Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Police clash with pro-Palestinian students after destroying part of the encampment at UCLA
Further

The 2024 Class of Gaza: The Students Have Done Their Part

As pro-Palestinian college students confront weekend commencements - with walkouts, keffiyeh-draped gowns, signs noting, "There Are No Universities Left In Gaza" - their historic role as "the most reliably correct constituency in America" is celebrated by an earlier generation of activists "seeing them, just as we were, sick at heart," willing to "stand firm for their beliefs" against a genocidal war and its systemic support. To a more judicious generation, they urge, "Don’t emulate us. Transcend us."

Thousands of students at over 100 U.S colleges in all but four states ⁠have embarked on protests and encampments denouncing an Israeli genocide in Gaza that's now killed at least 35,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. Their righteous actions have resulted in nearly 3,000 arrests, often by over-zealous, riot-geared police in a response widely deemed "unhinged," and a similarly over-the-top propaganda campaign by cartoon-villain Republicans hysterically labeling them "terrorists," "anti-Semites," "dangerous mobs" or "campus criminals." As to the once-cherished right to free speech: Marco Rubio has revived an effort to deport protesters who have "endorsed or espoused the terrorist activities of Hamas," Texas Rep. Beth Van Duyne helpfully introduced a deportation bill called the "Hamas Supporters Have No Home Here Act," and Tom Cotton recently said people "who get stuck behind pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic" should "take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way," but no of course he wasn't endorsing violence.

Still, the protests have spread among students often showing a striking awareness of the systemic forces arrayed against them. "Even at Princeton," notes Sarah Sakha of a now-common call at what was once a bastion of white privilege but where diverse students and faculty have sat in, built a Gaza Solidarity Encampment (where administrators even forbade tents in the rain) and taken part in a hunger strike, all despite "the larger apparatus working against them." Sakha cites Noam Chomsky's “manufactured consent" by which mass media and those in power coalesce around a simplified reality that becomes accepted truth, and Edward Said's charge Palestinians have been robbed of the right to narrate their own history. "To whom do we extend the permission to narrate?" she asks of an administration that has co-opted that right by demanding "we reconsider our tactics, our lexicon, our politics." "No matter how peaceful a protest may be" - or how rooted in histories of resistance - "Palestinian solidarity protesters will never be able to be in the right."

And no matter how peaceful they've been, administrators have often, unconscionably called in police. At Columbia, they burst in, "incredibly vicious," armed with tasers, batons, and zip ties amidst students screaming in rage and terror. At Virginia Tech, a professor was violently arrested for standing in solidarity with students; he says the administration has fostered a hostile climate for Palestinian students and faculty. At Indiana's Bloomington campus, snipers set up on a roof overlooking the encampment, and a black activist, writer and PhD student was arrested and banned from campus for five years. With commencement ceremonies on the horizon, some schools - Brown, Northwestern, Rutgers, Minnesota - made concessions or agreed to consider divestment demands in exchange for encampments disbanding. But protests still disrupted weekend ceremonies at multiple schools - Duke, Emerson, Berkeley, Virginia, Chapel Hill. Students wore keffiyeh, waved Palestinian flags, turned their backs on and walked out of speeches, acknowledged on their caps "Those Who Will Never Graduate" and proclaimed themselves, "The Class of 2024 of Gaza."

A social work grad getting her master's at Columbia strode on stage with her hands zip-tied above her head to honor the violent arrests that came before, and ripped up her diploma as she was handed it. A month before, Lebanese-American master's student Tamara Rasamny chose to forfeit her Columbia ceremony by getting arrested and suspended for a sit-in. Instead, she spoke at a class day, arguing, "My speech is a testament to courage and the power of speaking up. If I cannot adhere to my own words, then what right do I have to speak at all?" Lebanese schools hope to award her an honorary degree; meanwhile, her father, Walid Rasamny, praised her decision as "not just a personal victory but a call to all parents to support our children as they stand firm for their beliefs." "As a father, I am inspired by her resilience and dedication to peaceful protest and justice," he said. "Let us foster a world led with integrity and passion."

"The student left is the most reliably correct constituency in America," writes Osita Nwanevu. "Over the past 60 years, it has passed every great moral test American foreign policy has forced upon the public," from Vietnam to South Africa to Iraq, along with fights for civil, women's, LGBTQ, economic and climate rights. "Time and time and time again...straining against an ancient and immortal prejudice against youth, it has made a habit of telling the American people, in tones that discomfit, what they need to hear before they are ready to hear it." Thus have they condemned not just the slaughter of 35,000 and Israel's criminal collective punishment but the willingness of this country - from pols to private institutions beholden to the power and profits of arms manufacturers - to "sanction Israel’s denial of Palestinian human rights for decades." "The students have done their part," writes Nwanevu. "Now it’s up to the rest of us" to honor protests that Gazans say, "echo all the way to the Occupied Territories." "Your actions are our hope," says one. "You're either with humanity or against it."

"What is the ethical response to witnessing a great moral crime?" asks Mark Rudd, who in 1968, as head of Columbia's Students for a Democratic Society, helped organize protests that saw hundreds of students occupy five buildings and lead a mass strike that closed the campus for over a month. In the face of the Vietnam War and the subsequent invasion of Cambodia, a mass murder against a civilian population undertaken by "our own government, with the complicity of our university," students "felt the imperative to act." In response, "Columbia called on New York City cops to empty the buildings, badly beating and arresting 700 students," he writes. "56 years to the day later, the NYPD were again called in... All the rest is commentary." Today's activists, he argues, are smarter, calmer, more nonviolent, more diverse - where he is not "an unJew." He cites a Community Values post from the Gaza encampment asserting a movement "united in valuing every human life." He confirms, "Setting up tents and praying for the souls of the dead, all the dead, is not violence."

Today's activists in Berkeley set up their encampment on the steps of Sproul Hall, site of the birth of the Free Speech movement and Vietnam and apartheid protests; they also broadcast the sounds of Israeli drones for a grim reality check from Gaza. Their organizing smarts are praised by Michael Albert, who, as student body president, led 1968 anti-war protests at MIT, which he dubbed “Dachau on the Charles” for war research whose victims were "half a torn-up world away in Vietnam." "History sometimes repeats," he writes, citing both ironic and healthy differences. "We were inspired. We were hot. But here comes this year and it is moving faster," he writes. "We were courageous, but we also had too little understanding of how to win...On your campuses, do better than us. Fight to divest but also fight to structurally change them so their decision makers - which should be you - never again invest in genocide, war, and indeed oppression of any kind. Tomorrow is the first day of a long, long, potentially incredibly liberating future....Persist."

SEE ALL
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel
News

Climate Movement Cheers Michigan AG's Plans to Sue Big Oil

Advocates of holding fossil fuel giants accountable for their significant contributions to the climate emergency welcomed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Thursday announcement that she intends to sue the polluting industry.

"Big Oil knew decades ago that their products would cause catastrophic climate change, but instead of doing the right thing they lied about it," declared Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The people of Michigan deserve their day in court to make these companies pay for the massive harm they knowingly caused."

Dozens of municipalities and attorneys general for the District of Columbia and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have already filed climate liability suits against Big Oil in recent years.

"Our 'Pure Michigan' identity is under threat from the effects of climate change," said Nessel, whose state was praised last year for passing clean energy legislation. "Warmer temperatures are shrinking ski seasons in the UP and disrupting the wonderful blooms of Holland's Tulip Time Festival. Severe weather events are on the rise."

"These impacts threaten not only our way of life but also our economy and pose long-term risks to Michigan's thriving agribusiness," she continued. "The fossil fuel industry, despite knowing about these consequences, prioritized profits over people and the environment. Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable."

The Democratic attorney general's office explained that she is "seeking proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as special assistant attorneys general to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state of Michigan."

The Detroit Newsnoted that "Nessel took a similar tact in suing drugmakers for the opioid crisis, farming out much of the work to outside law firms in Michigan, Texas, and Florida."

According to the newspaper:

Nessel's office is working with other state departments to assess the costs associated with climate change, such as the cost of expanding storm water systems to handle flooding caused by stronger storms, responding to natural disasters, or supporting northern Michigan tourism economies dealing with dwindling ice and snow.

"This is going to be a massive discovery effort to find out exactly what our Michigan damages are now already and what can we expect to see in the future as a result of climate change," she said.

"I don't know that there's a bigger issue facing the state of Michigan than climate change," Nessel told the outlet. "We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in damages and we're already starting to see that on a day-to-day basis. We know this is only going to get worse."

The youth-led Sunrise Movement applauded Nessel's plans and asserted that U.S. President Joe Biden—who is seeking reelection in November—and the Department of Justice "must follow suit."

The group's call echoed similar demands that emerged last week in response to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction."

SEE ALL
Trump
News

Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $4.6 Trillion to Deficit: CBO

As former U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans campaign on extending their 2017 tax cuts if elected in November, a government analysis revealed Wednesday that doing so would add $4.6 trillion to the national deficit.

When Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act during his first term, the initial estimated cost was $1.9 trillion. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that extending policies set to expire next year would cost $3.5 trillion through 2033.

The new CBO report—sought by U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—says continuing the income, business, and estate tax cuts will now cost $4.6 trillion through 2034.

"The Republican tax plan is to double down on Trump's handouts to corporations and the wealthy, run the deficit into the stratosphere, and make it impossible to save Medicare and Social Security or help families with the cost of living in America."

Responding in a statement Wednesday, the senators cited an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimate that "extending the Trump tax cuts would create a $112.6 billion windfall for the top 5% of income earners in the first year alone."

They also slammed their GOP colleagues, who Whitehouse said "are awfully eager to shield their megadonors from paying taxes."

He recalled that just last year, "Republicans held our entire economy hostage," refusing to raise the debt ceiling and risking the first-ever U.S. default, because they didn't want the Internal Revenue Service to get more funding to "go after wealthy tax cheats."

"Remember the Trump tax scam cutting taxes for billionaires and big corporations," Whitehouse continued. "Now they're set on extending those tax cuts, even though it would blow up the deficit. The Trump tax cuts were a gift to the ultrarich and a rotten deal for American families and small businesses. With their impending expiration, we have a chance to undo the damage, fix our corrupted tax code, and have big corporations and the ultrawealthy begin to pay their fair share."

Wyden similarly took aim at the GOP, warning that "the Republican tax plan is to double down on Trump's handouts to corporations and the wealthy, run the deficit into the stratosphere, and make it impossible to save Medicare and Social Security or help families with the cost of living in America."

"Republicans have planned all along on making Trump's tax handouts to the rich permanent, but they hid the true cost with timing gimmicks and a 2025 deadline that threatens the middle class with an automatic tax hike if they don't get what they want," he argued. "In short, they're focused on helping the rich get richer, and everybody else can go pound sand. Democrats are going to stand by our commitment to protect the middle class while ensuring that corporations and the wealthy pay a fair share."

Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens also responded critically to the CBO report, saying Wednesday that "extending Trump's tax law and effectively subsidizing corporate profiteering and billionaire wealth is a nonstarter."

"This tax law, on top of decades of failed trickle-down cuts, has come at the expense of workers and families," Owens stressed. "We can't afford 10 more years of giveaways to the wealthy and corporations and fail to invest in the people who drive our economy. This tax law should expire."

While some of the tax cuts in the 2017 law are temporary—unless they get extended—the legislation permanently slashed the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. As Common Dreamsreported last week, a new ITEP analysis shows that tax rates paid by big and consistently profitable corporations dropped from 22% to 12.8% after the law's enactment.

SEE ALL
House Dems Save 'MAGA Mike' Johnson From Marjorie Taylor Greene Ouster
News

House Dems Save 'MAGA Mike' Johnson From Marjorie Taylor Greene Ouster

The majority of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday saved far-right Speaker Mike Johnson from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's attempt to oust him after less than seven months in the leadership position.

Johnson's (R-La.) election to the role in October—following the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who then left Congress early—was seen as a signal of the MAGA flank's hold on the Republican Party. However, since then he has faced criticism from Greene (R-Ga.) and others for, among other things, not shutting down the government.

Greene delivered on her threatened motion to vacate—provoking boos from fellow lawmakers—after meeting with Johnson for hours on Monday and Tuesday. The final vote to table her resolution was 359-43, with 196 Republicans and 163 Democrats backing the far-right speaker. Seven Democrats voted present and 21 lawmakers did not vote.

Ten Republicans joined Greene in trying to give Johnson the boot: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Eric Burlison (Mo.), Eli Crane (Ariz.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Alex Mooney (W.Va.), Barry Moore (Ala.), Chip Roy (Texas), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.).

Addressing the position of most Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) said in a statement:

Our decision to stop Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from plunging the House of Representatives and the country into further chaos is rooted in our commitment to solving problems for everyday Americans in a bipartisan manner. We need more common sense and less chaos in Washington, D.C.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extreme MAGA Republicans are chaos agents. House Democrats are change agents. We will continue to govern in a reasonable, responsible, and results-oriented manner and to put people over politics all day and every day.

Some of the 32 Democrats who supported ousting Johnson framed the vote as proof that—in the words of Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.)—the "GOP really can't govern" and the "chaos caucus is on display."

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly declared on social media that "the GOP chaos caucus continues to do nothing for the American people and instead waste time infighting."

"Speaker Johnson organized an amicus brief effort to overturn the 2020 election. He opposes abortion rights, trans rights, and voting rights," Jayapal also said. "That's why I did not vote to save his speakership."

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) also explained his vote on social media, saying: "Mike Johnson is the most ideological, right-wing speaker since the 1830s. His views and values are directly antithetical to mine. He stands for everything we, as freedom-loving Democrats, proudly stand against. I will never vote to keep him in that chair."

Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) was one of the members who voted present, which does not count for or against passage.

"Did I vote with the extremist white Christian nationalist who called a motion to vacate the speakership or did I vote to save the extremist homophobic Christian nationalist speaker to keep him in office?" Pocan said. "Neither. I voted 'present' on this sideshow."

SEE ALL
Abortion rights supporters protest outside the Supreme Court
News

Study Links Abortion Restrictions and Intimate Partner Homicide

A new study links abortion restrictions to an increased risk that pregnant people will be murdered by their intimate partners—and since researchers examined laws that were in place before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and cleared the way for statewide abortion bans, the authors warn that the threat may be even greater than the analysis shows.

In the study released Monday, researchers at Tulane University looked at five separate abortion restrictions and compared them to the intimate partner homicide rates reported by the National Violent Death Reporting System at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For each of the abortion restrictions, all of which were in place from 2014-22, the rate of intimate partner homicide among women and girls of reproductive age rose 3.4%.

The researchers found that extrapolated across the United States, an additional 24 women were killed by their intimate partners over the time period.

The study controlled for domestic violence risk factors including income inequality and gun ownership.

Intimate partner homicide is "consistently among the leading causes of death in pregnant and postpartum people," lead author Maeve Wallace, an associate professor at Tulane, toldThe Guardian.

Because it is still relatively rare, however, the research team used girls and women of reproductive age as a proxy for victims of violence who were likely pregnant or postpartum.

"In thinking about pregnancy itself as a risk factor for homicide, it follows that the ability to prevent or end a pregnancy" could have "immediate implications" for the safety of pregnant people in states with severe abortion restrictions and bans, Wallace told The Guardian.

The newspaper reported that the research "is almost certainly an underestimate of the potential risk to pregnant and postpartum women, because intimate partner violence is generally underreported."

The study is the latest research illustrating "the horrific reality for women in America," said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Another study published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons in February found a 75% higher rate of peripartum homicide—the murder of a pregnant person or within a year of their giving birth—in states that restricted abortion access from 2018-20.

Reproductive justice advocates have pointed out that at least four states with abortion bans in place also ban divorce for married people who are pregnant.

"An abusive partner oftentimes views pregnancy as a loss of control, that their victim will now not be solely dedicated to them but will have somebody else that diverts their attention away from the abusive partner," Crystal Justice, chief external affairs officer at the National Domestic Violence Hotline, told The 19th last month after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated an 1864 abortion ban, which has since been repealed by state lawmakers but still could be in effect for part of this year.

"Not only is the state now saying with this harmful and antiquated law that you must stay pregnant against your will," Justice said, but "during that pregnancy, the state is not going to let you legally divorce your abusive partner. I can't think of anything more outrageous or cruel."

The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.

SEE ALL
A boy walks before a bulldozer clearing rubble
News

'A War Crime': Rights Group Details Israel's Use of Children as Human Shields

Israeli and U.S. claims that civilian casualties in Gaza are the result of Hamas' use of "human shields" have figured prominently in Israel's defense of the skyrocketing death toll in the enclave, but a report by a local independent human rights group details the recent experiences of three boys in the West Bank, who say they were used to shield Israeli forces from potential harm during their raid on a refugee camp.

Defense for Children International - Palestine (DCIP) on Monday released its interviews with three boys in Tulkarem refugee camp, which was attacked by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on May 6.

The three boys—Karam, 13; Mohammad, 12; and Ibrahim, 14—gave nearly identical accounts of being forced to walk ahead of the IDF soldiers as they raided residential buildings, ensuring they would be attacked by any armed people instead of the Israeli forces.

The soldiers also positioned their guns on the shoulders of two of the boys before firing the weapons, and subjected all of them to beatings.

Karam told DCIP that about 30 IDF soldiers entered his family's apartment with a "huge military dog" during the Tulkarem attack and isolated his family in one room, selecting Karam to come with them as they raided the rest of the building.

The "forced Karam to walk in front of them, open the doors to each room, and enter it before them," DCIP reported. "While they were walking, one soldier placed his rifle on Karam's right shoulder and fired two shots toward an apartment in the building."

Mohammad told the group the IDF soldiers ignored his mother's pleas as they ordered his family to leave his apartment, keeping Mohammad with them.

"I was left alone with the soldiers after they ordered my mother and siblings to go up to the fourth floor of the building. I started crying and shaking in fear because I did not know what they would do to me. They were armed, masked, and had frightening appearances. They had a huge military dog that made terrifying sounds," Mohammad told DCIP.

"After that, the soldiers told me to knock on the doors of the apartments in the building, while they were standing behind me at a fairly short distance, and to ask the residents to come out, and this is what I did," he said. "When we reached the door of one of the apartments, there was no one inside, so the soldiers blew up the door and forced me to go inside alone and check and search it. After I told them that it was empty, they entered it, while I remained held by one of the soldiers at the door."

Ibrahim was forced to walk in front of the soldiers after they interrogated him about "the whereabouts of wanted men," slapped and kicked him, and cuffed his hands behind his back with a plastic tie.

"At first, I thought they wanted to arrest me, but they told me to walk in front of them in the alleys of the Sawalma neighborhood in the camp," said Ibrahim. "They would hide in the alleys and tell me to see if there was anyone around. After that, they untied my hands, and whenever we passed a house or building, they would instruct me to enter and ask the residents to come out. Then they would raid those houses and tell me to open the doors into different rooms."

DCIP's report, saidAl Jazeera journalist Sana Saeed, indicates how "every Palestinian child is seen as a threat, as disposable," by the IDF and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government.

"Israeli treatment of Palestinian children, the way they see them as well as how they abuse their bodies, is genocidal," said Saeed.

As Ben Burgis wrote at Jacobin in November, "accusations that [Hamas fighters] 'use civilians as human shields' rarely seem to be meant quite so literally" as reports of the IDF's practices. "More often, what the accusation amounts to is simply that Hamas fighters and military equipment—or sometimes even just people linked to Hamas' political wing—tend to be located in areas with lots of civilians."

But as in the cases of the three boys at Tulkarem, "there is extensive evidence of the IDF quite literally engaging in human shielding—forcing Palestinian civilians to approach houses for them because they'll be less likely to be shot at than Israeli soldiers, for example," wrote Burgis.

"Israel's High Court banned the practice in 2005, but Israeli human rights group B'Tselem reports that 'soldiers continue to occasionally use Palestinians as human shields even after the court ruling, especially during military operations,'" he added.

Ayed Abu Eqtaish, the accountability program director at DCIP, condemned the IDF practices described by Karam, Mohammad, and Ibrahim.

"International law is explicit and absolutely prohibits the use of children as human shields by armed forces or armed groups," said Abu Eqtaish. "Israeli forces intentionally putting a child in grave danger in order to shield themselves constitutes a war crime."

SEE ALL