The elected officials who will not attend Netanyahu’s speech span the ideological spectrum, from Vice President Kamala Harris to members of the Squad. Most of the members of the House and Senate who have said they will skip the address — including Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber — focused on Netanyahu himself as a war criminal or international law violator, rather than on the Israeli state’s systemic abuses against the Palestinian people. 

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian in Congress, has been the most frank in explaining her protest. 

“Netanyahu is a war criminal committing genocide against the Palestinian people,” Tlaib said in a statement on Tuesday. “It is utterly disgraceful that leaders from both parties have invited him to address Congress. He should be arrested and sent to the International Criminal Court.”

Some, like Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have echoed Tlaib’s straightforward opposition. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said she won’t be attending the speech and that she gave her tickets to the family member of an Israeli hostage. Several prominent members of Congress, including Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., will reportedly hold counter-programming with the families of Israeli hostages at the time of Netanyahu’s address. Even former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the prime minister should not have been invited to speak. 

“Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago,” Nadler said. “The Prime Minister is putting the security of Israel, the lives of the hostages, the stability of the region, and longstanding Israeli democratic norms in perilous jeopardy, simply to maintain the stability of his far-right coalition and absolve him of his own legal troubles.”

While Nadler insisted he had “not given up on the dream of an Israel that can live in peace with its neighbors, including with Palestinians, through a negotiated two-state solution,” his statement, along with those of scores of others, made no mention of Israeli state violence against Palestinians. 

The last time Netanyahu visited Congress, in 2015, nearly 60 Democrats boycotted his speech, viewing the address as an attack on President Barack Obama’s efforts to finalize negotiations regarding the Iran nuclear deal. Today, the Israeli premier is likely facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court and oversees a government that was ordered by the ICJ months ago to stop any act of genocide in Gaza.

Time and time again, reputable bodies ranging from international courts to human rights organizations to the United Nations have found the Israeli government to be committing human rights violations. Even the Biden administration — while providing financial and political cover for Israel’s war on Gaza — has admitted that Israel has killed civilians and likely violated international law with U.S. weapons. As Tlaib pointed out in her statement on Tuesday, “Since 1948, the US has provided more than $141 billion in weapons to the Israeli government to fund the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, including $17.9 billion since October.”

While that reality may not be front and center for other members of Congress, protesters from across the country descended on Washington this week to make their opposition known. In interviews with The Intercept, activists described Netanyahu as a “symptom” of Israeli politics, not the problem himself.

On Tuesday, the U.S. veterans group Common Dreams joined Israeli veterans from Breaking the Silence to urge members of Congress to support a ceasefire, and to condition any future military aid to Israel upon its respect for international law and the human rights of Palestinians. The groups also urged Congress to restore U.S. funding for UNRWA: a United Nations agency that aids Palestinians and that has faced attacks from Israeli and U.S. officials.

“We’re the soldiers that stood at checkpoints, raided homes, arrested kids, destroyed Palestinian villages and fought in Gaza,” Nadav Weiman, incoming executive director of BTS, said in a statement. “We know more than anyone else why we need to end the Israeli occupation for the sake of Israeli society and the Palestinian society as well. We cannot really be a democracy in the middle-east if we continue our continuous 57 years of military occupation over the Palestinian people.”

The former soldiers were not alone at the Capitol. Hundreds of Jewish people — including over two dozen rabbis and rabbinical students — from across the country took to the rotunda to demand a ceasefire and arms embargo to Israel.

When asked about the protest, Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., suggested the demonstrators — holding signs and wearing shirts that said things like “Jews for Ceasefire” or “Not in our name” — were “pro-Hamas.” 

The Intercept pointed out that the crowd included rabbis and asked Lawler if he believed they were also pro-Hamas.

“Those that are coming here on a continuing basis as they have since October 7, to protest the State of Israel and continually support the propaganda put forth by Hamas — yes, they’re pro-Hamas,” Lawler said.

Lawler, who is Catholic, questioned whether the protesters were even Jewish, and seemed to suggest that believing the demonstrators who self-identified as Jewish was akin to believing the death toll recorded by the Gaza Ministry of Health. (Gaza’s health authority has long faced bad-faith attacks by actors who point out that it is an arm of the Hamas government. Lawler also falsely said that the United Nations reduced the ministry’s death count by 50 percent; after The Intercept pointed out that was not true, he simply said, “OK.”)

Several protesters told The Intercept that their Jewish background is exactly why they were protesting in the first place.

Tal Frieden, whose grandparents were Holocaust survivors who endured the Nazi work camps, said they were at the protest because of the horrors on display in Gaza and what they had been warned about growing up. “My entire childhood, I was told ‘never again’ means ‘never again for anyone.’”

Jay Saper, whose family members were killed at Auschwitz, said they honor their ancestors’ memories by pressing Congress and the president “to stop arming Israel while it carries out a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.”

“I love my Jewish tradition because it inspires me. It allows me to take action for justice.”

Correction: July 24, 2024
A previous version of this article misspelled Tal Frieden’s last name.

The post Dozens of Lawmakers Are Protesting Netanyahu — but Have Little to Say About Israel’s Systemic Abuses of Palestinians appeared first on The Intercept.

In a poll conducted before Biden’s decision not to seek reelection, Dan Osborn, a Nebraska labor leader running as an independent, tied with two-term incumbent Republican Sen. Deb Fischer.

The poll — commissioned by the Osborn campaign, conducted by Impact Research, and advised by Republican firm Red Wave Strategy Group — shows the Senate candidates tied at 42-42. When respondents were asked how they would vote in the Senate race given an independent versus a Republican, 57 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of Trump voters said they were open to voting for an independent.

Statewide, survey respondents said they preferred former President Donald Trump to Biden, 59 to 36. And in parts of the state where the presidential race was tighter, voters showed even more enthusiasm for Osborn. In Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, Trump led Biden 49-47 in a head-to-head matchup, while Osborn bested Fischer 44-40.

Three of the four independents currently in the Senate caucus with the Democrats, while the fourth, Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, is aligned with Democrats for committee purposes. Osborn, for his part, has declined to accept the endorsement of either major party, though many of his policy priorities align with positions traditionally adopted by Democrats. Democratic officials in Nebraska had considered supporting Osborn’s candidacy and did not field a Democratic candidate against him in the primaries. Just one day after the state primaries, Osborn said he would not accept the party’s endorsement, prompting state officials to publish a statement saying Osborn “betrayed” their trust. While the party later said it intended to field a write-in candidate against Osborn and Fischer for the general election, that has not yet happened.

Related

UAW Endorses Nebraska Underdog Threatening to Unseat a Republican Senator

Unlike the 73-year-old Fischer, who has served in politics for more than two decades, Osborn would be a first-time politician. The 48-year-old military veteran is best known as a labor leader. He was the president of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union Local 50G. Two years ago, Osborn helped lead workers in a strike against food giant Kellogg’s that lasted more than two months and also included factories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Last month, he won the endorsement of the United Auto Workers union.

His platform includes raising pay for service members, confronting agricultural consolidation, and legalizing medical marijuana. He also calls to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act and oppose “extreme national measures to ban abortion.” He also urges rail safety reform, including measures like requiring two-person crews and increasing fines for violating rail safety laws — reforms floated after the disastrous Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, last year.

Osborn, who launched his campaign in October, raised $1,035,249 from roughly 31,000 donors in the second quarter of 2024, between April 1 and July 30 — making the average contribution $33. Fischer’s campaign, meanwhile, raised $678,985 over the same period, according to campaign finance reports.

While the state has been a Republican stronghold for years, respondents to the recent poll were not as enthused about Fischer herself did not have as strong a foothold in the recent poll. Her favorability rating was a net negative two, and roughly as many voters said they preferred “someone else” (40 percent) to reelecting Fischer (41 percent). Moreover, 68 percent of respondents said they are open to supporting an independent candidate for Senate, while just 21 percent said they would only support a Republican.

Osborn also led in the poll among those registered with neither party, earning the support of 65 percent of independents, while Fischer got only 16 percent.

Three earlier polls for the race showed mixed results, with a recent survey giving Fischer a significant edge while previous ones showed a much tighter contest.

A poll commissioned by the Fischer campaign earlier this month showed the incumbent beating Osborn by 26 percentage points. More than 75 percent of respondents, however, said they had no opinion of Osborn, didn’t know who he was, or declined to share an opinion of him. Conversely, only 14 percent of respondents did not know who Fischer was. The poll otherwise followed trends, showing Trump beating Biden by 19 points.

A November survey had Osborn leading Fischer by a slim 2 points, with respondents responding more favorably to Osborn’s background than Fischer’s. Another poll conducted in late April showed Osborn trailing Fischer by 4 points, with 30 percent of voters undecided. 

Now as Republicans’ nationwide strategy has been upended by Biden’s exit from the presidential race, the latest poll suggests that the Fischer campaign may have cause for concern as well.

The post As Republicans’ 2024 Strategy Is Upended, Poll Shows Nebraska Senate Seat May Be Up for Grabs appeared first on The Intercept.

While the announcement may dispel widespread concern surrounding the Democratic nominee’s capacity to lead — especially relative to Republican nominee Donald Trump — the issue that has prompted mass protest against the Democratic incumbent still looms large over the campaign: Biden’s virtually unconditional support for Israel’s war on Gaza.

Biden has maintained a chiefly deferential and supportive stance throughout Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Now, some see his departure as opening the possibility for a reset on U.S. policy toward Israel. 

Former Biden Department of Education political appointee Tariq Habash — who resigned in January in protest of Biden’s policies on the Gaza war — notes that a significant part of the base is already disillusioned with Biden because of his unwillingness to enforce U.S. law and hold Israel accountable for violations of international humanitarian law. Biden’s decision also comes just two days after the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestine constitutes illegal apartheid. 

“Whoever replaces the President on the ticket needs to show voters that there will be a substantive shift in policy that ends the dehumanization of Palestinians and supports Palestinian human rights, international law, and peace,” Habash said.

“Obviously both Democrats and Republicans have a long way to go,” he added. “This week’s visit from Netanyahu is emblematic of that, as is President Biden’s refusal to hold his red lines, enforce Leahy or Foreign Assistance Act, or achieve a permanent ceasefire or return Palestinian and Israeli hostages.”

Many critics had noted that Biden’s stance on Israel’s war revealed concerning signs of his leadership and adaptability far before the fateful June debate. 

 “It was not Biden’s failed debate that showed he is unfit to lead. It was the tens of thousands of bombs he sent to kill Palestinian families,” the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights said in a statement. “Biden’s refusal to adhere to international law or enforce U.S. law has deepened Israel’s illegal military occupation. The International Court of Justice’s latest advisory opinion on Friday asserted that every state has a legal obligation ‘not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation’ created by Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights.”

Related

“Utterly Dismayed”: Air Force Engineer Resigns as Dissent Against Gaza War Slowly Spreads Within Military

No matter who replaces Biden, Riley Livermore — an Air Force major who said the Biden administration was “complicit in genocide” when he resigned in June — said the moment presents a possible inflection point for U.S. policy on Israel’s war. 

“That being said, Biden isn’t stepping down because of pressure on how brutal his Gaza policy was. From my perspective, the ongoing genocide in Gaza had minimal to no impact on the pressure for him to step down. I’m still disheartened that the Democratic Party doesn’t care about Palestinians and continues to offer unconditional support to Israel,” Livermore told The Intercept, repeating that he resigned due to Biden’s policies on Gaza, not his age.

One senior Democratic aide told The Intercept that they were wary of the rushed process to replace the candidate that had little to do with how Biden’s support for a war that’s killed 15,000 children in Gaza may have already irreparably hurt his chances among crucial voting blocs. “The country needs to hear from an anti-war candidate who sees Palestinians as human beings,” they said. “It’s important that our next candidate is chosen through a democratic process at an open convention.”

Biden and scores of elected officials and party caucuses have already thrown their support behind Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the Democratic ticket in November. And there have been signs that she may divert from Biden’s hard-line support for Israel’s campaign in Gaza. 

Late last year, Harris reportedly pushed the White House to be more sympathetic toward Palestinian suffering, and more forceful against Netanyahu to seek a long-term peace. In March, Harris delivered a speech in Selma, Alabama, forcefully calling for an “immediate ceasefire” and urging Israel to do more to increase the flow of aid to Gaza. “No excuses,” she insisted. While the speech seemed to mark a change in the administration’s stance on the war, reports surfaced that National Security Council officials had watered down parts of her speech. 

“We have to have a goal that we start working on right now, for peace and for an equal measure of security for Israelis and Palestinians,” Harris said later that month. “Palestinians have a right to self-determination; they have a right to dignity, and we’re going to have to work on that.”

These reports have not gone unnoticed by people hoping for change in U.S. policy.

Livermore said he was hopeful if Harris becomes the next president, she will take the opportunity to drastically change the U.S. posture toward Israel. “Harris has a choice between listening to her own humanity and the overwhelming will of the American people, or listening to donors and special interest groups by continuing to make genocide part of her platform and in doing so, delegitimizing America internationally.”

“Leaders like myself, and the other Black faith leaders who signed open letters pressuring Biden to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza believe Harris would be much more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause if nominated,” Rev. Michael McBride, a pastor and founder of Black Church PAC said in a statement. “This could help reinvigorate a part of the base that has largely felt conflicted about casting a vote for Biden.”

Waleed Shahid, co-founder of the Uncommitted National Movement — which has garnered over 700,000 people nationwide casting protest votes against Biden’s hard-line support for Israel — also noted dissenters’ openness to Harris. 

“While by no means a champion of the cause, I’ve heard numerous people note that Vice President Harris exhibited a deeply different emotional reaction to the stories of Palestinian suffering than President Biden,” he said in a statement. “While the Vice Presidency is limited, many feel that she would be an improvement from Biden’s severe lack of empathy for Palestinians and his ties to the AIPAC old guard in the party. However, challenging AIPAC’s power within the Democratic Party establishment remains a formidable task regardless of who the nominee is.”

The post Biden Should Have Quit Over Gaza, but His Exit Could Be an Inflection Point appeared first on The Intercept.

Maggie Goodlander raised over $1.5 million in the first two months of her campaign, almost all of which came from individual donors. Eighty-eight percent of the individual contributions came from outside New Hampshire, according to The Intercept’s analysis of campaign finance reports. Almost all of the outside spending in New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District, meanwhile, has come from the Principled Veterans Fund, a spinoff of a PAC that Bezos poured millions into at its inception in 2018 and that his parents and Bloomberg more recently funded. The veterans-focused super PAC has spent upward of $150,000 on pro-Goodlander ads.

Goodlander is running in an open Democratic primary against New Hampshire politico Colin Van Ostern, who has been endorsed by the departing Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster. Van Ostern’s campaign brought in $719,000 in the most recent fundraising quarter, with 63 percent of individual contributions coming from inside the state. The election is on September 10.

Goodlander’s individual donors include employees of companies like Meta, Palantir, Blackstone, and various corporate law firms; Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet; Biden adviser Gene Sperling; and White House staffers. Her campaign has also received contributions from various PACs, including those of New York Rep. Dan Goldman, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen, and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

Goodlander’s in-state contribution numbers are “certainly on the very low end of the spectrum,” said Robert Maguire, research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.

It’s not unprecedented for candidates to receive large levels of out-of-state cash, Maguire noted, but the median amount of such donations for House incumbents running for reelection is about 42 percent. Goodlander’s rate is more than double that, despite being a first-time candidate.

Goodlander’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

A graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Goodlander served 11 years as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve. She advised former Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and then-Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. She served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump and served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Biden administration, in the antitrust division.

Her family is also politically connected. Both her grandfather and her mother were involved in Republican politics, and she is married to national security adviser Jake Sullivan. Their 2015 wedding was officiated by Hillary Clinton, whose presidential campaign Sullivan advised.

Goodlander’s experience and connections have been a boon to her campaign, which she launched in May. Her campaign netted $1.56 million in the fundraising quarter that ran from April 1 to June 30, an average of $801 per donation. (The average donor to Van Ostern’s campaign during that same time period gave $302.) Only about 12 percent of Goodlander’s donations — $185,305 — came from within the state.

Her campaign also received $10,000 from the With Honor PAC. 

With Honor, according to its website, “works alongside the bipartisan For Country Caucus, a group of 30 veterans serving in the United States House of Representatives who have committed to the With Honor pledge to serve with integrity, civility, and the courage to work across party lines.” (This civility-driven caucus includes the likes of Florida Republican Rep. Brian Mast, who has compared Palestinian civilians to Nazis and said more infrastructure in Gaza “needs to be destroyed.”)

With Honor’s affiliated super PAC, the With Honor Fund, received some $12 million from Bezos’s parents since 2017. Bezos himself gave $10 million to the super PAC in 2018. Bloomberg contributed a combined $750,000 in 2018 and 2020.

Before shutting down in 2023, the fund transferred nearly $5.9 million to With Honor Fund II, which in turn transferred $5.83 million to two separate super PACs: the Principled Veterans Fund and the Elect Principled Veterans Fund. All three groups share the same treasurer, who did not respond to an inquiry from The Intercept. The Principled Veterans Fund’s only other major donor was Bloomberg, who gave another $750,000 in 2022. 

That super PAC has spent $154,000 in support of Goodlander, while Elect Principled Veterans has spent thousands to support members largely part of the For Country Caucus.

Several years ago, the For Country Caucus attempted to distance itself from With Honor. That concern seems to have subsided. Today, the PAC’s website boasts of its collaboration with the caucus.

The post A Well-Connected Veteran’s Congressional Campaign Is Fueled by Out-of-State Donors appeared first on The Intercept.

The university recently deposed tenured law professor Katherine Franke as part of an investigation stemming from an interview she gave to “Democracy Now!” in January. During that interview, Franke was asked about allegations that two students who had previously served in the Israeli army had sprayed a chemical at their classmates at an on-campus rally for Gaza.

Franke, who has worked at the school for decades, responded by linking the incident to a documented pattern of on-campus harassment that Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students have alleged for years.

“Columbia has a program with older students from other countries, including Israel,” Franke said, referring to the school’s General Studies program. “It’s something that many of us were concerned about because so many of those Israeli students who then come to the campus are coming right out of their military service. And they’ve been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus, and it’s something the university has not taken seriously in the past.”

The remarks set off a firestorm, with commentators suggesting that Franke was calling to ban all Israeli students from campus. Within a few days of the interview, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article titled “Columbia University Pushes Back Against Professor Who Vilified Israeli Students,” citing a statement from the university affirming its support for Israeli students. 

By February 13, Franke was notified of a complaint against her based on the interview, filed by two law school professors who alleged violations of university discrimination policy. Online, supporters of Israel continued to misconstrue Franke’s statements, while a Republican lawmaker asked University President Minouche Shafik about Franke during an April hearing about campus antisemitism. 

Columbia refused to answer The Intercept’s questions on the pending investigation, but referred to its equal opportunity and affirmative action policies and procedures. The document lists a range of possible disciplinary action, including probation, administrative leave or suspension, and dismissal or restriction from employment. 

Related

University Professors Are Losing Their Jobs Over “New McCarthyism” on Gaza

Franke is one of several Columbia staff to face investigation — many of whom have defended Palestinian rights — while the House Committee on Education and the Workforce continues to apply pressure on the school. Recently, three deans were placed on indefinite leave for exchanging text messages the university says “touched on ancient antisemitic tropes.” Professors elsewhere across the country have had their livelihoods imperiled upon speaking out in defense of Palestinians.

“What’s of greatest concern is not really my 20-year-plus career at Columbia, but what this says about peaceful protest on our campuses, around the lives and dignity of Palestinians,” Franke said in an interview with The Intercept.

“What’s happening to me is happening to our students, it’s happened to people on many other campuses. And it’s, to me, shocking at a place like Columbia — which prides itself on being a home for, if not only tolerating, maybe welcoming student engagement with public events or public affairs like the crisis in the Middle East,” she continued. “And yet they’re punishing me and others for standing up for our students who I think are engaging in appropriate protest.”

Franke’s career as a lawyer and legal scholar has focused on gender and sexuality law, and she has also done human rights work focused on Israel’s occupation of Palestine. In 2018, Israel deported Franke upon her arrival in the country to take part in a human rights delegation. As Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza has roiled the Columbia campus, Franke has defended students speaking out on behalf of Palestinians or criticizing the Israeli government. She has also been unabashed in her criticism of the university administration’s response to student protests.

In its statement to Haaretz on the heels of Franke’s “Democracy Now!” interview, a university spokesperson said, “We are disheartened to see some members of our community and beyond use this moment to spread antisemitism, Islamophobia, bigotry against Palestinians and Israelis. Especially at a time of pain and anger, we must avoid language that vilifies, threatens, or stereotypes entire groups of people. It is antithetical to Columbia’s values and can lead to acts of harassment or violence.”

As the controversy persisted ahead of the April congressional hearing, Franke reached out to Shafik through another senior administrator to relay her concerns. (Franke said she did so because she had been unable to get Shafik to meet with her or respond to her efforts to connect). In an email that she asked the administrator to forward to Shafik, she rebutted the misinformation that had circulated about her interview and reiterated that she wasn’t calling to ban Israeli students from campus. 

Rather, she wrote, she was voicing concern “about students coming onto our campus who have just completed their military service in Israel – the transition to civilian life – after having been taught that Palestinians are evil and want to kill Israelis/Jews – can be a rough one for some people.”

Franke said she never heard from Shafik about the email.

Related

Columbia Suspended Two Students for Assault on Gaza Rally, School Says in Antisemitism Hearing

She was right to be on guard. At the April 17 hearing, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., asked Shafik what she was doing about Franke, who, Stefanik falsely claimed, said “all Israeli students who have served in the IDF are dangerous and shouldn’t be on campus.”

“I agree with you that those comments are completely unacceptable and discriminatory,” Shafik said, accepting Stefanik’s framing. “I think she will be finding a way to clarify her position.” The president added that “a very senior person in the administration” spoke to Franke, who said the comments were not what she intended to say.

While Shafik’s comments indicated knowledge of Franke’s interaction with the senior administrator, the president misconstrued the core point of Franke’s outreach: She didn’t mean those “unacceptable” comments because she did not say them.

Shafik’s office did not respond to The Intercept’s questions.

As part of the school’s investigatory process, the university deposed Franke for a couple of hours on June 13. The deposition was handled by outside investigators at the insistence of Franke and her lawyer, who argued that she had been prejudged by the school’s president. 

“It seemed clear to me that they had made their mind up already, coming into the deposition, that I was generalizing in a way that would make people who served in the IDF or Israelis feel bad, and so there’s a very good chance that they will fire me,” Franke said. She said that the person who deposed her seemed to be trying to goad her into agreeing with the premise of the violations alleged, asking questions like, “You can understand that somebody might hear what you said and take it as discriminatory?”

Franke is expecting a decision any day now. She was told the university would make a decision in a matter of weeks. 

“Today, it’s Palestine. Tomorrow could be abortion. It could be, you know, criticizing the Trump administration. It could be climate change,” Franke said. “I feel like it’s Palestine today, but what’s at stake here is something much larger, of the imposition of a kind of orthodoxy around a very contested political concept or context.” 

The post Columbia Law Professor Smeared by Israel Supporters Could Lose Her Job appeared first on The Intercept.

The basic inanity underscores the malign interest driving one of two major American political parties: $300 million of donations to lawmakers from energy and natural resource interest groups (namely, fossil fuel companies) since 1990 — more than double the amount directed to Democrats during that same period.

On Monday, the Republican National Convention announced its platform, which affirmed that the party is wholly Donald Trump’s. “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” the 16-page document’s headline read. 

The document paid no mind to environmental protection, never mind the 130 million Americans currently trudging through oppressive heat. But it did call to “BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY,” a reference to Israel’s U.S.-funded defense system, and to “CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.”

That the Trump-led, Republican agenda doesn’t mention “climate” is not surprising. In his first term, the former president overturned some 100 environmental regulations, pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and weakened the Environmental Protection Agency. In April, Trump reportedly promised oil tycoons that he would reverse some of Joe Biden’s climate policies in exchange for a $1 billion campaign contribution. Meanwhile, three of his Supreme Court justices just helped corporate America get even further off the hook from having to respect environmental regulation by overturning the Chevron doctrine, a decades-old legal precedent that directed courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of unambiguous statues. 

“Trump can’t mention it because every last one of his policies would make it worse. He’s essentially running on heating the planet even more,” Bill McKibben, environmentalist and founder of climate groups Third Act and 350.org, told The Intercept.

In an exchange with a young climate activist on the day the GOP’s platform was released, Republican Sen. Katie Britt — framed by the party as “America’s mom” before her memorable “State of the Union” response speech — embodied her party’s dismissive response to the burning of our planet.

“Oh you, look at how dishonest that was. You asked if you could take a selfie and now you’re asking questions,” Britt said to a voter who asked her about money she receives from the oil and gas lobby. Britt proceeded to ask what the voter’s issue was with “Big Oil.”

“I think that the climate crisis is here and getting worse, and you’re being funded by the people who are making that happen,” the activist said.

The senator from Alabama responded evasively, seeming to cheer on more toxic drilling. “Listen, we’ve got to be not only energy independent, but energy dominant. We do it better than anybody.”

Britt did not respond to questions about her plan to address climate change and environmental protection, or about the $197,037 she has received from the oil and gas industries since joining Congress in 2022.

It’s not as if modern Republicans have not engaged with climate. In 2021, Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, launched the Conservative Climate Caucus in 2021 to educate Republicans on climate policies and legislation. “Don’t be too tough on us, but watch us. I am totally ready to be judged a year from on how much impact we’ve had on the debate,” he said at the time of the group’s founding. 

As it turns out, the effort, which has received favorable media coverage since its inception, has not had much tangible impact. The group’s members have attacked environmental regulations, undermined or simply refused to vote for bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, and taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry.

The post GOP Platform Doesn’t Mention the Word “Climate” Once — Even After Hottest Year on Record appeared first on The Intercept.

Team Biden would have you believe that the poll shows that he has the best chance at beating Trump. Yet if the poll is meant to answer the question of which Democrat would fare best against Trump, the answer, evidently, is nearly anyone else. 

The post-debate Data for Progress poll tested the odds of eight Democrats who have been floated as possible alternatives to Biden, including Vice President Kamala Harris and multiple Democratic governors. Biden’s self-proclaimed advantage is tempered by the lack of name recognition — so far — for the other options. Aside from Harris, prospective voters were so unfamiliar with these Democratic leaders that between 39 and 71 percent of respondents said they hadn’t heard enough about them to have an opinion. Even so, each potential candidate performed the same or even better than Biden.

For instance, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is losing to Trump by 2 points, compared to Biden’s 3 — despite the fact that 56 percent of voters do not know enough about her to share any particular opinion. Others, like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, like Biden, trail Trump by 3, despite having little name recognition. Harris had the same result as Biden.

Since the poll results come without any concentrated campaign by any of the officials, they can be read as a reflection of floors rather than ceilings for each of the alternative Democrats. Given mass voter discontent with the choice between Trump and Biden, the polling suggests that voters could readily get behind someone else. 

A Reuters poll conducted as far back as January found that about half of Democrats and 75 percent of independents thought Biden should not run for president again; it also found that 31 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of independents said Trump shouldn’t run again. A NewsNation poll conducted around the same time found that 59 percent of Americans wouldn’t be enthusiastic about a Biden-Trump rematch. The trend has continued in recent polling: A post-debate USA Today poll found that 41 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents wanted Biden replaced, with 63 percent of independents wanting Trump replaced. A CBS poll similarly found nearly half of Democrats want Biden to step aside.

The poll reflects floors, rather than ceilings, for the alternative Democrats.

In the aftermath of the debate, a CNN poll found 75 percent of all voters thought Democrats would have a better chance at winning the election with someone other than Biden at the top of the ticket. It suggested Whitmer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg were all doing slightly better than the presiden, with Harris within the margin of error of Trump. (Harris’s net-approval rating average is also 9 points better than Biden’s).

This polling suggests there are substantial numbers of disenchanted Democrats, independents, and even Republicans who could be enthused by an alternative, while those still standing by Biden are just as likely to support any Democratic alternative to Trump. A Democratic presidential campaign that’s been shedding support could instead be one that’s gaining momentum.

In nearly every way, Biden is carrying baggage that no alternative Democrat would inherit. Aside from a five-day stretch, Biden has trailed Trump in national polling averages for the better part of the campaign. Trump’s margin widened again after last week’s debate. Biden has been underperforming Democratic Senate candidates in a range of states, including ones he will need to win in 2024, such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and even Ohio. Post-debate polls show Biden sinking in these states and even bringing others like New Hampshire and New Mexico into play. His approval rating is about the lowest it’s ever been during his presidency, at a net negative of 19.

And it’s not just the polling. Biden has faced a historic protest vote campaign in the form of the Uncommitted movement, which has netted hundreds of thousands of votes nationwide, including in key battleground states, expressing discontent with Biden’s almost-unconditional support for Israel’s war on Gaza. His handling of the war has also birthed a historic nationwide movement of campus and community protests that could continue into the fall. 

With concerns surrounding his age and mental fitness hanging over his campaign, one fact bears acknowledgment: Biden is not getting any younger.

Efforts to challenge Biden earlier in the cycle did not take off — in part because the political establishment had put up a united front around Biden. But even as Biden’s advisers try to tamp down concerns, the list of people who have expressed concern about Biden’s performance or suggested he step aside in order to maximize the odds of beating Trump range only grows. They range from Never Trump Republicans Bill Kristol and Sarah Longwell and hosts of the former Obama staffer-led “Pod Save America,” to Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Gabe Amo, to the editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the New York Times, former Obama Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, and several Democratic members of Congress and committee leaders nationwide — including former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

On Tuesday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett became the first sitting Democratic member of Congress to call on Biden to step aside. 

For now, the possible alternative candidates have stayed quiet and reiterated their support for Biden. Whitmer reportedly called a senior Biden campaign official to express that she hated she was being floated as a possible replacement, while also sharing concern about how much more difficult the campaign will now be for Biden. She later released a statement affirming her “100 percent” support for Biden’s fight against Trump.

Newsom, who one California columnist has described as “waiting in the wings,” maintained his tune as an avid Biden surrogate even while being swarmed by reporters after the debate. On Thursday night, he expressed his “disgust” at Trump’s debate performance and his pride in Biden on the substance. 

If the president is meant to be a messenger for the wider governing structure he represents, Biden, as evidenced by his debate performance, falls short. While Trump spouted lies and racist remarks like clockwork, Biden fumbled to not only respond to those comments, but even to maintain a coherent positive message. If the president is meant to actively craft and execute responsive policy, just look to Biden’s remarkable intransigence in supporting Israel’s war or his timidness in the face of an out-of-control and unaccountable Supreme Court as signs of a political and an electoral liability. If the role of a president is some combination of both, Biden’s recent record appears all the worse.

Despite their hesitance to jump in, alternative candidates have the possibility to not only more effectively contrast themselves against Trump — but also against Biden’s inability to do so. And in a race in which the American public is disenchanted not just with Biden, but with Trump too, the question is whether other Democrats have a better chance than the incumbent against someone who ought to be among the most beatable candidates in presidential election history.

After all, Trump is now the first former president to be a convicted felon and still faces several other criminal proceedings. He appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who not only helped overturn decades-old abortion rights in the U.S., but recently freed corporate America from regulation and ruled that homeless people can be considered criminals for sleeping outside, while crime-committing presidents can be immune from prosecution for nearly any misdeed. He is the face of a movement that sought to overturn an election, that has pursued book bans and mass deportations and infringements on people’s abilities to love whoever they do.

In 2020, Biden had the benefit of challenging a historically unpopular incumbent and garnering the volunteer energy to do so, and still, he won narrowly. If he takes seriously his own warnings of what dangers Trump’s re-ascendance may unleash, he would act accordingly. By every single metric, he is faring much worse in 2024 than he did four years ago, while those same factors suggest nearly any prominent Democratic alternative could perform better.

The post Every Democrat Other Than Joe Biden Is Unburdened by What Has Been appeared first on The Intercept.

Left largely overlooked, however, has been the open xenophobia Trump deployed against Palestinians and immigrants, and the silence with which it was met.

The most striking illustration might be Trump’s response to a prompt from CNN moderator Dana Bash, regarding Israel’s war on Gaza and the “humanitarian crisis” that Israel has created while killing thousands of Palestinians. 

As Biden insisted that Hamas was the only entity standing in the way of a ceasefire, Trump actually pushed back on the idea. “You got to ask him,” Trump began, referring to Biden, “as far as Israel and Hamas, Israel is the one that wants to go. He said the only one who wants to keep going is Hamas.” He continued: “Actually, Israel is the one, and you should let them go and let them finish the job. He doesn’t want to do it. He has become like a Palestinian. But, they don’t like him because he is a very bad Palestinian. He is a weak one.”

When Trump accused Biden of having “become like a Palestinian,” the moderators did not ask him why the word is apparently a pejorative.

The moment embodied a through line of the debate: CNN moderators Bash or Jake Tapper would ask a question; Trump would respond with something off-topic, dishonest, and dangerous; and the moderators, instead of pushing back or even acknowledging the absurdity of Trump’s answers, would simply move on, thanking the twice-impeached former president for his time.

When, for instance, Trump accused Biden of having “become like a Palestinian,” but a very bad one, a “weak one,” the moderators did not ask him what that meant or why the word “Palestinian” is apparently a pejorative. Nor did they question what “finish the job” might mean in the context of a war that has killed upwards of 37,000 people. 

Biden, for his part, began his retort saying he’s “never heard so much foolishness,” but did nothing to refute Trump’s claims, instead focusing on Trump wanting to leave NATO.

In response to the same question, Biden said he’s still pushing hard for Hamas to accept a ceasefire deal and made clear that “the only thing I’ve denied Israel was 2,000-pound bombs,” given the risk to innocent people in populated areas. But he used the debate to assure voters that his administration is “providing Israel with all the weapons they need and when they need them.”

“We are the biggest producer of support for Israel than anyone in the world,” Biden said.

Shortly after, Bash followed up with Trump, asking if he would “support the creation of an independent Palestinian state in order to achieve peace in the region.”

“I’d have to see,” Trump replied, before saying 212 more words delving back into his issues with NATO. Bash did not follow up, instead simply closing the conversation with “thank you.” (The question was not also pitched to the current commander-in-chief).

Trump made similarly anti-Palestinian comments in his closing statement. ”For three and a half years, we’re living in hell,” Trump said, listing off things he blamed Biden for. “We have the Palestinians and we have everybody else rioting all over the place.”

“You talk about Charlottesville,” Trump said, comparing anti-war demonstrations and student protests to a rally of neo-Nazis who chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” “This is 100 times Charlottesville, 1,000 times.”

The hateful rhetoric extended beyond Palestinians — and so, too, did the general silence from moderators. Trump referred to immigrants as hordes of millions coming from “prisons, jails, and mental institutions” into the country to destroy it. He falsely claimed that migrants were coming into the country and killing people at “a level that we’ve never seen” and also said they were taking “Black jobs” and “Hispanic jobs.”

None of this is new for a candidate who entered the political sphere insisting that then-candidate Barack Obama was secretly a Muslim and who announced his 2016 campaign asserting that Mexico was “bringing drugs, and bringing crime, and their rapists” to the United States.

The debate has triggered a broader reflection on whether a candidate other than Biden would be best suited to put down such cruelty, though some higher-echelon Democrats have thus far refused to entertain that possibility. While many fear the Democratic Party brass is re-running elements of 2016 — refusing to take seriously those who fear their stubbornness may lead to Trump’s victory — it seems the media is following suit in treating Trump’s viciousness as a baseline rather than an aberration.

The post Trump Used “Palestinian” as a Slur. Biden and Debate Moderators Didn’t Say a Word. appeared first on The Intercept.

On Thursday, lawmakers voted 269-144 on an amendment to prohibit the State Department from citing statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry. The measure is part of the annual State Department appropriations bill. It was led by Democratic Reps. Jared Moskowitz, Fla., and Josh Gottheimer, N.J., and Republican Reps. Joe Wilson, S.C.; Mike Lawler, N.Y.; and Carol Miller, W.V.

In total, 62 Democrats joined 207 Republicans in supporting the amendment.

While party leaders often push their members to vote “yes” or “no” on any range of proposals, Democratic leadership gave “no recommendation” to its members on how to vote on the amendment. After the House passes the full bill, it will head to the Senate for consideration.

Mohammed Khader, policy manager at the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, told The Intercept that the amendment is part of a trend of anti-Palestinian sentiment in Congress since the start of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. “By preventing any recognition of the number of Palestinians killed since October, this amendment is a clear example of genocide denial and is no different from what was done towards victims of genocides in Rwanda and Armenia.”

On Wednesday, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., the only Palestinian member of Congress, took to the floor to make a similar argument. “This is genocide denial,” she said.

After reciting the death toll and other statistics about casualties, Tlaib said she intended to introduce the list of Palestinians killed in Gaza to the congressional record. “It is important to note this to everyone here: The list is too long that I can’t even submit it because of the text limit,” she said. “That’s how many have been killed.”

Over the last eight months, Israel has killed at least 37,765 people and injured another 86,429, according to the ministry’s latest figures.

The Ministry of Health is the only official entity tracking the death toll in Gaza; its figures have been cited broadly, including by the U.S. and Israeli governments. Over the last eight months, Israel has killed at least 37,765 people and injured another 86,429, according to the ministry’s latest figures. These numbers are likely an undercount due to the decimated medical infrastructure, killed medical workers, and thousands feared trapped under the rubble in Gaza.

“It’s despicable but not shocking that 62 Democrats joined Republicans to refute the Gaza death toll,” one Democratic staffer told The Intercept. “Democratic leadership should be ashamed for refusing to take a stand and call out the blatant anti-Palestinian racism and genocide denial in our party.”

Moskowitz and Gottheimer are among several Democrats who have repeatedly worked to undermine the movement for Palestinian rights and pro-Palestinian speech.

In April, the pair joined Republicans to lead a resolution condemning the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as antisemitic. In December, the duo joined Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik and Steve Scalise to lead a resolution condemning university presidents and calling for their resignations for allegedly tolerating antisemitism on campus. In November, the two Democrats joined 20 others in censuring Tlaib, for reasons that included posting a video calling for a ceasefire that contained the phrase “from the river to the sea.” 

Gottheimer has gone even further, calling Democrats who don’t support Israel a “cancer” and suggesting that Muslims in America are “guilty” of Hamas’s attack on October 7. Along with Lawler, he headlined a call hosted by No Labels, in which he spoke with university trustees about how to push the FBI to take a bigger role in investigating campus protests. During that call, Lawler suggested that student protests for Palestine were the type of activity that inspired the TikTok ban.

The pair also joined 60 other Democrats in expressing their “disgust” at South Africa’s 84-page suit accusing Israel of genocide and praising White House spokesperson John Kirby for calling it “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basic in fact whatsoever.” Not long after, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.

The post 62 Democrats Join 207 Republicans in Vote to Conceal Gaza Death Toll appeared first on The Intercept.

“Since the attack at our ambulances that was dispatched to save Hind Rajab, there has been no investigations made by the Israelis or any contact from the Israelis to the Red Crescent,” said spokesperson Nebal Farsakh. “We as the Palestinian Red Crescent have not received any kind of communication from the Israeli military.”

On Monday, State Department spokesperson Matt Miller said that, according to Israel, the Red Crescent and the United Nations had rebuffed Israeli efforts to investigate the incident that had made headlines around the world. On January 29, Hind and her 15-year-old cousin made a desperate call to the Red Crescent, asking for help while stuck in a car with family members they said were killed by Israeli fire. After hours of negotiations with the Israeli military to coordinate safe passage, the Red Crescent dispatched an ambulance to save Hind (her cousin was killed during their first call), only for the medics to be found dead near Hind days later.

“All I can tell you is what they’ve told us. And what they have said is, they went to the U.N. and the Palestinian Red Crescent and asked them to supply information that would help them, and what they claim is that they were given none,” Miller said. 

His comments came on the heels of an independent investigation by the U.K.-based firm Forensic Architecture, which concluded that Israeli fire was most likely responsible for the attack, and that it was “not plausible” that Israeli forces would not have seen who they shot 335 bullets at.

“It’s not plausible that the shooter could not have seen that the car was occupied by civilians, including children,” the firm found. “From the tank position indicated by the greatest alignment between entry and exit holes, we concluded that the shooter would have had a clear view of the car and its passengers.”

Asked about those findings on Monday, Miller noted that Israel said there were no tanks in the area, and that the State Department couldn’t attest to any particularities because it is only conveying what Israel has said. The State Department did not respond to a follow-up question about the Red Crescent’s statement, nor did the Israeli military.

Hind, in some of her final moments to a Red Crescent dispatcher, said she had seen a tank nearby.

“They are dead,” Rajab said about her family members who were killed right in front of her. “The tank is next to me.”

“It’s almost night, I am scared,” she cried. “Come get me, please.”

The Washington Post previously confirmed there were armed military vehicles in the vicinity, as did Al Jazeera’s analysis of satellite imagery. 

Miller, when citing Israel’s claim that there were no tanks in the area, said, “I am not attesting to any of these facts.” Asked about whether the U.S. will verify any of Israel’s statements, he added, “It is not for us to do it.”

“Those agencies can come forward and provide information, it’s easy to do so. If in fact they have information, they should come forward and do it, and provide, and we’ll be happy to look at that.”

Farsakh also said that the Red Crescent and the International Red Cross received no information during the 12 days after January 29, when Hind’s whereabouts were unknown. She also noted that Tel al-Hawa, where the attack happened, was under evacuation orders issued by the Israeli military due to ongoing operations at the time. Such conditions prompted the Red Crescent to make arrangements with Israeli forces to dispatch an ambulance, a process that took three hours.

It was during those hours that Hind uttered her final, chilling pleas for help. Despite the coordination, paramedics Yusuf al-Zeino and Ahmed al-Madhoun were found dead, just meters from where Hind was found on February 10.

In the nearly five months since the killings, The Intercept repeatedly asked the State Department about the incident, the status of investigations, and how the U.S. could continue sending Israel aid if it could not get straightforward answers on the case. (U.S. policy requires foreign governments to provide assurances they won’t violate international law with U.S. weapons; the U.S. found that Israel likely violated law with American weapons, but did not act on the conclusion.) On almost every occasion, Miller said the U.S. was asking Israel to investigate. 

On February 14, for example, after The Intercept asked about the range of material available for an investigation to proceed, Miller said the question is “appropriately addressed to the government of Israel,” but that the U.S. wanted the incident to be investigated. Several times after, Miller either did not have an update on the “ongoing” investigation, or said the department would “come back” after getting an answer.

After nearly 150 days, the State Department finally came back with answers: ones that relied wholly on Israeli claims — assertions the U.S. admitted it did not attempt to verify, that deflated upon the slightest provocation.

The post Red Crescent Says Israel Never Reached Out About Hind Rajab’s Death, Despite State Department Claim That Israel Said Otherwise appeared first on The Intercept.

A photo posted by the unit itself, however, seems to suggest that the U.S. was providing support as far back as December of last year. 

The photo, in tandem with the administration’s own statements, highlights the murky nature of the arms ban, how it was imposed, and under what U.S. authority. Two mechanisms could have barred arms transfers: a law passed by Congress specifically prohibiting assistance to Azov, and the so-called Leahy laws that block support to units responsible for grave rights violations. 

“My guess is that the Department found that the Brigade is a ‘new unit,’ distinguishable from the Battalion and the Regiment.”

The State Department said this month that weapon shipments will now go forward after a Leahy law review, but won’t comment on if and when a Leahy ban was in effect. The congressional prohibition, the U.S. says, does not apply because it barred assistance to the Azov Battalion, a predecessor to the Azov Brigade. The original unit had earned scrutiny for alleged human rights violations and ties to neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideologies.

The U.S. has not made clear about when the apparent ban started, but a deputy Azov commander and media reports indicate some type of prohibition has been in effect for nearly a decade — though the congressional ban has only been in effect since 2018.

“There was a request for resources for the 12th Special Forces Brigade, which prompted a Leahy vetting process, in which they were found to be eligible,” a State Department spokesperson told The Intercept, suggesting the approval process did not deal with any existing bans. (The State Department did not respond to questions asking for clarity if that was the case.)

One former American official said that because of the unit’s byzantine history of reorganizations and official status, the State Department should better explain its decisions.

“Given the history of the Azov Regiment, the Azov Battalion, and the Azov Brigade, the State Department’s ought to provide a more detailed rationale for the finding that the Brigade is eligible pursuant to the Leahy law,” Charles Blaha, the former director of the State Department’s Office of Security and Human Rights, told The Intercept. “My guess is that the Department found that the Brigade is a ‘new unit,’ distinguishable from the Battalion and the Regiment. If that’s correct, the Department should say so.”

U.S. Special Ops Training

Restrictions on U.S. military support may have been in effect when the Azov Brigade’s official Telegram channel and X account announced in March that the unit’s personnel recently completed an American military training. The course, on civil–military cooperation, was provided by U.S. Special Operations Command Europe, or SOCEUR, according to the posts.

One attached photo shows a captain in the Azov unit being presented with a certificate dated December 2023 by a person with a blurred face in U.S. military fatigues. A second photo shows a group of people in U.S. military apparel holding an American flag next to a group of several dozen others, some of whom are holding a flag with the Azov insignia.

Department of Defense spokesperson Tim Gorman would not comment on the SOCEUR training, including whether or not it was legal, and referred The Intercept to the State Department. (The Azov unit did not respond to a request for comment.)

The State Department also declined to answer repeated questions about the SOCEUR training and its legality, or whether there had been other U.S. military training with Azov before clearing the group under the Leahy laws.

The spokesperson told The Intercept that it found no evidence of the Azov Brigade committing violations of human rights that would bar American aid under the Leahy laws.

Russia has tried to discredit the Azov Brigade, the State Department spokesperson said, by conflating it with its predecessor, the Azov Battalion militia. The Azov Battalion, which is under congressional sanctions, was absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard in 2014 then underwent several more reorganizations before becoming a brigade in 2023. Others have echoed concerns of propaganda against Azov, pointing to Russia’s amplification of claims about Nazis in Ukraine to justify its invasion.

“That militia disbanded in 2015 and the composition of Special Forces Brigade Azov is significantly different,” the spokesperson noted. Another spokesperson, meanwhile, said, “The Battalion was disbanded in 2014 and the United States has never provided security assistance to the ‘Azov battalion.’”

With the State Department leaning on the distinction between the “battalion” and the “brigade” to get around congressional sanctions, some representatives are moving to shore up the statutory ban on military support to Azov. In recent days, the proposed defense appropriations language was updated. 

“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to provide arms, training, intelligence, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion, the Third Separate Assault Brigade, or any successor organization,” the new language reads, gesturing to a brigade created by Battalion veterans, as well as the Azov Brigade itself. The current language in effect only addresses the Azov Battalion.

A former House staffer who was involved in efforts to ban support to Azov, requesting anonymity for fear of threats from the group, told The Intercept, “The fact that Congress is moving so quickly to reaffirm that the ban does apply to ‘successor organizations’ like the Azov Regiment, Azov Brigade, or whatever else they might change their name to next, shows that the White House view doesn’t hold water.”

Significantly Different?

As it is, the State Department’s limited rationale for lifting arms restrictions rests on the claim that the composition of the battalion and the brigade are “significantly different.” That finding would be made under provisions of the Leahy determinations that allow for differentiating between old and “fundamentally different units,” such as changes in leadership and culture. 

Yet the Azov unit has significant continuity and, while Leahy laws are concerned with human rights, the State Department’s appeal to the Leahy determination may not cover the ideological justification of the congressional ban on the transfer of arms, training, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.

Azov commander Denys Prokopenko and deputy commander Svyatoslav Palamar, for instance, are holdovers from the original battalion militia. And, along with other higher-ranking Azov members, they are linked to white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies, as Ukrainian journalist Lev Golinkin reported in The Nation last year. 

“If the White House wants to arm and train the most neo-Nazi-linked group in Ukraine, it should push for Congress to remove the ban.”

The suggestion that the battalion was “disbanded” and the brigade is “significantly different” is also undermined by the unit’s own words. A page on their website celebrates its 10-year anniversary. “This is the path from a few dozen volunteers, who had only motivation and faith in justice, to a special purpose brigade — one of the most effective units of the Defense Forces,” it reads.

Another biographical page suggests the Azov Battalion was never actually dissolved, but subsumed into the official Ukrainian military structure. “On September 17, 2014, by order of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the ‘Azov’ battalion was reorganized and expanded into the ‘Azov’ special purpose militia regiment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs,” the page says. “On November 11, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine signed an order on the transfer of the ‘Azov’ regiment to the National Guard of Ukraine, with its further staffing up to the combat standard of the National Guard brigades.”

Josh Paul, a former director in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs who resigned in protest of the administration’s policy on Israel’s Gaza war, told The Intercept he was not aware of any standing restriction on Azov. He recalled speaking to subject matter experts who said there were no concerns, and, as far as he knew, the unit had been eligible for aid since at least 2022. “My understanding is that they genuinely are different entities,” he said, adding that he did not see any evidence while at the State Department to suggest the Azov Brigade should be prohibited from receiving security assistance.

Ukrainian officials, for their part, seemed to suggest to the Washington Post that there was indeed a ban, one that Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba apparently raised to Secretary of State Antony Blinken last month. (Paul said there was “something odd going on, but my solid recollection is that there was no restriction, so I’m not sure what the Ukrainians are on about.”)

Two months ago — after the social media pictures appearing to show the training — Prokopenko, the Azov commander, said on X, “Azov is still blacklisted from receiving any U.S. aid.” In a May post, Prokopenko complained Azov had fought to defend Mariupol in 2022 with limited resources and outdated weapons because of the congressional ban on aid — suggesting the statutory sanctions applied to the unit at the time.

“The unavoidable reality is that there is a current ban on U.S. arms and training going to the Azov units,” said the former House staffer. “If the White House wants to arm and train the most neo-Nazi-linked group in Ukraine, it should push for Congress to remove the ban.”

“That may be a tall ask, however, as Congress is currently seeking to strengthen the law, rather than weaken it.”

The post The U.S. Says a Far-Right Ukrainian Army Unit Can Now Get Aid. A Photo Shows Training Was Already Happening. appeared first on The Intercept.

Livermore is “utterly dismayed” by how President Joe Biden and the Department of Defense “has been complicit in the genocide in Gaza,” he told The Intercept. So much so that he is in the final steps of separating from the Air Force, a monthslong process he initiated in late October. Once he officially exits the military, he said, he will never again work in what he describes as the military–industrial complex.

“I don’t want to be working on something that can turn around and be used to slaughter innocent people,” he said. “I think the dissonance just kind of continued to get louder and louder, it’s like ‘I can’t really do this anymore.’”

Livermore joins a burgeoning wave of dissent within the Biden administration and the military over U.S. support for Israel’s war on Gaza — including nine prominent resignations in recent months; 25-year-old Airman Aaron Bushnell’s self-immolation in February; and a new service member-led campaign to help soldiers speak out against elected officials’ support for Israel’s war.

Related

Israeli Refuseniks Forsake Army Despite Post-October 7 Nationalist Frenzy

The latter campaign comes in the wake of Jewish Maj. Harrison Mann’s public resignation from the U.S. Army, in protest of America’s “nearly unqualified support for the government of Israel, which has enabled and empowered the killing and starvation of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.”

In the weeks since Mann’s resignation, The Intercept has heard from members of the armed forces who expressed emotions ranging from guilt and frustration to outrage and repudiation regarding the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel, which includes billions of dollars in military aid as well as political and diplomatic cover. The testimonies, while limited in scope, nevertheless signal dissent within American power structures bubbling beyond the public resignations and protests seen thus far. The Department of Defense declined to comment.

“Every single one of my friends in the military agree that this is a genocide,” one seven-year member of the Army wrote in a message. “We’re all outraged by the repeated war crimes and depravity of Israel, as well [as] America’s complicity/enabling.”

An Airman’s Evolution

Livermore first commissioned with the Air Force in 2012, and after graduating with a master’s degree from the Air Force Institute of Technology two years later, he was selected to go to Israel for an engineering sciences exchange program.

During his two years there, Livermore researched missile guidance algorithms while learning Hebrew, immersing himself in the culture, and making friends. “Israel had kind of a special place in my heart,” he said. Ironically, Livermore’s open-armed experience in Israel is what helped lead him to his belief today that the U.S. government may be complicit in supporting an Israeli genocide against Palestinians.

The first seed was planted by a Palestinian friend in the Air Force who pulled him aside before he departed for Israel. The friend warned him of possibly being met with a lopsided story about Israel and Palestine, Livermore recalled. He said his friend introduced him to the Israel lobby — like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC — and its influence on U.S. politics. He also recalled his friend advising him simply to note where people “start the story” when they talk about the country’s history: Do they acknowledge historic Palestine, or is their starting point the Balfour Declaration or the creation of the state of Israel in 1948?

“I’m so grateful for that because it kind of helped me, maybe inoculate a little bit from what I see now is like heavily Zionist propaganda. And it always didn’t sit well with me, in general, just some of the Zionist talking points as far as, like, we’re a nation surrounded by enemies, but yet we’re the strongest around,” Livermore said. “There’s also this sense of being an American, being in the American military — it’s like America owes Israel something. There’s a lot of things, dynamics I didn’t super like.”

In language classes he took before his deployment and in interactions with people from around the world upon arriving, he added, his conversations with peers began to challenge his preexisting assumptions.

“‘We’re the good guys. They’re the bad guys. We’re protecting interests abroad. We’re the fighters for democracy.’ Like, it kind of put a lot of cracks in that,” Livermore said.

Livermore’s experience in Israel also challenged his faith. He grew up evangelical Christian and was active in his church, where he met his wife. In Israel, he joined what’s called a messianic congregation: a self-proclaimed Jewish sect that embraces evangelical Christianity.

Having grown up as a Christian nationalist, he began to see self-avowedly moral and pro-life people setting those values aside for the sake of their political interests, which intersected with Israeli policy aims, pointing to widespread support for President Donald Trump’s moving of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as an example. He saw his faith being used as a “cudgel for capitalism and power and oppressing people.” While maintaining a strong connection to a Jesus who preached love today, he added, he “doesn’t believe in white Jesus anymore,” the Jesus “wrapped in an American flag with an M4.”

Livermore slowly grew disenchanted with the military, especially as he reflected more on how the U.S. waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I’ve had friends who died,” he said. “It’s like, what’s this all for?”

Then came October 7. His exposure to Israeli military brass during his training, as well as the rhetoric he heard from Israeli friends in October, primed him for how ugly things could get. 

“I knew just how bad it was going to be and how there would be wholesale acceptance from the Israeli population,” Livermore said, offering “demolish Gaza, wipe it off the face of the earth” as an example of the types of comments he heard.

Before October 7, Livermore said, he would “have been a little bit more of an Israeli apologist, or like ‘it’s complicated,’ kind of take-a-both-sides-type approach.” Israel’s war on Gaza, however, was a “pry bar that kind of ripped it wide open.”

Livermore’s work in the Air Force has mainly focused on research and development, he said, though he’s worked with several contractors he reckons had a more direct link with operations in Gaza. He said that learning more about Israel’s use of targeting systems like Gospel and Lavender — artificial intelligence systems that have mechanized Israel’s war on Gaza, with little oversight — scared him. He credits his wife for helping him “cut through the bullshit” and not simply put his head down without engaging with the moral stakes.

It’s not an easy process to leave, Livermore noted. “The joke is the only harder thing than getting into the military is getting out of it.” He said it’s typically a multi-month ordeal, including congressionally mandated training and bureaucratic exit processing. There are also varied contingencies and approval processes based on how long members have served. In his case, the process he commenced last year will be finalized later this summer.

“Not only do I want to get out of active duty, but I want nothing to do with anything that’s directly like the military–industrial complex,” he said. “It’s not worth the money.”

Breaking Points

For Livermore, Mann’s resignation letter was extremely relatable. The Jewish Army major described the anticipation of waiting for things to improve or to end, only for them not to. It was a similar feeling that bolstered Livermore’s resolve to act on his preexisting inclinations to leave the Air Force.

Nemesis Hazim, who serves as a doctor in the U.S. Army, also found Mann’s decision a source of comfort as she’s grappled with her role in the military. “I wish I could just quit…… but at least this is validating and makes me feel like I’m not the only one feeling completely out of place,” Hazim wrote to The Intercept.

She said she enlisted to help pay for medical school and has rationalized her way through because of it. “But it gets harder and harder,” she said, adding that she’ll fulfill her time obligations in November 2025.

“I feel useless, ideally I would get out now and volunteer in Gaza, but I don’t have that option until they no longer own me.”

One 22-year member of the Air Force who comes from a lineage of service members described to The Intercept his evolution from committed foot soldier to today fearing that the U.S. is enabling genocide.

Related

Anti-War Veterans Groups Echo Aaron Bushnell’s Demand for a Ceasefire in Gaza

In the wake of Bushnell’s self-immolation, he appealed to higher-ups to lead conversations around mental health and Gaza. Those efforts didn’t go anywhere, but he himself broached the subject of Bushnell with his unit to indicate it was safe to talk about the war on Gaza. After Mann resigned, the Air Force member wrote a letter to a senior officer that invoked some of Mann’s own words and once again requested internal conversations to help people cope with the war.

“At some point — whatever the justification — we’re either advancing a policy that enables the mass killing and starvation of innocent people and children or we’re not,” he wrote. “We’re either advancing the destruction of schools, hospitals, and life-supporting infrastructure of 2+ million people or we’re not.”

In a message to The Intercept, he wrote that he condemns Hamas’s attacks on Israel as well as “any and all anti-semitism and Islamophobia.”

“At the same time,” he continued, “I also condemn what I feel is not a proportional response by Israel (as it related to international Law of Armed Conflict). I also feel like our country and leaders are enabling what seems to be genocide.”

It’s a remarkable turnaround for someone who enthusiastically enlisted in the wake of 9/11. “I remember feeling proud that I would be able to join the Armed Forces to help rid the world of terrorism.” He recalled the “hype” videos that were part of training in the academy. “We would see videos of jets flying at high speed, dropping bombs, tanks firing munitions, etc. while Bombs Over Baghdad by Outkast or Bodies (‘Let the Bodies Hit the Floor’) by Drowning Pool played.”

Reflecting on the academy atmosphere now, he said, “whether intentional or not … it was indeed preparing us to potentially do harm to others but also to desensitize us to that fact as well.”

His time as an intelligence analyst in Afghanistan, where he said he observed military abuses of ordinary Afghans, contributed to his eventual disillusionment with the U.S. military.

Still, he’s decided to remain enlisted in hopes of encouraging younger soldiers to view things more critically — even as America’s relentless support for Israel’s campaign against Gaza makes it increasingly difficult.

The seven-year member of the Army who expressed outrage at the war enlisted at the age of 21, they said, because they had just become homeless, had to drop out of college, and didn’t know where else to go. The military changed their life for the better, they said.

But the war on Gaza has taken its toll. “I’ve been at the edge of my limits pretty much since the conflict started,” they said. And the recent U.S.-supported Israeli operation to rescue four Israeli hostages that killed at least 274 Palestinians and injured hundreds of others felt like a “breaking point … one that feels too little too late, but better late than never I guess.”

They are “experiencing tangible mental health consequences as a result of watching a genocide in real time while simultaneously wearing a uniform that represents it,” they said. Consequently, they plan to exit when their contract is up next year and also stay away from any Department of Defense-related work.

“I would do 20 years if our country didn’t use the armed forces to commit war crimes and violate international law at every step,” they wrote. “It feels like every conflict we participate in or facilitate is fucking sinister and evil.”

Organized Resistance

Earlier this month, a coalition of veterans and anti-war organizations launched a campaign to help people in the military who are similarly struggling with U.S. support for Israel’s “continued war on the people of Palestine” to advocate against it.

The campaign — led by Veterans for Peace, the Center on Conscience and War, About Face: Veterans Against the War, and the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild — provides people in active duty, the National Guard, and the reserves with guidance and legal advice on how to raise concerns about the war with elected officials.

The groups have prepared templates that service members can use to reach out to elected officials. “We are not mere pawns in a political game; we are human beings with the capacity for empathy, compassion, and moral discernment. It is time for us to reclaim our humanity and refuse to be complicit in the genocide of an entire people,” one template reads.

As of Monday, about 30 service members had engaged with the process, according to Mike Ferner, special projects manager at Veterans for Peace.

The “Appeal for Redress v2” effort is inspired by a campaign of the same name that took place in 2006 and 2007. That campaign, the groups say, led to nearly 3,000 armed service members sending protected communications to their congressional representatives calling for an end to the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Former Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich helped deliver over 1,000 signatures to Congress on a statement that carried the calls.

Senior Airman Larry Hebert, who is seeking conscientious objector status, told The Intercept he views the new effort as baseline action that every service member should take part in. “This is your constitutional right and I advise everyone to exercise that right,” he said. “Whether you like to believe it or not, the Department of Defense supports the missions that kills innocent Palestinians. We cannot just ignore this fact.”

The post “Utterly Dismayed”: Air Force Engineer Resigns as Dissent Against Gaza War Slowly Spreads Within Military appeared first on The Intercept.

The provision was introduced by Reps. Brian Mast, R-Fla.; Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y.; and Eli Crane, R-Ariz., as an amendment to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense budget. While Democrats opposed the amendment, which passed by a simple voice vote, they did not request a recorded vote.

“They are absolutely at war with one of our major and best allies anywhere across the globe,” said Mast on the House floor before the vote about Gaza as a whole, not specifying Hamas. The Florida Republican, a former volunteer in the Israeli military who has repeatedly made incendiary, anti-Palestinian comments since October 7, said it is “nonsensical” to suggest rebuilding the place that’s been razed by Israeli and American bombs for eight months.

The U.S. has sent $12.5 billion to Israel just this year, with the annual $3.8 billion supplemented by another $8.7 billion that was approved in April. Israel’s assault on Gaza has reportedly destroyed more than half the buildings in the besieged enclave, displaced some 1.7 million Palestinians, and killed more than 37,000 people.

The provision on reconstruction is just one of several Gaza-focused amendments that Republicans and moderate Democrats have introduced to the must-pass defense budget. Some of the proposals, such as the reconstruction one, are likely to face more resistance in the Senate.

“The House advancing anti-Palestinian amendments into legislation at this stage reaffirms that many in Congress do not value the lives of their Palestinian constituents,” said Mohammed Khader, a policy manager at U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action. “Blocking funds to rebuild Gaza while actively providing taxpayer dollars, weapons, and intelligence to destroy Gaza and Palestinian society reaffirms that lawmakers intend for the U.S. to be an active participant in Israel’s atrocities.”

A trio of Texas Republicans filed an amendment to ban Department of Defense funds being used to operate planes to transport Palestinian refugees to the United States. Democrats requested a recorded vote for this measure.

Republican lawmakers also introduced two amendments related to the Pentagon’s temporary, floating pier in Gaza, which is meant to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid but has stumbled in doing so. One provision would prohibit the use of funds to build, maintain, or repair a pier off the coast of Gaza, or to even transport aid to such a pier. In other words, the Republicans are attempting to fully shut down the project. Another amendment would ban U.S. funds from being spent on the pier or another similar structure. 

Other Republicans filed amendments combating the movement to boycott, divest, or sanction Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestine. 

Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert submitted an amendment to prohibit the Department of Defense from entering into contracts with entities engaged in a boycott of Israel. Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., submitted one to express “the sense of Congress” that the Department of Defense should not participate in a European defense exhibition if Israeli firms face restrictions on attending. The amendment was approved by voice vote. 

Among the amendments with Democratic sponsors are ones expressing support for joint military ventures between the U.S. and Israel.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., for his part, filed an amendment to require an assessment of the accuracy of the Gaza Ministry of Health’s death toll accounting. Over the last eight months, supporters of Israel have pointed to the fact that Hamas — as Gaza’s governing entity — controls the health ministry as a way to undermine its death count. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Health’s figures have in the past been corroborated by the United Nations, Doctors Without Borders, and even the Israeli government itself. 

Given the damage to Gaza infrastructure and killing of Gaza officials, and the thousands of people feared missing under the rubble, it’s possible the ministry’s numbers are actually an undercount. 

The post House Votes to Block U.S. Funding to Rebuild Gaza appeared first on The Intercept.

“We need candidates like Dan who aren’t afraid to be an independent voice for the working class in the halls of power,” UAW President Shawn Fain said in a statement. “It isn’t about your political party; it’s about taking the fight against corporate greed to Washington DC. As a union member, Dan knows all about that fight, and we’ve got his back.”

Osborn launched his challenge against 73-year-old Fischer less than a year ago. Since then, the two polls available have shown that the race is competitive. Several election forecasters predict Republicans netting at least 50 Senate seats in November — with Nebraska being an assumed win; Osborn’s candidacy may put a wrench in that. 

A poll conducted in November had Osborn, a 48-year-old military veteran, leading Fischer by a slim margin of 2 percentage points; in response to a question describing both Osborn’s and Fischer’s backgrounds, 50 percent of respondents said they’d vote for Osborn, while only 32 percent said they’d vote for Fischer. The same poll had former President Donald Trump leading President Joe Biden by a margin of 16.

Another poll conducted in late April showed Osborn trailing Fischer by 4 percentage points, with 30 percent of voters undecided. Sixty percent of respondents said Fischer’s support for a national abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest made them less likely to vote for her. That poll had Trump leading Biden by a wider 23-point margin (Trump beat Biden by 19.1 points in 2020).

The UAW — which last year led a historic and successful strike campaign against all Big Three automakers and has subsequently launched a campaign to unionize 150,000 more workers at car plants across the country — lauded Osborn as being part of that tradition. The 400,000-strong labor organization noted in its endorsement statement that Osborn helped lead the 2021 strikes at food giant Kellogg’s, “which saw the end of a two-tier wage system — something UAW has fought hard for in past strikes, too.”

Union endorsements typically lead to campaign donations from the union’s PAC but can also unlock heavier support in the form of independent expenditure ads or ground-level canvassing campaigns.

Osborn’s platform includes legalizing marijuana, confronting agricultural monopolies, passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and opposing “extreme national measures to ban abortion.” Osborn also calls to reform the rail industry by requiring two-person crews, increasing rail safety violation fines, and guaranteeing rail workers seven days of paid sick leave — reforms pursued by Democrats and a handful of self-proclaimed pro-worker Republicans after the Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio last year.

Related

Shock Poll Shows Independent Nebraska Union Leader Beating Republican Senator

Osborn has ruffled some feathers in the state by refusing to accept the endorsement of either major party. State Democratic officials initially considered supporting Osborn’s candidacy and did not field a Democratic candidate against him in the primaries. But when Osborn announced, just one day after the state primaries, that he would not accept the party’s endorsement, the state Democratic Party published a statement saying that Osborn “betrayed” their trust. The party said that it intended to field a write-in candidate against Osborn and Fischer for the general election; that effort has not yet materialized.

“This campaign is about standing up to the corruption and political games of both parties in Washington that have left working people behind,” Osborn said in a statement to The Intercept. “With our brothers and sisters in the labor movement behind us, we are building a movement of working people to send someone to Washington who will fight for our interests, not the interests of a political party or a politician or a huge corporation that bankrolls campaigns.”

When Osborn launched his campaign last year, he outlined an aspirational coalition of supporters outside of the party infrastructure. “I will bring together workers, farmers, ranchers, and small business owners across Nebraska around bread-and-butter issues that appeal across party lines,” Osborn said. He has pledged not to accept any corporate backing for his campaign.

Osborn is the clear underdog in the money race against Fischer. The campaign says it has raised over $1.3 million (financial records up through April 24 show over $800,000 raised), with top donations coming from individual donors and labor unions. Fischer’s campaign, meanwhile, has raised over $3.5 million as of April 24. Fischer’s largest donations have come from the campaigns of fellow Republican Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and John Thune, R-S.D.; Republican congressional PACs; and AIPAC, which has donated nearly $250,000 this cycle. 

But Osborn had secured endorsements from several labor organizations before the UAW weighed in, including the United Steelworkers, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Communications Workers of America, Nebraska State AFL-CIO, United Food and Commercial Workers, and more.

Osborn’s candidacy could force Republicans to send resources to a state they otherwise would not have budgeted much additional expenditure for. While Republicans eye potential pickup opportunities in West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio — states that went to Trump in 2020 — and seek to push in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Arizona, they now have to account for a seat that otherwise would have been considered safe.

The post UAW Endorses Nebraska Underdog Threatening to Unseat a Republican Senator appeared first on The Intercept.

The Columbia Law School students who run CLR were considering a proposal to append a note to the Palestine article disclaiming what the directors, in an unsigned letter to students, described as “secrecy and deviation from the Review’s usual processes.” In the letter proposing the text, the board of directors said it wanted to see the journal put back online.

The student editors rejected the deal for a disclaimer by a 20-5 vote, according to a student and documentation reviewed by The Intercept.

“To the extent that they’re trying to censor Rabea, that simply won’t happen — that simply hasn’t happened and can’t.”

“I think that this whole year, and particularly this last semester, has been about students recognizing, stepping into their power,” said Sohum Pal, a CLR articles editor. “And I’m very glad that the law students at the law review are doing the same.”

When the article on Palestine, titled “Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept,” was published on Monday morning, Rabea Eghbariah became the first Palestinian legal scholar to publish in CLR. But within hours of publication, after months of revisions on the lengthy piece, the board of directors took the journal’s website completely offline, saying they had concerns about the process.

“Powerful legal scholarship cannot be silenced,” said Pal. “It’s already been circulating. It’s already gotten far more views or reads than the average law review article. And, yeah, to the extent that they’re trying to censor Rabea, that simply won’t happen — that simply hasn’t happened and can’t.”

The Intercept was not immediately able to reach members or representatives of the CLR board of directors, which oversees the independent, nonprofit student-led publication, for comment about the vote or the letter.

After voting, the students sent an email to board member Gillian Metzger, a Columbia law professor, saying that if the board continues to hinder the publication of Eghbariah’s piece, the staff of CLR will stop all work on the journal. The email, which was reviewed by The Intercept, said the students would continue to work on the Bluebook, a legal citation guide maintained and updated by four schools’ law reviews, including CLR. (Metzger did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

On Thursday afternoon, the board of directors reinstated the website, including Eghbariah’s article. A link at the bottom of the CLR homepage went to a statement from the board about Eghbariah’s article.

Eghbariah told The Intercept he viewed the board of directors’ actions as an example of a “Palestine exception” to free speech and academic freedom.

“The CLR Board of Directors has yet to contact me or officially explain to me their decision to take down the website, let alone their proposal to add a disclaimer to the article,” Eghbariah said, in a statement received after publication. “The fact that the Board could not cite any substantive deficiencies with the piece but rather resorted to allegations about internal processes, which were rejected by CLR editors, tells me all I need to know. This is not only a Palestine exception in action but also a disingenuous attempt to manufacture controversy that undermines and deflects attention from the content of the article.”

The website takedown was the latest in a battle on Columbia’s campus — and on campuses across the country — over free speech and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Protests erupted on many of the campuses over Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, including at least 15,000 children. At Columbia and other universities, demonstrators were met with brutal police violence.

Disputes over the Gaza war more broadly have spilled into many aspects of university life, with pro-Palestine students often facing consequences ranging from censure, expulsion, and even censorship — including at well-respected academic journals. In November, the Harvard Law Review voted to kill an online article, also by Eghbariah, that had gone through the full editing process.

On Tuesday, the day after The Intercept published its story on the directors’ initial suppression of Eghbariah’s piece, student editors said they received a letter sent on behalf of the board of directors that offered what it said was “the best way to further the many important values at stake.” The proposal in the board letter required that the following statement be attached to Eghbariah’s piece:

“Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept was not subject to the usual processes of review and editing at the Law Review. It was solicited outside of the usual articles selection process and edited and substantiated by a limited number of student editors. Contrary to ordinary practice, it was not made available for all student editors to read. As a result, a number of student editors were unaware of the piece and did not have the usual opportunity to provide input on its content prior to its publication.”

Some of the student editors who worked on Eghbariah’s piece took exception to the directors’ demand. “The letter communicates the Board’s continued stance to usurp and interfere with the student-run editorial process,” Erika Lopez, one of the editors, told The Intercept on Wednesday. “The Board’s seemingly final decision to include a disclaimer is offensive and unprecedented.”

“The letter communicates the Board’s continued stance to usurp and interfere with the student-run editorial process.”

The letter also suggested additional measures, including taking the “article” label away from piece, since it wasn’t facilitated by the articles committee, and soliciting a response to it. Students had previously told The Intercept that CLR’s student administrative board made a unanimous procedural vote to create a committee for shepherding a piece on Palestine; a separate vote on whether or not to solicit a piece and create an opt-in committee to edit it also passed overwhelmingly. 

The Wednesday letter, delivered to students unsigned and not on letterhead, said the board of directors had been “informed that this piece had not been subject to the usual processes of review or selection for articles at the Law Review, and in particular that a number of student editors had been unaware of its existence until two days before.” 

“The secrecy that surrounded this article’s editing and substantiation review is unacceptable,” the directors’ letter said. “It is also unprecedented, in that every piece is either worked on by, or available on request to, all student editors during the editing process.”

The letter also raised questions about the “adequacy of the editing and substantiation processes” in light of the purported secrecy.

“We elected to use a different internal communications policy for the piece; we did not use a different editing process,” one of the editors, who requested anonymity to avoid reprisals, told The Intercept on Wednesday. “Any implication that the internal communications policy reflected a deficient editing process is both untrue and insulting to the piece, the author, and our editorial staff.”

On Monday, student editors told The Intercept that the draft was stored on a server available to the opt-in editors of the article because of fears over leaks. The editors who spoke with The Intercept said they had never heard of a previous request by the board to distribute an article draft to the full membership of CLR.

In a statement to The Intercept on Monday, CLR’s board of directors, a group of eminent alumni and Columbia professors, said that it had requested a delay in the publication of the article so its content could be shared with the full membership of the journal, some 100 students. The delay was granted. 

When word of the article began to leak beyond the CLR community, however, the students responsible for producing it published the full May volume of the journal online. In response, the directors shut down the entire law review’s website. The directors, in their statement to The Intercept on Monday, said, “In order to provide time for the Law Review to determine how to proceed, we have temporarily suspended its website.”

After their vote, some of the CLR students declared a victory.

“I just feel really grateful and proud of my colleagues for taking a meaningful and principled stance tonight,” said Pal, the articles editor. “I tend to be pretty cautious, but I think I also try to be really optimistic. And one thing that we’ve been saying to each other, during this last day, has been that, like, optimism requires a little grain of delusion, and I think that it really feels very meaningful right now, to be deluded enough to think that you can win and then to do it.”

Update: June 6, 2024, 2:02 p.m. ET
This story has been updated to include the board’s reinstatement of the website without a PDF link for Rabea Eghbariah’s article; the students’ claim, made in an email, that they intended to keep working on the legal Bluebook; as well as a comment from Eghbariah received after publication.

The post Columbia Law Review Is Back Online After Students Threatened Work Stoppage Over Palestine Censorship appeared first on The Intercept.

As The Intercept reported at the time, Eghbariah’s essay — an argument for establishing “Nakba,” the expulsion, dispossession, and oppression of Palestinians, as a formal legal concept that widens its scope — faced extraordinary editorial scrutiny and eventual censorship. 

When the Harvard publication spiked his article, editors from another Ivy League law school reached out to Eghbariah. Students from the Columbia Law Review solicited a new article from the scholar and, upon receiving it, decided to edit it and prepare it for publication.

Now, eight months into Israel’s onslaught against Gaza, Eghbariah’s work has once again been stifled — this time by the Columbia Law Review’s board of directors, a group of law school professors and prominent alumni that oversee the students running the review. 

Eghbariah’s paper for the Columbia Law Review, or CLR, was published on its website in the early hours of Monday morning. The journal’s board of directors responded by pulling the entire website offline. The homepage on Monday morning read “Website under maintenance.” 

According to Eghbariah, he worked with editors at the Columbia Law Review for over five months on the 100-plus-page text.

“The attempts to silence legal scholarship on the Nakba by subjecting it to an unusual and discriminatory process are not only reflective of a pervasive and alarming Palestine exception to academic freedom,” Eghbariah told The Intercept, “but are also a testament to a deplorable culture of Nakba denialism.”

Website Takedown

Seven editors who had worked on the article told The Intercept that, over the weekend, members of the board of directors pressured the law review’s leadership to delay and even rescind publication. Most of the CLR editors spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity, fearing the backlash that others have faced for speaking out for Palestine.

Numerous editors stressed that the editorial input had been extensive, and that the text was more widely circulated among a greater number of people than is the case prior to the publication for most CLR articles.

After a back-and-forth with the board and fellow editors, the members of CLR responsible for the Eghbariah article said they feared that the draft had been leaked and decided to preempt outside pressure by publishing the issue online in the early morning hours of June 3. After the editors declined a board of directors request to take down the articles, the board pulled the plug on the entire website.

The CLR board of directors told The Intercept in a statement that there were concerns about “deviation from the Review’s usual processes” and said it had taken the website down to give all CLR members the chance to read the article and that the decision was not a final decision on publication. 

“I don’t suspect that they would have asserted this kind of control had the piece been about Tibet, Kashmir, Puerto Rico, or other contested political sites.”

“We spoke to certain members of the student leadership to ask that they delay publication for a few days so that, at a minimum, the manuscript could be shared with all student editors, to provide them with a chance to read it and respond,” the board said. “Nevertheless, we learned this morning that the manuscript had been made public. In order to provide time for the Law Review to determine how to proceed, we have temporarily suspended its website.”

The apparent intervention by the board of directors surprised some Columbia Law School faculty. 

“I don’t suspect that they would have asserted this kind of control had the piece been about Tibet, Kashmir, Puerto Rico, or other contested political sites,” Katherine Franke, a professor, told The Intercept.

“When Columbia Law Professor Herbert Weschler published his important article questioning the underlying justification for Brown v. Board of Education in 1959 it was regarded by many as blasphemous, but is now regarded as canonical. This is what legal scholarship should do at its best, challenge us to think hard about hard things, even when it is uncomfortable doing so.” 

“Completely Unprecedented”

The article significantly expands on Eghbariah’s argument for Nakba as its own legal concept in international law. The scholarship is aimed at creating a legal framework for the Nakba similar to genocide and apartheid, which were concretized as crimes in response to specific atrocities carried out by Nazi Germany and white minority-ruled South Africa, respectively. 

“The piece fills a conspicuous gap in legal literature with doctrinal, historical, and moral clarity,” said Margaret Hassel, Columbia Law Review’s previous editor in chief until last February. “I am tremendously proud of the work, care, and thought that Eghbariah and the Review’s editors have poured into the piece.”

“I was just sick to my stomach and disgusted that, once again, this was happening.”

The Columbia Law Review is a separate nonprofit from Columbia University, but the editors are Columbia Law students and its oversight includes law school faculty. The board of directors consists of established faculty members and eminent alumni of the law school. Among the most well-known of the board members are Columbia Law School Dean Gillian Lester; Columbia law professor Gillian Metzger, who also serves in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; and Department of Justice senior counsel Lewis Yelin.

Board interventions in editorial content are, the editors said, extremely rare. (The board of directors did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how often it gets involved in editorial processes.)

All of the law review editors who spoke to The Intercept said that Eghbariah’s text went through an extensive editorial process, with extra caution taken due to concerns over potential backlash. 

“I was just sick to my stomach and disgusted that, once again, this was happening, seven months later after Harvard had just gone through that debacle,” said Erika Lopez, a CLR editor and its diversity, equity, and inclusion chair.

Members of CLR’s production team told The Intercept that the board of directors reached out in recent days, pressuring editors to delay the publication of Eghbariah’s piece. According to the students, Metzger and former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Ginger Anders, another alumnus, called Sunday requesting that the piece first be reviewed by the 100-plus members of CLR. The board members told editors they had been made aware that the paper had not gone through appropriate procedures.

The students who spoke with The Intercept said that in their time at CLR, they had never received a request from the board to distribute the text of an article to the entire membership of the review — nor had they heard of the board being aware of an article’s text before publication.

A procedure was in place, said the CLR staffers, and it was followed. 

“What we were doing had precedent in processes used in the past,” said Jamie Jenkins, a CLR editor who helped shepherd the piece toward publication. “Distributing the piece to the entirety of law review was completely unprecedented.”

No Palestinians

Lopez initially proposed soliciting a piece on Palestine in the context of human rights law in October.

“I remember searching Columbia Law Review’s website in October, and there’s only one other mention of the word Palestine in the entire online existence,” said Lopez — in a footnote from 2015. As would have been the case with the Harvard Law Review, Eghbariah is the first Palestinian scholar to publish in the Columbia Law Review. 

“Every single piece that we publish goes through an incredibly, incredibly rigorous publication process.”

A large majority of the administrative board — the student editors in charge of the publication process — took part in a vote, and voted unanimously 23-0 to create a committee for pursuing a piece on Israel–Palestine. A smaller, voluntary committee of 11 editors proceeded to select and then shepherd Eghbariah’s piece. While editors are typically selected and assigned pieces at random, the process in this case allowed for volunteer-based involvement, given the fraught nature of the subject matter. Some 30 members of the review ended up working on the piece throughout its production, editors said.

“Every single piece that we publish goes through an incredibly, incredibly rigorous publication process. We just have high publication standards,” said Jenkins, who noted the piece was given even more scrutiny because of the fraught subject matter. “So there was some additional work put into it, but in general, it was the same steps of production.”

The editors involved were concerned about leaks, they said, which could have put the editorial process at risk. Drafts of the piece were, for example, only available on a drive shared between the opt-in committee directly working on it, rather than all editors.

Once notified that the issue would be posted online, Metzger and Anders urged the students to not just delay publication, but also to send Eghbariah’s essay — though not the other six slated articles — to the rest of the law review. Editorial leadership initially heeded their demand, choosing to delay publishing of the May issue until June 7, and sending the entire masthead a draft of Eghbariah’s essay. 

Shortly thereafter, editorial leaders followed up again with the board, notifying the directors there was reason to believe the piece had indeed been leaked beyond CLR members. Editors told The Intercept that members of the law review had reached out to inform them that they had been speaking with professors and mentors about the article. Several said they had been told to resign as editors. A former member of the board of directors also reached out to a member of the production team requesting that his name be removed from the masthead.

In response to word of these leaks, the editors working on the piece decided to proceed with publication on June 3, at roughly 2:30 a.m.

Following the piece’s publication, the directors reached out to the editors again, according to a CLR editor, requesting the entire May edition to be taken down. Editorial leadership refused. Shortly thereafter, the entire CLR website was down — and remains that way as this article went to publication.

Rashid Khalidi, the celebrated Palestinian American professor of history at Columbia, who is on Eghbariah’s dissertation committee for his doctorate from Harvard Law School, said that Eghbariah “provides an entirely original and very intelligent analysis of a bunch of aspects of the legal system in Israel, which I think should be welcomed by any open-minded person in the legal profession.”

Both Eghbariah and numerous editors at the review remain committed to the importance of the legal scholarship in question. The author, who has tried landmark Palestinian civil rights cases before the Israeli Supreme Court, noted that in its current case charging Israel with genocide at the International Court of Justice, South Africa’s legal team referred to the Palestinian “ongoing Nakba” as the context for the current genocide case. 

“What we need to do is to acknowledge the Nakba as its own independent framework that intersects and overlaps with genocide and apartheid,” Eghbariah told The Intercept, while adding that the Nakba also “stands as a distinct framework that can be understood as its own crime with a distinctive historical analytical foundation structure and purpose.” 

Correction: June 4, 2024
This story has been updated to reflect that the unanimous vote by members of the administrative board was to form a committee to pursue a piece on Israel–Palestine, not to publish a piece.

The post Columbia Law Review Refused to Take Down Article on Palestine, So Its Board of Directors Nuked the Whole Website appeared first on The Intercept.

On Wednesday night, a group of Columbia Law students wrote a 32-page letter addressed to Columbia administrators that accused the university of imposing “egregious and draconian restrictions on the already non-existent due process protections.”

“Over the past year, we’ve seen Columbia really weaponize its disciplinary process against students speaking out for Palestinian human rights.”

The letter charges the school with letting a newly created office impose unprecedented rules that infringe upon student protections, including by preventing students from having legal or personal supporters during hearings, and imposing arbitrary time limits on when they can communicate with those supporters. 

“Over the past year, we’ve seen Columbia really weaponize its disciplinary process against students speaking out for Palestinian human rights,” Bassam Khawaja, a lecturer at Columbia Law School, told The Intercept. “And unlike police arrests, this process happens in virtual silence, but carries significant consequences for their academic standing and future careers. It’s hard to see this wildly disproportionate response as anything other than an attempt to chill speech on this issue.”

Some of the process changes, the law student letter said, came in a May 29 email received by students on Wednesday — one day before they were set to face disciplinary hearings for being suspected of posting flyers accusing the school’s board of complicity in genocide. The email was sent out by the school’s Center for Student Success and Intervention, an office formed in 2022.

While the latest apparent rule changes came just hours before hearings were set to take place, the hearings have now been indefinitely postponed, according to campus sources. (Columbia declined to comment.)

Almost as quickly as the protest movement emerged at Columbia, the school was accused of making ad hoc changes to longstanding policies in order to crack down on demonstrators. The tactic of shifting polities to crack down on protests — one used as far back as the attacks on the University of California, Berkeley Free Speech Movement in the 1960s — has since spread to other colleges across the country.

Limiting Advocacy

The May 29 CSSI message said that if students recruited a supporting person to accompany them to their hearings, accommodations could be made for them “outside of the hearing location or zoom breakout room,” with a five-minute break at the midpoint of hearings to consult with advocates. (CSSI did not respond to a request for comment.)

The law students raising the alarm about the message wrote, “No CSSI or University policy or precedent supports the prohibition of faculty advisors, deprivation of legal counsel, or arbitrary time limits on consultation with support persons.”

The letter also said the May 29 CSSI message required written statements to be submitted 24 hours before hearings, whereas CSSI’s own policies say statements can be submitted at or immediately after hearings. 

The law school students’ efforts come as faculty, too, feel shut out from the administration’s decision-making. 

“All of these universities are contracting out with these massive, big legal firms, both for the hearings and their codes. Everything is being funneled through Big Law,” said Shayoni Mitra, a professor at Barnard College, the women’s school at Columbia. “But on the student side of it, we’re really seeing law students and public defense offices — and that’s the only possible counterweight to this massive influx of Big Law into higher ed.”

Patchwork of Differing Policies

The new disciplinary policies appear to be in contradiction not only with broader university policy and due process principles, but also CSSI’s own precedents, the law school students alleged. 

The school is already dealing with a patchwork of regulations intertwined with its history. The school’s long standing Rules of University Conduct were first put in place after student protests rocked the campus in the 1960s. In 2022, however, CSSI was introduced as an apparent reimagination of student conduct processes, its mission laden with 21st-century buzzwords like “holistic well-being” and creating “empathetic and trauma-informed practices.”

Columbia’s Rules of University Conduct, for example, note that a student can be accompanied to any meeting or hearing related to an incident of misconduct by a supporter of their choice, allowing for attorneys.

CSSI’s own policies, however, are more restrictive, allowing only a student’s undergraduate advising dean or a designated administrator as an adviser at hearings. (CSSI’s May 29 letter contradicts this restrictive policy on hearing support for students.)

Barnard has policy discrepancies with both the Rules of University Conduct and CSSI — with its own rules having changed on key issues of student supporters since last fall.

When the crackdowns came against the Gaza protests, some students questioned CSSI’s jurisdiction, with the university Senate voting 40-0, with five abstentions, calling in May to halt disciplinary proceedings until the school’s general counsel clarified CSSI’s jurisdiction. No clarification from the university has been forthcoming.

“It is not lost on us that we are begging the University to follow its own rules and procedures that have existed since 1968,” the law school students wrote in their letter, “while Israel and the United States are currently bombing Rafah in blatant violation of international and US law.”

The post Columbia Coincidentally Rewrites Disciplinary Rules Just in Time to Screw Over Student Protesters appeared first on The Intercept.

The poll was commissioned by Americans for Justice in Palestine Action, a lobbying group, and conducted by the polling firm YouGov. Around three-quarters of respondents identified as Biden supporters, while one-quarter said they supported either Donald Trump or a third party or write-in candidate. According to the poll, coming just about five months before the general election, some 30-40 percent of non-Biden voters in each battleground state said a ceasefire and conditioning of aid would make them more likely to vote for the incumbent.

In each of the five states, some three-quarters of respondents support an immediate and permanent ceasefire. The number was highest notably in Pennsylvania, home to Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who has been one of Israel’s most vocal supporters in Congress. Almost 83 percent of respondents from Pennsylvania said they supported a ceasefire, and 24.2 percent said they were less likely to vote for Biden given his current handling of the war on Gaza. The state as well was host to the highest share of voters who said a ceasefire and conditioning of aid would make them more likely to vote for Biden: 48.2 percent.

“Pennsylvanians, like folks across the country, are horrified by the continued violence being perpetrated by the Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank, and want to see their leaders fight back against having our taxpayers dollars fund more death and destruction,” said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., who recently won a primary election despite facing a well-funded challenge over her criticism of Israel. “We must listen to them.”

Related

AIPAC Ally Slams “Uncommitted” Voters Warning Biden to Change Course on Gaza

In 2020, Biden won several of the aforementioned battleground states by extremely narrow margins: 11,779 votes in Georgia; 10,457 in Arizona; and 20,682 in Wisconsin. Primary voters in several of the polled states have voted “uncommitted” (or an analogous option) in protest of Biden’s handling of the war: in Minnesota, 18.9 percent of voters chose to do so; in Michigan, 13.21 percent.

The president has little room for error in his rematch against Trump, though he has continued to struggle in the polls, hindered by weakening support among young and nonwhite voters reacting to both the economy and Gaza.

Recent polls from the New York Times and Siena College found the president trailing in several battleground states — including Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan, as well as Georgia and Nevada. Trump, meanwhile, not only faces an array of criminal charges, but he is also the face of a party that’s stripped abortion rights and ratcheted up book bans and attacks on LGBTQ+ people and health care.

In all five states polled, respondents had net-positive support for conditioning aid to Israel — with roughly 55 to 66 percent of voters in support, compared to some 15 to 20 percent against. Meanwhile, each state also had net-positive support for the wave of student Gaza solidarity encampments that have swept campuses across the country — with roughly 50 percent of respondents in support, compared to roughly 30 percent opposed.

“What this opinion poll suggests is that Biden cannot continue to ignore the convictions and demands of a large segment of the Democratic electoral base if he wants to maintain his chances of winning the upcoming November elections,” Osama Abu Irshaid, executive director of AJP-Action, said in a statement. “This puts Biden before a choice: either he does the morally and politically right thing and preserve his chances in the November elections, or he continues on the current path and risks jeopardizing his reelection bid. What is certain is that the war in Gaza has turned into an electoral issue this year.”

Biden has shown little interest in materially ending his support for Israel’s war or confronting Israel’s right-wing government even while it accepts billions of U.S. public dollars. While Biden admitted that Israel has used American weapons to kill Palestinian civilians and halted one shipment of weapons to Israel in protest of its invasion on Rafah, it became clear the rhetoric wouldn’t hold. (The weapons whose delivery was delayed — 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs — were not ones that would have likely been used for a wider ground invasion.)

Indeed, just days after the State Department released a long-awaited report that essentially let Israel off the hook for “likely” violating international law using U.S.-supplied weapons, the Biden administration announced that it would advance another $1 billion of weapons to Israel.

The post Conditioning Aid to Israel Would Boost Support for Biden in Key States, New Poll Finds appeared first on The Intercept.

The incident is emblematic of a pattern that has played out repeatedly for months. Israelis, either vigilante extremists or state officials, block or outright attack humanitarian aid; the United States offers a milquetoast response or extends further favor to Israel; the violence continues and even ramps up. There is ample evidence of the Israeli government looking the other way as these attacks and obstructions on aid delivery play out. None of it is secret — much of it has been documented on camera and spread through social media. 

Yet, the State Department, in a long-awaited report on whether Israel was complying with international humanitarian law as it used American weapons, concluded last week that Israel is not blocking aid. The State Department said that it had “deep concerns” about “action and inaction” by the Israeli government resulting in aid delivery to Gaza that “remains insufficient,” but concluded there was not enough evidence to justify cutting off assistance to Israel’s military. 

Allison McManus, managing director of the national security and international policy department at the Center for American Progress, said the State Department’s findings are undercut by “the very obvious fact” of indiscriminate attacks on aid workers and civilians in Gaza. 

“That is something that everybody can see with their own eyes. The killing of aid workers, the targeting of hospitals, the total destruction of the healthcare system, the massive number of civilian casualties, many of whom are women and children,” McManus said. “That does not happen in a context in which the prosecuting army is adhering to international law.”

Monday’s rampage was just one of multiple assaults on the aid sector in the days after the State Department issued its findings. That same day, Israeli forces attacked a clearly marked United Nations vehicle in Rafah — killing an Indian national staff member in the process. The targeting of the car raised fears around possible evacuation efforts for upward of 20 American doctors and medical workers stranded in Gaza. The killing did not deter President Joe Biden from moving Tuesday to send another $1 billion in weapons to Israel.

On Wednesday, in the occupied West Bank, settlers attacked a Palestinian truck driver because they thought he was driving an aid truck going to Gaza. Footage shows the victim writhing in pain as Israel Defense Forces officers roam the scene. Israeli police did not arrest any suspects, according to Haaretz.

The settlers deflated the tires of two trucks — which were running commercial routes rather than delivering aid — and set them on fire.

A video posted to Twitter by Alon-Lee Green, co-director of pro-peace organization Standing Together, showed people climbing onto a pillaged truck and dancing.

As Israeli troops looked on, several people took selfies and photos of their own as they climbed the pile of discarded aid bags, the video shows.

More than 250 aid workers have been killed in Gaza since Hamas’s attack on October 7. Human Rights Watch has identified at least eight instances of Israeli forces attacking aid convoys and premises. Some of these incidents took place despite aid groups providing their coordinates to the Israeli government to ensure their protection. 

Among the incidents addressed in last week’s State Department report is Israel’s strike against a World Central Kitchen convoy that killed seven aid workers last month. The State Department said it could not reach “definitive conclusions” on whether U.S.-supplied weapons were used during that attack.

The State Department conceded such attacks “created an exceptionally difficult environment for distributing and delivering aid,” but did not describe such efforts as a systematic Israeli policy.

A recent report by U.K.-based research group Forensic Architecture has found at least 80 separate Israeli attacks on aid in Gaza since January alone. “The frequency and widespread nature of these attacks suggests that Israel is systematically targeting aid,” the group wrote.

In a statement to The Intercept, an IDF spokesperson said that the military takes “all operationally feasible measures to mitigate harm to civilians, including aid convoys and workers. The IDF has never, and will never, deliberately target aid convoys and workers.”

Related

Israel’s Use of Mass Starvation as a Weapon of War

The spokesperson continued: “The IDF makes extensive efforts to enable the safe delivery of humanitarian aid, and has been working closely with various aid groups to coordinate and realize their vital efforts to provide food and humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. Given the ongoing exchanges of fire, remaining in an active combat zone has inherent risks. The IDF will continue to counter threats while persisting to mitigate harm to civilians.”

Last week’s State Department assessment concluded that Israel “likely” violated laws using American-supplied weapons. Biden’s admission that American arms have killed Palestinian civilians calls into question a memo issued last year that says the U.S. would not authorize any arms transfer where there is risk of “facilitating or otherwise contributing to” human rights or international law violations. 

Video after video has shown Israeli demonstrators blocking and even destroying aid meant for Gaza — sometimes in the presence of police or military authorities.

These demonstrations ramped up after the International Court of Justice found that the Israeli government is plausibly committing genocide and ordered it to facilitate aid distribution and prevent potential further acts of genocide. Protesters responded by attempting to block aid for days on end, with little pushback by Israeli authorities. 

In one video dated February 9 at the Nitzana border crossing into Egypt, Israeli demonstrators block aid trucks from entering Gaza. “My friends, we closed the border crossing today,” one demonstrator exclaims as officers close the gates, prompting ululating from the crowd. “With all due respect my friends, the gate is closed,” the demonstrator continued through a megaphone, “someone is going to sleep hungry tonight.”

A group of demonstrators defended their action, telling the Times of Israel that “the hundreds of aid and supply trucks for the Hamas terrorist organization will not enter through here today.” The group added that they were “proud and moved.”

The state’s permissive attitude toward these demonstrations stands in stark contrast to its handling of Israelis looking to support the people of Gaza. Anti-government protests in Israel, some including families of victims held hostage by Hamas, have been met with fierce response. Standing Together, the pro-peace organization, has tried to deliver aid to Gaza; in one such attempt in March, the activists were stopped by police.

A week later, Israelis trying to block aid are seen in a video report fraternizing with the authorities; one tells a journalist: “Kill them, I don’t care.”

Another protester says police gave them lollipops and watermelon while watching them prevent aid from crossing the border: “The policeman, the head commander, came to us and said ‘OK, you guys came and blocked, we don’t want to fight.’ And he said to us ‘I’ll just lock the gate. You guys don’t need to stand in the sun.’”

Efforts to block aid deliveries in full sight of Israeli authorities have continued this month.

An early May video posted to Twitter by Middle East Eye shows demonstrators dancing and chanting in a large circle, blocking scores of trucks destined for Gaza. 

As the video pans the crowd of people triumphantly singing and waving flags, officers don’t intervene. 

In its report last week, the State Department narrowly identified the demonstrations blocking aid crossings in January and February as also creating a “difficult environment” for aid delivery.

In Jerusalem, a mob set fire to the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East last week. 

Juliette Touma, UNRWA’s communications director, said that the attack was not spontaneous. There were numerous attempts to set fire to the premises, she said, predated by weeks of harassment by extremists. Mobs have come to the gates of the compound to intimidate and bully UNRWA staff, throw stones, and even threaten them with guns, she added.

Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Aryeh King has himself joined in the attacks. Upon UNRWA temporarily closing operations at the headquarters last week, King said it was “an honor to be responsible” for it.

Along with the scores of attacks, basic aid facilitation itself has been substandard. Touma noted that before October 7, Gaza was reliant on 500 aid trucks per day due to Israel’s 16-year blockade. For the first two weeks after the assault, she added, Gaza was under a “hermetic siege,” with days’ worth of aid never coming in. Even when aid deliveries resumed, the pace has substantially slowed. Based on data from Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, a branch of the IDF, only 127 trucks have entered Gaza per day as of May 15.

That’s in part because of the structural barriers the government has placed upon aid. The Israel government has barred UNRWA from delivering aid to the northern part of Gaza — an area facing additional displacement notices this week as it again comes under Israeli attacks

Aid delivery has long been hindered at the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, in the southernmost part of Gaza. At one point in January, hundreds of trucks carrying aid stood in line for weeks, waiting for permission to enter Gaza. 

Upon visiting for themselves, Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Jeff Merkley blamed it on a cumbersome process that included arbitrary rejections of vital humanitarian equipment. In May, Israel took over and closed the border crossing as it began a ground invasion into Rafah, where 1.4 million displaced Palestinians take refuge.

The post The State Department Says Israel Isn’t Blocking Aid. Videos Show the Opposite. appeared first on The Intercept.

“Your unconditional support for [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s policy of destruction, since the war began, has brought our society to the normalization of carnage and to the trivialization of human lives,” they wrote. “It is American diplomatic and material support that prolonged this war for so long. You are responsible for this, alongside our leaders. But while they’re interested in prolonging the war for political reasons, you have the power to make it stop.”

The teens wrote the letter before reporting to prison for their most recent sentences. They sent it to Biden on Thursday, a day after he confirmed in an interview for the first time that Israel has used U.S. bombs to kill civilians and said that he will not supply Israel with arms if it moves toward a major invasion of Rafah. Biden did not specify what he considers to be a major invasion; Israel already reportedly has troops on the ground in Rafah, which is considered the last refuge for displaced Palestinians in Gaza and which the Israeli military has long been bombing.

The White House’s National Security Council declined to comment. 

Related

Israeli Refuseniks Forsake Army Despite Post-October 7 Nationalist Frenzy

Mitnick was first sentenced to prison in December for refusing Israel’s mandatory military conscription at age 18. His successive prison terms have added up to 150 days, while Orr has been sentenced to a total of 85 days. The pair are part of Mesarvot, a growing refusenik network within Israel of teenagers and former dissenters supporting each other as they refuse to serve in the Israeli military. 

Another teenager in the network, Ben Arad, was sentenced to 20 days last month for refusing, and his sentence has since increased to a cumulative 50 days. “I oppose senseless killing, the policy of intentional starvation and sickness, and the sacrifice of soldiers, civilians, and hostages for a war that cannot and will not achieve its declared objectives and that could escalate into a regional war,” Arad said in April. “For these reasons and more, I refuse to enlist.”

The refuseniks are not alone in their opposition, nor in the treatment they face. Throughout the war, Israelis have taken to the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to protest the war and Netanyahu’s government. This past week, Israeli police arrested and beat protesters and hostage family members calling for an end to the war, just the latest example of Israelis being punished for voicing dissent or sympathy with the people of Gaza.

While the U.S. paused one shipment of weapons out of concerns over the Rafah operation, the refuseniks are calling for a ceasefire. “Biden’s announcement that he will not deliver offensive weapons to Israel for its Rafah campaign is a positive development, but it is not enough,” a spokesperson for Mesarvot told The Intercept. “By using the leverage of arms transfer, the President can force Israel not only to downscale its Rafah offensive but to actually reach a Hostage/ceasefire deal with Hamas that will end the war. This is within reach and is in the best interest of Israeli society, just as it is in the interest of the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere.”

In their letter to Biden, Mitnick and Orr note that they will be watching his next steps from their prison cells, where they are serving time “because we keep on objecting to this war.” 

They acknowledge that the president has signaled frustration with Israel’s military campaign in recent weeks, yet they draw a contrast between his rhetorical shifts and the military support the U.S. continues to provide (just a few weeks ago, the U.S. sent another $17 billion to Israel).

“We want to tell you, Mr. Biden, that harsh words and condemnation will not make a change,” the refuseniks wrote. “The only way to make Netanyahu stop is to apply real pressure — and to stop arming Israel’s war.”

The pair argue there is no military solution — that no amount of destruction in Gaza could resurrect those killed on October 7, and that hostages have been freed almost exclusively through negotiation. They appealed to Biden to not just stop the violence that has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians, but to save Israeli society too.  

“Mr. Biden, we need your help. Not with weapons delivery but with the conditioning of aid. Not by giving the Israeli government diplomatic backing, but by turning a cold shoulder to its fanaticism,” they wrote. “This might be seen as a harsh action against the Israeli government, but it would be a great service for us, the Israeli citizens, and for the future of all people living in this land.”

The post Israeli Military Refusers Appeal to Biden: “Stop Arming Israel’s War” appeared first on The Intercept.