian in the White House once again flipping the bird to constitutional law and democratic principles.
And the legislative branch of government is either too cowardly or too bought off to do anything about this -- which is probably exactly what President Trump expected would happen. The parameters of time and space don't allow me to list all the various transgressions that have occurred since the 45th president took the oath on Jan. 20, 2017. To be sure, a lot of it -- from the vulgarity of his Twitter feed, which has worn out even Trump's die-hard supporters, to the policies that scar our environment just when climate change is becoming an existential threat -- is simply very bad presidenting that's not criminal, where the most effective punishment will come at the ballot box.
But other acts -- most notably, the blatant conflict of interest between his presidency and his high-profile business empire, and the powerful case for a campaign of obstruction of justice and abuse of power aimed at shutting down the criminal probe into possible collusion with Russia during the 2016 election -- scream out for a serious House investigation into Trump's "high crimes" or "misdemeanors."
Pause for a moment and consider Trump in the context of what Congress has considered an impeachable offense during my lifetime. Richard Nixon faced certain impeachment, and thus resigned, for interfering with the FBI probe into the crimes of Watergate -- which is exactly what Trump has done in the firing of former FBI chief James Comey and a host of related actions. Bill Clinton was impeached -- fairly or not -- for lying to the public (and in legal proceedings) about his extramarital affair, and the evidence that Trump also lied publicly in a nearly identical fashion is mounting.
Yet in 2018, with the most dangerous U.S. president in our history with his stubby fingers on the nuclear football, impeachment has suddenly become the political act that dare not speak its name.
Just this week, the New York Times came down from the mountaintop bearing tablets that impeachment -- an idea which so far has animated the so-called Trump resistance to become the nation's most potent political force, defeating pro-Trump Republicans in special elections from Alabama to Oklahoma -- is a suicide pact for the Democratic Party. Wrote the Paper of Record: "Many top [Democratic] officials in the capital fear it is a political trap that would distract from their core message and possibly even boomerang to harm them in November" -- mainly by animating GOP voters to rise up and defend Trump from this supposed lynch mob. Democratic political guru David Axelrod -- a really smart guy who helped Barack Obama become president in 2008 -- buys into this.
\u201cDems should NOT commit to impeachment unless & until there\u2019s a demonstrable case for one.\nIt is not just a matter of politics. It\u2019s a matter of principle.\nIf we \u201cnormaiize\u201d impeachment as a political tool, it will be another hammer blow to our democracy.\nhttps://t.co/vTcaDfknlC\u201d— David Axelrod (@David Axelrod) 1523195814
As much as I respect Axelrod, I have to respectfully disagree on this. The American people, and our elected representatives, are at a dangerous crossroads. We need to own up -- and own up quickly -- to the reality that Donald Trump isn't just a normally bad president, but a clear and president danger to the experiment in republican democracy that was launched in Philadelphia nearly 242 years ago.
The risk we face is not in normalizing impeachment, which is the tool that the Founding Fathers created to deal with the threat posed by the kind of president that they feared -- and that Donald Trump has become. The real hazard is normalizing Trump's conduct over the last 15 months -- profiting off the presidency, interfering with an independent system of criminal justice, governing in opposition to a free press and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties, and violating human rights through mass deportations engineered by an agency, ICE, that is becoming a secret police force.
Look around the world, and you'll see that autocracy is rising all over the map -- in Turkey, China, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Hungary and Poland, to name just a few. We've been here before -- in the 1920s and '30s, when a string of once-great nations succumbed to fascism, but America elected a small-d democrat in Franklin Roosevelt, who rebuilt a prosperous nation with strong but constitutional methods. Today, Trump is the anti-FDR -- a beacon to the world's new generation of dictators, not a foe. As citizens, we and our representatives can watch this nightmare unfold over the next 33 months with our thoughts and prayers that it will somehow end well. Or we can take affirmative action.
We don't need to elect a Congress that will slam-dunk guarantee Trump's impeachment. What we do desperately need, though, are House members who will vote next January to begin a bipartisan impeachment probe with public hearings -- modeled after the way that Congress got it right with Nixon in 1973-74 -- leading to a fair vote on the evidence.
The scary part is that this might come too late. The worst thing about Monday's unhinged rant by Trump against special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia probe is that it happened right before a cabinet meeting where an angry, boxed-in, and probably scared president was going to be deciding on U.S. military action in the tinderbox of Syria that has all the elements -- including the involvement of Russia, Iran, Israel, etc. -- that could trigger a global war. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a tool to ensure these decisions aren't made by a morally compromised president.
What are we waiting for?
Donald Trump went too far Monday.
And I'm not just talking about the president's frightening, arms-crossed and panicked-sounding rant on national TV late Monday, when news that FBI agents had raided the home, office, and hotel room of Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, sent the commander-in-chief into a tizzy in which he called a legitimate probe (approved by a judge and federal prosecutors appointed by Trump) a break-in and a "witch hunt" that was "an attack on our country."
\u201cA TOTAL WITCH HUNT!!!\u201d— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1523358498
That was pretty outrageous, and yet another case of the president confusing what's good for the country with what's good for him -- which so often are polar opposites. But I was just as concerned -- maybe more so -- by a fresh report that got buried, perhaps understandably, in the blizzard of news about the President and the Porn Star Payoff.
The Washington Post reported that lawyers for the company still owned by and still profiting the sitting president, the Trump Organization, sent a letter to the leader of Panama warning that his Central American nation might face "repercussions" if his government didn't intervene on the side of the U.S. president's business in a dispute involving a Trump hotel in Panama City. (You may have forgotten -- the president of Panama almost certainly hasn't -- that U.S. troops overran the tiny nation back in 1989, so "repercussions" is a pretty loaded term.)
We often say that the Founding Fathers who gathered here in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution in 1787 never could have anticipated our modern world of AR-15s and Cambridge Analytica. But they actually were spot on when it came to anticipating the sleazeball tactics of the Trump Organization and its owner, who currently sits in the Oval Office. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution spelled out in plain old English that presidents are barred from profiting in their dealings with foreign powers. Trump's refusal to divest his global business interests while making life-or-death foreign policy decisions is a clear-cut case of the short-fingered vulgarian in the White House once again flipping the bird to constitutional law and democratic principles.
And the legislative branch of government is either too cowardly or too bought off to do anything about this -- which is probably exactly what President Trump expected would happen. The parameters of time and space don't allow me to list all the various transgressions that have occurred since the 45th president took the oath on Jan. 20, 2017. To be sure, a lot of it -- from the vulgarity of his Twitter feed, which has worn out even Trump's die-hard supporters, to the policies that scar our environment just when climate change is becoming an existential threat -- is simply very bad presidenting that's not criminal, where the most effective punishment will come at the ballot box.
But other acts -- most notably, the blatant conflict of interest between his presidency and his high-profile business empire, and the powerful case for a campaign of obstruction of justice and abuse of power aimed at shutting down the criminal probe into possible collusion with Russia during the 2016 election -- scream out for a serious House investigation into Trump's "high crimes" or "misdemeanors."
Pause for a moment and consider Trump in the context of what Congress has considered an impeachable offense during my lifetime. Richard Nixon faced certain impeachment, and thus resigned, for interfering with the FBI probe into the crimes of Watergate -- which is exactly what Trump has done in the firing of former FBI chief James Comey and a host of related actions. Bill Clinton was impeached -- fairly or not -- for lying to the public (and in legal proceedings) about his extramarital affair, and the evidence that Trump also lied publicly in a nearly identical fashion is mounting.
Yet in 2018, with the most dangerous U.S. president in our history with his stubby fingers on the nuclear football, impeachment has suddenly become the political act that dare not speak its name.
Just this week, the New York Times came down from the mountaintop bearing tablets that impeachment -- an idea which so far has animated the so-called Trump resistance to become the nation's most potent political force, defeating pro-Trump Republicans in special elections from Alabama to Oklahoma -- is a suicide pact for the Democratic Party. Wrote the Paper of Record: "Many top [Democratic] officials in the capital fear it is a political trap that would distract from their core message and possibly even boomerang to harm them in November" -- mainly by animating GOP voters to rise up and defend Trump from this supposed lynch mob. Democratic political guru David Axelrod -- a really smart guy who helped Barack Obama become president in 2008 -- buys into this.
\u201cDems should NOT commit to impeachment unless & until there\u2019s a demonstrable case for one.\nIt is not just a matter of politics. It\u2019s a matter of principle.\nIf we \u201cnormaiize\u201d impeachment as a political tool, it will be another hammer blow to our democracy.\nhttps://t.co/vTcaDfknlC\u201d— David Axelrod (@David Axelrod) 1523195814
As much as I respect Axelrod, I have to respectfully disagree on this. The American people, and our elected representatives, are at a dangerous crossroads. We need to own up -- and own up quickly -- to the reality that Donald Trump isn't just a normally bad president, but a clear and president danger to the experiment in republican democracy that was launched in Philadelphia nearly 242 years ago.
The risk we face is not in normalizing impeachment, which is the tool that the Founding Fathers created to deal with the threat posed by the kind of president that they feared -- and that Donald Trump has become. The real hazard is normalizing Trump's conduct over the last 15 months -- profiting off the presidency, interfering with an independent system of criminal justice, governing in opposition to a free press and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties, and violating human rights through mass deportations engineered by an agency, ICE, that is becoming a secret police force.
Look around the world, and you'll see that autocracy is rising all over the map -- in Turkey, China, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Hungary and Poland, to name just a few. We've been here before -- in the 1920s and '30s, when a string of once-great nations succumbed to fascism, but America elected a small-d democrat in Franklin Roosevelt, who rebuilt a prosperous nation with strong but constitutional methods. Today, Trump is the anti-FDR -- a beacon to the world's new generation of dictators, not a foe. As citizens, we and our representatives can watch this nightmare unfold over the next 33 months with our thoughts and prayers that it will somehow end well. Or we can take affirmative action.
We don't need to elect a Congress that will slam-dunk guarantee Trump's impeachment. What we do desperately need, though, are House members who will vote next January to begin a bipartisan impeachment probe with public hearings -- modeled after the way that Congress got it right with Nixon in 1973-74 -- leading to a fair vote on the evidence.
The scary part is that this might come too late. The worst thing about Monday's unhinged rant by Trump against special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia probe is that it happened right before a cabinet meeting where an angry, boxed-in, and probably scared president was going to be deciding on U.S. military action in the tinderbox of Syria that has all the elements -- including the involvement of Russia, Iran, Israel, etc. -- that could trigger a global war. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a tool to ensure these decisions aren't made by a morally compromised president.
What are we waiting for?
The senator said the negotiations could be "a positive step forward" after three and a half years of war.
Echoing the concerns of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders about an upcoming summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said the interests of Ukrainians must be represented in any talks regarding an end to the fighting between the two countries—but expressed hope that the negotiations planned for August 15 will be "a positive step forward."
On CNN's "State of the Union," Sanders (I-Vt.) told anchor Dana Bash that Ukraine "has got to be part of the discussion" regarding a potential cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine, which Putin said last week he would agree to in exchange for major land concessions in Eastern Ukraine.
Putin reportedly proposed a deal in which Ukraine would withdraw its armed forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, giving Russia full control of the two areas along with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014.
On Friday, Trump said a peace deal could include "some swapping of territories"—but did not mention potential security guarantees for Ukraine, or what territories the country might gain control of—and announced that talks had been scheduled between the White House and Putin in Alaska this coming Friday.
As Trump announced the meeting, a deadline he had set earlier for Putin to agree to a cease-fire or face "secondary sanctions" targeting countries that buy oil from Russia passed.
Zelenskyy on Saturday rejected the suggestion that Ukraine would accept any deal brokered by the U.S. and Russia without the input of his government—especially one that includes land concessions. In a video statement on the social media platform X, Zelenskyy said that "Ukraine is ready for real decisions that can bring peace."
"Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace," he said. "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier."
Sanders on Sunday agreed that "it can't be Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump" deciding the terms of a peace deal to end the war that the United Nations says has killed more than 13,000 Ukrainian civilians since Russia began its invasion in February 2022.
"If in fact an agreement can be negotiated which does not compromise what the Ukrainians feel they need, I think that's a positive step forward. We all want to see an end to the bloodshed," said Sanders. "The people of Ukraine obviously have got to have a significant say. It is their country, so if the people of Ukraine feel it is a positive agreement, that's good. If not, that's another story."
A senior White House official told NewsNation that the president is "open to a trilateral summit with both leaders."
"Right now, the White House is planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin," they said.
On Saturday, Vice President JD Vance took part in talks with European Union and Ukrainian officials in the United Kingdom, where Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President in Ukraine, said the country's positions were made "clear: a reliable, lasting peace is only possible with Ukraine at the negotiating table, with full respect for our sovereignty and without recognizing the occupation."
European leaders pushed for the inclusion of Zelenskyy in talks in a statement Saturday, saying Ukraine's vital interests "include the need for robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity."
"Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a cease-fire or reduction of hostilities," said the leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Cancellor Friedrich Merz, and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer. "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force."
At the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, British journalist and analyst Anatol Lieven wrote Saturday that the talks scheduled for next week are "an essential first step" toward ending the bloodshed in Ukraine, even though they include proposed land concessions that would be "painful" for Kyiv.
If Ukraine were to ultimately agree to ceding land to Russia, said Lieven, "Russia will need drastically to scale back its demands for Ukrainian 'denazification' and 'demilitarization,' which in their extreme form would mean Ukrainian regime change and disarmament—which no government in Kyiv could or should accept."
A recent Gallup poll showed 69% of Ukrainians now favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. In 2022, more than 70% believed the country should continue fighting until it achieved victory.
Suleiman Al-Obeid was killed by the Israel Defense Forces while seeking humanitarian aid.
Mohamed Salah, the Egyptian soccer star who plays for Liverpool's Premiere League club and serves as captain of Egypt's national team, had three questions for the Union of European Football Associations on Saturday after the governing body acknowledged the death of another venerated former player.
"Can you tell us how he died, where, and why?" asked Salah in response to the UEFA's vague tribute to Suleiman Al-Obeid, who was nicknamed the "Palestinian Pelé" during his career with the Palestinian National Team.
The soccer organization had written a simple 21-word "farewell" message to Al-Obeid, calling him "a talent who gave hope to countless children, even in the darkest of times."
The UEFA made no mention of reports from the Palestine Football Association that Al-Obeid last week became one of the nearly 1,400 Palestinians who have been killed while seeking aid since the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israel- and U.S.-backed, privatized organization, began operating aid hubs in Gaza.
As with the Israel Defense Forces' killings of aid workers and bombings of so-called "safe zones" since Israel began bombarding Gaza in October 2023, the IDF has claimed its killings of Palestinians seeking desperately-needed food have been inadvertent—but Israeli soldiers themselves have described being ordered to shoot at civilians who approach the aid sites.
Salah has been an outspoken advocate for Palestinians since Israel began its attacks, which have killed more than 61,000 people, and imposed a near-total blockade that has caused an "unfolding" famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. At least 217 Palestinians have now starved to death, including at least 100 children.
The Peace and Justice Project, founded by British Parliament member Jeremy Corbyn, applauded Salah's criticism of UEFA.
The Palestine Football Association released a statement saying, "Former national team player and star of the Khadamat al-Shati team, Suleiman Al-Obeid, was martyred after the occupation forces targeted those waiting for humanitarian aid in the southern Gaza Strip on Wednesday."
Al-Obeid represented the Palestinian team 24 times internationally and scored a famous goal against Yemen's National Team in the East Asian Federation's 2010 cup.
He is survived by his wife and five children, Al Jazeera reported.
Bassil Mikdadi, the founder of Football Palestine, told the outlet that he was surprised the UEFA acknowledged Al-Obeid's killing at all, considering the silence of international soccer federations regarding Israel's assault on Gaza, which is the subject of a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and has been called a genocide by numerous Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
As Jules Boykoff wrote in a column at Common Dreams in June, the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) has mostly "looked the other way when it comes to Israel's attacks on Palestinians," and although the group joined the UEFA in expressing solidarity with Ukrainian players and civilians when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, "no such solidarity has been forthcoming for Palestinians."
Mikdadi noted that Al-Obeid "is not the first Palestinian footballer to perish in this genocide—there's been over 400—but he's by far the most prominent as of now."
Al-Obeid was killed days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved a plan to take over Gaza City—believed to be the first step in the eventual occupation of all of Gaza.
The United Nations Security Council was holding an emergency meeting Sunday to discuss Israel's move, with U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Europe, Central Asia, and the Americas Miroslav Jenca warning the council that a full takeover would risk "igniting another horrific chapter in this conflict."
"We are already witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable scale in Gaza," said Jenca. "If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction, compounding the unbearable suffering of the population."
"Whoever said West Virginia was a conservative state?" Sanders asked the crowd in Wheeling. "Somebody got it wrong."
On the latest leg of his Fighting Oligarchy Tour, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders headed to West Virginia for rallies on Friday and Saturday where he continued to speak out against the billionaire class's control over the political system and the Republican Party's cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and other social programs for millions of Americans—and prove that his message resonates with working people even in solidly red districts.
"Whoever said West Virginia was a conservative state?" Sanders (I-Vt.) asked a roaring, standing-room-only crowd at the Capitol Theater in Wheeling. "Somebody got it wrong."
As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported, some in the crowd sported red bandanas around their necks—a nod to the state's long history of labor organizing and the thousands of coal mine workers who formed a multiracial coalition in 1921 and marched wearing bandanas for the right to join a union with fair pay and safety protections.
Sanders spoke to the crowd about how President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was supported by all five Republican lawmakers who represent the districts Sanders is visiting this weekend, could impact their families and neighbors.
"Fifteen million Americans, including 50,000 right here in West Virginia, are going to lose their healthcare," Sanders said of the Medicaid cuts that are projected to amount to more than $1 trillion over the next decade. "Cuts to nutrition—literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids."
Seven hospitals are expected to shut down in the state as a result of the law's Medicaid cuts, and 84,000 West Virginians will lose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, according to estimates.
Sanders continued his West Virginia tour with a stop in the small town of Lenore on Saturday afternoon and was scheduled to address a crowd in Charleston Saturday evening before heading to North Carolina for more rallies on Sunday.
The event in Lenore was a town hall, where the senator heard from residents of the area—which Trump won with 74% of the vote in 2024. Anna Bahr, Sanders' communications director, said more than 400 people came to hear the senator speak—equivalent to about a third of Lenore's population.
Sanders invited one young attendee on stage after she asked how Trump's domestic policy law's cuts to education are likely to affect poverty rates in West Virginia, which are some of the highest in the nation.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a federal voucher program which education advocates warn will further drain funding from public schools, and the loss of Medicaid funding for states could lead to staff cuts in K-12 schools. The law also impacts higher education, imposing new limits for federal student loans.
"Sometimes I am attacked by my opponents for being far-left, fringe, out of touch with where America is," said Sanders. "Actually, much of what I talk about is exactly where America is... You are living in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and if we had good policy and the courage to take on the billionaire class, there is no reason that every kid in this country could not get an excellent higher education, regardless of his or her income. That is not a radical idea."
Sanders' events scheduled for Sunday in North Carolina include a rally at 2:00 pm ET at the Steven Tanger Center for the Performing Arts in Greensboro and one at 6:00 pm ET at the Harrah Cherokee Center in Asheville.