A War Against Humanity Itself
Amidst the ongoing, unfathomable slaughter, hunger, maiming, razing in Gaza at the hands of Israel's "voracious death machine," its leaders now openly vow "total and utter destruction" by what they still grotesquely call "one of the most moral militaries in the world," murdered newborns and all. But the hypocrisies and protests mount. "One of this genocide’s aims is to drown us in our own sorrow," says one of Balfour's "savages." Part of their resistance, in turn, "is to talk about tomorrow in Gaza."
The litany from Israel's mass killing, "monstrous and largely indiscriminate," to date: Almost 35,000 dead Palestinians, including well over 14,000 "ungrievable" children; more than 77,000 wounded, half children; at least 17,000 orphans, 5,000 children whose limbs have been amputated, thousands more buried under rubble, a child killed or injured every 10 minutes; hundreds of dead journalists, doctors, teachers, poets, aid workers, academics; most homes leveled, along with 400 schools, 12 universities, over 30 hospitals; starvation levels "the highest ever recorded." Thanks in part to $26 billion more the U.S. just awarded Israel, its "most decisive vote of confidence in genocide since the Indian Removal Act of 1830," the hellfire still rains down. Each day the count grows: Air strikes kill 22, mostly children, kill 20, mostly children, kill 13, nine of them children, kill eight children and two women from one family, kill three women and six children. Fathers sob over small bodies, mourning "a world devoid of all human values." A strike killed a man, his very pregnant wife, their three-year-old; doctors saved the baby. A sniper killed a West Bank man for going up on his roof; days later, his wife named their new son for him as their toddler played in sand strewn on his father's blood.
When upright IDF forces retreated from Nasser and Al-Shifa hospitals after mindlessly pulverizing them, rescue workers uncovered mass graves - up to 400 bodies in one, over 200 in another - of bodies mutilated, beheaded, hands tied behind them. The IDF detain medics, block Red Crescent ambulances, storm hospitals and attack staff even as new victims "pile up," bloody and stick-thin, in rubble-strewn facilities with no supplies. "You can't imagine it unless you see it," says an Egyptian doctor working in the north. His most haunting memory: One orphan, an arm amputated, a leg broken, almost entirely burned, "constantly asking where her father, mother and siblings were." Say other doctors, Gazan and foreigh, of amputating limbs without anaesthesia, delivering babies at risk of starvation, laboring beneath the relentless noise and threat of drones where there is "no safe plae, even in our minds," "We are alive, but we are not OK." One Gazan doctor recalls a broken fellow-psychologist, leaning his head on his knees, in tears. "He asked me what he was supposed to do, where he was supposed to go," he said. "I had no answers to give him."
Still, Israel, "whose founders longed to be a light unto the nations," persists in its "gallop into the abyss" by blocking food aid and facilitating "catastrophic levels of hunger and starvation," a preventable famine “unprecedented in modern history." Rights workers say Gaza's entire population of 2.2 million do not have enough available calories; half are on the brink of starvation; a third of Gazan infants are acutely malnourished. In Rafah, where half of Gaza has taken shelter, dazed people spend their days "in a perpetual state of survival," seeking or standing in line for water and food. The trickle of aid is grossly inadequate, and often fatal: Having survived an air strike that killed 17 relatives but only wounded him - "God saved him," said his grandfather - Zein Oroq, 13, was killed when a pallet of beans, rice and other food dropped by an unopened parachute hit him in the head; the stampede of people "were also hungry" and didn't stop for him. When a pharmacist mother of three, displaced six times, got a text message of an UNRWA food voucher, she stood in line five hours to get two eggs. En route home, crying, she met her 70-year-old aunt who had lost her husband and two chiuldren in an airstrike. She gave her one egg; at the tent, "We divided the egg into portions to share."
Last month's targeted killing of sevenWorld Central Kitchen aid workers in a well-marked convoy - "it was very clear who we are and what we do" - seemed a sort of turning point: In what some called "a story of Western racism." The deaths of white foreigners, who "risked everything to feed people they did not know and will never meet," caused an outcry that many, while not diminishing their generous courage, couldn't help but note: "We need not delude ourselves that (media) would have run the story on its front page had the dead carried Arab names, (when) countless Palestinians, equally heroic and innocent, have been slaughtered by Israeli forces’ actions in the same way." The workers - a Palestinian, Australian, Pole, three Brits and a dual US-Canada national - were "the best of humanity," saidWCK founder and chef José Andrés. "The seven souls we mourn today were there so that hungry people could eat," he said at a remembrance. "There is no excuse for these killings." Angrily rejecting Israeli claims of "mistakes" - "the perpetrator cannot be investigating himself” - he argued "the death of one humanitarian, one child, one civilian is too many." "This doesn't seem anymore a war about defending Israel," he said. "At this point, it seems it’s a war against humanity itself.”
In the midst of Israel's far-right "Kahanist Spring," its political and military leaders are astonishingly unshy on that genocidal score. This week, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly called for "total annihilation" of Gaza: "There are no half measures - Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat...'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek'...There is no place for them under heaven." Echoing fellow war-monger Itamar Ben-Gvir - "God forbid, Israel does not enter Rafah, God forbid, we end the war" - Smotrich is so opposed to "strategic concessions" that would mean "the surrender of the State of Israel," he's threatened to boltNetanyahu's coalition if he doesn't invade Rafah: "I will pursue my enemies and destroy them. We should deliver the decisive blow." "In any normal country," notedHaaretz' lead editorial the next day, five minutes after his remarks (Netanyahu) would have convened a press conference, fired the minister in disgrace, and publicly declared (that) people with such a worldview have no place in the Israeli government." Instead, in Netanyahu's Israel, "the leader of the far right is openly advocating genocide, but there's not one person in the government willing to stand up and say 'enough'." Because, in Netanyahu's Israel, it apparently never is.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich calls for ‘utter destruction’ in Rafahwww.youtube.com
The grisly evidence is everywhere. On Friday, the eldest daughter, two-month-old grandson, and son-in-law of beloved Palestinian poet and mentor Refaat Alareer, assassinated last year in a targeted airstrike that also killed his brother, sister, and her four children, were reported killed in another strike in Gaza City. "I have beautiful news for you," wrote illustrator Shaima Refaat Alareer to her slain father after giving birth. "Do you know you have just become a grandfather? This is your first grandchild, Abdul Rahman...I never imagined I’d lose you so soon before you got to meet him." Heartbreak upon heartbreak, much like the murder of six-year-old Hind Rajab, who became a symbol of the carnage visited upon Gaza when she called for help - "I'm so scared, please come" - while trapped in a car with dead relatives under Israeli fire; weeks later, her decomposed body was found alongside them and an ambulance crew sent to rescue her, because in Netanyahu's Israel, nothing is still ever enough. "For too long, Palestinians have been lectured about the value of human life and dignity," says Gazan AFSC worker Yousef Aljamal of the "deafening international silence" on Israel's atrocities, "only to discover that the value of their lives and their dignity are exceptions to the rule."
Finally, though, the horrors have "struck a chord" on American campuses with the largest student anti-war protests since the end of the Vietnam War. Nationwide, dozens of solidarity encampments have sprung up, from UCLA to New York's NYU and Columbia University, where protesters unfurled a banner renaming the historic Hamilton Hall "Hinds Hall,” for Hind Rajab. Insisting they'll remain "inescapably visible," students cite the hypocrisies and contradictions "between what our governments say they stand for in terms of democracy, human rights, freedom, and (the) actions they are supporting in Gaza" - ostensibly promoting human rights but enabling genocide, supporting free speech but siccing violent police on peaceful protests, etc. Some schools - Northwestern, Johns Hopkins - have successfully negotiated compromises, like agreeing to review college investments in return for limiting protests; laudably - "This is democracy at work" - Brown agreed to a formal divestment vote from Israel. Still, the "unhinged" response by many school administrations and riot-geared law enforcement, including a Strategic Response Group meant to combat public unrest and “counter-terrorism," aka young people opposed to genocide, has been blasted as "an authoritarian escalation."
Speaking of: Netanyahu, meanwhile, clings to the rabid, rigid rhetoric he's used since Oct. 7, declaiming his "iron-clad determination to achieve the goals of our war" against "an outrageous assault on Israel's inherent right to self-defense" by "barbarians" and "genocidal terrorists," which evidently include newborns, six-year-olds, entire families and thousands of children, journalists, doctors, aid workers and other innocents. Reportedly worried the ICC may soon issue arrest warrants for himself and other Israeli leaders as "war criminals," he's made the "very unusual appeal" to families of the hostages - whom in his venomous investment in war he's declined to free when he repeatedly could have - "asking" them to lobby Hague officials not to arrest him. Posting a surreal speech with, "You have to hear this to believe this," he argues "trying to put Israel in the dock" for genocide would be "an outrage of historic proportions," the "first time a democratic country fighting for its life according to the rules of war is itself accused of war crimes," "fueling the fires of anti-Semitism already raging on campuses" and, by targeting "the democracy called Israel, (the) targeting of all democracies" in their fight against "savage terrorism and wanton aggression." Yes: phantasmal pot/kettle.
As he harangues, lest we forget, the head of UNICEF just declared of the harrowing conditions in Gaza, "Nearly all of the some 600,000 children now crammed into Rafah are either injured, sick, malnourished, traumatized, or living with disabilities." A UNICEF spokesperson began an op-ed with, "The war against Gaza's children is forcing many to close their eyes. Nine-year-old Mohamed's eyes were forced shut, first by the bandages that covered a gaping hole in the back of his head, and second by the coma caused by the blast that hit his family home. He is nine. Sorry, he was nine. Mohamed is now dead." In central and northern Gaza, surviving Palestinians seeking to return to their homes have found "only ruins, and the smell of death...The streets have turned to sand....It is not fit for life." And still they are terrorized: Rights groups say the IDF is luring returnees into the open with recordings of cries and screams to be shot at by snipers or drones. At Nuseirat refugee camp, a 35-year-old "son of this city" found only "mountains of rubble." Yet Gaza, he insists, has risen before: "I will wait for the water lines to be extended in the area, and I will put up a tent and sleep in it with my children." Says another former resident, "We will teach our children in tents, under the sun, and anywhere else."
"What does the liberation of Palestine mean?" asks philosopher Judith Butler, when "the grief over Jewish lives lost is very often humanized and memorialized in ways that Palestinian deaths are not." Simply, she offers "a vision of cohabitation," that Palestinians and Jews and other inhabitants of that land find a way to live together. Either next to each other or with one another, under conditions of radical equality," where occupation is dismantled. As a Jew, she also dismantles the myth that Jews, having suffered genocide, cannot be enacting genocide: "There is nothing that keeps a people who have suffered massively in life from afflicting massive suffering on others...There is nothing in the history of the world that precludes that." Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah, newly installed as Glasgow University Rector, has seen and lived that reality. Except for himself, all his forefathers were born in Palestine, a land given away by Arthur Balfour, a former Glasgow rector who in his 46-word declaration announcing British support for Palestine noted, "A survey of the world (shows) a vast number of savage communities." After a lifetime as a war surgeon, said Abu-Sittah, students at the school once headed by Winnie Mandela reached out to him, and "one of Balfour’s savages" was elected.
"Students understood what we have to lose when we allow our politics to become inhuman," said Abu-Sittah of what he views as a vote of solidarity with too-long-ignored Palestinian suffering. Citing "the ravening beast" that is "the genocidal erasure of a people," he argued Gaza is the "axis of genocide" by western powers: "The quadcopters and drones fitted with sniper guns - used so efficiently (one) night at Al-Ahli hospital we received over 30 wounded civilians shot outside our hospital - today in Gaza will be used tomorrow in Mumbai, Nairobi and Sao Paulo." For those who have "seen, smelt, and heard what the weapons of war do to a child’s body," have "amputated the unsalvageable limbs of wounded children," have witnessed the "othering" by which many would be horrified by "the barbarity" of Israel killing 14,000 puppies or kittens, but not children - for all those, somehow, he urged hope. "When powerlessness is at its most acute, the determination to think like a human being, creatively, courageously, complicatedly matters the most," he said. "It is your world to fight for. It is your tomorrow to make." Dedicating his address to dead family and colleagues, "but mostly to our land," he ended with the words of Bobby Sands: "Our revenge will be the laughter of our children."
Lobbyist-Dominated Plastics Talks End Without Clear Path to Production Cuts
The fourth and second-to-last round of negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty concluded Tuesday with what campaigners called a "weak" and "disappointing" compromise, as countries did not agree to discuss curbing primary plastic production before the final session later this year.
The "underwhelming" result came at the close of talks in Ottawa, Canada, at which 196 fossil fuel or chemical industry lobbyists attended, a 37% increase from the third round of negotiations and more than the entire delegation of the European Union.
"People are being harmed by plastic production every day, but states are listening more closely to petrochemical lobbyists than health scientists," Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation to the negotiations and Greenpeace USA's global plastics campaign lead, said in a statement. "Any child can see that we cannot solve the plastic crisis unless we stop making so much plastic."
"The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations."
Civil society and frontline groups called reducing plastics production a "nonnegotiable" component of the treaty heading into the fourth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to advance a plastics treaty (INC-4), the continuation of a process launched at a United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi in 2022. However, when delegates agreed at the end of the latest negotiations to continue discussions of certain issues in "intersessional" work, this did not include a discussion of primary plastic polymers.
"From the beginning of negotiations, we have known that we need to cut plastic production to adopt a treaty that lives up to the promise envisioned at UNEA two years ago," said David Azoulay, the director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "In Ottawa, we saw many countries rightly assert that it is important for the treaty to address production of primary plastic polymers. But when the time came to go beyond issuing empty declarations and fight for work to support the development of an effective intersessional program, we saw the same developed member states who claim to be leading the world toward a world free from plastic pollution, abandon all pretense as soon as the biggest polluters look sideways at them."
The negotiations, which began April 23, were pulled between more ambitious countries—particularly Global South countries in Africa, Latin American, and the Pacific Islands—and the so-called "Like-Minded Group" of fossil fuel and polymer producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Kuwait, Qatar, and India. On the more ambitious side of the spectrum, Rwanda and Peru spearheaded a call for intersessional work on a plan to cut production of primary polymers by 40% of 2025 levels by 2040, which was backed by Malawi, the Philippines, and Fiji.
"While not high enough to avoid breaching the 1.5°C climate target, Rwanda and Peru's proposal is the first time a group of countries have put forward a specific target for plastic production cuts," environmental coalition GAIA said in a statement.
Another promising development was the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers, in which signatories promised to work toward maintaining a plastic production reduction commitment in line with the Paris agreement in the final treaty text, to be set in Busan, South Korea, at the end of 2024.
On the other hand, Break Free From Plastics said that some countries had obstructed the process by pressuring negotiators to agree to consensus, even though the procedure allows for voting when consensus cannot be reached. They also interfered with the drafting of the treaty itself.
"A small number of countries continued their obstructionist and low-ambition tactics—watering down, adding countless brackets, and shamelessly twisting the language across the different provisions in an attempt to narrow the scope and lower the ambitions of the treaty," the group said.
However, GAIA said that negotiations did make progress on a draft treaty text that included a reduction of plastic production, the banning of toxic chemical additives, a financial mechanism to help countries meet targets, and a commitment to a just transition. After this progress, the chair's proposal that intersession work would not consider polymers came as a surprise.
"Tonight's upsets show that historical injustices have made their way into the halls of the plastics treaty negotiations," Camila Aguilera, communications officer for GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean, said in a statement. "The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations. The debate over intersessional work is a proxy for these geopolitical divides between the Global North and the Global South."
CIEL said that several countries in the self-described "High Ambition Coalition," (HAC) including the European Union, had not pushed back sufficiently on attempts to weaken the treaty and the process. It, along with many other environmental groups, also criticized the United States, which is not an HAC member, for failing to stand up for an ambitious treaty.
"Negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."
"The United States needs to stop pretending to be a leader and own the failure it has created here," said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "When the world's biggest exporter of oil and gas, and one of the biggest architects of the plastic expansion, says that it will ignore plastic production at the expense of the health, rights, and lives of its own people, the world listens. Even as the U.S. signaled to the G7 that it would commit to reduce plastic production, it intentionally blocked efforts to do that in the global talks most relevant to the issue. It's time to ask whether the U.S. delegation to the plastics treaty simply missed the memo on protecting health and human rights from the plastic threat, or whether the Biden administration forgot to send it."
Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Julie Teel Simmonds said that "rather than showing leadership, the United States has remained disappointedly in the middle."
"The U.S. proposals lack binding targets and focus on cutting demand for plastic rather than production itself," Simmonds continued. "And they don't go beyond existing U.S. policy, which has failed to curb plastic production or protect frontline communities and the environment from harm."
Frankie Orona, the executive director of the Society of Native Nations, recounted that "negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."
On the final day of negotiations, Break Free From Plastics published a statement calling out the U.S. for not committing to legally binding plastic production cut targets, underselling its own regulatory apparatus, and overemphasizing recycling.
"As the world's largest consumer and exporter of plastic waste, purporting to recognize the severity of the crisis, the U.S. must act decisively on these imperatives rather than negotiating an ineffective treaty that will sacrifice the public health and human rights of all to the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries," the group said.
It demanded that the U.S. delegation support a legally binding treaty that includes set global targets; production caps, phaseouts, and phasedowns for plastic polymers; the health-based control of toxic chemicals in production; a just transition for all communites impacted by the plastics lifecycle; and waste management that protects health and the environment and rejects false solutions.
Civil society groups also argued that negotiators should heed the demands of Indigenous peoples, and that they should be given more resources and support to participate. However, CIEL found that plastics lobbyists outnumbered the 28 representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus by a rate of seven to one.
"We need intersessional work with the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples—who are rights holders with traditional knowledge and a deep understanding of sustainable resource management—as well as frontline and fenceline communities—who, for generations, have borne the brunt of environmental damage from fossil fuels and petrochemical production," Orona said. "By including these often-marginalized groups, we can move beyond 'business as usual' to achieve an ambitious treaty that protects our environment, respects human rights, and fosters a more equitable and sustainable future for all of us and Mother Earth."
Green groups also called for conflict-of-interest policies to reduce the role of industry lobbyists.
"Despite mounting proof of plastics' enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty," Teel Simmonds said. "We'll keep fighting their deception and obstruction because the world desperately needs a treaty that protects us from plastic production and pollution. And we'll keep pushing the United States to lead."
The next and last round of negotiations is set to begin on November 25. In the meantime, intersessional work will move forward on a financial mechanism, plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reusability, and recyclability. Observers will be able to contribute to these sessions, while another group conducts a legal review of the treaty.
"The success of the International Plastics Treaty depends on the reduction of primary plastic polymers," said Yu Hyein from the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements and Friends of the Earth, South Korea. "There was not enough discussion on this at INC-4, and it is likely that this will continue at INC-5. As a host country and a member of the High Ambition Coalition, the Korean government should make an ambitious declaration on reducing primary plastic polymers."
Greenpeace's Forbes added, "The entire world is watching, and if countries, particularly in the so-called 'High Ambition Coalition,' don't act between now and INC-5 in Busan, the treaty they are likely to get is one that could have been written by ExxonMobil and their acolytes."
Chamber of Commerce Sues to Block FTC Ban on Anti-Worker Noncompete Agreements
The powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday in an effort to block the agency's widely celebrated new rule banning most noncompete clauses, pervasive contract agreements that restrict employees' ability to work for or start a competing business.
The Chamber filed its lawsuit alongside the Business Roundtable and other corporate lobbying groups in a federal court in Texas. The suit came shortly after Ryan LLC, a tax service firm, filed the first legal challenge to the FTC's rule in a separate Texas venue.
"The commission's categorical ban on virtually all non-competes amounts to a vast overhaul of the national economy," reads the Chamber's complaint against the rule, which the FTC finalized in a 3-2 vote on Tuesday.
The agency, led by Biden-appointed Commissioner Lina Khan, estimates that roughly 30 million U.S. workers are subject to a noncompete agreement, limiting their ability to start their own companies or switch jobs in pursuit of better wages and benefits.
"Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned," Khan said in a statement Tuesday. "The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market."
"Noncompetes are about reducing competition, full stop. It's in their name."
The Chamber, the largest corporate lobbying organization in the United States, signaled its intent to sue the FTC immediately after the agency finalized its new rule on Tuesday.
"The Federal Trade Commission's decision to ban employer noncompete agreements across the economy is not only unlawful but also a blatant power grab that will undermine American businesses’ ability to remain competitive," Chamber president and CEO Suzanne Clark said in a statement following the FTC's vote.
While the organization claims to fight for the interests of businesses small and large, a Public Citizen report published earlier this year found that the majority of the Chamber's legal work supports big corporations.
The Chamber acknowledged in response to questioning from a pair of Democratic senators last year that its corporate members use noncompete clauses—though the group did not specify which members.
"Why does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce hate dynamism in the American economy, where workers are free to move to the best opportunities, and companies are free to recruit the best talent?" asked University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor Arin Dube in response to the Chamber's pledge to sue over the FTC's rule.
According to the FTC, its ban would boost the average U.S. worker's earnings by $524 a year, increase new business formation by close to 3% annually, and lower national healthcare costs by nearly $200 billion over the next decade.
"Noncompetes are about reducing competition, full stop. It's in their name," Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute, said Tuesday. "Noncompetes are bad for workers, bad for consumers, and bad for the broader economy. This rule is an important step in creating an economy that is not only strong but also works for working people."
Poor People's Campaign Plans June 29 Mass Assembly, March in DC
Leaders of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival on Monday announced plans for the Mass Poor People & Low-Wage Workers' Assembly & Moral March in Washington, D.C. on June 29, just over four months before the U.S. elections.
The aim of the assembly and march is to "mobilize the one-third of the U.S. electorate who are poor and low-wage infrequent voters" as well as to pressure political leaders to embrace a 17-point agenda during the 2024 election cycle and beyond.
"It does not stand to reason—morally, economically, or politically—that in the richest nation in the history of the world, 800 people die every day from poverty and low wealth," declared Bishop William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach. "Politicians then made the conscious choice to increase poverty to where it was before—an unconscionable reminder that mass poverty is a political choice, not an inevitable law of nature."
"We are here to say we must restore the moral conscience of this nation, and elect leaders across the country who will make different choices—not to raise poverty, but to lower it; not to give out tax breaks to wealthy corporations, but to those who are struggling to make ends meet," he continued. "These are the priorities of one-third of the U.S. electorate, and any candidate interested in activating these voters must speak to our issues and our values."
The agenda, revealed during the campaign's Monday press conference, is:
- Abolishing poverty as the fourth-leading cause of death in the U.S.
- A living minimum wage of at least $15+/hour (indexed for inflation)
- Full and expanded voting rights
- No more voter suppression
- Guaranteed workers' rights and labor rights
- Healthcare for all
- Affordable, adequate housing
- Strong social welfare and safety net programs
- An end to gun violence, profit, and proliferation
- Fully protected women's rights
- Environmental justice that secures clean air and water
- Justice for all Indigenous nations
- Fully funded public education
- Just immigration laws
- Addressing militarism and the war economy
- Standing for peace not war; an immediate cease-fire in Gaza that allows humanitarian relief, the release of all hostages, and peace with justice to be pursued; and an end to genocide around the world
- An end to hate, division, and the extremist political agenda
"We are a resurrection of the unheard voices in this democracy, not an insurrection," said Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and director of the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice. "After years of historic union drives and grassroots organizing, we are demonstrating our power at the polls in 2024. We will elect leaders with the courage to abolish poverty, raise wages, safeguard voting rights, and meet the basic needs of struggling families."
In addition to Theoharis and Barber's groups, supporters of the assembly and march include the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), Christian Church Disciples of Christ, Common Cause, Fellowship of Affirming Ministries, Good Trouble, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Make It Plain, National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, Service Employees International Union, and Union of Southern Service Workers.
"Workers' rights, civil rights, and human rights are on the ballot this election. American voters will decide: Do we want to stay the course and keep on this path toward a more compassionate government or revert back to this morally bankrupt nation?" said Fred Redmond, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. "The American labor movement is committed to registering and mobilizing union members and union families around the mass mobilization on June 29. We're going to elect lawmakers who will advocate for workers and poor people to elect leaders who will put people over profits, protect our democracy, and advance worker and civil and human rights."
In addition to choosing between Democratic President Joe Biden and former Republican President Donald Trump, U.S. voters in November will decide which party controls each house of Congress. There will also be various consequential local and state elections, including ballot measures to protect key rights such as access to abortion care.
"This is a crisis moment for our democracy," stressed Rosalyn Pelles, a senior advisor to the Poor People's Campaign. "In order for our nation not to continue down the path of autocracy, we need for our political leaders to become moral leaders and take seriously the needs and priorities of the millions of people struggling simply to survive."
"Congress must lead, by bringing forward comprehensive legislation to restore the child tax credit and raise the minimum wage," Pelles argued. "The media must do more, by covering the experiences of people struggling to get by, not just the words and whims of the wealthy and powerful. And the White House must treat poverty like the crisis it is, if this administration is serious about saving our democracy. We all must act, and that is what June 29th is all about."
Cutting Ties With Israel, 'One Colombia Shows Far More Courage Than the Other Columbia'
In sharp contrast with Columbia University in New York City, Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Wednesday announced the imminent suspension of diplomatic relations with Israel over that country's assault on Gaza.
"The government of change informs that as of tomorrow diplomatic relations with Israel will be broken... for having a government, for having a president who is genocidal," Petro told a crowd in the capital Bogotá during an International Workers' Day event, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"The world could be summed up in a single word that vindicates the necessity of life, rebellion, the raised flag, and resistance," the leftist leader added. "That word is called Gaza. It is called Palestine. It is called the children and babies who have died dismembered by the bombs."
"The times of genocide and extermination of an entire people cannot return. If Palestine dies, humanity dies," he added as the crowd started chanting, "Petro! Petro! Petro!"
Colombia joins at least nine other nations—including Bahrain, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, Chile, Honduras, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey—that have either recalled their ambassadors from Israel or broken off relations in response to Israel's assault on Gaza, which has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 123,000 Palestinians and forcibly displaced around 90% of the besieged strip's 2.3 million people.
In late October, Colombia became one of the first countries to recall its ambassador from Israel, a move that came amid a diplomatic fracas between Bogotá and Tel Aviv sparked by Petro's comparison of Israeli leaders' dehumanizing and genocidal statements about Palestinians with "what the Nazis said about the Jews."
Petro also called Gaza—often described as the "world's largest open-air prison"—a "concentration camp."
After Israel accused Petro of "hostile and antisemitic statements" and "support for the horrific acts of Hamas terrorists," the Colombian president hit back, saying Israel's war on Gaza is "genocide."
Last month, Colombia asked the International Court of Justice to join the South African-led genocide case against Israel, which is supported by over 30 nations. In January, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling that found Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza and ordered its government to prevent genocidal acts.
Critics accuse Israel of ignoring the ICJ order. Last month the court cited "the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation" as it issued another provisional order directing Israel to allow desperately needed humanitarian aid into the strip.
In a homophonic reference to protests on U.S. campuses including Columbia University—which has refused to divest from Israel and has twice sicced police on peaceful protesters—attorney Steven Donziger quipped, "One Colombia shows far more courage than the other Columbia."
Nearly All 600,000 Kids in Rafah 'Injured, Sick, Malnourished,' Says UNICEF
"The children in Gaza need a cease-fire."
That's how Catherine Russell, executive director of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), concluded a brief video Wednesday about the harrowing conditions across the Gaza Strip, particularly in Rafah, where about 1.5 million of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million residents have sought refuge from Israel's devastating assault.
The video was released nearly seven months into Israel's retaliation for the Hamas-led October 7 attack—which has killed at least 34,596 Palestinians in Gaza, wounded another 77,816, and left thousands more missing—and as a full-scale Israeli assault of Rafah looms.
The war has already taken "an unimaginable toll," and a major military operation against the crowded southern Gaza city "would bring catastrophe on top of catastrophe for children," Russell warned. "Nearly all of the some 600,000 children now crammed into Rafah are either injured, sick, malnourished, traumatized, or living with disabilities."
"Many have been displaced multiple times and lost homes, parents, and loved ones," the UNICEF chief noted. "There is nowhere safe to go in Gaza. Homes throughout the Gaza Strip lie in ruin. Roads are destroyed and the ground littered with unexploded ordnances."
"Rafah is also the main hub for the humanitarian response, which includes UNICEF, and the city has some of the last functioning healthcare facilities," she explained.
Israeli forces launched at least 435 attacks on health facilities or personnel during the first six months of the war, and just 10 of the enclave's 36 hospitals remain partially functional, according to the World Health Organization. As Common Dreamsreported Wednesday, thousands of Palestinian child amputees are struggling to recover due to the destruction of Gaza's healthcare system.
"UNICEF continues to call for the protection of all women and children in Rafah and throughout the Gaza Strip—and the protection of the infrastructure, services, and humanitarian aid they rely on," said Russell. "We repeat our calls for the unconditional release of all hostages in Gaza who need to be home with their children and families. The violence must end."
The agency's five core demands for Gaza are:
- An immediate and long-lasting humanitarian cease-fire;
- Safe and unrestricted humanitarian access;
- The immediate, safe, and unconditional release of all abducted children, and an end to any grave violations against all children;
- Respect and protection for civilian infrastructure; and
- Allow patients with urgent medical cases to safely access critical health services or leave.
As Russell called for peace in video form, James Elder, UNICEF's global spokesperson, penned a Wednesday opinion piece for The Guardian following his recent trips to Gaza. He began with a startling anecdote:
The war against Gaza's children is forcing many to close their eyes. Nine-year-old Mohamed's eyes were forced shut, first by the bandages that covered a gaping hole in the back of his head, and second by the coma caused by the blast that hit his family home. He is nine. Sorry, he was nine. Mohamed is now dead.
"From looming famine to soaring death tolls, the latest fear is the much-threatened offensive in Rafah in southern Gaza," he wrote. "Can it get any worse? It always seems to."
"Rafah will implode if it is targeted militarily," Elder stressed. "Water is in desperately short supply, not just for drinking but sanitation. In Rafah there is approximately one toilet for every 850 people. The situation is four times worse for showers. That is, around one shower for every 3,500 people. Try to imagine, as a teenage girl, or elderly man, or pregnant woman, queueing for an entire day just to have a shower."
On October 31, just weeks after the start of what the International Court of Justice has since determined is Israel's plausibly genocidal assault, UNICEF called Gaza a "graveyard" for children.
"Can it get any worse? It always seems to."
"Last month I saw new graveyards in Rafah being constructed. And filled," wrote Elder. "Every day the war brings more violent death and destruction. In my 20 years with the United Nations, I have never seen devastation like that I saw in the Gaza Strip cities of Khan Younis and Gaza City. And now we are told to expect the same via an incursion in Rafah."
Elder recalled that "in the north of the territory, close to where a UNICEF vehicle came under fire last month, a woman clutched my hand and pleaded, over and over, that the world send food, water, and medicine. I will never forget how, as I felt her grasp, I tried to explain we were trying, and she continued to plead."
"Why? Because she assumed the world did not know what was happening in Gaza. Because if the world knew, how could they possibly let this happen?" he continued. "How, indeed. The world has certainly been warned about Rafah. It remains to be seen how many eyes stay, or are forced, shut."
ICC Condemns Efforts to 'Intimidate' the Court as Netanyahu Arrest Warrant Looms
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and GOP lawmakers in the U.S. have threatened to retaliate against the court if it issues arrest warrants for officials in Israel's government.
The office of International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan issued a statement Friday denouncing threats of retaliation after Israel's prime minister and U.S. lawmakers attacked the intergovernmental body over reports that it is preparing arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials related to the war on Gaza.
The ICC statement, which does not mention any individual or country by name, says the court's "independence and impartiality are undermined" when "individuals threaten to retaliate against the court or against court personnel should the office, in fulfillment of its mandate, make decisions about investigations or cases falling within its jurisdiction."
"Such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute an offense against the administration of justice under Art. 70 of the Rome Statute," the statement continues. "The office insists that all attempts to impede, intimidate, or improperly influence its officials cease immediately."
The statement comes days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he "expects the leaders of the free world to stand firmly against" any ICC arrest warrants for officials in Israel's government.
"We expect them to use all the means at their disposal to stop this dangerous move," said Netanyahu.
The New York Timesreported over the weekend that Israeli officials "increasingly believe" that the ICC, which is based in The Hague, is preparing arrest warrants for top members of the country's government, including Netanyahu. The ICC is also believed to be weighing arrest warrants for Hamas leaders.
"If the court proceeds, the Israeli officials could potentially be accused of preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and pursuing an excessively harsh response to the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel," the Times reported.
Bipartisan members of the U.S. Congress who have supported Israel's devastating assault on Gaza have joined Netanyahu in condemning the ICC in recent days, pushing the Biden administration to fight any arrest warrants even though—like Israel—the U.S. is not a state party to the statute that created the court. Palestine joined the ICC in 2015.
"If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel," House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a statement earlier this week.
On Wednesday, according toAxios, a bipartisan group of senators held a virtual meeting with senior ICC officials to voice "their concern about possible arrest warrants being issued for Israeli leaders over the war in Gaza."
"If this is true, it should never have happened," said Mark Kersten, an assistant professor focusing on human rights law, international criminal law, and Canadian law at the University of the Fraser Valley. "The U.S. is not a member-state of the ICC, and the court should not be holding meetings or accepting calls from the senators of a non-member state trying to undermine the institution's independence and interfere with its work."
Axios noted that Republican lawmakers have "threatened to pass legislation against the ICC if it moves forward with the arrest warrants, which the Biden administration has said it opposes."
The Israeli government, for its part, has reportedly told the Biden administration that it would retaliate against the Palestinian Authority if the ICC issues arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.
The Biden White House has publicly spoken out against the ICC's probe of Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, an investigation that began in 2021.
The U.S. stance has been slammed as hypocritical given the Biden administration's vocal support for the ICC's decision last year to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over war crimes committed in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are parties to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.
In an op-ed for The Guardian earlier this week, former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote that while "the Israeli government is not about to surrender Netanyahu or his deputies for trial," their "travel would suddenly be limited" if the ICC moves ahead with arrest warrants.
"Although the U.S. never joined the court, European governments have, meaning that suddenly Europe and much of the rest of the world would be out of bounds for those charged without risking arrest," Roth observed. "It would also make it more difficult for Washington and London to pretend that their ongoing arming of the Israeli military is not contributing to war crimes."
"In addition, an initial round of charges would be an implicit threat of more," he continued. "As Netanyahu contemplates a potential invasion of Gaza's southernmost city of Rafah despite 1.4 million Palestinians sheltering there, he must worry about whether more civilian deaths would spur Khan to intensify investigation of Israel's apparently indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians. The ICC thus may live up to its potential not only to provide retrospective justice, but also to deter future war crimes."
Mistrial Declared in Abu Ghraib Torture Suit Against US Contractor
"This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history," one plaintiff vowed.
The federal judge presiding over a case filed by three Iraqis who were tortured by U.S. military contractors in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison two decades ago declared a mistrial Thursday after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
After eight days of deliberation—a longer period than the trial itself—the eight civil jurors in Alexandria deadlocked over whether employees of CACI conspired with soldiers to torture detainees. The Virginia-based professional services and information technology firm was hired in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration to provide translators and interrogators in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion and occupation, conspired with soldiers to torture detainees.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema—who said Wednesday that "it's a very difficult case"—declared a mistrial.
Plaintiff Salah Al-Ejaili toldThe Guardian that "it is enough that we tried and didn't remain silent."
"We might not have received justice yet in our just case today, but what is more important is that we made it to trial and spoke up so the world could hear from us directly," he added. "This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights—which filed the case—said that "we are, of course, disappointed by the jury's failure to reach a unanimous verdict in favor of our plaintiffs despite the wealth of evidence."
"But we remain awed by the courage of our clients, who have fought for justice for their torment for 16 years," Azmy added. "We look forward to the opportunity to present our case again."
Al Shimari v. CACI, which was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute—a law allowing non-U.S. citizens to sue for human rights abuses committed abroad—plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Zuba'e, and Al-Ejaili accused CACI of conspiring with the U.S. military to perpetrate war crimes including torture at Abu Ghraib. The men suffered broken bones, electric shocks, sexual abuse, extreme temperatures, and death threats at the hands of their U.S. interrogators.
The case marked the first time a U.S. jury heard a case brought by Abu Ghraib survivors. Along with the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, the prison became synonymous worldwide with U.S. torture during the War on Terror. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died while in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners suffered torture and abuse ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A 2004 probe by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba found that the majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners—the Red Cross said 70-90%—were innocent. Women and girls were also imprisoned at Abu Ghraib as bargaining chips to lure militants wanted for resisting the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of their homeland. Some reported rape and sexual abuse by their captors, which reportedly led to the "honor killing" murders of multiple women.
CACI denies any wrongdoing and still gets millions of dollars worth of U.S. government contracts each year. In February, Fortunenamed CACI one of the "World's Most Admired Companies" for the seventh consecutive year.
As Hobbs Signs Repeal, Arizonans Push Abortion Rights Ballot Measure
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," said the campaign behind the ballot initiative.
While Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs on Thursday signed legislation repealing an 1864 abortion ban, reproductive rights advocates in the state reiterated that fuller freedom over family planning requires passing a November ballot measure.
In response to an
Arizona Republic opinion piece noting that there is no emergency clause in House Bill 2677, the law repealing the ban, "which means it won't go off the books until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns," Arizona for Abortion Access stressed that "Arizonans will still be living under a law that denies us the right to make decisions about our own health."
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," the campaign behind the ballot initiative said, adding that only passing the Arizona Abortion Access Act "changes that for good."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient. Arizonans were fighting for it even before the state Supreme Court reinstated the 160-year-old ban.
Even Hobbs recognized that the battle for reproductive freedom is far from over, saying Thursday that "today, we should not rest, but we should recommit to protecting women's bodily autonomy, their ability to make their own healthcare decisions, and the ability to control their lives."
"Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor's office," the Democrat pledged.
Her signature came just a day after the Arizona Senate approved H.B. 2677, following its state House passage last month. In both cases, a couple of Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to advance the legislation—defying not only party members in the state but a national GOP that is hellbent on ending access to abortion care.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Wednesday that the Senate vote "to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state" and she was looking forward to Hobbs signing the bill.
"However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year," Mayes acknowledged. "Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner pointed out that "on Tuesday—though technically unrelated—Mayes' office asked the Arizona Supreme Court to stay the issuance of the mandate in the case holding the near-total ban enforceable."
According to Geidner:
If granted, that would push the issuance of the mandate to July 25—90 days beyond the date when the Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayes' request for reconsideration—which would then block enforcement to at least 45 days beyond that, to September 8.
At that point, the repeal law passed on Wednesday likely will have gone into effect—meaning that the 15-week ban would remain the applicable law throughout this entire time—and the expected vote on the proposed constitutional amendment will be less than two months away.
Planned Parenthood Arizona took similar action after the Senate vote on Wednesday. The group's CEO, Angela Florez, explained that "we have said all along that we will use every possible avenue to safeguard essential care for our patients and all Arizonans, and that's exactly what we're doing with today's motion."
"While anti-abortion extremists in the state Legislature will continue to do everything in their power to undermine Arizonans' freedom and criminalize essential healthcare, Planned Parenthood Arizona is taking action to prevent a harmful total ban on abortion from taking effect in our state," Florez continued. "The court's April 9 ruling was both tragic and wrong, but it rested on trying to discern legislative intent. The Legislature has now spoken and clearly does not want the 1864 ban to be enforced."
"We hope the court stays true to its word and respects this long-overdue legislative action, by quickly granting our motion to end the uncertainty over the future of abortion in Arizona," added Florez, whose group supports the ballot measure.