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, and 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 after him as their toddler played in sand strewn with 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 foreign, 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."
Senate Hearing Exposes Big Oil's 'Campaign of Deception and Distraction'
The U.S. Senate Budget Committee held a hearing Wednesday morning on the ongoing efforts of major fossil fuel companies and trade groups to delay climate action while deceptively painting themselves as part of the solution.
The hearing was based on an investigation launched by the House Oversight Committee in 2021 into the activities and communications of Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Chamber of Commerce. Both committees released the resulting report, Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil's Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change, on Tuesday.
"Our investigation uncovered compelling evidence of aggressive industry deceit which continues to this day," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said in his Senate testimony Wednesday. "The joint report and documents we discovered show how, time and again, the biggest oil and gas corporations say one thing for the purposes of public consumption but do something completely different to protect their profits. Company officials will admit the terrifying reality of their business model behind closed doors but say something entirely different, false, and soothing to the public."
"Policymakers and prosecutors must act swiftly to hold this rogue industry accountable for the climate chaos it has knowingly caused and bring its days of drill, deny, and delay to an end."
Raskin detailed key findings of the House investigation. The companies and trade groups:
- Made public pledges to abide by the Paris agreement that they internally acknowledged were impossible;
- Shifted from denying climate science to boosting natural gas and lying about being part of the solution;
- Publicized investments in low-carbon technologies that they internally admitted were unlikely to work;
- Depended on trade associations to promote their climate deceptions and lobby against effective climate action; and
- Used partnerships with academic institutes to greenwash their image while also influencing research and gaining access to politicians.
"Big Oil's corruption is even more far-reaching than we feared," Cassidy DiPaola, spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, told Common Dreams in response to the hearing. "This investigation exposes how these companies have not only lied to the public for decades, but infiltrated the halls of academia to peddle their climate disinformation."
Raskin gave several notable examples of corporate malfeasance from the House investigation. For example, while BP promotes its commitment to the Paris agreement on its website, it admitted in an email that "no one is committed to anything, other than to stay in the game." He also noted that ExxonMobil spent almost 50% of the amount it used for researching and developing algae as a biofuel between 2009 and 2023 on advertising its efforts.
Further, the companies did not cooperate with the investigation: They had to be subpoenaed to provide meaningful information, and they buried substantial documents in a "paper blizzard" of useless files like mass emails.
"If the companies had fully complied in good faith, who knows what else we might have uncovered?" Raskin asked.
In addition to Raskin, the Senate committee also heard testimony from Sharon Eubanks, the former director of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Tobacco Litigation Team; Geoffrey Supran, an associate professor of environmental science and policy and the director of the University of Miami's Climate Accountability Lab; Ariel Cohen, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and managing director of the Energy, Growth, and Security Program at the International Tax Investment Center; and Michael Ratner, a specialist in energy policy at the Congressional Research Service.
"As a scholar of disinformation, I do not use the word 'lie' lightly," Supran said during his testimony. "But no other word adequately describes the oil industry's brazen efforts to mislead the public about its history of misleading the public."
Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media said the hearing was a "huge deal, not just because of what it's revealing about Big Oil's history of climate deception, but because it's laying the groundwork for Congress to finally hold the industry accountable and make polluters pay."
Both speakers at the hearing and senators outlined various ways the industry might be held accountable. Raskin highlighted the similarities between Big Oil's lies about its products' impact on climate and the tobacco industry's lies about its products' impact on human health.
"More than 20 years ago, the Department of Justice brought a precedent-setting case against the cigarette companies," Raskin said. "That case liberated our minds from the tyranny of Big Tobacco and reverberated across America and the world. As a result, the public learned about the massive disinformation campaign waged by the tobacco industry; the companies were ordered to cease and desist their propaganda and to start telling the truth to the public; and governments and people around the world used the facts uncovered to battle the tobacco industry effectively for financial restitution and defense of the public health."
The possibility that the DOJ could bring a similar case against oil companies was reinforced by Eubanks, who told the Senate: "There exists solid evidentiary basis to move forward with a request to the Department of Justice to investigate the actions of the fossil fuel industry. Just as the Department of Justice investigated the tobacco industry and ultimately filed a civil racketeering complaint against the industry, given the similarities of the fraudulent acts, and the government's successful case against tobacco, there is adequate foundation for building a case."
In response, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said, "It is time for the Department of Justice to step in and defeat Big Oil's efforts to withhold the truth from the American people."
Another avenue for accountability was laid out by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who spoke up in favor of his Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which would use science attributing carbon dioxide and methane emissions to specific companies to then charge those companies for their climate pollution, putting the funds to work for a just transition to renewable energy.
"The idea is simple: The companies who pollute the most, should pay the most," Van Hollen said.
Climate and good governance groups supported the move toward accountability.
"Policymakers and prosecutors must act swiftly to hold this rogue industry accountable for the climate chaos it has knowingly caused and bring its days of drill, deny, and delay to an end," DiPaola told Common Dreams.
David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, said of fossil fuel deception, "It's criminal conduct, and our leaders and legal system should treat it as such."
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) pointed out that it is now possible to attribute rising temperatures, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and more frequent and extreme wildfires to the extraction and burning of oil, gas, and coal.
"This joint congressional investigation is an important step toward ending the fossil fuel industry's lies and obstruction of critical climate action," Kathy Mulvey, the accountability campaign director in UCS' Climate and Energy Program, said. "The internal industry documents released to the public and the testimony at this hearing add to the already considerable mountain of evidence illustrating misconduct by fossil fuel corporations and their surrogates. We urge policymakers and public prosecutors to move expeditiously to pursue accountability through every means at their disposal."
"We're getting to the point where it may be politically possible to actually take on the bad guys."
Reflecting on the hearing on his Substack, Bill McKibbenpointed to another important development it represented: a shift in the attitude of senior Democrats toward fossil gas, which both Raskin and Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) noted was not as clean as the industry pretended. In the past, Democratic leaders including former President Barack Obama had promoted the idea that gas could be a bridge fuel because it emits less carbon dioxide than coal when burned. But new evidence revealing how much methane its production leaks belies this claim.
"The fossil fuel industry desperately wants to lock in more dependence on fracked gas while they still can—that's why they reacted with such white-hot anger to the Biden administration's pause on permits for new [liquefied natural gas] export facilities earlier this year," McKibben wrote. "But the hope raised by today's hearing is that—if [President Joe] Biden wins reelection—that pause may become permanent, and the expansion of natural gas will finally be halted, recognized for the deep peril that it is."
While the Biden administration has so far focused on promoting renewable energy rather than reducing fossil fuel production, with measures such as the Inflation Reduction Act, the hearing showed that "we're getting to the point where it may be politically possible to actually take on the bad guys," McKibben said.
Indeed, Raskin did not mince works as he concluded his testimony. He referenced Jared Diamond's book Collapse and its assertion that one contribution to a civilization's demise is "the capture of political and social power by a narrow subset of society, which is committed to its own profit and power rather than the common good of the whole society and therefore refuses to take the steps necessary for collective survival."
"Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction undermines the efforts we need to mobilize our people and government to save our climate, our habitat, and our species," Raskin said. "Unless the deception ends, and until the industry is held accountable, we are unlikely ever to be able to muster the national political will to effectively tackle climate change."
Top G20 Ministers Back 2% Wealth Tax for Global Billionaires
Ministers from four major economies on Thursday called for a 2% wealth tax targeting the world's billionaires—who currently only pay up to 0.5% of their wealth in personal income tax—to "invest in public goods such as health, education, the environment, and infrastructure."
Fernando Haddad, Brazil's finance minister; Svenja Schulze, Germany's minister for economic cooperation and development; Enoch Godongwana, South Africa's finance minister; Carlos Cuerpo, Spain's minister of economy, trade, and business; and María Jesús Montero, Spain's first vice president and finance minister, made their case in an opinion piece for The Guardian.
"The argument behind such tax is straightforward: We need to enhance the ability of our tax systems to fulfill the principle of fairness, such that contributions are in line with the capacity to pay," they explained. "Persisting loopholes in the system imply that high-net-worth individuals can minimize their income taxes."
"What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Brazil, Germany, and South Africa are all Group of 20 members while Spain is a permanent guest. The ministers noted that "Brazil has made the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality a priority of its G20 presidency, a priority that German development policy also pursues and that Spain has ambitiously addressed domestically and globally."
"By directing two-thirds of total expenditure on social services and wage support, as well as by calibrating tax policy administration, South Africa continues to target a progressive tax and fiscal agenda that confronts the country's legacy of income and wealth inequality," they wrote.
The ministers continued:
It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods. One of the key instruments that governments have for promoting more equality is tax policy. Not only does it have the potential to increase the fiscal space governments have to invest in social protection, education, and climate protection. Designed in a progressive way, it also ensures that everyone in society contributes to the common good in line with their ability to pay. A fair share contribution enhances social welfare.
With exactly these goals in mind, Brazil brought a proposal for a global minimum tax on billionaires to the negotiation table of the world's major economies for the first time. It is a necessary third pillar that complements the negotiations on the taxation of the digital economy and on a minimum corporate tax of 15% for multinationals. The renowned economist Gabriel Zucman sketched out how this might work. Currently, there are about 3,000 billionaires worldwide. The tax could be designed as a minimum levy equivalent to 2% of the wealth of the superrich. It would not apply to billionaires who already contribute a fair share in income taxes. However, those who manage to avoid paying income tax would be obliged to contribute more towards the common good.
The five ministers cited estimates suggesting that "such a tax would potentially unlock an additional $250 billion in annual tax revenues globally—this is roughly the amount of economic damages caused by extreme weather events last year."
"Of course, the argument that billionaires can easily shift their fortunes to low-tax jurisdictions and thus avoid the levy is a strong one. And this is why such a tax reform belongs on the agenda of the G20," they added. "International cooperation and global agreements are key to making such tax effective. What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott reported Thursday that "Zucman is now fleshing out the technical details of a plan that will again be discussed by the G20 in June. France has indicated support for a wealth tax and Brazil has been encouraged that the U.S., while not backing a global wealth tax, did not oppose it."
The French economist told Elliott that "billionaires have the lowest effective tax rate of any social group. Having people with the highest ability to pay tax paying the least—I don't think anybody supports that."
Except the billionaires, of course. "I don't want to be naive. I know the superrich will fight," Zucman added. "They have a hatred of taxes on wealth. They will lobby governments. They will use the media they own."
A few months ago, no one wanted to talk int. taxes, let alone on the super rich. Now we have a process (#G20), finance ministers (\ud83c\udde7\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddff\ud83c\udde6 \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddf8 & others) supporting it, \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddea in part & everyone agreeing that proceeds should help fund climate and dev: https://t.co/ZldF557pAL— (@)
The ministers' opinion piece follows the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank's Spring Meetings last week, during which anti-poverty campaigners pressured the largest economies to address inequality with policies like taxing the superrich and to pour resources into the global debt and climate crises.
"The IMF and World Bank say that tackling inequality is a priority but in the same breath back policies that drive up the divide between the rich and the rest," Kate Donald, head of Oxfam International's Washington D.C. office, said last week. "Ordinary people struggle more and more every day to make up for cuts to the public funding of healthcare, education, and transportation. This high-stakes hypocrisy has to end."
Oxfam America policy lead Rebecca Riddell declared Thursday that "extreme inequality stands in the way of solving our most urgent global challenges. We need to tax the ultrawealthy."
"Read this brilliant new op-ed on the case for a global tax on billionaires, by ministers from Brazil, Germany, South Africa, and Spain," Riddell added, posting the piece on social media.
Jewish Groups Decry House Passage of Bill Defining Criticism of Israel as 'Antisemitism'
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to approve legislation directing the U.S. Department of Education to consider a dubious definition of antisemitism, despite warnings from Jewish-led groups that the measure speciously conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with bigotry against Jewish people.
House members approved the
Antisemitism Awareness Act—bipartisan legislation introduced last year by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) in the lower chamber and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate—by a vote of 320-91.
Both progressive Democrats and far-right Republicans opposed language in the bill. The former objected to conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, while the latter bristled at labeling Christian scripture—which posits that Jews killed Jesus—as antisemitic.
"Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, one doesn't need to look far to find it these days. But the supporters of this bill are looking in the wrong places," Hadar Susskind, president and CEO of the Jewish-led group Americans for Peace Now, said following Wednesday's vote.
"They aren't interested in protecting Jews," he added. "They are interested in supporting right-wing views and narratives on Israel and shutting down legitimate questions and criticisms by crying 'antisemite' at everyone, including Jews" who oppose Israel's far-right government.
"With this disingenuous effort, House Republicans have failed to seriously address antisemitism," Susskind added. "I hope the Senate does better."
The legislation—officially H.R. 6090—would require the Department of Education to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism when determining whether alleged harassment is motivated by antisemitic animus and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance," including colleges and universities.
Lawler's office called the proposal "a key step in calling out antisemitism where it is and ensuring antisemitic hate crimes on college campuses are properly investigated and prosecuted," while Gottheimer emphasized that "the IHRA definition underscores that antisemitism includes denying Jewish self-determination to their ancestral homeland of Israel... and applying double standards to Israel."
Critics say that's the trouble with the IHRA working definition: It conflates legitimate criticism and condemnation of Israeli policies and practices with anti-Jewish bigotry, and forces people to accept the legitimacy of a settler-colonial apartheid state engaged in illegal occupation and a "plausibly" genocidal war on Gaza.
As the ACLU noted last week in a letter urging lawmakers to reject the legislation:
The IHRA working definition... is overbroad. It equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, and enshrining it into regulation would chill the exercise of First Amendment rights and risk undermining the Department of Education's legitimate and important efforts to combat discrimination. Criticism of Israel and its policies is political speech, squarely protected by the First Amendment. But the IHRA working definition declares that "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor," "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," and "applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" are all examples of antisemitism.
Jewish Voice for Peace Action
slammed what it called IHRA's "controversial and dangerous mis-definition that does not help fight real antisemitism and is only a tool for silencing the movement for Palestinian rights."
"The Israeli government's bombardment and siege of Gaza has killed over 34,000 people in six months," the group said on social media. "Congress must stop attacking the students and faculty members who are trying to stop this genocide, and instead focus on ending U.S. complicity in Israel's attacks."
Israel's Gaza onslaught has sparked a wave of nonviolent student-led protests across the United States and around the world. Some of these protests have been violently repressed by police, while anti-genocide activists including Jews have been branded "antisemitic" for condemning Israeli crimes or defending Palestinians' legal right to resist them.
Sending in militarized police and snipers to stop students from exercising their First Amendment rights is truly disgusting.
Why are my colleagues and the mainstream media more outraged over these anti-war protests than they are about the over 35,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza? pic.twitter.com/EwLqRrS2we
— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) May 1, 2024
Americans for Peace Now said that while it is "deeply concerned about the escalating antisemitism in the United States and globally," the legislation "poses a significant threat to free speech and open discourse."
"Equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism is a tactic used to stifle important discussions on Israeli policies and actions, thereby hindering the broader effort to combat true instances of hatred and discrimination against Jewish communities," the group added.
Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Centre for the Study of Hate and lead drafter of the IHRA working definition, warned years ago that "Jewish groups have used the definition as a weapon to say anti-Zionist expressions are inherently antisemitic and must be suppressed."
"Imagine if Black Lives Matter said the most important thing the [Biden] administration could do to remedy systemic racism is adopt a definition of racism, and that definition included this example: opposition to affirmative action," Stern wrote in 2020.
"Obviously, sometimes opposition to affirmative action is racist and sometimes it is not," he added. "The debate about systemic racism would be changed to a free speech fight, and those with reasonable concerns about affirmative action correctly upset that the state was branding them racist."
Professors, Speakers Cut Ties With Universities Over Police Crackdowns on Protests
Repercussions of American universities' crackdowns on student protesters are becoming increasingly evident this week as faculty members, public speakers, and others who collaborate with higher education institutions announced they would cut ties with schools that have repressed students' constitutional right to protest against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza.
On Thursday, Dipali Mukhopadhyay, a former Columbia University professor who is still affiliated with the school's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, announced on social media that she had written to Columbia President Minouche Shafik to ask that her "current affiliation with the university be removed."
"I have watched with horror as your administration has responded with breathtaking incompetence and inhumanity to peaceful student protest against genocidal violence ongoing in Gaza," wrote Mukhopadhyay. "As a teacher and a scholar, I can no longer justify my association with this institution so long as you are at the helm."
Mukhopadhyay's letter to the prestigious Ivy League school came two days after the New York Police Department forcibly removed student protesters from Hamilton Hall, which they had occupied to demand that Columbia divest from companies that contract with the Israeli government. The officers entered the building—which the students had renamed Hind's Hall in honor of a six-year-old girl who was killed by Israeli forces in January—with guns drawn, and reportedly used tear gas to disperse demonstrators outside.
On Wednesday, End Climate Silence founder Genevieve Guenther announced she was canceling her scheduled keynote address at Columbia's symposium on climate and language, which she was supposed to give Friday.
Guenther expressed sorrow that she would not move forward with the talk, but said that being associated with Columbia "at this political moment" was equivalent to ignoring the school's "authoritarian response to protest."
"Climate protest is being systematically criminalized in the U.S. and even in Europe and the U.K.," said Guenther. "And these authoritarian, anti-First Amendment tactics are not only deployed by the right. Yes, the right wing is targeting climate protests. But Democrats are deploying the same tactics to prevent direct action in support of the lives of Palestinian civilians in Gaza."
Guenther added that she was "deeply ashamed to be associated with this university" as a Columbia graduate, and that she "would FEAR to send [her] son to a place that turns the NYPD in full riot gear on students occupying a building that has been occupied many times before and survived just fine."
Also in New York, Deborah Archer, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, said this week that she would no longer be speaking at the City University of New York School of Law's (CUNY Law) commencement ceremony due to the school's decision not to allow students to give speeches at the event.
The law school quietly made its decision last September, weeks before Israel began bombarding Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7, in response to last year's commencement speech by Fatima Mousa Mohammed, who spoke about Israel "murdering" Palestinian civilians. The school publicly disavowed Mohammed's comments under pressure.
As the school community learned of the prohibition on student commencement speakers, eight students filed a lawsuit last week, and on Monday, Archer said she was withdrawing from her speaking engagement.
"I cannot, as a leader of the nation's oldest guardian of free expression, participate in an event in which students believe that their voices are being excluded," said Archer. "I feel compelled to decline the invitation under the circumstances."
Two renowned authors also informed University of Southern California (USC) on Sunday that they will not speak at upcoming events due to the school's deployment of armed officers to arrest 93 student protesters in recent weeks and its decision to keep 2024 valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim supporter of Palestinian rights, from delivering a commencement address.
"To speak at USC in this moment would betray not only our own values, but USC's too," wrote C Pam Zhang and Safiya Noble. "We cannot overlook the link between recent developments and the ongoing genocide in Palestine."
"Our withdrawal is in no way a condemnation of USC's graduating class, who deserve to be celebrated; nor do we condemn the countless USC faculty, staff, students, and administrators whose views are not represented by university leadership's authoritarian decision-making," the authors added.
Zhang and Noble, who had been scheduled to speak at USC's doctoral and master's degree commencement ceremonies, called on speakers at the graduations of 38 USC satellite campuses "to join us by signing this letter; withdrawing from USC events; and supporting USC students, as well as thousands of students nationwide who deserve respect, not arrest and punishment by their own universities, for courageously speaking truth to power."
Last week, more than 2,100 academics from across the globe signed a statement expressing solidarity with student and faculty protesters and supporting an "academic and cultural boycott" of the school.
Former New Yorker editor Erin Overbey on Wednesday called on "all journalists of conscience" to boycott the Pulitzer Prizes, which are administered by Columbia and are set to be awarded next week. The NYPD threatened student journalists and Columbia School of Journalism Dean Jelani Cobb with arrest during its raid of Hamilton Hall this week.
"Can't wait for the president of Columbia University to tell my industry what's good journalism at the Pulitzers next week," said Matt Pearce, president of the Media Guild of the West. "Try not to trip over any hogtied student journalists while collecting your award."
While the Pulitzer Prize Board on Thursday put out a statement praising "the tireless efforts of student journalists across our nation's college campuses, who are covering protests and unrest in the face of great personal and academic risk," it faced criticism for using passive voice when noting that the NYPD "was called onto campus" at Columbia.
Putin's Tactical Nuclear Weapons Drills Called 'Dangerous and Irresponsible'
Disarmament advocates on Monday denounced the Russian Defense Ministry's plans to hold tactical nuclear weapons drills "in the near future," an announcement that came over two years into Russia's war on Ukraine.
"Russia announcing nuclear weapons exercises near Ukraine is dangerous and irresponsible. It must be widely condemned," the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) declared on social media. "This kind of brinkmanship, typical of 'nuclear deterrence' thinking, can spiral out of control and result in catastrophe."
'"Saber-rattling' like this is part of how all nuclear-armed states show they are serious about using nuclear weapons. But it's reckless: It increases the risk of nuclear weapons use, whether intentionally or by accident, at a time when it is at its highest since the Cold War," ICAN continued. "And let's not forget these 'exercises' train military personnel to mass murder civilians in seconds."
While strategic nuclear weapons are intended to wipe out cities, nonstrategic or tactical arms have shorter ranges and lower yields, and are designed for battlefield use. However, as ICAN highlighted, "'tactical' nuclear weapons could have up to 20 times the destructive power of the bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima."'
"What is needed now is de-escalation. Russia can still stop the exercises and should be called on to do so immediately by all states," the group said, urging all "responsible states opposed to nuclear drills and nuclear blackmail" to join the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), passage of which
earned ICAN the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
Since invading Ukraine in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials have
ramped up fears of nuclear war. Russia has the largest arsenal of the nine nuclear-armed nations, followed closely by the United States—which has armed Ukrainians throughout the ongoing war. The other countries known to have nukes are China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. None of them support the TPNW.
As
Reutersreported on Monday:
Some Western and Ukrainian officials have said Russia is bluffing over nuclear weapons to scare the West, though the Kremlin has repeatedly indicated that it would consider breaking the nuclear taboo if Russia's existence was threatened.
"We do not see anything new here," said Andriy Yusov, a spokesperson for Ukrainian military intelligence. "Nuclear blackmail is a constant practice of Putin's regime."
The Russian Defense Ministry said Monday that its exercises would involve troops of the Southern Military District—which, as The New York Timesnoted, is "an area that covers Russian-occupied Ukraine and part of Russia's border region with Ukraine."
The ministry explained on social media that its plans "to practice the preparation and use of nonstrategic nuclear weapons" come "in response to provocative statements and threats of individual Western officials against the Russian Federation."
Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, echoed that reasoning for the drills, citing statements from British, French, and U.S. officials, according toTASS. He also told reporters that "deploying NATO soldiers to confront the Russian military in the latest escalation of tensions is an unprecedented move. And, of course, it requires special attention and special measures."
NATO in January launched the Steadfast Defender 2024 drills—its largest exercises since the Cold War, involving more than 90,000 troops, over 1,000 combat vehicles, and dozens of ships and aircraft. The drills in Poland are due to end this month.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said that while "Putin has previously used nuclear rhetoric against [the] West during his war in Ukraine," this is the first time he knows of that the Russian leader has ordered tactical nuke drills in this district "with explicit reference to West," and it is "obviously intended as a signal."
"For NATO this is an opportunity to double down on condemnation of nuclear threats, reaffirm that nuclear war can't be won and should never be fought, and study how Russia operates its tac nuke forces in exercise," the expert added. "Just don't take the bait and respond with NATO nuke operations!"
Pavel Podvig, the Geneva-based director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project, agreed that "this is, of course, a signal." He urged Western leaders to "avoid... getting sucked into this" and rally the world around the message that "nuclear threats are inadmissible."
Responding to Podvig's remarks on social media, former ICAN executive director Beatrice Fihn pointed out that over 70 nations condemned threats to use nuclear weapons at the first TPNW meeting.
"I wish more NATO states would work with the TPNW states that have close connections to Russia to strengthen and support this kind of work," she said.
Trustee Reports Show Medicare, Social Security Must Be Defended From Trump
"The future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress," said one campaigner.
Advocacy groups, congressional Democrats, and U.S. President Joe Biden's reelection campaign on Monday pointed to new government reports on Medicare and Social Security as proof that the key programs must be protected from Republican attacks.
The annual trustee reports show that Social Security is projected to be fully funded until 2035, a year later than previously thought, while Medicare is expected to be fully funded until 2036, five years beyond the earlier projection.
Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November, "proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office, he's said repeatedly he would cut them, his allies openly plan to target them, and just this weekend he dismissed them as bribes," noted James Singer, a spokesperson for the Democrat's campaign.
"Let's be clear, Donald Trump will steal the hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits Americans have been paying into their entire lives and he'll use it to fund tax cuts for rich people like him," Singer warned. "President Biden keeps his promises. He has and will continue to protect Social Security and Medicare from MAGA Republican efforts to cut them—Donald Trump won't."
"No doubt we will hear cries from so-called 'fiscal conservatives' that Social Security is going 'bankrupt,' supposedly requiring Draconian measures—which couldn't be further than the truth."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Monday that "current and future American retirees should feel confident about both Medicare and Social Security, which [are] stronger due to the robust economy under President Biden. But the future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress."
Fiesta highlighted that Biden's latest budget "calls for strengthening" the programs whereas Trump recently said that "there is a lot you can do... in terms of cutting" them and "the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes around 80% of House Republicans, stands ready to make cuts as well."
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, similarly declared that "today's report shows that our Social Security system is benefiting from the Biden economy. Due to robust job growth, low unemployment, and rising wages, more people than ever are contributing to Social Security and earning its needed protections."
"That said, Congress should take action sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security's modest benefits," she argued, noting various plans from Democrats in Congress that "are paid for by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute more of their fair share."
Unlike Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., "Republicans want to cut benefits despite overwhelming opposition from the American people," Altman said of federal lawmakers and the former president. Additionally, "Trump plans to sharply restrict immigration. This would harm Social Security by reducing the number of workers paying in."
"The United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth at the wealthiest moment in our history. We can use that wealth to protect and expand Social Security, or to provide yet more tax handouts to billionaires," she concluded. "This report is a reminder that the next decade is a crucial one for Social Security's future. Americans should vote accordingly this November."
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, also asserted that "Congress must act NOW to strengthen Social Security for the 67 million Americans who depend on it. We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983."
According to Richtman:
No doubt we will hear cries from so-called 'fiscal conservatives' that Social Security is going 'bankrupt,' supposedly requiring Draconian measures—which couldn't be further than the truth. Revenue always will flow into Social Security from workers' payroll contributions, so the program will never be 'broke.' But no one wants seniors to suffer an automatic 17% benefit cut in 2035, so Congress must act deliberately, but not recklessly. A bad deal driven by cuts to earned benefits could be worse than no deal at all.
We strongly support revenue-side solutions that would bring more money into the trust fund by demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has offered legislation that would do just that—by maintaining the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well—and dedicating some of high earners' investment income to Social Security. Rep. Larson's bill also would provide seniors with a much-needed benefit boost.
Larson was among the lawmakers who responded to Monday's Social Security report by demanding urgent action. The Democrat also called out his Republican colleagues for pushing cuts and trying to "ram their dangerous plan through an undemocratic and unaccountable so-called 'fiscal commission,'" which critics have dubbed a "death panel."
"The Social Security 2100 Act is co-sponsored by nearly 200 House Democrats and would improve benefits across the board while extending solvency until 2066, while Donald Trump and House Republicans continue their calls to slash Americans' hard-earned benefits!" Larson said. "By contrast, President Joe Biden and Democrats are working to strengthen Social Security, not cut it."
Co-sponsors of Larson's bill include Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
"Social Security is the greatest anti-poverty program in history, and ensuring its solvency for future generations has been one of my top priorities in Congress," Boyle said Monday, promoting the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, his bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "Unfortunately, while Democrats and President Biden want to protect Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have made clear they want to tear them down."
'War Criminals': IDF Strikes Rafah After Hamas Agrees to Cease-Fire
"Why?" asked Israeli lawmaker Ofer Cassif. "Because killing Palestinians is more important for the Israeli government than saving Israelis."
Israel on Monday launched long-awaited strikes on Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip despite Hamas publicly confirming it agreed to a cease-fire and hostage release proposal from Egyptian and Qatari mediators.
The Israel Defense Forces said on social media that "the IDF is currently conducting targeted strikes against Hamas terror targets in eastern Rafah," the city to which over a million Palestinians have fled since October 7, when Israel launched a retaliatory war that has already killed at least 34,735 people in Gaza and wounded another 78,108.
Earlier Monday, the IDF had dropped leaflets directing residents and refugees in that part of Rafah to relocate to a strip along Gaza's coast, ignoring warnings from the international community and humanitarian groups that a full-scale Israeli attack on the crowded city would further endanger civilians and relief efforts.
"It is obvious Netanyahu wants this genocidal war to continue indefinitely so that he can remain in power."
In addition to sparking outrage around the world, the Israeli government's Rafah attack and rejection of the Hamas-backed proposal was met with criticism from people across Israel. The Associated Pressreported that "thousands of Israelis rallied around the country Monday night calling for an immediate deal to release the hostages still held in the Gaza Strip."
Ofer Cassif, a member of the Knesset who was almost expelled by fellow Israeli lawmakers earlier this year for backing South Africa's ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), again called out his own government.
"Israeli tanks and infantry enter east Rafah while planes bomb from above, just hours after Hamas' decision to accept the hostages/prisoners exchange deal," Cassif said Monday. "Why? Because killing Palestinians is more important for the Israeli government than saving Israelis. War criminals!"
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that "the War Cabinet unanimously decided this evening Israel will continue its operation in Rafah, in order to apply military pressure on Hamas so as to advance the release of our hostages and achieve the other objectives of the war."
Along with the prime minister, Israel's War Cabinet includes Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz, former IDF chief of the general staff, along with three observers.
Netanyahu added that "while the Hamas proposal is far from meeting Israel's core demands, Israel will dispatch a ranking delegation to Egypt in an effort to maximize the possibility of reaching an agreement on terms acceptable to Israel."
Reutersreported that "an Israeli official said the deal was not acceptable to Israel because terms had been 'softened.'"
According to the news outlet, the first part of a three-phase plan that Hamas—which has controlled Gaza for nearly two decades—agreed to includes a 42-day pause in fighting, the release of 33 hostages held by the group and some Palestinians in Israeli jails, a partial IDF withdrawal, and free movement in the besieged enclave.
Phase two would be "another 42-day period that features an agreement to restore a 'sustainable calm' to Gaza, language that an official briefed on the talks said Hamas and Israel had agreed in order to take discussion of a 'permanent cease-fire' off the table," Reuters detailed. This phase also includes withdrawing most Israeli troops and Hamas releasing some soldiers and reservists.
The third phase would involve the exchange of bodies; reconstruction of Gaza overseen by Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations; and ending the complete blockade on the strip, the outlet added.
Shortly before Israel's Monday night strikes on Rafah began, Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, said that the U.N. chief "reiterates his pressing call to both the government of Israel and the leadership of Hamas to go the extra mile needed to make an agreement come true and stop the present suffering."
Expressing concern about the then-imminent Israeli operation in Rafah, the spokesperson said that "we are already seeing movements of people—many of these people are in desperate humanitarian condition and have been repeatedly displaced. They search safety that has been so many times denied. The secretary-general reminds the parties that the protection of civilians is paramount in international humanitarian law."
Other U.N. officials have been warning of what an assault on Rafah will mean for the over 1.4 million Palestinians there, among them 600,000 children. So have humanitarian and political leaders, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who on Monday urged President Joe Biden to stand by his earlier position that attacking the city was a "red line" and "end all offensive military aid to Israel."
Council on American-Islamic Relations national executive director Nihad Awad issued a similar call Monday evening, warning that "the Israeli government is hellbent on using American financial, military, and diplomatic support to ethnically cleanse what remains of Gaza and commit another massacre."
"President Biden must stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu and take concrete action to end the genocide now," Awad continued, nodding to the Israeli leader's legal trouble. The prime minister faces not only potential consequences on a global scale for what the ICJ has deemed a "plausibly" genocidal war on Gaza but also a corruption trial in his own country.
"It is obvious Netanyahu wants this genocidal war to continue indefinitely so that he can remain in power, avoid jail, and fulfill his racist, far-right Cabinet's demands for the complete destruction of Gaza and the massacre of its people," Awad said. "It is long past time for President Biden to end our nation's complicity in this 21st-century genocide."
Biden spoke with Netanyahu by phone ahead of the IDF strikes on Monday and "reiterated his clear position on Rafah," according to a White House readout. They also discussed the hostage negotiations, humanitarian aid, the Holocaust, and antisemitism.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, also suggested that the Israeli prime minister wants the bloodshed in Gaza to continue for personal reasons.
"Netanyahu does not want an end to the war because the moment the war ends, his political career ends as well. And his prison sentence will commence," said Parsi. "Yet, Biden has for seven months deferred to Netanyahu."
Pulitzer Snubs Palestinian Journalists' Gaza Coverage
The Pulitzer Prize Board avoided "naming the brave Palestinian journalists who did the reporting and filming and died in record numbers," said one journalist.
In recent years, the Pulitzer Prize Board has given special recognition to the journalists of Ukraine and Afghanistan for reporting from war zones, honoring their "courage, endurance, and commitment to truthful reporting" and their ability to tell their communities' stories under "profoundly tragic and complicated circumstances."
On Monday, no such recognition was given to Palestinian reporters in Gaza, at least 92 of whom have been among more than 34,000 Palestinians killed in the enclave since Israel began its bombardment in October.
The annual journalism and literature awards included a special citation for "journalists and media workers covering the war in Gaza"—but didn't differentiate between those around the world who have spent the last seven months telling the story of Israel's escalation from the safety of far-off countries, and those struggling to report on the destruction of their own home under the constant threat of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacks.
"The missing word is—is always—Palestinian," said Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG). "Palestinian journalists and media workers deserve, if nothing else, this recognition; and half of them are dead."
Public health writer Abdullah Shihipar noted that in 2022, the board awarded the special citation to the "journalists of Ukraine." In 2021, it recognized "women and men of Afghanistan," saying that from "staff and freelance correspondents to interpreters to drivers to hosts, courageous Afghan residents helped produce Pulitzer-winning and Pulitzer-worthy images and stories."
This year, said Intercept journalist Jeremy Scahill, giving a special citation to "'media workers covering the war in Gaza' is a way to avoid naming the brave Palestinian journalists who did the reporting and filming and died in record numbers."
Many of those killed, Scahill added, might not have been had it not been for U.S.-made weapons sold to Israel.
The Pulitzer Prize for international reporting was awarded to The New York Times "for its wide-ranging and revelatory coverage of Hamas' lethal attack in southern Israel on October 7, Israel's intelligence failures, and the Israeli military's sweeping, deadly response in Gaza."
One of the Times' most explosive articles about Israel and Gaza, "Screams Without Words," about the alleged sexual assaults of Israeli victims of the October 7 attack, was not among those submitted for consideration. The article has come under scrutiny because of the anti-Palestinian bias expressed by one of the freelance reporters who worked on it, and questions about its veracity.
WAWOG, which has started a website titledThe New York War Crimes, posted on social media that the Times should have instead been awarded the Pulitzer for "manufacturing consent."
By honoring the Times for its international reporting this year, said City University of New York sociology professor Heba Gowayed, the Pulitzer Prize "lost any credibility it ever had."
The prize is administered by Columbia University, where students have been protesting for weeks against U.S. support for the IDF and against the school's investment in companies that contract with Israel.
Last week, the university called on the New York Police Department to forcibly remove student protesters from a school building; police told student journalists they would be arrested if they left Pulitzer Hall to report on the incident. Student journalists are reportedly still being barred from campus.
Columbia, said Jack Mirkinson of The Nation, announced the Pulitzers "at the exact same time it is clamping down on the press freedom of its own students. You couldn't make it up."