Climate Movement Says ‘Hurricane Helene Must Be a Wake-Up Call’

Spread the love

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

A van flows in floodwaters near the Biltmore Village in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene on September 28, 2024 in Asheville, North Carolina. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

“To those insisting that, ‘This is not the time!’ to have those other conversations, I say: This is *exactly* when we need to be having them,” said one climate scientist.

As emergency crews have worked through the weekend to rescue people and restore essential services across several southeastern U.S. states, green groups in recent days have pointed to the death and damage from Hurricane Helene as just the latest evidence of the need for sweeping action on the climate emergency.

Helene made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane with 140 mph winds in Florida’s Big Bend region late Thursday, then left a path of destruction across hundreds of miles of Georgia, the Carolinas, and Tennessee. As of early Sunday, at least 64 people are confirmed dead—including at least two people in Virginia—though that figure is expected to rise.

“Moody’s Analytics said it expects $15 billion to $26 billion in property damage,” The Associated Press reported Sunday on what is now a post-tropical cyclone. “AccuWeather‘s preliminary estimate of the total damage and economic loss from Helene in the U.S. is between $95 billion and $110 billion.”

The youth-led Sunrise Movement said Sunday that “any reporting about Hurricane Helene needs to be clear—this is not normal. This is not just a tragedy. This is a crime. Fossil fuel companies have known this would happen for the last 50 years. They lied to the public and bought out our government just to make a profit. Make them pay.”

Greenpeace USA similarly declared on social media Saturday that “#HURRICANE HELENE MUST BE A WAKE-UP CALL FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE!”

“We are heartbroken,” the group said, noting the dozens of people killed. “Communities have been devastated. The corporations heating the climate must be held accountable.”

Dozens of communities across the United States have already launched climate liability lawsuits against Big Oil, which knew for decades that fossil fuels would heat the planet but promoted disinformation and raked in huge profits. Recently there have been calls for legal action by the U.S. Department of Justice and potential homicide cases brought by state and local prosecutors.

“Our hearts and solidarity go out to everyone facing the devastation. Please support mutual aid relief efforts and demand oil companies #StartDrillingStartPaying!” Greenpeace said Saturday.

Sunrise executive director Aru Shiney-Aja on Sunday offered a “friendly reminder that fossil fuel companies get 20 BILLION dollars in [government] subsidies every year,” while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “runs out of money to respond to disasters like Helene.”

Both Shiney-Aja and Greenpeace shared footage from Asheville, North Carolina, which endured what Ryan Cole, the assistant director of Buncombe County Emergency Services, described as “biblical flooding.”

Just two years ago, The New Lede reported that “from wildfires racing through the drought-stricken West, to heavy flooding in the central and eastern regions of the United States, extreme weather events are spurring many Americans to seek refuge in more environmentally stable cities, so-called ‘climate havens,'” including Asheville.

This weekend, Asheville—which is over 2,000 feet above sea level and more than 250 miles from the coast—and surrounding communities are contending with disrupted water, power, and communications services due to what officials are reportedly calling “Buncombe County’s own Hurricane Katrina.”

Noting Asheville’s elevation and distance from the coast, Lucky Tran, director of science communications and media relations at Columbia University in New York City, said Sunday that “no place is safe from climate change. We all suffer the consequences. We must all take action. We are all in this together.”

As The New York Times reported Sunday:

People across western North Carolina chainsawed their way to loved ones and drove for hours Saturday on dwindling gas tanks in search of food and power, in what one resident described as a “mini-apocalypse” after Hurricane Helene.

Authorities said the region was facing a historic disaster a day after the powerful storm swept through the Southeast, downing power lines and washing out highways. Landslides, spotty cellphone service, and a gas shortage complicated rescue and recovery efforts. Some stranded people were being airlifted to safety.

Antonia Juhasz, a leading climate and energy journalist and author, said Saturday that “Asheville, North Carolina is being wiped off the map by the worst storm to hit the region in a generation. This is what the climate crisis looks like: the production and use of fossil fuels changes the climate, intensifying extreme weather events and making them more frequent.”

As hurricane scientist Jeff Masters detailed Friday, fossil fuel-driven climate change “makes the strongest hurricanes stronger,” boosts rainfall from such storms, leads to more rapid intensification, and causes sea-level rise that increases storm surge damage.

In an effort to emphasize the climate change connection to extreme weather, from heatwaves to hurricanes, some climate campaigners have suggested naming such events after oil and gas companies.

“What did a Helene ever do to deserve getting this horrific hurricane named after her? We should be naming hurricanes after fossil fuel CEOs instead. How about Hurricane Darren?” said Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn, taking aim at ExxonMobil’s Darren Woods.

Daniel Swain, a climate scientist focused on extreme weather, said on social media Saturday, “The images and stories just beginning to emerge from eastern TN and western NC in the aftermath of widespread catastrophic flooding wrought by Helene are genuinely horrifying, and the full scale of the disaster is likely as yet untold.”

“This was, by far, the most extreme rain event in observed record across much/most of the region, where reliable records date back over 100 [years]. Unsurprisingly, the flooding which resulted has also been widespread, historic, and generally catastrophic across a broad region,” he explained. “These floods, which were concentrated in valleys containing rivers and typically modest creeks and streams, involved extremely large volumes of water moving downhill at high velocity. This was not a gradual or ‘gentle’ inundation by any means.”

Swain stressed that “sometimes ‘worst-case’ scenarios really do come to pass, and I think we often lack the collective imagination to fully envision what that looks like. That’s a problem, because being honest about risks that exist is [the] first step toward mitigating them and preventing harm!”

“Ultimately, there many folks in FL, GA, NC, and TN who are in need of urgent assistance—and that is/should be foremost priority,” he added. “But to those insisting that, ‘This is not the time!’ to have those other conversations, I say: This is *exactly* when we need to be having them.”

The AP reported that “in Atlanta, 11.12 inches (28.24 centimeters) of rain fell over 48 hours, the most the city has seen over two days since record-keeping began in 1878,” while “in Florida’s Big Bend, some lost nearly everything they own, emerging from the storm without even a pair of shoes.”

Along Florida’s Gulf Coast, “Helene shoved a wall of water estimated at least 10 feet high into the lowest-lying areas of Steinhatchee,” according to USA Today.

South of there, in Pinellas County, officials have identified over 18,000 homes damaged by Helene—and at least 11,000 are “uninhabitable,” as the Tampa Bay Times put it.

Highlighting the connection between climate change and more intense hurricanes, Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said Thursday that “the climate crisis is here. We must act to save lives.”

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingClimate Movement Says ‘Hurricane Helene Must Be a Wake-Up Call’

Trump Condemned for ‘Genocidal’ Threat to Destroy Iran

Spread the love

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Former U.S. President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, speaks during a September 25, 2024 campaign rally in Mint Hill, North Carolina. (Photo: Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

“Trump’s threat to blow Iran’s largest cities and the country itself ‘to smithereens’ is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned,” said the National Iranian American Council.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat on Wednesday to blow Iran “to smithereens” if he returns to power was condemned by a leading Iranian American advocacy group as “genocidal.”

Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—addressed a campaign rally in North Carolina on Wednesday after he was reportedly briefed about alleged Iranian assassination threats against him.

“If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country—in this case, Iran—that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens,” he said to raucous applause. “We’re gonna blow it to smithereens, you can’t do that. And there would be no more threats.”

Responding to the former president’s remarks, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that “Trump’s threat to blow Iran’s largest cities and the country itself ‘to smithereens’ is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned as psychotic and genocidal.”

“Just like his threat to target 52 of Iran’s most cherished cultural sites, Trump appears disturbingly willing to kill millions of Iranians who have no say over the actions of their authoritarian government,” NIAC continued. “These remarks should be disqualifying for a man vying to once again be commander in chief and have sole authority over launching nuclear weapons with the power to make good on his horrifying threat.”

“Likewise, we unequivocally condemn any Iranian threats that may be targeted at Trump or former officials,” the group added. “Political violence must be rejected and prevented in all forms. Assassinations are a path to war and human suffering, as was demonstrated by the strike on [Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen.] Qasem Soleimani that engendered these threats, and risk further embroiling the region in violence.”

Trump ordered the January 2020 airstrike that killed Soleimani in Iraq. He also unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran nuclear deal and ramped up sanctions on Tehran, exacerbating Iran’s economic woes.

While Trump is known for his boastful and sometimes empty claims, as president he also followed through on his 2016 campaign promise to “bomb the shit out of” Islamic State fighters and “take out their families,” resulting in thousands of civilian casualties in countries including Iraq and Syria.

Although Trump often presents himself as the peace candidate, critics have warned voters not to be fooled.

“He’s a liar. C’mon, you know he doesn’t tell the truth at all,” Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—the only member of either legislative chamber who voted against authorizing the so-called War on Terror in 2001—said in a recent interview with The Nation.

“Just look at his record, who he cozies up to in terms of dictators,” Lee added. “He wants more investment in the military budget. What his strategy is, is to create a more dangerous world.”

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingTrump Condemned for ‘Genocidal’ Threat to Destroy Iran

Murdoch to Musk: how global media power has shifted from the moguls to the big tech bros

Spread the love
The Conversation, Mary Altaffer/AAP, Frederic Legrand/Shutterstock

Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University and Andrew Dodd, The University of Melbourne

Until recently, Elon Musk was just a wildly successful electric car tycoon and space pioneer. Sure, he was erratic and outspoken, but his global influence was contained and seemingly under control.

But add the ownership of just one media platform, in the form of Twitter – now X – and the maverick has become a mogul, and the baton of the world’s biggest media bully has passed to a new player.

What we can gauge from watching Musk’s stewardship of X is that he’s unlike former media moguls, making him potentially even more dangerous. He operates under his own rules, often beyond the reach of regulators. He has demonstrated he has no regard for those who try to rein him in.

Under the old regime, press barons, from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch, at least pretended they were committed to truth-telling journalism. Never mind that they were simultaneously deploying intimidation and bullying to achieve their commercial and political ends.

Musk has no need, or desire, for such pretence because he’s not required to cloak anything he says in even a wafer-thin veil of journalism. Instead, his driving rationale is free speech, which is often code for don’t dare get in my way.

This means we are in new territory, but it doesn’t mean what went before it is irrelevant.

A big bucket of the proverbial

If you want a comprehensive, up-to-date primer on the behaviour of media moguls over the past century-plus, Eric Beecher has just provided it in his book The Men Who Killed the News.

Alongside accounts of people like Hearst in the United States and Lord Northcliffe in the United Kingdom, Beecher quotes the notorious example of what happened to John Major, the UK prime minister between 1990 and 1997, who baulked at following Murdoch’s resistance to strengthening ties with the European Union.

In a conversation between Major and Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of Murdoch’s best-selling English tabloid newspaper, The Sun, the prime minister was bluntly told: “Well John, let me put it this way. I’ve got a large bucket of shit lying on my desk and tomorrow morning I’m going to pour it all over your head.”

MacKenzie might have thought he was speaking truth to power, but in reality he was doing Murdoch’s bidding, and actually using his master’s voice, as Beecher confirms by recounting an anecdote from early in Murdoch’s career in Australia.

In the 1960s, when Murdoch owned The Sunday Times in Perth, he met Lang Hancock (father of Gina Rinehart) to discuss potentially buying some mineral prospects together in Western Australia. The state government was opposed to the planned deal.

Beecher cites Hancock’s biographer, Robert Duffield, who claimed Murdoch asked the mining magnate, “If I can get a certain politician to negotiate, will you sell me a piece of the cake?” Hancock said yes. Later that night, Murdoch called again to say the deal had been done. How, asked an incredulous Hancock. Murdoch replied: “Simple […] I told him: look you can have a headline a day or a bucket of shit every day. What’s it to be?”

Between Murdoch in the 1960s and MacKenzie in the 1990s came Mario Puzo’s The Godfather with Don Corleone, aided by Luca Brasi holding a gun to a rival’s head, saying “either his brains or his signature would be on the contract”.

Former British Prime Minister John Major fell foul of Rupert Murdoch – and paid the price. Lynne Sladky/AP/AAP

Changing the rules of the game

Media moguls use metaphorical bullets. Those relatively few people who do resist them, like Major, get the proverbial poured over their government. Headlines in The Sun following the Conservatives’ win in the 1992 election included: “Pigmy PM”, “Not up to the job” and “1,001 reasons why you are such a plonker John”.

If media moguls since Hearst and Northcliffe have tap-danced between producing journalism and pursuing their commercial and political aims, they have at least done the former, and some of it has been very good.

The leaders of the social media behemoths, by contrast, don’t claim any fourth estate role. If anything, they seem to hold journalism with tongs as far from their face as possible.

They do possess enormous wealth though. Apple, Microsoft, Google and Meta, formerly known as Facebook, are in the top ten companies globally by market capitalisation. By comparison, News Corporation’s market capitalisation now ranks at 1,173 in the world.

Regulating the online environment may be difficult, as Australia discovered this year when it tried, and failed, to stop X hosting footage of the Wakeley Church stabbing attacks. But limiting transnational media platforms can be done, according to Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton’s government.

Despite some early wins through Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, big tech companies habitually resist regulation. They have used their substantial influence to stymie it wherever and whenever nation-states have sought to introduce it.

Meta’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has been known to go rogue, as he demonstrated in February 2021 when he protested against the bargaining code by unilaterally closing Facebook sites that carried news. Generally, though, his strategy has been to deploy standard public relations and lobbying methods.

But his rival Musk uses his social media platform, X, like a wrecking ball.

Musk is just about the first thing the average X user sees in their feed, whether they want to or not. He gives everyone the benefit of his thoughts, not to mention his thought bubbles. He proclaims himself a free-speech absolutist, but most of his pronouncements lean hard to the right, providing little space for alternative views.

Some of his tweets have been inflammatory, such as him linking to an article promoting a conspiracy theory about the savage attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of the former US Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, or his tweet that “Civil war is inevitable” following riots that erupted recently in the UK.

As the BBC reported, the riots occurred after the fatal stabbing of three girls in Southport. “The subsequent unrest in towns and cities across England and in parts of Northern Ireland has been fuelled by misinformation online, the far-right and anti-immigration sentiment.”

Nor does Musk bother with niceties when people disagree with him. Late last year, advertisers considered boycotting X because they believed some of Musk’s posts were anti-Semitic. He told them during a live interview to “Go fuck yourself”.

He has welcomed Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, back onto X after Trump’s account was frozen over his comments surrounding the January 6 2021 attack on the capitol. Since then both men have floated the idea of governing together if Trump wins a second term.

Is the world better off with tech bros like Musk who demand unlimited freedom and assert their influence brazenly, or old-style media moguls who spin fine-sounding rhetoric about freedom of the press and exert influence under the cover of journalism?

That’s a question for our times that we should probably begin grappling with.

Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University and Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingMurdoch to Musk: how global media power has shifted from the moguls to the big tech bros

Project 2025 Would Lower Taxes for Rich, Hike Them for Everyone Else: Analysis

Spread the love

Original article by Edward Carver republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

Then-President of the United States Donald Trump speaks at a Heritage Foundation meeting in 2017. (Photo: Martin H. Simon – Pool/Getty Images)

“This analysis lays bare how the extreme, conservative Project 2025 plan is more of the same from conservative leaders—delivering handouts to the wealthy and corporations on the backs of working people.”

The Center for American Progress on Tuesday released an analysis of the tax plans in Project 2025, a right-wing manifesto whose authors have close ties to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, showing that conservatives aim to lower taxes on corporations and the rich while raising them on working- and middle-class Americans.

The liberal research and advocacy group, which published the analysis as part of a series of in-depth articles on Project 2025, found that the right-wing plan would raise income taxes for the median family of four by about $3,000, cut taxes by at least $1.5 million for a household earning more than $10 million per year, on average, and cut the corporate tax rate to 18% from 21%, an already historically low rate instituted by Republicans in 2017.

The analysis, authored by Brendan Duke, a senior director of economic policy at CAP, shows that, of households with a married couple and two children, only those earning more than $170,000 per year would see a tax break under the Project 2025 plan.

“This analysis lays bare how the extreme, conservative Project 2025 plan is more of the same from conservative leaders—delivering handouts to the wealthy and corporations on the backs of working people,” Kobie Christian, a spokesperson at Unrig Our Economy, an advocacy group, said in a statement.

The Project 2025 plan would consolidate seven tax brackets into just two—15% and 30%—on the grounds that it would “simplify” the tax code. However, CAP says that the existing number of tax brackets don’t create any additional complexity and are easily dealt with by tax-filing software. Moreover, 70% of tax filers only deal with the two lowest tax brackets—10% and 12%—”so they effectively are already in a two-bracket system,” Duke wrote.

CAP’s findings about the impact of Project 2025’s tax proposals on median earners are in keeping with those of the Democrats on the U.S. congressional Joint Economic Committee, who released a similar analysis earlier this month.

CAP included projections of the impact that Project 2025 would have on median income earners in each state and in the District of Columbia. Only in D.C., a high-earning area, were median earners projected to pay lower taxes under the right-wing plan; in all 50 states, their taxes went up.

It’s unclear how popular the Project 2025 tax plans would be. Polling from Navigator Research, a progressive polling firm, in February showed that the vast majority of Americans favor increasing taxes on the rich and large corporations.

In addition to the immediate tax plans laid out above, Project 2025 also puts forth a long-term plan to replace all income taxes with a value-added tax—a flat, regressive proposal endorsed by some U.S. House Republicans. In addition to the injustice of such a plan, it may also be impractical. CAP found that it would require a value-added tax—similar to a sales tax—on everything, even essential items such as groceries and healthcare, of at least 45%, if it were to replace lost government revenues, and warned that this would cause inflation.

Project 2025 policy agenda is a 920-page manifesto written by right-wing groups including the Heritage Foundation. The plan has drawn intense media attention in recent months and has proven unpopular with the American public, leading Trump, who was president from 2017 to 2021, to repeatedly try to distance himself from it. However, 140 of his former administration officials helped create the manifesto.

Stephen Moore, a Heritage Foundation fellow and an outside economic adviser to Trump, helped write Project 2025 tax plan, according to Duke. Moore drew scrutiny this week for questioning the need for the child tax credit.

Original article by Edward Carver republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

Continue ReadingProject 2025 Would Lower Taxes for Rich, Hike Them for Everyone Else: Analysis

As Gaza Death Toll Tops 40,000, Congress Urged to Block New Weapons to Israel

Spread the love

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Activists demand an end to U.S. arms transfers to Israel during a May 2, 2024 protest outside the White House in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Amnesty International USA)

“U.S. arms transfers to Israel have fueled unimaginable suffering in Gaza, including staggering levels of civilian harm,” said one embargo advocate.

As the Palestinian death toll from Israel’s 314-day assault on Gaza passed 40,000—a figure experts say is likely a vast undercount—human rights groups this week decried the Biden administration’s approval of $20 billion worth of new weapons for Israel and renewed pleas for Congress to block further arms transfers to the nation on trial for genocide at the World Court.

On Tuesday—just days after Israeli forces used at least one U.S.-supplied bomb in an airstrike on a Gaza City school that killed scores of forcibly displaced Palestinian civilians sheltering there—the Biden administration notified Congress of the pending sale of a new weapons package that includes dozens of F-15 fighter jets, tens of thousands of 120mm mortar shells, over 32,700 tank shells, and 30 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles.

Since October, Congress and the Biden administration have approved more than $14 billion in unconditional military aid to Israel. President Joe Biden has signed off on more than 100 arms transfers to Israel during that period. This, atop the $3.8 billion in annual armed aid the U.S. already gives to the key Middle Eastern ally.

“Israel used U.S.-made weapons in May when it slaughtered Palestinian families sheltering in tent camps in Rafah,” Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) said Wednesday. “Israel used U.S.-made weapons when it bombed the al-Mutanabbi school in Khan Younis in early July, killing over two dozen displaced Palestinians seeking refuge there. And it used U.S.-made weapons on Saturday to murder over 100 Palestinians while they prayed.”

“Biden continues to send weapons to Israel, and both political parties—Republicans and Democrats—have cheered on the Israeli government’s slaughter and genocide of Palestinians in Gaza,” JVP continued. “This is a U.S.-perpetrated genocide as much as it is an Israeli one.”

“But the Democratic voting base is calling for something different, and we have seen the progressive and increasingly mainstream wing of the party begin to echo this need,” the group said. “We are playing a critical role in driving the Democratic Party to finally catch up to the demands of its own base.”

“Right now, we have an opportunity to re-center Gaza in the national conversation and continue building pressure on the Biden administration, on [Vice President] Kamala Harris, and on Democratic members of Congress to support an immediate arms embargo,” JVP added.

While Harris has expressed sympathy for Palestinians suffering what she called a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza, the vice president and Democratic presidential nominee, like Biden, has proclaimed her “unwavering” support for Israel. One aide said last week that Harris does not support an arms embargo.

“The decision to approve yet another massive sale of arms to Israel is appalling and a blatant violation of U.S. and international law and policy,” Annie Shiel, the U.S. advocacy director at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, said on Thursday.

“U.S. arms transfers to Israel have fueled unimaginable suffering in Gaza, including staggering levels of civilian harm, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an ever-growing humanitarian catastrophe,” Shiel continued. “The U.S. is complicit in this devastation.”

“Congress must block these sales, including through the introduction of joint resolutions of disapproval,” she added, “and the Biden-Harris administration must finally end U.S. arms transfers and use its leverage to bring about an immediate cease-fire.”

The international anti-poverty NGO ActionAid said Thursday: “We are outraged and heartbroken by the staggering loss of 40,000 lives in Gaza. It is a number that is incomprehensible—every life lost is an individual tragedy.”

“But this is not an inevitable one, it is an ongoing atrocity, and it could have been prevented,” the group continued. “Most governments across the world have refused to do the bare minimum to protect civilian life and it is to our collective shame. We are losing confidence each day in the concept of justice.”

“We reiterate our calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities and urge all governments to meet their obligations under international law and use all available means to take immediate and decisive action to ensure the safety and security of all civilians,” ActionAid said.

“We call for the imposition of sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, on Israeli officials linked to alleged violations of international humanitarian law,” the NGO added. “Every day that you choose to avoid this as a reality, this death toll will keep rising until there is nobody left in Gaza alive.”

In addition to the South Africa-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan has applied for warrants to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and for three Hamas leaders, at least one of whom has been assassinated by Israeli forces.

The Biden administration and numerous members of Congress have condemned the courts’ pursuit of justice for Israel and its leaders. In June, 42 Democrats joined nearly every Republican in the House of Representatives in passing a bill that would sanction ICC officials over Khan’s application for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

In addition to rights groups, a coalition of journalists, news outlets, and press freedom organizations on Thursday implored the Biden administration to immediately halt arms transfers to Israel.

As the tight 2024 presidential race between Harris and former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, heads toward the home stretch, a survey commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project and conducted by YouGov revealed this week that Democratic and Independent voters in the key swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania would be more willing to vote for Harris if she backed an arms embargo on Israel.

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingAs Gaza Death Toll Tops 40,000, Congress Urged to Block New Weapons to Israel