Friday, April 17, 2026

Three Winners at the Latest DNC Meeting: Israel, Ethnic Cleansing, and Genocide

Why did pro-Israel groups voice so much pleasure and praise—not only for the sidelining of pro-human-rights resolutions but also for the process that sidelined them? Because, of course, the sidelining worked.



A medical worker rushes a child to the ambulance for treatment after Israeli airstrikes destroy buildings in Gaza City, Gaza on October 09, 2023.
(Photo by Belal Khaled/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Norman Solomon
Apr 16, 2026
Common Dreams

In the aftermath of last week’s big meeting of the Democratic National Committee in New Orleans, supporters of the US-Israel alliance have been quite content. “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions,” the president of Democratic Majority for Israel said. The CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, a former national security advisor to Kamala Harrisexpressed gratitude to the DNC’s leadership.

Why did pro-Israel groups voice so much pleasure and praise—not only for the sidelining of pro-human-rights resolutions but also for the process that sidelined them? The answer has to do with the DNC’s mechanism that thwarted changes in positions on Israel. A panel named the Middle East Working Group gummed up all efforts to align the DNC with the views of most Democratic voters, even while supposedly hard at work.

Last Friday, the transparent thinness of the pretense caused Politico to headline an article this way: “Inside the DNC’s Middle East (Not) Working Group.” But the not-working group had been functioning quite well—as a charade for delay and obfuscation.

The day before the derisive headline appeared, the DNC Resolutions Committee dispensed with a resolution about events in Gaza and the West Bank. Its provisions included a declaration that the DNC “supports pausing or conditioning US weapons transfers to any military units credibly implicated in violations of international humanitarian law or obstruction of humanitarian assistance.”

Given the crystal-clear polling, the failure of the Democratic Party leadership to oppose military aid to Israel threatens to seriously damage the turnout needed to defeat Republicans at election time.

That resolution critical of Israel went nowhere, which is to say it went to the so-called working group, also known as a “task force.”

Assisting the diversion as chair of the Resolutions Committee was political strategist Ron Harris, described in his home state of Minnesota as a “longtime Democratic Party insider.” He made false claims during the meeting: “I know that the task force has met once a month since it was created…. I have the confidence that work is happening…. These are people working really really hard over a very thorny issue…. They are doing their work…. They’re hearing from experts and all sorts of things.”

The falsehood that the task force had met “once a month,” when actually it had scarcely met, was enough reason for me to contact Harris and ask where he’d gotten that (mis)information. He replied that it was “according to the DNC staffer coordinating the process.”

The basic problem with the working group is not only that it hasn’t done much of anything in the nearly eight months since DNC Chair Ken Martin announced it with great fanfare. The underlying hoax is that it was set up not to reflect the views of registered Democrats nationwide.

Polling is clear. Three-quarters of Democrats agree that “Israel is committing genocide,” and a large majority are more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis by a 4-to-1 margin. But only a minority of the Middle East Working Group’s eight members has a record of supporting Palestinian rights, while several are firm supporters of Israel. The oil-and-water mix seems destined for stalemate or mere platitudes. But stalemate and platitudes appear to be just fine from here to the horizon for DNC leadership.

Such stalling mechanisms and scant real representation are as old as the political hills. In this case, an unfortunate boost has come from James Zogby, who for decades bravely worked inside the Democratic Party and elsewhere to advocate for the human rights of Palestinians, in sharp contrast to US foreign policy.

As the most prominent person in the Middle East Working Group, Zogby has hailed it as an important step forward. Aligning himself with Martin’s approach from the outset, he said that the new chair’s move to set it up was “politically thoughtful.”

Zogby can remember when, in the 1980s, party leaders did not want to hear the “p-word”—Palestinians. He has portrayed the current sparse intra-party discussion related to Israel as major progress. “Don’t count me among those who left New Orleans complaining of defeat,” Zogby wrote in an April 14 piece for The Nation.

After that article appeared, I spoke with Zogby, and he summarized his approach this way: “I have a tendency to feel like sometimes there are little victories, and I latch onto them. Moving to catch up to where Democrats are.”

Compare that approach to this assessment days ago from Mike Merryman-Lotze, the American Friends Service Committee’s director of Just Peace Global Policy: “The failure of the DNC to take even minimal action in the face of ethnic cleansing and genocide is shameful.”

When my RootsAction colleague India Walton loudly interrupted the DNC’s business as usual during its general session a week ago, she was challenging a political culture of conformity that has ongoing deadly consequences. The context involves a simple and crucial choice—between excessive patience or urgency that’s grounded in life-and-death human realities. Those realities exist very far away from the transactional atmosphere of entrenched political institutions.

All this matters for at least two profound reasons: One is that, on the merits, silent or euphemistic complicity with Israel’s methodical policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide is abhorrent.

And given the crystal-clear polling, the failure of the Democratic Party leadership to oppose military aid to Israel threatens to seriously damage the turnout needed to defeat Republicans at election time (as polls have shown was the case with Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign for president). “Eight-in-10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69 percent last year and 53 percent in 2022,” the Pew Research Center reported last week.

In these exceedingly dystopian times, when realism is more important than ever, it’s a grave mistake to let rose-colored glasses distort vision and substitute undue patience for vital urgency.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Norman Solomon

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.
Full Bio >

‘You Are Out of Touch’: Schumer Faces New Calls to Step Aside After Israel Weapons Vote


“It’s well past time for him to step aside for leaders who actually represent the views of the party’s base.”



Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news conference in the US Capitol on April 14, 2026.
(Photo by Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Apr 16, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Sen. Chuck Schumer faced fresh calls to step aside as the Senate Democratic leader on Wednesday after he broke with the overwhelming majority of his caucus and voted against a pair of resolutions aimed at preventing the Trump administration from selling more US bombs and bulldozers to Israel.

“Mr. Schumer, you are out of touch with the base of this party, and with your own caucus,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who first called on Schumer to resign as Democratic leader last year, said in a short video posted to social media following Wednesday’s votes. “Step aside.”

The two resolutions, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called for halting the sale of around $450 million worth of bulldozers, 1,000-pound bombs, and related military equipment to the Israeli government, which has repeatedly used American weaponry to commit war crimes in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and Syria.

Despite facing record support from the Senate Democratic caucus—with 40 votes to block the sale of bulldozers and 36 votes to block the sale of bombs—the resolutions failed to pass, as Senate Republicans united against them.

But strong Democratic opposition to new US weapons sales to Israel was seen as evidence that the party is slowly catching up to its base, which overwhelmingly supports restricting American military aid to Israel.

“The fact that 40 of 47 Democratic senators voted to withhold military hardware from Israel is a new high-water mark in holding Israel accountable for violating US and international law,” said Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy.

Williams went on to rebuke Schumer, who has led the Senate Democrats for nearly a decade, for opposing the resolutions “against the supermajority of his own caucus and Democratic voters.”

“It’s well past time for him to step aside for leaders who actually represent the views of the party’s base,” said Williams.

Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action and a New York City resident, said Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—who also voted against both resolutions—“are betraying their constituents and woefully out of line with the Democratic voter base.”

“Instead of sending the bombs that Israel uses to commit war crimes, the people of New York want our representatives to invest in lifesaving policies here at home,” said Miller. “We need to stop arming Israel so that the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran, and across the region, can live. Millions of lives depend on it.”

The votes on the Israeli arms measures came after the Senate rejected another war powers resolution aimed at withdrawing US forces from the illegal assault on Iran, which President Donald Trump launched without congressional approval—and in partnership with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—in late February.

Schumer vocally supported the Iran war powers resolution. But one of his colleagues, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), said the efforts to end the US-Israeli war on Iran and the push to halt weapons sales to Israel are interconnected.

“A vote to approve arms sales to Israel at this time would be seen as a message of approval for Trump and Netanyahu’s disastrous war against Iran. I will not send that message,” Markey said in a statement late Wednesday. “Why would we send American military weapons that could prolong, escalate, or worsen this horrible situation in the Middle East? I say no more.”

J Street, the pro-Israel liberal advocacy organization, similarly connected the two fights following Wednesday’s votes.

“We continue to oppose Trump and Netanyahu’s war of choice against Iran, and applaud those senators whose principled stand in today’s vote reflects the American public’s strong opposition to both the Iran war and to Israel’s actions in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank that undermine efforts for peace in the region,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the group’s president.

‘Cowardly Bullshit’: Handful of Dems Join Senate GOP to Block Ban on US Bombs, Bulldozers to Israel

“The fact that 40 of 47 Democratic senators voted to withhold military hardware from Israel is a new high water mark in holding Israel accountable,” said one observer, who called the final vote “still troubling.”




Protesters hold a banner reading “Stop Sending Arms to Israel” outside the White House in Washington, DC in this undated photo.

(Photo by Amnesty International)

Brett Wilkins
Apr 15, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US senators on Wednesday voted down a pair of resolutions aimed at blocking US bomb and bulldozer sales to Israel as it continues its genocidal war on Gaza and devastating bombardment and mass displacement in Lebanon.

Upper chamber lawmakers voted 59-40 against advancing SJ Res. 32, a joint resolution introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) “providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.”

At issue are $295 million worth of Caterpillar D9 series bulldozers, spare parts, and related services. Israel often uses the bulldozers to destroy homes and other civilian structures in Gaza, the illegally occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Lebanon.




In 2003, American human rights activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by a Caterpillar D9 while attempting to stop the demolition of a home in Rafah, Gaza.



Entire villages and hamlets have been razed using the dozers as Israel ethnically cleanses the occupied territories to make way for Jewish-only settler colonies.

The SJ Res. 32 roll call was followed by a 63-36 vote against advancing SJ Res. 138, which was introduced by Sanders and Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.). The measure rejects the proposed sale of 12,000 BLU–110A/B general purpose, 1,000-pound bomb bodies and associated items and services.

Experts point to Israel’s use of 1,000- and 2,000-pound bombs in densely populated Gaza—and the Israeli military’s loosened rules of engagement effectively allowing unlimited civilian casualties in strikes targeting a single Hamas militant of any rank—as a major reason why so many Gazans are being killed and injured.

Sanders said on social media after the votes, “Today, more than 80% of the Democratic caucus stood with the American people and voted to block US military aid to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his horrific, illegal wars.”

“We are making progress,” the senator continued. “When we started this effort there were just 11 votes, now there are 40.”


Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said following Wednesday’s votes:
A vote to approve arms sales to Israel at this time would be seen as a message of approval for [President Donald] Trump and Netanyahu’s disastrous war against Iran. I will not send that message.

Why would we send American military weapons that could prolong, escalate, or worsen this horrible situation in the Middle East? I say no more. The Senate should express its opposition to Trump and Netanyahu’s needless war in Iran and seek to stop it in any way it can.

There is no military solution to this crisis. We must solve this at the negotiating table. We must stop these arms sales and end this war now.

Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy (CIP) and a former adviser to Sanders, slammed Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) who voted to block the resolutions, for their “cowardly bullshit.”

Duss noted that just last September, Coons said that “if there is no change in direction from the Israeli administration, for the first time I would seriously consider” voting to block arms transfers to Israel.

“Israeli behavior has only gotten worse since then,” Duss said.


Wednesday’s votes followed numerous previous failed attempts to limit US arms transfers to Israel since it launched its genocidal retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing.

Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at CIP, said on X that “the fact that 40 of 47 Democratic senators voted to withhold military hardware from Israel is a new high water mark in holding Israel accountable for violating US and international law.”

“It is still troubling that a few Democrats and all Republicans voted to supply the arms,” he added.



The Biden and Trump administrations have lavished Israel with more than $21 billion in armed aid since October 2023, despite the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.


Lone Democrat—Jared Golden—Helps GOP Tank Another Iran War Powers Resolution

“It is deeply disappointing that Rep. Golden joined Republicans in opposing efforts to stop further escalation,” said one peace advocate. “Democratic leadership’s handling of this moment is also concerning.”


Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) was pictured at a news conference in Washington, DC on July 17, 2025.
(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)



Jake Johnson
Apr 16, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

With the decisive support of one Democrat—Rep. Jared Golden of Maine—the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday voted down a war powers resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, over six weeks after it began.

The final vote was 213-214, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joining nearly every House Democrat in supporting the resolution, which would have forced Trump to withdraw American troops from hostilities in Iran absent congressional authorization. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) voted present and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) didn’t vote, despite criticizing the war and telling reporters last month that she would “most likely” support the Democratic resolution.

In the lead-up to Thursday’s vote, Democratic leaders—including the resolution’s chief sponsor, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York—faced backlash for slowwalking the legislative effort to end the war even as it appeared that momentum was on their side. Earlier this month, the House Democratic leadership opted to punt the war powers vote until after spring recess, during which the Trump administration and Iran’s government reached a tenuous ceasefire deal.

Three of the four House Democrats who voted against an Iran war powers resolution in early March flipped their votes on Thursday: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Greg Landsman of Ohio, and Juan Vargas of California. Golden, who also voted against the earlier resolution, is not running for reelection.

“While we are encouraged to see growing support,” said Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian, “it is deeply disappointing that Rep. Golden joined Republicans in opposing efforts to stop further escalation, casting a decisive vote against the resolution.”

“Democratic leadership’s handling of this moment is also concerning,” said Kharrazian. “They previously declined to force a war powers vote before a critical period of escalation before recess, citing a lack of votes. Now they have moved forward under less favorable conditions, including during sensitive ceasefire negotiations, but still without the votes they previously claimed were necessary before proceeding, and with a changed balance in the House. That inconsistency raises a serious question about what is driving leadership’s priorities: strategy or politics.”

“We urge members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, to support sustained diplomatic efforts to resolve this conflict,” Kharrazian added. “The American people overwhelmingly reject this war and want a diplomatic end to it.”

The House voted marked the sixth time an Iran-related war powers resolution has failed in the House or Senate since Trump started bombing on February 28.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said Thursday that he supported the war powers effort on Thursday because “Trump’s war of choice was not authorized by Congress, was started without a plan or an exit strategy, and has achieved none of the contradictory objectives used to justify it.”

“Trump’s war in Iran is deeply unpopular,” Pocan added, “and it’s time to end what never should have started.”

Ryan Costello, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, said in a statement that “the narrow defeat of a resolution to definitively end the war on Iran is another tragic missed opportunity, but the gap between public opposition to the war and votes to end it is narrowing.”

“All but one House Democrat voted unanimously in support of the resolution but were joined by just one Republican,” said Costello. “Golden will need to answer to his Maine constituents, many of whom are veterans and pro-peace Americans who question why Washington so consistently sends brave servicemembers into ill-advised, disastrous wars of choice that kill civilians and sabotage the global economy. So too do all of the Republicans who chose again not to use their power to convince President Trump to take an off-ramp and end this disastrous war that puts Benjamin Netanyahu’s dreams, not the American people and American security, first.”
In Third Boat Strike This Week, US Kills 3 People in ‘Entirely Make-Believe’ Armed Conflict Against Cartels


Customs and Border Protection data offers little evidence that the killing of at least 177 people in recent months has stopped drugs from reaching the US.


Julia Conley
Apr 16, 2026
COMMON  DREAMS

As Republicans and several Democrats in the US Senate gave the go-ahead for the US to send more bombs and military equipment to Israel for its attacks on Gaza and Lebanon on Wednesday, the Trump administration was continuing what it claims is an effort to rid Latin American countries of drug traffickers—killing three people aboard a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean in the US military’s third boat bombing in three days.

The US Southern Command posted a video on social media of the bombing, which it said targeted a boat that was “transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations.”

As with the 50 previous attacks on boats in the Pacific and the Caribbean Sea, the military did not publicize any evidence that the boat was carrying drugs or that its passengers were “narco-terrorists.”



A small number of the at least 177 victims of the Trump administration’s boat bombings have been identified. The Associated Press reported in November that Robert Sánchez, who was killed in the Caribbean, was a 42-year-old fisherman who made $100 per month and had started helping cocaine traffickers navigate the sea due to economic pressures. Juan Carlos Fuentes was an out-of-work bus driver who also worked as a “drug runner” to make ends meet.

The families of at least two victims have filed legal complaints over the killings of their family members, saying they were fishermen.

Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America has compared the boat bombings, assuming they have targeted people involved in the drug trade at all, to “straight-up massacring 16-year-old drug dealers on US street corners.”

On Wednesday, Isacson noted that while Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have defended the boat bombings as attacks that will protect Americans from the flow of drugs like cocaine and fentanyl into the US—with the president informing Congress that the White House views the country as being in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels—data from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shows little evidence that the strikes are stopping drugs from reaching the US.

“CBP’s seizures of fentanyl at the US-Mexico border had been declining, often sharply, since mid-2023. But since early 2025, the declines stopped,” said Isacson. “Halfway into fiscal 2026, seizures are almost exactly half of 2025’s full-year total: a flat trendline.”



Following Wednesday’s bombing, at least 14 people have been killed in boat strikes in five days.



Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group emphasized Wednesday night that “despite the administration’s rhetoric and bogus legal theories, the supposed armed conflict with ‘narco-terrorists’ appears to be entirely make-believe.”

Under international law, drug trafficking is treated as a crime, with US law enforcement agencies in the past intercepting boats suspected of smuggling drugs and arresting those on board. A coalition of rights organizations sued the Trump administration in December, demanding documentation of the White House’s legal justification for the boat bombings and arguing that for any organization to be considered part of “armed conflict” with the US, it must be an “organized armed group” that is engaged in “protracted armed violence” with the country.

“Murder,” said Finucane, “is the general term for premeditated killing outside of armed conflict.”
‘This Is Not Self-Defense’: UN Experts Condemn Israel’s Criminal Assault on Lebanon

“We are witnessing the continuing utmost contempt for the international legal order,” said a group of two dozen United Nations special rapporteurs.


An Israeli airstrike is seen on April 16, 2026 in Nabatieh, Lebanon.
(Photo by Adri Salido/Getty Images)


Jake Johnson
Apr 16, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A group of two dozen United Nations experts issued a scathing joint statement on Wednesday condemning Israel’s ongoing assault on Lebanon as “a blatant violation of the UN Charter, a deliberate destruction of prospects for peace, and an affront to multilateralism and the UN-based international order.”

“We are witnessing the continuing utmost contempt for the international legal order, for diplomacy, and above all for the lives of civilians and the environment in Lebanon,” the experts said. “Israel has chosen the very moment a ceasefire was announced—one that its Pakistani mediator stated included Lebanon—to unleash the largest coordinated wave of strikes on the country since 1980.”



Calls for ‘Full Arms Embargo’ Against Israel as Lebanon Massacres Imperil Ceasefire Hopes

Iran Blocks Strait of Hormuz as ‘Barbaric’ Israeli Bombing Kills Hundreds in Lebanon


Despite signals in recent days that the Israeli and Lebanese governments are engaged in their highest level of diplomatic talks in decade, Israel’s military continues to ferociously bomb southern Lebanon, devastating entire towns—including homes and schools—and killing civilians. On Wednesday, according to Lebanese officials, Israeli forces killed three paramedics in a “triple-tap” airstrike on the town of Mayfadoun.

“This is not self-defense,” said the UN experts, including special rapporteur on the right to education Farida Shaheed, special rapporteur on the right to food Ben Saul, and special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese.

“The issuance of blanket evacuation orders, combined with the destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza,” the experts continued. “Forced displacement of a civilian population constitutes crimes against humanity and is a war crime under international law.”

More than a million people, over a fifth of Lebanon’s population, have been displaced since Israel ramped up its assault on the country in early March, claiming to target the political and militant group Hezbollah.

UNICEF USA said Thursday that at least 600 children have been killed or wounded by Israeli attacks on Lebanon since March 2, and more than 390,000 have been forced from their homes. Overall, Israel’s assault on Lebanon has killed more than 2,000 people since early march.

“Nowhere is safe for children in Lebanon,” the organization said.

In their statement on Wednesday, the UN experts demanded that Israel “immediately cease all military operations in Lebanon” and urged the United States—Israel’s leading ally and arms supplier—to “use its influence” to ensure Israel stops the bombing.

Lebanon Ceasefire Marks Historic Strategic Defeat... for the US and Israel


After failing to secure victory through overwhelming violence, Israel is increasingly relying on coercive diplomacy to impose political outcomes.


A view of the destruction after the Israeli army targeted a moving vehicle on Al-Saadiyat Street near the city of Sidon in southern Lebanon on April 16, 2026.

(Photo by Houssam Shbaro/Anadolu via Getty Images)


Ramzy Baroud
Apr 16, 2026
Common Dreams

A ceasefire in Lebanon was announced on Thursday by US President Donald Trump, but its reality tells a very different story. The ceasefire was not the product of American diplomacy, nor Israeli strategic calculation. It was imposed—largely as a result of sustained Iranian pressure.

Washington, Tel Aviv, and their allies—including some within Lebanon itself—will continue to deny this reality. Acknowledging Iran’s role would mean admitting that a historic precedent has been set: for the first time, forces opposing the United States and Israel have succeeded in imposing conditions on both.


Pakistan Reiterates That Lebanon Is Still Part of Ceasefire Despite Israel’s Attacks

This is not a minor development. It is a strategic rupture. But it is not the only fundamental shift now underway: Israel’s very approach to war and diplomacy is itself changing.

After failing to secure victory through overwhelming violence, Israel is increasingly relying on coercive diplomacy to impose political outcomes.

Over the past two to three decades, this Israeli strategy has become unmistakably clear: achieving through diplomacy what it has failed to impose on the battlefield.

‘Diplomacy’ as War

Israeli ‘diplomacy’ does not conform to the conventional meaning of the term. It is not negotiation between equals, nor a genuine pursuit of peace. Rather, it is diplomacy fused with violence: assassinations, sieges, blockades, political coercion, and the systematic manipulation of internal divisions within opposing societies. It is diplomacy as an extension of war by other means.

Likewise, Israel’s conception of the ‘battlefield’ is fundamentally different. The deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure is not incidental, nor merely ‘collateral damage’; it is central to the strategy itself.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Gaza. Following the ongoing genocide, vast swathes of Gaza have been reduced to rubble, with estimates indicating that around 90 percent of the whole of Gaza has been destroyed. According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, women and children consistently account for roughly 70 percent of all of Gaza’s casualties.

This is not collateral damage. It is the deliberate destruction of a civilian population, an act of genocide that is designed to force mass displacement and remake the political and demographic reality in Israel’s favor.

The same logic extends beyond Gaza. It shapes Israel’s wars in Lebanon against Hezbollah and its broader confrontation with Iran.

The United States, Israel’s principal ally, has historically operated within a similar paradigm. From Vietnam to Iraq, civilian populations, infrastructure, and even the environment itself have borne the brunt of American warfare.

A Faltering Model


It is often argued that Israel turned to ‘diplomacy’ following its forced withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 under resistance pressure. While this moment was pivotal, it was not the beginning.

Earlier precedents exist. The First Intifada (1987–1993) demonstrated that a sustained popular uprising could not be crushed through brute force alone. Despite Israel’s extensive repression, the revolt endured.

It was in this context that the Oslo Accords emerged—not as a genuine peace process, but as a strategic lifeline. Through Oslo, Israel achieved politically what it could not impose militarily: the pacification of the uprising, the institutionalization of Palestinian political fragmentation, and the transformation of the Palestinian Authority into a mechanism for internal control.

Meanwhile, settlement expansion accelerated, and Israel reaped the global legitimacy of appearing as a ‘peace-seeking’ state.

Yet the last two decades have exposed the limits of this model.

From Lebanon in 2006 to repeated wars on Gaza (2008–09, 2012, 2014, 2021, and the ongoing genocide since 2023), Israel has failed to secure decisive strategic victories. Its ongoing confrontations with Hezbollah and Iran further underscore this failure.

Not only has Israel been unable to achieve its stated military objectives, but it has also failed to translate overwhelming firepower—even genocide—into lasting political gains.

Some interpret this as a shift toward perpetual war under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But this reading is incomplete.

Perpetual War?

Netanyahu understands that these wars cannot be sustained indefinitely. Yet ending them without victory would carry even greater consequences: the collapse of Israel’s deterrence doctrine and, potentially, the unraveling of its broader project of regional dominance.

This dilemma strikes at the heart of Zionist ideology, particularly Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s concept of the ‘Iron Wall’—the belief that overwhelming, unrelenting force would eventually compel indigenous resistance to surrender.

Today, that premise is being tested—and found wanting.

Netanyahu has repeatedly framed current wars as existential, comparable in significance to 1948—the war that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba and the establishment of Israel.

Indeed, the parallels are unmistakable: mass displacement, civilian terror, systematic destruction, and unwavering Western backing—once from Britain, now from the United States.

But there is a critical difference: The 1948 war led to the creation of Israel; the current wars are about its survival as an exclusivist settler colonial project.

And herein lies the paradox: the longer these wars continue, the more they expose Israel’s inability to secure decisive outcomes. Yet ending them without victory risks a historic defeat—not only for Netanyahu, but for the ideological foundations of the Israeli state itself.

Israeli society appears to recognize the stakes. Polls throughout 2024 and 2025 have shown overwhelming support among Israeli Jews for continued military campaigns in Gaza and confrontations with Iran and Lebanon.

Public discourse frames this support in terms of ‘security’ and ‘deterrence’. But the underlying reality is deeper: a collective recognition that the long-standing project of military supremacy is faltering.

Having failed to subdue Gaza despite the genocide, Israel is now attempting to achieve through diplomatic maneuvering what it could not secure through war. Proposals for international oversight, stabilization forces, and externally imposed governance structures are all variations of this approach.

But these efforts are unlikely to succeed.

Gaza is no longer isolated. The regional dimension of the conflict has expanded, linking Lebanon, Iran, and other actors into a broader, interconnected front.
Balance is Shifting

In Lebanon, Israel has been repeatedly forced toward ceasefire arrangements not out of choice, but because it failed to defeat Hezbollah or break the will of the Lebanese people.

This dynamic extends to Iran. Following the joint aggression on Iran starting February 28, both the United States and Israel were compelled to accept de-escalation frameworks after failing to achieve rapid or decisive outcomes.

The expectation that Iran could be quickly destabilized—replicating the models of Iraq or Libya—proved illusory. Instead, the confrontation revealed the limits of military escalation and forced a return to negotiations.

This is the essence of Israel’s current predicament.

Diplomacy, in this model, is not an alternative to war—it is a pause within it. A temporary tool used to regroup before the next phase of confrontation.

But in Israel’s case, this aggressive ‘diplomacy’ is increasingly becoming the only available tool, precisely because its military strategy has failed to deliver victory.

Lebanon was meant to be the exception—a theater where Israel could isolate and defeat Hezbollah. Instead, it became further evidence of strategic failure.

Efforts to separate the fronts—Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran—have collapsed. Iran has explicitly linked its diplomatic engagement to developments on other fronts, forcing Israel into a broader strategic entanglement it cannot control.

This marks a profound shift.

The foundational pillars of Israeli strategy—overwhelming force, fragmentation of adversaries, narrative control, and political engineering—are no longer functioning as they once did.

Yet Netanyahu continues to project victory, declaring success at regular intervals, invoking deterrence, and framing ongoing wars as strategic achievements.

But these narratives ring hollow.

The reality, increasingly evident to observers across the region and beyond, is that the balance is finally shifting.

For the first time in decades, the trajectory of history is no longer bending in Israel’s favor.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Ramzy Baroud
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of the Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books including: "These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons" (2019), "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (2010) and "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (2006). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
Full Bio >
‘Time for Half Measures Is Over’: Study Warns of Terrifying Atlantic Ocean Current Collapse

“We must avoid this collapse at all costs,” said a leading current researcher, who warned that “the stability of the entire planet” is at stake.



Gentle waves are seen in the Atlantic Ocean near Spain on March 28, 2026.
(Photo by S Pinter/Getty Images)


Stephen Prager
Apr 16, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The global climate crisis is causing a critical Atlantic Ocean current system to weaken much sooner than previously predicted, according to a study published on Thursday. If it stops, scientists say it could pose catastrophic consequences for Europe, Africa, and the Americas.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is one of the most important current systems in the world for maintaining the delicate balance of the global climate. It helps to keep colder regions like Europe and the Arctic mild by moving warm water northward and pushes large amounts of carbon deep into the ocean, keeping it out of the atmosphere.

Scientists have feared AMOC’s decline for some time. Previous studies have shown it to be at its weakest point in 1,600 years. But research published this month suggests that a collapse may come much sooner than anticipated.

One study, published Thursday in the journal Science Advances, used climate models and current data to predict the decline in the coming decades.

Researchers found that the system is on course to slow by more than 50% by the end of the century and could pass a significant tipping point by mid-century, at which point its decline would become irreversible.

“We found that the AMOC is declining faster than predicted by the average of all climate models,” said lead researcher Valentin Portmann, of the Inria Research Center of Bordeaux South-West. “This means we are closer to a tipping point than previously thought.”

A major driver of its slowdown has been the rapid melting of Greenland’s freshwater ice sheet into the Atlantic, which has diluted denser saltwater, making it harder to transfer northward.

He explained: “The more rapidly Greenland melts, the more freshwater floods the North Atlantic. This disrupts the sinking process, effectively applying the brakes to the entire system.”

This research followed another study published last week by scientists at the University of Miami, which found that AMOC has been weakening at four latitudes in the Atlantic.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, a leading AMOC researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who was not involved in either study, called it “an important and deeply concerning result” that “confirms that the ‘pessimistic’ climate models—those projecting a severe weakening of the AMOC by 2100—are the most accurate.”

“The most dramatic and drastic climate changes we see in the last 100,000 years of Earth history have been when the AMOC switched to a different state,” Rahmstorf explained.

A shutdown of the current system poses what Canadian climate activist and marine conservationist Paul Watson described as a “domino effect of climatic upheavals.”

Scientists have projected that temperatures in northern Europe could plummet dramatically, with winters in London sometimes reaching below -20°C (-4°F) and those in Norway reaching -48°C (-54°F). It also threatens to dramatically shorten growing seasons, putting food security in peril for hundreds of millions of people.

Tropical storms in the North Atlantic would also become more severe. As the current slows, sea levels are expected to rise, and the greater temperature difference between cooling Europe and the warming tropics can fuel more intense hurricanes and increase the risk of flooding in major coastal cities.

“We must avoid this collapse at all costs,” Rahmstorf said. “The stakes are too high; this isn’t just about Europe’s climate, but the stability of the entire planet.”

Such a dramatic change in the flow of global heat could scramble temperature and rainfall patterns worldwide, putting some areas at greater risk of drought and disrupting the monsoon season that fuels agriculture in many regions.

It also risks becoming self-perpetuating, as the large amounts of carbon released from the ocean could further accelerate AMOC’s collapse. Research published last week found that carbon emissions from the Southern Ocean alone could increase global temperature by about 0.2°C.

“The science is clear: The AMOC is teetering on the edge of collapse, and the window to act is closing,” Watson said. “Yet global leaders remain paralyzed by short-term politics and denial.”

The conclusion of the most recent United Nations climate summit, COP30, has been described as woefully insufficient to address the mounting climate emergency. The roadmap for action released by the host nation, Brazil, excluded any mention of the phrase “fossil fuels” after the conference was overrun by industry lobbyists.

“The time for half-measures is over,” Watson said. “The choices we make in the next decade will determine whether future generations inherit a manageable climate or a world plunged into chaos.”

‘Foreign Billionaires First, America Last’: Critics Slam GOP Over Mining Approval Near Minnesota Boundary Waters

“We don’t allow mining in Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, Acadia, Glacier, or any of our nation’s revered national parks—and we shouldn’t allow it in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, either,” said one congresswoman.


The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest in Minnesota is seen on September 6, 2019.
(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Apr 16, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Democratic lawmakers and environmental protection groups condemned Senate Republicans on Thursday for their “heartbreaking” passage of a House resolution to overturn a 20-year moratorium on mining in the watershed of Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the nation’s most visited wilderness area—a vote that critics said was the result of years of lobbying by a foreign-owned mining firm.

House Joint Resolution 140 now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk, nearly a decade after Chilean conglomerate Antofagasta, the owner of Twin Metals Minnesota, began discussing with Trump’s first administration its desire to build a copper mine over the pristine area.

“Because of this extremely short-sighted vote, our nation’s most-visited wilderness area faces the threat of permanent toxic pollution,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.). “Why? So Antofagasta, a Chilean corporation that owns Twin Metals, can mine American copper and ship it to China to be smelted and sold on the global market. Twin Metals has been lobbying President Trump and Republicans in Congress for over ten years to remove the protections from this watershed and renew their mine plans to extract American minerals at the expense of freshwater for future generations.”

The 50-49 vote in the Senate, said Environment America, puts the 1.1 million-acre wilderness area for heavy metals leaching into the soil and water through acid mine drainage.

Toxic runoff from copper mining, said the group, “ultimately poisons the land and water surrounding a mine, making the ecosystem unlivable for wildlife.”

Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for American Rivers, called the vote “a betrayal of the public trust.”

“We share in the deep disappointment of millions of Americans who expect our elected leaders to protect our clean water, our abundant wildlife, and access for all to unmatched outdoor recreation spaces,” said Huta. “This is a heartbreaking moment.”

Amanda Hefner, manager of Save the Boundary Waters Action Fund, wrote in a column in Minnesota Reformer last October that “in a water-rich environment like the Boundary Waters, with its low buffering capacity, pollution would spread quickly through interconnected lakes and streams.” She also wrote that it was “reckless” to risk the preserve’s 17,000 jobs and over $1 billion in annual revenue “for a foreign-owned mine that would pollute and leave toxic waste for generations.”

According to Jacobin, Antofagasta spent $200,000 on lobbying in the final quarter of 2024 and $230,000 in the first quarter of 2025 “on issues including federal leases for Twin Metals.” The Chilean company is owned by billionaire Andrónico Luksic, who rented out his $5.5 million mansion in Washington, DC to Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, then-White House adviser Jared Kushner, from 2017-21.



The Sierra Club noted that to pass the mining ban reversal, Senate Republicans “utilized a baseless interpretation of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).”

“The CRA only allows Congress to disapprove of administrative rules,” said the group. “No previous administration has considered mineral withdrawals to be ‘rules’ that are subject to the CRA.”

Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program, said that “allowing a foreign company to open a toxic mine on its doorstep puts a fragile ecosystem at risk and shows the Trump Administration will always act to benefit corporations over the American people.”

“The Boundary Waters is one of the country’s most iconic wilderness areas, visited by thousands every year. It should be a place for recreation and conservation, not for pollution and exploitation,” said Manuel.

Despite Trump’s refrain, “America First,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said the vote made clear that “for the GOP, it’s foreign billionaires first, America last.”

McCollum warned that the mining moratorium was “the only way to protect this wilderness, which is home to some of the cleanest water in the entire world.

“We don’t allow mining in Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, Acadia, Glacier, or any of our nation’s revered national parks—and we shouldn’t allow it in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, either,” said the congresswoman. “One hundred percent of copper mines have failed, leading to polluted waters. This case will be no different.”
‘There Is Only One Majority in This Country, That’s the Working Class,’ Says Mamdani

“It’s time we have a politics that puts them at the heart of what it is that we’re pursuing and not as part of the appendix.”



New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani stands with delivery app drivers in Queens on January 30, 2026.
(Photo: Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani/X)

Brett Wilkins
Apr 16, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


As he has done numerous times before, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Thursday rejected the notion that democratic socialism has limited appeal outside of progressive urban centers by asserting that his worker-centered policies are aimed at uplifting the nation’s biggest demographic cohort—working people and their families.

Mamdani appeared on “CBS Mornings” and was asked what grade he’d give himself after 100 days leading the world’s most important city.


Sanders Leads Launch of ‘Worker Power’ Movement to Fight ‘Status Quo Economics’

“You know, I’ll always leave it to New Yorkers to give me the grade but I will say that I’m proud of what the team has accomplished over the 100 days,” Mamdani told “CBS Mornings” hosts Gayle King and Vladimir Duthiers. “I mean, we saw $1.2 billion secured in a partnership with Gov. [Kathy] Hochul to deliver universal childcare in our city.”

“We held bad landlords accountable for $32 millon, fixed 6,070 apartments,” he added. “We filled 102,000 potholes and we did all of this while also returning $9.3 million back to workers and small businesses that have been ripped off by megacorporations.”




Duthiers asked whether “a democratic socialist platform can translate into something that’s electorally viable in a statewide election or a national election given that, according to Gallup, many older and rural voters still have issues with the term, with the label, socialist.”

Mamdani replied: “You know, what I find is that New Yorkers ask me less about how I describe my politics and more about whether my politics includes them, and I think what we can see is that a democratic socialist politics is one that should be judged on its delivery, like any ideology. And what we’re showing in this city is we can we can pursue the big things like universal childcare and do the pothole politics at the same time.”

“I think that this is a politics that can flourish anywhere,” he added, “because frankly there is only one majority in this country that’s the working class and it’s time we have a politics that puts them at the heart of what it is that we’re pursuing and not as part of the appendix.”

Turning to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran, Mamdani lamented that “we’re talking about spending close to $30 billion to kill thousands of people an ocean away while we’re told that we don’t have even an ounce of that money to help working-class Americans across this country.”

According to a Marist poll published earlier this month, 48% of New Yorkers approved of Mamdani’s overall performance, while 30% disapproved and 23% are unsure. A majority of respondents—55%—“have either a very favorable or somewhat favorable view of the mayor, and 33% have either a somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion.”

A majority of respondents also said the city is heading in the right direction under Mamdani, while nearly three-quarters believe the mayor is “working hard,” and 58% “have a great deal or a good amount of trust in Mayor Mamdani to make decisions that are in the best interest of New York City.”

Previous polling has also shown that Mamdani’s economic policies are popular across the country.

Responding to Mamdani’s “CBS Mornings” appearance, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) shared its newly publishedMajority Agenda,” a “roadmap” to passing policies that most Americans see as major priorities to improve their lives.

“The Majority Agenda is a collection of policy briefs on important issues where Americans generally have broad agreement across the political landscape,” CEPR explained. “The project organizes these reports into three main areas: good jobs, strong infrastructure, and fair play.”

“We’re not as divided as some media and politicians want us to believe,” CEPR contended.

Thursday, April 16, 2026

One 'festering' issue predicted to sink GOP as analyst flags problem 'bigger than Trump'

Ewan Gleadow
April 16, 2026 
RAW STORY


U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), with U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), speaks to reporters while Senate Republican leaders hold a press conference following their weekly policy lunch as the partial government shutdown continues, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 7, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura

The Republican Party has a problem on its hands that is bigger than anything President Donald Trump is currently doing, a political analyst has claimed.

David Pakman believes recent comments from Marjorie Taylor Greene and former GOP representatives, including Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, highlight the problem with current reps. Greene, a once-prominent ally of Trump and the MAGA movement, commented on the alleged cognitive decline of Trump in a recent interview.

In a clip shared by News 4 Tucson, Greene said, "I really think that his [Trump's] mental capacity needs to be examined. His rhetoric has been shocking to many Americans and people around the world."

A separate appearance on CNN earlier this week from Greene had the GOP ex-rep, who resigned from Georgia's 14th congressional district in 2026, criticize Trump for a Truth Social post.

Trump, referencing Iran in a post to Truth Social on April 7, wrote, "...a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." Greene reposted the comment, adding, "25th AMENDMENT!!!"

The 25th Amendment provides a temporary transfer of the President's powers to the Vice President. This transfer can be made by the President or on the initiative of the Vice President, with the backing of a majority of the cabinet.

Greene added, "I think we have to truly question the mental stability of any President who threatens to wipe out an entire civilization of people. That would include all the innocent people in that country who have nothing to do with the war.

"Especially after President Trump said this was about freeing the Iranian people from the Iranian regime. For him to call to wipe out an entire civilization of people, it's absolutely wrong."

Pakman believes the change in rhetoric from one of "Trump's most ardent defenders" is a sign the GOP must be vocal about their opposition to the President.

He said, "This is way bigger than Trump. It exposes the Republican Party as happy with a system in which they know better, but they don't say a word. They just allow it to continue festering and perpetuate itself. Every once in a while, somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Adam Kinzinger, or Liz Cheney, breaks rank and they say the quiet part out loud.

"Whether it's about Trump's authoritarianism or the cognitive stuff, they are seen as the exception. Now, they may not be the majority of Republicans, but there are a lot of Republicans who believe the exact same thing because they see the exact same thing."

ANTI-D.E.I.

MAGA backlash sees Army yank tribute to Purple Heart senator who lost both legs in Iraq

Daniel Hampton
April 15, 2026 


U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) speaks to reporters following the Democrats weekly policy lunch on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 14, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

The U.S. Army shut down an entire network of official social media accounts this week after a post celebrating Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a Purple Heart recipient who lost both legs in combat, drew backlash from a pro-Trump veteran online.

The "Soldier for Life" program, which connects veterans and their families to employment, healthcare and retirement resources, posted a tribute to Duckworth's military career as an Army lieutenant colonel and Iraq War veteran. Within 24 hours of a former Army paratrooper criticizing the post on X, it was deleted.

Chase Spears, a former Army paratrooper and veteran of the war in Afghanistan, criticized Duckworth, calling her 'one of the most brazenly hostile partisans to have worn the uniform,'" NOTUS reported Wednesday.

“There are so many warriors worthy of being praised, men and women who didn’t sell their souls along the way. But this is who @SecArmy Dan Driscoll’s Army continues going out of its way to pay homage to,” Spears wrote on X.'

Shortly after, the Soldier for Life Facebook page was locked down.

Driscoll, Trump's Army secretary, ordered all Soldier for Life accounts shuttered after the negative online reaction, a Department of Defense source familiar with the decision told The Hill. An Army spokesperson insisted the move was "simply a circumstance of the Army handling routine Army business," citing a December memo requiring accounts not managed by qualified personnel to be deactivated.

Duckworth, who served more than two decades in the Army Reserve and Illinois Army National Guard before retiring in 2014, lost both legs in 2004 when her Black Hawk helicopter was shot down over Iraq.

During Driscoll's confirmation hearing, Duckworth pressed him to pledge he would refuse illegal orders from the Trump administration and ultimately voted against confirming him. She has also called for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's resignation.