Dr. Atler Still Needs Our Help!
Please sign the petition today!
https://www.change.org/p/texas-state-university-give-tom-alter-his-job-back
What you can do to support:
—Donate to help Tom Alter and his family with living and legal expenses: https://gofund.me/27c72f26d
—Sign and share this petition demanding Tom Alter be given his job back: https://www.change.org/p/texas-state-university-give-tom-alter-his-job-back
—Write to and call the President and Provost at Texas State University demanding that Tom Alter be given his job back:
President Kelly Damphousse: president@txstate.edu
President’s Office Phone: 512-245-2121
Provost Pranesh Aswath: xrk25@txstate.edu
Provost Office Phone: 512-245-2205
For more information about the reason for the firing of Dr. Tom Alter, read:
"Fired for Advocating Socialism: Professor Tom Alter Speaks Out"
Ashley Smith Interviews Dr. Tom Alter
—CounterPunch, September 24, 2025
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
November 15, 2025, 11:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.
Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Church
1924 Cedar Street at Bonita
Berkeley, California
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Stop Cop City Bay Area
Did you know about a proposed $47 million regional police training facility in San Pablo—designed for departments across the Bay Area?
We are Stop Cop City Bay Area (Tours & Teach-Ins), a QT+ Black-led grassroots collective raising awareness about this project. This would be the city’s second police training facility, built without voter approval and financed through a $32 million, 30-year loan.
We’re organizing to repurpose the facility into a community resource hub and youth center. To build people power, we’re taking this conversation on the road—visiting Bay Area campuses, classrooms, cafes, and community spaces via our Fall 2025 Tour.
We’d love to collaborate with you and/or co-create an event. Here’s what we offer:
Guest Speaker Presentations—5-minute visits (team meetings, classrooms, co-ops, etc.), panels, or deep dives into:
· the facility’s origins & regional impacts
· finding your role in activism
· reimagining the floorplan (micro-workshops)
· and more
· Interactive Art & Vendor/Tabling Pop-Ups — free zines, stickers, and live linocut printing with hand-carved stamps + artivism.
· Collaborations with Classrooms — project partnerships, research integration, or creative assignments.
· Film Screenings + Discussion — e.g., Power (Yance Ford, 2024) or Riotsville, U.S.A. (Sierra Pettengill, 2022), or a film of your choice.
👉 If you’re interested in hosting a stop, open to co-creating something else, or curious about the intersections of our work: simply reply to this email or visit: stopcopcitybayarea.com/tour
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to connecting.
In solidarity,
Stop Cop City Bay Area
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Dear Organization Coordinator
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to invite your organization to consider co-sponsoring a regional proposal to implement Free Public Transit throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
This initiative directly supports low-income families, working people, seniors, youth, and others who rely on public transportation. It would eliminate fare barriers while helping to address climate justice, congestion, and air pollution—issues that disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities.
We believe your organization’s mission and values align strongly with this proposal. We are seeking endorsements, co-sponsorship, and coalition-building with groups that advocate for economic and racial equity.
I would love the opportunity to share a brief proposal or speak further if you're interested. Please let me know if there’s a staff member or program director I should connect with.
A description of our proposal is below:
sharethemoneyinstitute@gmail.com
Opinion: San Francisco Bay Area Should Provide Free Public Transportation
The San Francisco Bay Area is beautiful, with fantastic weather, food, diversity and culture. We’re also internationally famous for our progressiveness, creativity, and innovation.
I believe the next amazing world-leading feature we can add to our cornucopia of attractions is Free Public Transportation. Imagine how wonderful it would be if Muni, BART, Caltrain, AC Transit, SamTrans, SF Bay Ferries, and all the other transportation services were absolutely free?
Providing this convenience would deliver enormous, varied benefits to the 7.6 million SF Bay Area residents, and would make us a lovable destination for tourists.
This goal - Free Public Transportation - is ambitious, but it isn’t impossible, or even original. Truth is, many people world-wide already enjoy free rides in their smart municipalities.
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is promoting free transit, with a plan that’s gained the endorsement of economists from Chile, United Kingdom, Greece, and the USA.
The entire nation of Luxembourg has offered free public transportation to both its citizens and visitors since 2020. Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, has given free transit to its residents since 2013. In France, thirty-five cities provide free public transportation. Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, offers free rides to seniors, disabled, and students. In Maricá (Brazil) – the entire municipal bus system is free. Delhi (India) – offers free metro and bus travel for women. Madrid & Barcelona (Spain) offer free (or heavily discounted) passes to youth and seniors.
Even in the USA, free public transit is already here. Kansas City, Missouri, has enjoyed a free bus system free since 2020. Olympia, Washington, has fully fare-free intercity transit. Missoula, Montana, is free for all riders. Columbia, South Carolina, has free buses, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has enjoyed free transit for over a decade. Ithaca, New York, and Madison, Wisconsin, offer free transit to students.
But if the San Francisco Bay Area offered free transit, we’d be the LARGEST municipality in the world to offer universal Free Transit to everyone, resident and visitor alike. (Population of Luxembourg is 666,430. Kansas City 510,704. Population of San Francisco Bay Area is 7.6 million in the nine-county area)
Providing free transit would be tremendously beneficial to millions of people, for three major reasons:
1. Combat Climate Change - increased public ridership would reduce harmful CO2 fossil fuel emissions. Estimates from Kansas City and Tallinn Estonia’s suggest an increase in ridership of 15 percent. Another estimate from a pilot project in New York City suggests a ridership increase of 30 percent. These increases in people taking public transportation instead of driving their own cars indicates a total reduction of 5.4 - 10.8 tons of emissions would be eliminated, leading to better air quality, improved public health, and long-term climate gains.
2. Reduce Traffic Congestion & Parking Difficulty - Estimates suggest public transit would decrease traffic congestion in dense urban areas and choke points like the Bay Bridge by up to 15 percent. Car ownership would also be reduced. Traffic in San Francisco is the second-slowest in the USA (NYC is #1) and getting worse every year. Parking costs in San Francisco are also the second-worst in the USA (NYC #1), and again, it is continually getting worse.
3. Promote Social Equity - Free transit removes a financial cost that hits low-income residents hard. Transportation is the second-biggest expense after housing for many Americans. In the Bay Area, a monthly Clipper pass can cost $86–$98 per system, and much more for multi-agency commuters. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, this is a significant cost. People of color, immigrants, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities rely more heavily on public transit. 55–70% of frequent transit riders in the Bay Area are from low-to moderate-income households, but these riders usually pay more per mile of transit than wealthy drivers. Free fares equalize access regardless of income or geography.
Free transit would help people 1) take jobs they couldn’t otherwise afford to commute to, thus improving the economy, 2) Stay in school without worrying about bus fare, 3) Get to appointments, child care, or grocery stores without skipping meals to afford transit.
To conclude: Free Public Transit should be seen as a civil rights and economic justice intervention.
The Cost? How can San Francisco Bay Area pay for Free Transit throughout our large region?
ShareTheMoney.Institute estimates the cost as $1.5 billion annually. This sum can acquired via multiple strategies. Corvallis, Oregon, has had free public bus service since 2011, paid for by a $3.63 monthly fee added to each utility bill. Missoula, Montana, funds their fare-free Mountain Line transit system, via a property tax mill levy. Madison, Wisconsin’s transit is supported by general fund revenues, state and federal grants, and partnerships/sponsorships from local businesses and organizations.
Ideally, we’d like the funds to be obtained from the 37 local billionaires who, combined, have an approximate wealth of $885 billion. The $1.5 billion for free transit is only 0.17% of the local billionaire's wealth. Sponsorship from the ultra-wealthy would be ideal. Billionaires can view the “fair transit donation” they are asked to contribute not as punishment or an “envy tax”, but as their investment to create a municipality that is better for everyone, themselves included. They can pride themselves on instigating a world-leading, legacy-defining reform that will etch their names in history as leaders of a bold utopian reform.
Our motto: “we want to move freely around our beautiful bay”
——
Hank Pellissier - Share The Money Institute
Reverend Gregory Stevens - Unitarian Universalist EcoSocialist Network
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*  Russia Confirms Jailing of Antiwar Leader Boris Kagarlitsky In a secret trial on June 5, 2024, the Russian Supreme Court’s Military Chamber confirmed a sentence of five years in a penal colony for left-wing sociologist and online journalist Boris Kagarlitsky. His crime? “Justifying terrorism” — a sham charge used to silence opponents of Putin’s war on Ukraine. The court disregarded a plea for freedom sent by thirty-seven international luminaries. Kagarlitsky, a leading Marxist thinker in Russia’s post-Soviet period, recently addressed socialists who won’t criticize Putin: “To my Western colleagues, who…call for an understanding of Putin and his regime, I would like to ask a very simple question. [Would] you want to live in a country where there is no free press or independent courts? In a country where the police have the right to break into your house without a warrant? …In a country which…broadcasts appeals on TV to destroy Paris, London, Warsaw, with a nuclear strike?” Thousands of antiwar critics have been forced to flee Russia or are behind bars, swept up in Putin’s vicious crackdown on dissidents. Opposition to the war is consistently highest among the poorest workers. Recently, RusNews journalists Roman Ivanov and Maria Ponomarenko were sentenced to seven, and six years respectively, for reporting the military’s brutal assault on Ukraine. A massive global solidarity campaign that garnered support from thousands was launched at Kagarlitsky’s arrest. Now, it has been revived. This internationalism will bolster the repressed Russian left and Ukrainian resistance to Putin’s imperialism. To sign the online petition at freeboris.info —Freedom Socialist Party, August 2024 https://socialism.com/fs-article/russia-jails-prominent-antiwar-leader-boris-kagarlitsky/#:~:text=In%20a%20secret%20trial%20on,of%20Putin's%20war%20on%20Ukraine. Petition in Support of Boris KagarlitskyWe, the undersigned, were deeply shocked to learn that on February 13 the leading Russian socialist intellectual and antiwar activist Dr. Boris Kagarlitsky (65) was sentenced to five years in prison. Dr. Kagarlitsky was arrested on the absurd charge of 'justifying terrorism' in July last year. After a global campaign reflecting his worldwide reputation as a writer and critic of capitalism and imperialism, his trial ended on December 12 with a guilty verdict and a fine of 609,000 roubles. The prosecution then appealed against the fine as 'unjust due to its excessive leniency' and claimed falsely that Dr. Kagarlitsky was unable to pay the fine and had failed to cooperate with the court. In fact, he had paid the fine in full and provided the court with everything it requested. On February 13 a military court of appeal sent him to prison for five years and banned him from running a website for two years after his release. The reversal of the original court decision is a deliberate insult to the many thousands of activists, academics, and artists around the world who respect Dr. Kagarlitsky and took part in the global campaign for his release. The section of Russian law used against Dr. Kagarlitsky effectively prohibits free expression. The decision to replace the fine with imprisonment was made under a completely trumped-up pretext. Undoubtedly, the court's action represents an attempt to silence criticism in the Russian Federation of the government's war in Ukraine, which is turning the country into a prison. The sham trial of Dr. Kagarlitsky is the latest in a wave of brutal repression against the left-wing movements in Russia. Organizations that have consistently criticized imperialism, Western and otherwise, are now under direct attack, many of them banned. Dozens of activists are already serving long terms simply because they disagree with the policies of the Russian government and have the courage to speak up. Many of them are tortured and subjected to life-threatening conditions in Russian penal colonies, deprived of basic medical care. Left-wing politicians are forced to flee Russia, facing criminal charges. International trade unions such as IndustriALL and the International Transport Federation are banned and any contact with them will result in long prison sentences. There is a clear reason for this crackdown on the Russian left. The heavy toll of the war gives rise to growing discontent among the mass of working people. The poor pay for this massacre with their lives and wellbeing, and opposition to war is consistently highest among the poorest. The left has the message and resolve to expose the connection between imperialist war and human suffering. Dr. Kagarlitsky has responded to the court's outrageous decision with calm and dignity: “We just need to live a little longer and survive this dark period for our country,” he said. Russia is nearing a period of radical change and upheaval, and freedom for Dr. Kagarlitsky and other activists is a condition for these changes to take a progressive course. We demand that Boris Kagarlitsky and all other antiwar prisoners be released immediately and unconditionally. We also call on the authorities of the Russian Federation to reverse their growing repression of dissent and respect their citizens' freedom of speech and right to protest. Sign to Demand the Release of Boris Kagarlitskyhttps://freeboris.infoThe petition is also available on Change.org *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* |
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Mumia Abu-Jamal is Innocent!
FREE HIM NOW!
Write to Mumia at:
Smart Communications/PADOC
Mumia Abu-Jamal #AM-8335
SCI Mahanoy
P.O. Box 33028
St. Petersburg, FL 33733
Join the Fight for Mumia's Life
Since September, Mumia Abu-Jamal's health has been declining at a concerning rate. He has lost weight, is anemic, has high blood pressure and an extreme flair up of his psoriasis, and his hair has fallen out. In April 2021 Mumia underwent open heart surgery. Since then, he has been denied cardiac rehabilitation care including a healthy diet and exercise.
He still needs more complicated treatment from a retinal specialist for his right eye if his eyesight is to be saved:
Donate to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Emergency Legal and Medical
Defense Fund
Mumia has instructed PrisonRadio to set up this fund. Gifts donated here are designated for the Mumia Abu-Jamal Medical and Legal Defense Fund. If you are writing a check or making a donation in another way, note this in the memo line.
Send to:
Mumia Medical and Legal Fund c/o Prison Radio
P.O. Box 411074, San Francisco, CA 94103
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Updates From Kevin Cooper
A Never-ending Constitutional Violation
A summary of the current status of Kevin Cooper’s case by the Kevin Cooper Defense Committee
On October 26, 2023, the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP wrote a rebuttal in response to the Special Counsel's January 13, 2023 report upholding the conviction of their client Kevin Cooper. A focus of the rebuttal was that all law enforcement files were not turned over to the Special Counsel during their investigation, despite a request for them to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office.
On October 29, 2023, Law Professors Lara Bazelon and Charlie Nelson Keever, who run the six member panel that reviews wrongful convictions for the San Francisco County District Attorney's office, published an OpEd in the San Francisco Chronicle calling the "Innocence Investigation” done by the Special Counsel in the Cooper case a “Sham Investigation” largely because Cooper has unsuccessfully fought for years to obtain the police and prosecutor files in his case. This is a Brady claim, named for the U.S. Supreme court’s 1963 case establishing the Constitutional rule that defendants are entitled to any information in police and prosecutor's possession that could weaken the state's case or point to innocence. Brady violations are a leading cause of wrongful convictions. The Special Counsel's report faults Cooper for not offering up evidence of his own despite the fact that the best evidence to prove or disprove Brady violations or other misconduct claims are in those files that the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office will not turn over to the Special Counsel or to Cooper's attorneys.
On December 14, 2023, the president of the American Bar Association (ABA), Mary Smith, sent Governor Gavin Newsom a three page letter on behalf of the ABA stating in part that Mr.Cooper's counsel objected to the state's failure to provide Special Counsel all documents in their possession relating to Mr.Cooper's conviction, and that concerns about missing information are not new. For nearly 40 years Mr.Cooper's attorneys have sought this same information from the state.
On December 19, 2023, Bob Egelko, a journalist for the San Francisco Chronicle wrote an article about the ABA letter to the Governor that the prosecutors apparently withheld evidence from the Governor's legal team in the Cooper case.
These are just a few recent examples concerning the ongoing failure of the San Bernardino County District Attorney to turn over to Cooper's attorney's the files that have been requested, even though under the law and especially the U.S. Constitution, the District Attorney of San Bernardino county is required to turn over to the defendant any and all material and or exculpatory evidence that they have in their files. Apparently, they must have something in their files because they refuse to turn them over to anyone.
The last time Cooper's attorney's received files from the state, in 2004, it wasn't from the D.A. but a Deputy Attorney General named Holly Wilkens in Judge Huff's courtroom. Cooper's attorneys discovered a never before revealed police report showing that a shirt was discovered that had blood on it and was connected to the murders for which Cooper was convicted, and that the shirt had disappeared. It had never been tested for blood. It was never turned over to Cooper's trial attorney, and no one knows where it is or what happened to it. Cooper's attorneys located the woman who found that shirt on the side of the road and reported it to the Sheriff's Department. She was called to Judge Huff's court to testify about finding and reporting that shirt to law enforcement. That shirt was the second shirt found that had blood on it that was not the victims’ blood. This was in 2004, 19 years after Cooper's conviction.
It appears that this ongoing constitutional violation that everyone—from the Special Counsel to the Governor's legal team to the Governor himself—seems to know about, but won't do anything about, is acceptable in order to uphold Cooper's conviction.
But this type of thing is supposed to be unacceptable in the United States of America where the Constitution is supposed to stand for something other than a piece of paper with writing on it. How can a Governor, his legal team, people who support and believe in him ignore a United States citizen’s Constitutional Rights being violated for 40 years in order to uphold a conviction?
This silence is betrayal of the Constitution. This permission and complicity by the Governor and his team is against everything that he and they claim to stand for as progressive politicians. They have accepted the Special Counsel's report even though the Special Counsel did not receive the files from the district attorney that may not only prove that Cooper is innocent, but that he was indeed framed by the Sheriff’s Department; and that evidence was purposely destroyed and tampered with, that certain witnesses were tampered with, or ignored if they had information that would have helped Cooper at trial, that evidence that the missing shirt was withheld from Cooper's trial attorney, and so much more.
Is the Governor going to get away with turning a blind eye to this injustice under his watch?
Are progressive people going to stay silent and turn their eyes blind in order to hopefully get him to end the death penalty for some while using Cooper as a sacrificial lamb?
An immediate act of solidarity we can all do right now is to write to Kevin and assure him of our continuing support in his fight for justice. Here’s his address:
Kevin Cooper #C65304
Cell 107, Unit E1C
California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF)
P.O. Box 213040
Stockton, CA 95213
www.freekevincooper.org
Call California Governor Newsom:
1-(916) 445-2841
Press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish,
press 6 to speak with a representative and
wait for someone to answer
(Monday-Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. PST—12:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. EST)
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Resources for Resisting Federal Repression
https://www.nlg.org/federalrepressionresources/
Since June of 2020, activists have been subjected to an increasingly aggressive crackdown on protests by federal law enforcement. The federal response to the movement for Black Lives has included federal criminal charges for activists, door knocks by federal law enforcement agents, and increased use of federal troops to violently police protests.
The NLG National Office is releasing this resource page for activists who are resisting federal repression. It includes a link to our emergency hotline numbers, as well as our library of Know-Your-Rights materials, our recent federal repression webinar, and a list of some of our recommended resources for activists. We will continue to update this page.
Please visit the NLG Mass Defense Program page for general protest-related legal support hotlines run by NLG chapters.
Emergency Hotlines
If you are contacted by federal law enforcement, you should exercise all of your rights. It is always advisable to speak to an attorney before responding to federal authorities.
State and Local Hotlines
If you have been contacted by the FBI or other federal law enforcement, in one of the following areas, you may be able to get help or information from one of these local NLG hotlines for:
Portland, Oregon: (833) 680-1312
San Francisco, California: (415) 285-1041 or fbi_hotline@nlgsf.org
Seattle, Washington: (206) 658-7963
National Hotline
If you are located in an area with no hotline, you can call the following number:
National NLG Federal Defense Hotline: (212) 679-2811
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
1) An Outlier in Irish Politics Has Become the Country’s President
Propelled by anti-establishment fervor, Catherine Connolly was elected last week with a landmark popular mandate.
By Mark Landler, Reporting from London, Nov. 2, 2025
Catherine Connolly last week in Dublin upon being declared Ireland’s next president. Charles Mcquillan/Getty Images
She has said Ireland’s policy of neutrality is threatened “by the warmongering military industrial complex” in much of Europe. She predicted that a “united Ireland is inevitable.” She declared that in war-torn Gaza, Israel’s “genocide was enabled and resourced by American money.”
Such blunt, unfiltered comments have made Catherine Connolly something of an outlier in Irish politics. They also helped get her elected last week as the president of Ireland, winning the largest popular mandate of any candidate since the presidency, a largely ceremonial post, was created in 1937.
A left-wing lawyer and political independent, Ms. Connolly, 68, capitalized on the same anti-establishment fervor in the electorate, and enthusiasm among younger voters, that is propelling Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist who is the front-runner to be the next mayor of New York City.
City Hall in Manhattan, of course, is worlds away from the Irish presidency. Its occupant is meant to stay above the political fray, greeting foreign V.I.P.’s and functioning as a living symbol of the Irish state. The departing president, Michael D. Higgins, is a poet and academic whose common touch and beguiling speaking style made him enduringly popular over 14 years in the job.
As Ms. Connolly prepares to take office, the question teasing Ireland’s political establishment is whether she will push the envelope further than Mr. Higgins, who became more outspoken in his later years, occasionally clashing with the government on economic and social justice issues.
“This is someone who is to the left of anyone we’ve ever had in high office in Ireland,” said Daniel Mulhall, a former Irish ambassador to the United States. “One shouldn’t ignore the fact that voters were willing to elect someone whose views are beyond the political mainstream.”
He compared her with Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, or Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour Party leader in Britain, and noted that her victory was getting attention from the American left. She got a glowing message of congratulations from Representative Ilhan Omar, the Democrat and progressive leader from Minnesota.
Some of Ms. Connolly’s success, Mr. Mulhall said, was thanks to her impassioned support of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Many in Ireland sympathize with the Palestinians because of what they view as a shared history of colonial repression and the trauma of a long sectarian conflict. Ireland’s decades of strife, known as the Troubles, were finally settled in the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.
“She was more outspoken about the Palestinians than most politicians, and that probably played in her favor,” said Mr. Mulhall, who himself was briefly floated as a potential candidate for president.
Ireland was early among European countries in recognizing a Palestinian state. After it decided to join a genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, citing the “extreme anti-Israel policy of the Irish government.”
During a televised campaign debate, Ms. Connolly was asked whether she would confront President Trump over American military support for Israel. She deflected the question, saying it was unlikely to come up in a meeting with Mr. Trump, which she said would be little more than a meet-and-greet.
“If the discussion was genocide,” she added, “that’s a completely different thing, but I doubt that would be the discussion.”
Ms. Connolly also faced questions about a visit she and other Irish lawmakers made to Syria in 2018. The delegation visited a Palestinian refugee camp near the capital, Damascus, and the shattered city of Aleppo. Critics said they were hosted by Syrians with ties to the government of the ousted president, Bashar al-Assad. Ms. Connolly said she had always condemned Mr. Assad.
While Mr. Mulhall and other analysts said they doubted that Ms. Connolly’s views on Gaza would become much of a headache for Ireland, her views about Irish foreign and military policy were another matter.
“Her main complaint is that the current government is abandoning the notion of Irish neutrality” at a time when other European countries are rearming themselves to hedge against a disengaging United States, said Diarmaid Ferriter, a professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin.
The government — a grand coalition of Ireland’s two main center-right parties, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail — is committed to legislation that would make it easier to deploy Irish troops in peacekeeping missions by removing the need for the United Nations to approve such missions.
It would fall to Ms. Connolly as president to sign such a law or refer it to the Supreme Court if she concluded it was unconstitutional. She is not beholden to any party, having quit the left-wing Labour Party in 2007 after it refused to add her to an election ticket for Parliament alongside Mr. Higgins.
Still, Professor Ferriter said, “She’s canny enough to know she’s operating in a system that will muzzle her, to some degree.”
In some ways, Ms. Connolly’s victory was a fluke. The expected front-runner, Mairead McGuinness, a former European Union commissioner, opted not to run because of health concerns. Jim Gavin, a former Gaelic football player put forward by Fianna Fail, pulled out 19 days before the election over a financial scandal.
“We ended up with just two candidates on the ballot, which is really unusual in an Irish election,” said Theresa Reidy, a professor of politics at University College Cork. “The voters were immensely dissatisfied by the confluence of events that produced this constrained choice.”
While there was certainly protest voting, Ms. Connolly was an adroit candidate, particularly on social media. A video on social media of her kicking a soccer ball and keeping it in the air went viral, showcasing her athletic talents.
Ms. Connolly was backed by Sinn Fein, the flagship Irish nationalist party. She speaks openly about a united Ireland, though she notes that this is not a decision for her to make. Instead, she expresses her Irish nationalism by speaking regularly in fluent Gaelic.
“There is clearly some kind of sea change in attitudes toward the Irish language,” Mr. Mulhall said. “Being an Irish speaker was a positive thing for her.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
2) In Israel, an Unfamiliar Word Is Heard: Peace
A new kind of Mideast peace process is underway, as a determined Trump administration and its allies in the Muslim world seek to broaden a tenuous cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
By David M. Halbfinger, Reporting from Jerusalem, Nov. 3, 2025
A destroyed home in Khan Younis, Gaza, on Sunday. A determined Trump administration and its allies in the Muslim world seek to broaden a tenuous cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Saher Alghorra for The New York Times
The crowd that filled Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on Saturday night to remember Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister gunned down there by a right-wing extremist 30 years ago, was not particularly impressive.
There were maybe 50,000 people, many of them middle-aged or older. What stood out was not the turnout, but the frequent uttering of a word that has seldom been heard in large political gatherings in Israel in recent years.
“Yes to peace, no to violence!” people chanted.
“Pursuing peace is a Jewish act,” declared Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition and head of the centrist Yesh Atid party.
Mr. Rabin “knew that peace is not weakness, but strength and power,” said Yair Golan, a former general who leads the left-wing Democrats party.
The Rabin assassination, on Nov. 4, 1995, brought the Oslo peace process to a violent halt. It also made “peace” a dirty word in Israel’s steadily right-drifting politics, a telltale of naïveté — or, even worse, of leftism.
Now, of course, a new kind of peace process is underway, with a determined Trump administration and its allies in the Muslim world seeking to broaden a tenuous cease-fire between Israel and Hamas into something more.
They are pushing for the demilitarization and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, beginning with its Israeli-controlled eastern half. They hope to expand the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s relations with Arab states, to countries including Saudi Arabia, Syria or Lebanon. Maybe, they say, there could even be a glimmer of hope for Palestinian statehood someday.
Before any of those ambitious ideas can be realized, however, Hamas must return all the bodies of Israel’s former captives. On Monday morning, Israel confirmed that overnight it had received the remains of three more: Col. Assaf Hamami, Sgt. Oz Daniel and Capt. Omer Neutra, a dual Israeli-American citizen. The bodies of eight others are still in Gaza.
It is a time of great possibility, yet also of great peril.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had to be pressured into agreeing to the cease-fire with Hamas. Many in his coalition would still prefer to break it and return to a full-blown war in pursuit of “total victory,” rather than risk Hamas surviving, regrouping, rearming and rebuilding the capacity to threaten Israel militarily.
In conversations with ordinary Israelis, there is a palpable sense that the nation is at a crossroads — and not just over what to do about Gaza. Tens of thousands more people emigrated from Israel over the past year than immigrated to the country. Many Israelis across the political spectrum say they believe the election to be held sometime in the coming year will be climactic and decisive, with its outcome determining the future character of the country and whether more citizens will choose to stay or leave.
Hanging in the balance is a fraught part of Israel’s social contract. It is a tattered binding between the ultra-Orthodox, hundreds of thousands of whom demonstrated in Jerusalem last week to demand the extension of their decades-old exemption from military service, and the tens of thousands of reservists who have exhausted themselves serving multiple tours of duty in Gaza.
Much will hinge on what Mr. Netanyahu decides in the coming months: what he is pressured into doing or accepting, what he prioritizes above all else and what, at 76, he wants his legacy to be.
Much will hinge, too, on how those seeking to defeat him will position themselves to Israeli voters who are worn out from the war but also deeply skeptical of the prospects for peace.
In Saturday night’s speeches, a great deal of attention was paid to how Mr. Rabin had been a warrior for Israel before seeking peace with the Palestinians.
There were also acknowledgments of how much the current political mood in Israel resembles the charged, polarized atmosphere that preceded Mr. Rabin’s murder.
Mr. Golan, the former general, saw his rise through the military ranks end after a 2016 speech in which he drew parallels between contemporary Israel and Germany before the Holocaust. On Saturday night, he said the three shots that killed Mr. Rubin still echo today, “every time the government incites against its citizens, every time patriots are called traitors, every time protesters exercising their civic responsibility are beaten.”
Mr. Lapid, the centrist opposition leader, argued that the right-wing and religious parties in the governing coalition, like Mr. Rabin’s detractors, were distorting the very idea of Jewishness and turning it into something violent.
“The violent racism of Itamar Ben-Gvir is not Judaism,” he said, referring to Mr. Netanyahu’s national security minister. “Anyone who suggests dropping an atomic bomb on Gaza does not represent Judaism,” he added, referring to another ultranationalist minister’s suggestion.
“Settler violence is not Judaism,” Mr. Lapid said. “Judaism does not belong to the extremists, nor to the corrupt, nor to the draft dodgers.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
3) Terms of Surrender: the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in Palestine
By Craig Mokhiber
—CounterPunch, November 3, 2025
In the wake of two years of the globally broadcast extermination of the people of Palestine, three distinct tracks of international response have emerged. One is grounded in justice, international law, human rights, and accountability. Two others are dedicated to impunity, the continued subjugation of the victims, and the normalization of the perpetrator regime.
In the diplomatic struggle that has ensued, the justice track is under sustained attack. Left to their own devices, most states — the directly complicit and the timid alike — will undoubtedly take the easy way out, opting for impunity and normalization. But a growing people’s movement from across the globe is mobilized to demand justice.
A Textbook Genocide
The roots of the genocide in Palestine run deep, through a century of racist colonization, the Nakba of 1947-1948, eight decades of apartheid, 58 years of brutal occupation, and generations of persecution.
Now, for the past two years, the world has watched in horror as the Israeli regime planned, announced, perpetrated, and celebrated the accelerated genocide of the Palestinian people. Adding to the horror of this historic atrocity has been the ruthless complicity of so many governments, media corporations, weapons and tech companies, and Israel proxy groups planted among the populations of the West.
The unprecedented nature of this genocide has been driven home by so many terrifying “firsts.”
The first live-streamed genocide, witnessed by millions around the world. The first hi-tech genocide, perpetrated with state-of-the-art weapons systems, killer drones, autonomous weapons, surveillance technologies, and artificial intelligence. And the first globalized genocide, perpetrated with the direct and enthusiastic participation of so many governments (foremost among them the U.S., U.K., and Germany), and the active complicity so many corporations and organizations across the globe. Zionist repression has extended far beyond the shores of Palestine, with complicit Western institutions using state power to oppress and silence all who dare to speak out against the genocide and their governments’ complicity in it.
At the same time, in just two years, the Israeli regime has shattered record after bloody record for the murder of several categories of protected persons, including medical personnel, journalists, aid workers, UN staff, and children, as well as one of the highest civilian casualty rates ever recorded.
And it has achieved the dubious distinction of creating the widest global consensus on the perpetration of the crime of genocide ever recorded, with declarations of genocide issued by the UN’s Commission of Inquiry, its independent human rights rapporteurs, leading international human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, leading Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, the leading association of genocide scholars, and international lawyers across the world.
This is quintessential genocide, its genocidal intent declared out loud by Israeli leaders from the start, followed by a horrific catalogue of genocidal acts carried out with a violence as ruthless as it is systematic. Neighborhood after neighborhood, town after town, hospital after hospital, school after school, shelter after shelter, church after church, mosque after mosque, field after field, food store after food store.
Two years of siege, blocking aid, food, water, medicine, fuel, and every essential of human life. A chain of massacres, mass abductions, torture camps, sexual violence, intentionally imposed disease and starvation. Palestinian toddlers shot by snipers for sport. Palestinian captives tortured to death. Gaza reduced to a moonscape.
The Justice Track
So blatant were its crimes that within months of the launch of its genocidal onslaught, the Israeli regime was on trial for genocide in the World Court (ICJ) and its leaders were indicted for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Indeed, experts had sounded the genocide alarm already in October of 2023. And since then, human rights monitors have collected volumes of evidence.
Even as complicit states worked to buttress the impunity of the Israeli regime, the global public demand for accountability grew ever louder. It would ultimately compel the government of South Africa to brings it historic ICJ case against the regime under the United Nations Genocide Convention in December of 2023. The Court found the allegations of genocide plausible in January of 2024 and issued what would be the first of a series of provisional measures binding on the Israeli regime. Months later, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity.
In July of 2024, the ICJ would also issue a landmark advisory opinion concluding that Israel was committing apartheid and racial segregation, that all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are unlawfully occupied, that Israel must remove all settlements, settlers, soldiers, and occupation infrastructure, dismantle the apartheid wall in the West Bank, provide reparations to the Palestinians, and allow all those forced out to return home. The Court said that all states have a legal obligation not to recognize or assist the occupation and are obliged to help to bring an end to Israel’s occupation and other violations. And it found that all states must end all treaty relations with Israel that relate to the Palestinian territories, cease all economic, trade, and investment relations connected to the occupied territories.
Importantly, the Court rejected arguments by the U.S. and other Western governments that sought to claim that the Court should defer to post-Oslo negotiations between the occupier and the occupied, and to the politics of the Security Council, rather than the application of international law. The Court, in rejecting these claims, declared that such negotiations and agreements do not and cannot trump the rights of the Palestinians and the obligations of Israel under international human rights and humanitarian law. The Court found first that, in any event, the parties have to exercise any powers and responsibilities under those agreements with due regard for the norms and principles of international law.
Invoking article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court then put the matter to rest for good, reminding states that, as a matter of law, “the protected population ‘shall not be deprived’ of the benefits of the Convention ‘by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power.’”
“For this reason,” the Court continued, “the Oslo Accords cannot be understood to detract from Israel’s obligations under the pertinent rules of international law applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” With the bang of a gavel, the Court had ended decades of Israeli legal exceptionalism and launched a process for the dismantling of the Western constructed Israeli wall of impunity.
In the meantime, at the United Nations, international human rights investigators were issuing their own findings of Israeli regime apartheid and genocide. The UN’s Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine issued a series of powerful reportsdocumenting these crimes, followed by further reports from the UN’s thematic human rights rapporteurs, and, ultimately a UN-mandated Commission of Inquiry.
Outside the UN, international human rights organizations, as well as those in Palestine and Israel, joined the global consensus, as did prominent international lawyers and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, sealing the global consensus on genocide in Palestine.
Thereafter, the findings of the judicial and expert bodies of the international system finally broke through to the political bodies of the UN. On September 18, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a dramatic resolution effectively codifying the findings of the ICJ, declaring the occupation and apartheid unlawful, demanding an end to the entire occupation and the assault on Gaza, and setting a one-year deadline for Israeli compliance, after which the UNGA promised further measures.
For the first time in decades, the stage was set for real Israel regime accountability.
Global civil society activists, led by representatives of Palestinian civil society, seized on the unprecedented opportunity of the one-year deadline (violated entirely by the Israeli regime) to formulate an agenda for Israeli accountability and Palestinian protection. They developed a plan for adoption in the UNGA at the end of the deadline that would use the extraordinary power of the Assembly under the Uniting for Peace process to circumvent the U.S. veto in the Security Council and mandate concrete measures for accountability and protection.
This would include a UNGA call for sanctions, a military embargo, the rejection of the credentials of the Israeli regime, the establishment of a criminal tribunal, the reactivation of the UN’s anti-apartheid mechanisms, and the mandating of a UN protection force to protect civilians, ensure humanitarian aid, preserve evidence of Israeli crimes, and facilitate reconstruction. Importantly, the protection force would be mandated on the basis of Palestinian consent, with no Chapter 7 power to impose itself against the will of the indigenous people, thus obviating fears of a proxy occupation.
The initiative was subsequently embraced by Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who, in his speech before the 80th Session of the UNGA, promised to introduce the proposal, as a draft resolution was prepared and diplomatic action proceeded to secure other co-sponsors.
The French-Saudi Track
But the unprecedented possibility for Israeli accountability presented by the UNGA resolution and deadline was not lost on Israel’s allies either, who worked feverishly to forestall any possibility of such accountability coming into force.
The tactics they adopted had become all too familiar during the decades of Oslo: divert attention away from accountability under international law and into a loose political process and the promise of a possible Palestinian state at some point in the future; compel Palestinians to negotiate for their rights with their oppressor; and work to normalize the Israeli regime as it consolidates its conquest of Palestine.
In sum, the true focus of these initiatives is not on saving Palestine, but rather on saving Israel and Zionism, even in the wake of a genocide.
French President Emannuel Macron made the intentions of his initiative clear in a letter to his Israeli regime counterpart in September of 2025. In it, he openly brags about his efforts in France to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism in order to punish dissent to his pro-Israel rule, and then tells Netanyahu that his actions at the UN (including recognizing an unarmed Palestinian Bantustan) are meant “to transform the military gains Israel has achieved on regional fronts into a lasting political victory, to the benefit of its security and prosperity…to [secure] Israel’s …full regional integration in the Middle East…its normalization…[and] the end of Hamas.”
In other words, the French-Saudi proposal is not about holding the regime accountable for its genocide and aggression in the region, but rather to shore up the Zionist project in Western Asia, to consolidate its unlawful gains, and to normalize it on the international stage.
The final product of the French-Saudi proposal was the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, endorsed by the UNGA in September of 2025, just eight days before the expiration of the deadline for Israeli compliance set by Assembly. Notably, the declaration mentions neither the genocide nor the crime of apartheid and contains no accountability measures for the Israeli regime whatsoever. It was, in effect, a last-minute defensive maneuver to preserve the wall of Israeli impunity that the West had so carefully built up over eight decades.
In essence, the declaration reads like a blueprint for the further entrenching of the unjust status quo that existed before October of 2023, but with some extra rewards for Israel, and an amorphous promise of a limited Palestinian state somewhere down the road. Indeed, it promises to advance normalization and regional cooperation for Israel on trade, infrastructure, energy, and security. Ignoring justice and accountability altogether, the declaration instead dedicates itself to “peace, security, and stability,” reduces the genocide in Gaza to an armed conflict in which both sides are at fault, and declares yet another political process toward a “two-state solution” as the only way forward. Ignoring the U.S. role as a co-perpetrator in the genocide, it explicitly supports the role of the U.S. as a mediator (alongside Egypt and Qatar).
While it demands that Hamas free all Israeli captives, it only provides for the “exchange” of some Palestinian captives. And in flagrant disregard for the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, it purports to impose its own governance framework, with the Palestinian Authority (with “international support”) to be in charge of all Palestinian territory, and Hamas to be excluded from governance in Gaza. Eventual elections would be open only to those committed to respect the PLO (and therefore the PA) political platform.
Palestinian resistance groups defending their land and people against occupation, apartheid, and genocide are to be disarmed under the plan, while the Israeli perpetrator regime faces no such disarmament, and any eventual Palestinian state is itself envisaged by the plan to be a disarmed and defenseless entity. In other provisions, the plan would promote “deradicalization,” a dangerous concept born of the so-called “global war on terrorism,” in which populations are subjected to propaganda programmes (and often punitive measures) designed to discourage resistance to foreign domination and abusive regimes — despite the fact that such resistance is a right under international law.
The plan also proposes the deployment of troops to Palestine under a “stabilization mission” to be mandated by the UN Security Council. While the mandate of the mission would include civilian protection and security guarantees for Palestine, it would also be responsible for transferring “internal security responsibilities” to the security forces of the Palestinian Authority, disarming all other factions, providing “border security” (i.e., ensure no Palestinians escape from the Gaza cage), and for guaranteeing security for the (hyper-armed, nuclear capable, and thoroughly militarized) Israeli regime.
In other words, the mission would keep an eye on all Palestinian resistance and guarantee the impunity of the Israeli regime.
The Trump Track
Following up on his earlier King Leopold-esque promise to “own Gaza” and to build a colonized Riviera on the bones of its genocided population, Trump announced his 20-point plan at the end of September.
In the long-standing tradition of Western imperial arrogance in Palestine dating back to Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration, Trump’s 20 points were not negotiated with the Palestinians before he issued them. Indeed, Palestinians were not consulted or involved in their drafting. Rather, in a blatant act of 21st Century gunboat diplomacy, they were presented as a unilateral dictate from the U.S.-Israel axis, accompanied by violent threats of total destruction if they were not accepted.
The document was the product of an international rogue’s gallery of characters — which, in addition to genocide-complicit Trump and ICC-indicted fugitive Netanyahu, included notorious figures like Iraq war criminal Tony Blair and Trump’s billionaire son-in-law (and family friend of Netanyahu) Jared Kushner. The group did consult some of its complicit Arab and Muslim allies, but they subsequently complained that the document had been changed in fundamental ways by Trump and Netanyahu after their endorsement.
Netanyahu, who was allowed to make last-minute changes to the text before issuance, then stood with Trump to say he agreed to it — but within hours, was publicly renouncing elements of the plan and pledging that there would never be a Palestinian state, and that Israeli soldiers would not leave Gaza.
To be clear, this is not a peace plan or a plan for ending the Israel Palestine conflict. It provides no promise of Palestinian liberation, no restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people, and no guarantee of Palestinian statehood and self-determination. Instead, it provides a vague and hyper-qualified reference to “conditions” that “may emerge” sometime in the future, if Gaza re-development advances, and if the PA reforms to the satisfaction of the U.S. imperial overlords. Outrageously, the plan concludes with the U.S. arrogating to itself the role of mediator between Palestine and its Israeli occupier for any future political settlement, which would guarantee many more horrific decades of Palestinian persecution as they are forced to negotiate for their rights with their oppressor and that oppressor’s chief sponsor.
Tellingly, the 20 points contain not a word about the genocide, about apartheid, or about root causes. There is to be no accountability for the perpetrators. No redress for the victims. And the plan promises not the deradicalization of the regime perpetrating genocide, but rather of the Palestinian victims of that genocide. It is directed at ensuring that the exterminated people of Gaza “pose no threat” to its neighbors, with no guarantee that the Israeli regime, the perpetrator of the genocide, the occupier of three Arab nations, and the author of serial aggression against half a dozen neighboring countries and a spate of transnational assassinations will pose no threat. Palestinian security forces will be vetted by the U.S.-led stabilization force. There will be no such vetting of Israeli forces, the ranks of which are rife with perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
The roots of this plan in Trump’s earlier threat to “own Gaza” and to exploit a “Gaza Riveria,” are revealed in the text itself. Under Trump’s new plan, Gaza will be ruled by a colonial body headed by Donald Trump himself, with another prominent place on the body held by disgraced UK politician Tony Blair. The body, in typical Trumpian style, is dubbed “The Board of Peace.”
This body would set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza (through the “Trump Economic Development Plan”), positioning it to control all resources coming in from Gulf and European donors, with no oversight. The possibility of staggering levels of corruption would seem self-evident. The unchecked external control, extraction, and exploitation of Palestine’s economic resources would be inevitable. And note that there is no mention of Israel’s international legal obligations to provide compensation and reparations for the damage it has inflicted on Gaza.
While the plan usurps Palestinian agency by controlling Palestinian resources and designating Palestinian leaders, it also purports to exclude some Palestinians from the right to be involved in the governance of their own country. The role of Hamas, for example, should be a matter for Hamas and the Palestinian people to decide. Under this plan, Hamas is to be excluded not by decision of the Palestinian people, but rather by dictate from the U.S., which has decreed that Hamas (“and other factions”) will not have any role in the governance of Gaza, “directly, indirectly, or in any form.”
And in other provisions, the resistance is to be entirely disarmed, and its military infrastructure destroyed. Notably, the plan also provides for the destruction of Gaza’s tunnels, which have been essential not only for the defense of the territory, but also for the critical movement of persons and goods during the many unlawful Israeli sieges on the territory.
Reminiscent of the Eight Nation Invasion of China in 1900, the plan even proposes a multinational proxy occupation force led by the U.S. with the participation of “Arab and international partners” that will “stabilize” Gaza, impose “internal security,” secure the borders (i.e., ensure the continued caging of the Palestinians), and prevent the Palestinians from rearming, leaving them defenseless against Israeli aggression.
The plan provides no expectation of a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, only the possibility of a phased redeployment to the margins of Gaza and the maintenance of an Israeli “security perimeter” to remain indefinitely inside Gaza. And any partial withdrawal of Israeli regime forces that may occur is to be based on as yet undefined “standards, milestones, and time frames” that are linked to the disarming of Palestinians, and that will be determined by the U.S., by the stabilization force headed by the U.S., and by the Israeli forces that are armed, funded, and supported by the U.S. — yet another indicator of the proxy occupation nature of the plan.
While the plan provides for a significant increase in aid to the survivors of the genocide in Gaza, that aid is (unlawfully) conditioned on the acceptance by Hamas of Trump’s terms — and even then, aid quantities would be limited by the terms of the previous ceasefire of January 19, 2025. Similarly, opening of the Rafah crossing is to be subject to the same mechanism implemented under the January agreement, and thus will be still subject to continued restrictions. And it provides for the possible denial of humanitarian aid to certain areas of Gaza if Hamas is deemed to have delayed the process.
Where key details are scarce in the plan, there is also reason for worry, given that the document explicitly cites Trump’s 2020 peace plan (as well as the French-Saudi proposal described above) as part of the basis for subsequent stages in the process. Readers will recall that the 2020 plan included the further expansion of Israeli territory, the annexation of much of the West Bank, the renunciation of all Palestinian legal claims against Israel, the exclusion of Palestine from East Jerusalem, and the creation of an archipelago of Palestinian Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements, borders, and walls.
Even the more concrete elements of the plan are heavily weighted in favor of the Israeli perpetrator and against the besieged and persecuted Palestinian people.
For example, the release of all Israeli captives (of whom there are only a few dozen) is to take place within 72 hours. The release of Palestinian captives unlawfully held by Israel (of whom there are some 11,000) on the other hand, will only include a small proportion of those held at some unspecified time after all Israelis are returned. In all, less than 2,000 of the 11,000 Palestinian captives held by Israel are to be released.
Similarly, the remains of approximately 25 Israeli captives are thought to be held in Gaza, while the remains of some 2,000 deceased Palestinians are held by the Israeli regime. While the Trump plan stipulates the release of all Israeli remains, it only provides for the release of a portion of the Palestinian remains.
And some potentially positive provisions of the document are undercut by contradictory provisions elsewhere in the document.
For example, the document promises a ceasefire, amnesty, and safe passage for Hamas members; a commitment that no one will be forced to leave Gaza and that those who wish to leave will be free to do so and to return; that Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza; and that aid will flow through the UN and Red Crescent without interference.
However, while committing to the free flow of aid, it elsewhere implicitly imposes restrictions on aid. While promising no Israeli occupation, it also implies that Israeli regime forces will remain in Gaza indefinitely. And vague wording leaves unclear whether the essential role of UNRWA (which the U.S. and Israel have falsely claimed is associated with Hamas) will be allowed, and whether the genocide-complicit role of the perfidious GHF scheme (which the U.S. falsely claims is not associated with the Israeli regime) will be allowed to continue.
In parts, the Trump plan itself is unlawful. The conditioning of humanitarian aid, implicit threats of collective punishment if Hamas does not agree, the explicit denial of Palestinian self-determination, restrictions on political rights, the requirement that Palestinians negotiate for their inalienable human rights with their oppressors, and the failure to seek accountability for Israeli crimes including genocide, are all breaches of the international legal obligations of the United States.
For its part, Hamas seized on the practical and implementable elements of the first phase of the plan (ceasefire, exchange of captives, etc.) for negotiation while refusing to surrender the cause of Palestine or to submit to the remainder of the document. Hamas said that the rest of the issues in the document were to be “discussed within a comprehensive Palestinian national framework, in which Hamas will be included and will contribute with full responsibility.”
And the outright rejection of the plan by representatives of Palestinian civil society demonstrates the dignified steadfastness of Palestinian society in struggling for their freedom, even in the darkest of times.
The Struggle Continues
As this goes to press, moves are underway to effectively merge the French-Saudi plan with the Trump plan, and to have it blessed in the UN Security Council. But the colonial machinations of Trump, Macron, and others cannot obscure the fundamental reality confronting the world today: a single colonial regime planted in the heart of Western Asia is perpetrating apartheid, genocide, belligerent occupation, and serial aggression across the region and corrupting governments and institutions far beyond.
The unprecedented, Western-sponsored impunity of that regime is undercutting the very sustainability of international law, trampling on human rights, and jeopardizing peace and security across the region. Finally holding that regime accountable remains a vital, even existential imperative for the world.
In the meantime, for a people enduring genocide, any ceasefire is to be celebrated. But few are under the illusion that this ceasefire means a definitive end to the genocide, or the beginning of Palestinian freedom. No sustainable peace can be built on the weak foundation of Trump’s vanity and greed, Macron’s colonial nostalgia, or Netanyahu’s deceit and racist brutality.
Only justice can provide that foundation. And among the three tracks discussed in this article, only one travels toward justice.
Palestinian society has pointed the way, the UN human rights mechanisms, the ICJ, and the landmark UNGA resolution of September 2024 have joined the cause, and the world has risen up in solidarity. Now more than ever, that solidarity must be sustained, multiplied, and acted upon. The Israeli regime, its co-perpetrators in Washington, its proxies across the West, complicit governments, media companies that have supported the genocide, and corporations that have profited from it must all be held accountable if justice is to be done.
Normalization of the Israeli regime and its crimes must end. Genocide must be a red line. And Palestine must be free.
Craig Mokhiber is an international human rights lawyer and former senior United Nations Official. He left the UN in October of 2023, penning a widely read letter that warned of genocide in Gaza, criticized the international response, and called for a new approach to Palestine and Israel based on equality, human rights, and international law.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
4) Whom Will Our Military Be Ordered to Execute Next?
By Frank Kendall, Nov. 4, 2025
Mr. Kendall was the secretary of the Air Force for the Biden administration.
Illustration by Sam Whitney/The New York Times
While there may be little sorrow over the deaths of alleged drug dealers somewhere in the ocean, Americans should all be concerned about how our military is being used by the Trump administration, and what that implies for the future of our country.
Over the past several weeks President Trump has ordered American forces to kill at least 64 people whom the administration alleged were moving drugs headed for the United States. This campaign seems to be expanding and may soon include strikes into sovereign states such as Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico. Mr. Trump has unilaterally justified these actions by asserting to Congress that we are effectively at war — a noninternational armed conflict, as he calls it — with drug trafficking organizations.
Our military leaders are trained to evaluate the legality of orders they are given. As part of their professional education, the American values of respect for and compliance with the law are reinforced throughout military officers’ careers. They all understand that they have a duty to challenge any order they believe may be illegal — and disobey any order they know to be illegal.
The order to preemptively execute alleged drug traffickers at sea has never been considered a legal act before. The Justice Department informed Congress that it considers the strikes to be lawful and not to require congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution. But many legal experts believe these strikes to be illegal; on Friday Volker Turk, the U.N. High Commissioner for human rights, said they violate international human rights law. Nevertheless, our military continues to carry out these strikes against vessels, intentionally killing people who, as far as can be determined, are not engaged in any violent, hostile act against the United States, have no perceived intent to engage in hostile acts against the United States, do not appear to be armed to carry out any attack and could be apprehended easily instead of killed summarily.
What happened to the requirement to disobey an unlawful order?
There is a protocol for what members of our military should do when faced with this type of situation. If an officer is concerned about the legality of an order, he or she turns to the unit’s organizational legal authority for a legal opinion. If needed, there is a legal chain of command that can provide higher levels of legal authority, too. That chain starts with military judge advocates within all major commands, rises from there to that Military Department’s judge advocate generals, the general counsel of the Department of Defense, and then the White House Office of General Counsel and the attorney general of the United States.
In the course of Mr. Trump’s second term, there has been a concerted and successful effort to put compliant and supportive lawyers in positions of legal authority within the administration and within the military chain of command. This is true in the White House, in the Justice Department and in the Department of Defense. Pete Hegseth has been very direct about this. One of his first actions as defense secretary, along with firing several senior leaders he viewed as too woke, was to fire some of the Military Department’s most senior judge advocate generals. He has openly bragged about prioritizing “maximum lethality, not tepid legality.”
Today I believe we can say with confidence that the legal chain of command for the military, at least at its senior echelons, has been populated with lawyers who will not say no to virtually anything Mr. Trump or Mr. Hegseth directs them to do.
This puts our military leaders in an untenable position. While they may question the legality of an order, once the department’s legal authority has ruled that the order is lawful, disobeying it becomes a criminal offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They could be court-martialed for disobedience; to defend themselves, they must prove the order was illegal. Facing this situation, a few officers may, as a matter of conscience, still say no. But while I have enormous respect for the professionalism and integrity of our senior military leaders, I’m afraid they will be the exception. Most officers would almost certainly obey the order.
One of those exceptions may be Adm. Alvin Holsey, the head of the U.S. Southern Command, where the attacks on suspected drug vessels and their crews are occurring, who said last month that he was stepping down. We still don’t know the circumstances of his departure, but I have never seen a four-star officer leave a major command after what will be only one year, and after having served only one of the three years needed for retirement at his highest grade. Like many other events associated with the Trump administration, this is not normal.
This all leaves us with two critical questions: What other orders might Mr. Trump or Mr. Hegseth give that would involve the use of lethal force by our military? And is there any use of force that the president’s handpicked legal authorities would find unlawful?
During his first term, Mr. Trump proposed sending military forces to Portland, Ore., to respond with lethal force to protests. Gen. Mark Milley, who was then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had the character and the courage to push back on this proposal. Importantly, General Milley was supported by the senior lawyer in the room at the time. In this administration, if the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs pushes back, we can be confident that the lawyers in the room will support the president.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
5) In Russia, Bookstores Offer a Shrinking Refuge as Censorship Tightens
Restrictions on publishers and sellers have grown more severe. Volumes are being pulled from shelves or redacted like secret documents, but bookstores remain important sources of community.
By Ivan Nechepurenko, Visuals by Nanna Heitmann, Nov. 5, 2025
Reporting from the many bookstores of St. Petersburg, Russia
A bookstore in central St. Petersburg, once a tiny Soviet relic, grew into one of the city’s cultural landmarks in just a few years. It expanded to 12 times its former size, adding two coffee shops, a souvenir department and a publishing program.
The store, Podpisniye Izdaniya, also developed a distinct identity and cachet as a refuge of ideas in an increasingly tightly controlled Russia. Its tote bags emblazoned with witty slogans let its fans recognize one another around the world. The store was even featured in the 2023 book “150 Bookstores You Need to Visit Before You Die.”
“The whole city is a fan of this place,” said Rinat Umyarov, 36, a local entrepreneur. “It is tangible proof that my generation not only lived in this city, but also created something.”
But that very success has become a problem since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Kremlin has repeatedly curtailed liberties in the arts and in speech that had been taken for granted. This year, especially, the government turned its sights on books.
In May, law enforcement officials arrested three staff members of Popcorn Books and Individuum, two progressive publishing houses, charging them with “extremism” for books about the “L.G.B.T.Q. movement.” In July, a court fined Falanster, a popular bookstore in Moscow, and investigators have sifted through the shelves of others around the country.
Podpisniye Izdaniya was fined in May for selling three books, “Against Interpretation” and “On Women” by Susan Sontag, and “Everybody” by Olivia Laing. Although the titles were not banned, they contained “traces of propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations,” Russian investigators said.
Literature has always played an outsize, often uneasy role in Russian public life, alternately hailed and suppressed by those in power. Czar Nicholas I rehabilitated Alexander Pushkin, Russia’s pre-eminent poet, from internal exile, but told Pushkin that he would be the writer’s “personal censor.” Joseph Stalin phoned Boris Pasternak — who later ran afoul of Soviet authorities — to ask his opinion of another poet, Osip Mandelstam.
View over an area in St. Petersburg that is home to many bookshops, and Maksim Mamlyga, a book critic who publishes a blog about independent bookshops.
Unlike the robust, centralized censorship apparatus of Imperial and Soviet times, publishers and sellers in modern Russia face an evolving, opaque and inconsistently enforced set of rules. The government has imposed a series of new bans on material, ranging from L.G.B.T.Q. topics to drugs to a loosely defined “Satanist movement.”
Publishers have faced a difficult dilemma: either stop offering books that the Kremlin dislikes, clandestinely cut the risky parts or openly redact them to show readers that something was censored.
Many chose the last option, covering potentially problematic lines with thick black or gray ink. Their peers abroad criticized that approach, but in Russia it was seen as a form of protest.
“It was a political demonstration,” said Pyotr, an editor at a Russian publishing house. He requested that his surname be withheld because his employer did not authorize him to speak publicly. “It doesn’t let people forget that there is a problem.”
Until recently, Podpisniye Izdaniya (the name means “subscription publications”) was also open about censorship. Books by authors labeled “foreign agents” by the Russian state were sold in plastic packaging, with a note of apology on the cover. Now the store has had to remove those books from its shelves.
Redacted parts in Roberto Carnero’s book on the gay Italian filmmaker and writer Pier Paolo Pasolini, and books about Nazi Germany.
Mikhail S. Ivanov, 38, whose grandmother once ran the store, took Podpisniye Izdaniya over more than a dozen years ago and directed its metamorphosis. In 2023, Mr. Ivanov, who declined to be interviewed for this article, told a popular Russian YouTuber, “People read to understand what is going on, and to forget about what is going on.”
Walking into independent bookstores, it’s clear what is on the minds of patrons. Books grappling with difficult histories — like Sebastian Haffner’s “Defying Hitler: A Memoir” and Nikolai Epple’s “An Inconvenient Past: The Memory of State Crimes in Russia and Other Countries” — are shown prominently, and have topped the best-seller lists in recent years.
Vladimir Kharitonov, who works at Freedom Letters, a publisher that mostly operates from outside Russia, said of such books, “even if Germany is written on them, they describe the situation outside the walls of that bookstore.”
In St. Petersburg, the hometown to Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Vladimir Nabokov, bookstores have long served as community centers.
“People would step into bookstores as if they were anchors of their familiar lives, places that offered an unquestionable sense of safety,” said Maksim Mamlyga, a book critic who runs a blog about independent bookshops.
Yevgeniya Kudryashova, 33, a graphic designer, said that for her, Podpisniye Izdaniya was “an excellent illustration that you should dream big, have faith in yourself, your ideas and power.” She added that she went there to buy books for her daughter, and that popping in “has become part of our family traditions.”
The city has a bookstore for any taste: One has a reputation as a haven for activists, one is dedicated to books from Asia and another is popular with film buffs. They are concentrated around the central Liteiniy district, where many writers have lived and streets bear their names.
“We live in a special city,” said Lyubov Belyatskaya, founder of Everyone Is Free, one of the first independent bookstores in the city. “And we worked very hard to develop that culture.”
Ms. Belyatskaya introduced and promoted the idea of a “literary quarter” of St. Petersburg. She has compiled a map of more than 180 independent Russian-language bookstores around the country and beyond.
Two days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, she and two colleagues cut out and glued “Peace to the World” — an old Soviet slogan — to a store window. For about a year it hung there, offering rare solace to the antiwar crowd. She said that some passers-by thanked her for the gesture.
But it also enraged pro-war nationalists. Someone shot through the window. The police encouraged Ms. Belyatskaya to remove the slogan.
In the Soviet Union, only books explicitly approved by the state could be obtained legally; the possession of any others was dangerous. People passed banned books among friends, sometimes to read over a single night.
Today, determined readers in Russia can get any books they want.
In coffee shops, people are openly reading “Summer in a Pioneer Tie,” a lyrical novel about two male teenagers discovering their sexuality in a summer camp. The book became a sensation, selling more than 250,000 copies before the government effectively banned it and declared the authors “foreign agents.” But people continue to find ways to buy it online.
Some publishers and bookstore owners said the Soviet system would be simpler.
“Preliminary censorship would mean rules of the game are clear,” Mr. Mamlyga said. “Right now we’re all playing Minesweeper, when you don’t understand what is forbidden and what is not.”
Russian law technically does not prohibit the sale of books by “foreign agents.” But since September, many stores have stopped selling them because the law now prohibits such individuals from engaging in “educational activities,” which can include publishing.
“This is the fundamental difference, because we now have the entire array of uncensored literature, which is now being retroactively regulated,” said Yelena Neshcheret, manager of the bookstore Vo Ves Golos and the author of “Tales of a Bookseller,” about the profession in modern Russia.
Eksmo-AST, Russia’s biggest publisher, now spends millions of dollars yearly and uses A.I. to avoid printing banned material. Recently, it redacted more than 15 percent of Roberto Carnero’s essays on the gay Italian filmmaker and writer Pier Paolo Pasolini, making some pages look like heavily classified documents.
In footnotes, the publisher said the text was redacted to comply with Russian law that prohibits “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations.” And in a statement, it explained that its decision was “the more honest choice than simply cutting out paragraphs as if they had never existed.”
“The book becomes an artifact of the era,” the publisher said.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
6) U.S. Sends Attack Aircraft to El Salvador Amid Regional Troop Buildup
A New York Times analysis of satellite imagery and air traffic control communications found that U.S. military planes began operating out of the Central American country in mid-October.
By Riley Mellen, Nov. 6, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/world/americas/us-military-planes-el-salvador.html
The AC-130J Ghostrider that later appeared in El Salvador taxied near a runway in Ceiba, P.R., in late October. Credit...Ricardo Arduengo/Reuters
At least three U.S. military aircraft, including a heavily armed attack plane, have begun flying missions out of El Salvador’s main international airport in an expansion of the extraordinary U.S. troop buildup in the Caribbean, according to an analysis of satellite images, air traffic control communications and flight tracking data.
The attack plane, an AC-130J Ghostrider, is designed to destroy targets on the ground or at sea using missiles or barrages from its cannons and machine guns. It is operated by the Air Force Special Operations Command, a unit that carries out sensitive missions for the military. The New York Times also identified a Navy reconnaissance plane and a rarely seen, unmarked Air Force jet at the airport.
The influx of forces into the region started in late August, just before the Trump administration began launching what it said were counternarcotics missions while also planning for possible military action in Venezuela. The buildup has included about 10,000 U.S. troops along with drones, bombers and nearly a dozen Navy warships, soon to be bolstered by the arrival of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. So far, the Department of Defense has reported 16 lethal strikes on boats it says were involved in drug smuggling.
The deployment to El Salvador is likely to be the first time a foreign country has hosted U.S. planes that may be involved in military strikes in the region. And it further reflects the warm ties between the Trump administration and El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, who has aided President Trump’s immigration strategy by jailing deportees from the United States at a notorious maximum-security prison.
“In this sphere, they seem so well aligned,” said John Walsh, director for drug policy and the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights organization.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
7) Down to $1.18: How Families Are Coping With SNAP Cuts
By Eric Adelson, Mary Beth Gahan, Lourdes Medrano, Christina Morales, Sonia A. Rao, Dan Simmons and Kevin Williams, Nov. 7, 2025
Many SNAP recipients turned to food pantries, like the Lutheran Settlement House in Philadelphia, Pa. Hannah Yoon for The New York Times
In New Jersey, a single mother struggled to figure out how to feed her two young sons with $50.
In Oklahoma, a 61-year-old woman questioned whether driving to a food pantry was worth the gas money.
And in Colorado, a woman grabbed food from a Walmart dumpster.
For the 42 million people who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the country’s largest anti-hunger program, it has been a chaotic, nerve-racking week.
Because of the government shutdown, the Trump administration initially sought to stop supplying benefits in November. But after lawsuits, the administration said on Tuesday that there would be partial payments from SNAP, but that it was “going to take some time.”
Many recipients have searched for sustenance ever since.
The New York Times asked dozens of SNAP recipients how they were coping. In interviews, they talked about the confusion and anxiety, as well as the hard choices. Here are some of their stories.
Her Customers Depend on SNAP. She Does, Too.
Mary Schiely, 49, Middletown, Ohio
Mary Schiely can’t escape SNAP. It consumes her at home and follows her to the grocery store, where she has worked for almost 15 years. Most of the store’s customers depend on SNAP, she said, and so does she.
Decades ago in Middletown, Ohio, where Vice President JD Vance grew up, families worked in factories and earned a steady paycheck. But now, Ms. Schiely can measure the town’s pain through the store’s sales. This week, candy purchases were way down. Pizzas, chips and energy drinks were not moving off the shelves as quickly as usual.
“Thanksgiving is coming,” she said, “and no one is sure how they’re going to handle it.”
Ms. Schiely also depends on SNAP benefits, almost $500 a month, which augment her $12-an-hour job. Her pay vanishes quickly on rent, electricity, cellphone and Wi-Fi.
SNAP, she said, “is what puts food on the table.”
Her Baby Needs Special Formula. It Costs $75.
Latrica Williams, 26, Milwaukee
Latrica Williams has not received SNAP funds since early October.
Her baby, 4 months old, was born with a heart defect and needs a special formula that does not trigger his allergies. Ms. Williams had paid for it with a combination of federal programs, including SNAP.
“Formula is really expensive,” Ms. Williams said. “It’s like $75 a can, and I don’t have $75 to get him a can of milk.”
In Desperation, a Dumpster
Arianna Payton, 25, Granada, Colo.
On Tuesday night, Arianna Payton sneaked into a Walmart parking lot and climbed into a dumpster.
“I grabbed as much as I could,” she said. “I wasn’t even looking to make sure that it was safe.”
When she got home, she inspected everything. She retrieved a few bags of frozen vegetables, meal replacement shakes, cheese and fruit. She also found some loaves of moldy bread that she thought she could salvage.
Last week, Ms. Payton, who has had health issues for years and lives on disability insurance, tried the only nearby food bank.
“Everything was gone,” she said.
The Federal Government Fired Her
Andrea Grimaldi, 55, Alexandria, Va.
A year ago, Andrea Grimaldi was the one donating to those in need.
This year, she is the one receiving donations. Ms. Grimaldi was fired in February from a new job as a Head Start specialist at the Department of Health and Human Services. She received her last paycheck in May.
Although Virginia will subsidize SNAP benefits through November, she has started to ration just in case. She still has $176 of her $292 monthly SNAP benefits left from October. Family and friends have also organized food and gift card deliveries.
She has cut her expenses, including streaming services and ride shares. But she has been forced to dip into her savings.
Ms. Grimaldi has applied to jobs for months without success. She never expected to rely on government benefits, including SNAP.
“It could happen to anyone in the blink of an eye,” she said.
Working, but It’s Not Enough
Jennifer Lunn, 55, Lewisville, Texas
Jennifer Lunn went to a food pantry for the first time on Saturday. She’s a customer service agent with four children. For the past two years, she has been able to feed her children because of SNAP.
Without it, she found herself this week at the Heart of the City Lewisville, a pantry near her house, north of Dallas-Fort Worth. Ms. Lunn received a box with chicken, canned goods and salad ingredients.
“This is something I never thought I’d have to do,” she said.
With SNAP, she usually buys noodles, potatoes, vegetables, chicken and ground beef, anything to keep her teenagers fuller for longer.
But, she said, they plow through the food. “Two and a half weeks, we’re done,” she said.
Will His SNAP Benefits Come?
Larry Robinson, 61, Orlando, Fla.
Larry Robinson clutched his shopping bag. He was on his way to get some fruit. He’s been on SNAP since he retired as a mental health counselor in 2019.
He pulled down his Under Armour shirt, revealing a scar on his chest from triple bypass surgery. He said he has had to “double down” on his health concerns since then.
His SNAP benefits are supposed to arrive on Nov. 9. But he is unsure whether he can count on it.
“I financially put some stuff away,” he said, “but it will definitely provide hardship for me, because I wouldn’t have that meal that I’m used to having.”
Two Sons and a SNAP balance of $50
Rosy Hernandez, 32, Passaic, N.J.
When Rosy Hernandez, a single mother, called SNAP for assistance, an automated message said that her November payment, usually $748, was not yet available and might be late or not issued at all.
Her current balance: $50.
“It’s going to look a little bit different for me, restocking my fridge this month,” she said.
Ms. Hernandez, who has relied on SNAP for two years, cares for her sons, Xavier, 7, and Adrian, 4. She does not work because Xavier, who has autism, needs constant supervision. His needs make keeping a job difficult, although she is looking for part-time work.
She is nervous about relying on a food pantry. Xavier has sensory issues and demands specific food.
“His diet might have to be forcefully changed,” she said. “And there’s just no telling how he will react.”
Off the List: Turkey Sandwiches
Jeanne Nihart, 44, Anoka, Minn.
At the grocery store, Jeanne Nihart, a single mother, picked up some deli meat, cheese and French bread for her 12-year-old daughter, who loves turkey sandwiches.
Then she remembered that her next SNAP payment was at risk.
“I can’t justify buying meat right now,” she recalled thinking at the time.
Ms. Nihart stopped working in 2010 because of health issues, including fibromyalgia, a chronic disorder that comes with pain and fatigue.
She receives a monthly $1,060 disability payment and relies on subsidized housing, Medicaid and a SNAP benefit of $436 a month.
She expects her next SNAP payment will be half the full amount. “It’s better than nothing,” she said. “But half doesn’t keep us fed for the whole month.”
A Farmer’s SNAP Economy
Julia Asherman, 39, Jeffersonville, Ga.
Julia Asherman runs a farm, selling fruits and vegetables to small grocers and green markets. Her customers are often SNAP recipients.
She’s bracing for slower sales and a financial hit.
Late fall, Ms. Asherman said, is the worst time to take SNAP benefits away from farmers’ customers. That’s when little money is coming in, but farmers must spend money to prepare for spring planting.
In her town, half the people who buy her produce are on SNAP.
And she needs it, too, for her and her 3-year-old son.
“My take-home at the end of the year already hovers around zero, like many farmers around this country,” she said.
Homeless and Dreaming of Food
Wesley Peake Jr., 51, Tucson, Ariz.
Around noon on Sunday, Wesley Peake Jr. sat on his wheeled walker outside a grocery store. For breakfast, he ate crackers and cheese, and now, with his hunger slowly building, his mind conjured images of his favorite foods. Chicken, yogurt, bananas.
But Mr. Peake, who is homeless, had no money. And his monthly SNAP benefit, $57, may not come as usual on Nov. 8.
The food that SNAP provides usually lasts him about four days. That is a big help because it means fewer trips to a soup kitchen. His osteoporosis has weakened his bones. “I can’t walk that well,” he said, “because my hip sockets are deteriorating.”
He sits outside the grocery store, hoping that passers-by will drop some change in his hands. These days he is reluctant to ask people outright for help. They, too, may be losing SNAP.
Food Is Low, and the Car Needs Gas
Deana Pearson, 61, Chouteau, Okla.
The grocery store is 12 miles from Deana Pearson’s trailer. The closest food bank is 10 miles away; the closest gas station is nine.
Which trip is worth the gas money?
Ms. Pearson, whose jewelry business closed during the coronavirus pandemic, is running low on food. Without her usual SNAP payment, around $287, she must rely on what she has left. On Tuesday, that was $1.18.
A gallon of gas is $2.50.
“I don’t know what I’m supposed to do,” she said. “I’m hoping that maybe someone will give me a ride to the food bank.”
One Thing After Another
Jessica Mayne, 34, Denver
Jessica Mayne began receiving SNAP in 2019, after tumbling misfortunes.
Just before the pandemic, she and her husband lost their jobs. Then there was an accident that totaled her car. After she and her family moved in with her mother, her husband was diagnosed with kidney failure, which requires dialysis and a special diet.
“We were just trying to make it, and every single time something happened,” she said.
They have made progress: Ms. Mayne works full time as a behavioral health technician, while her husband works part time in construction management.
They had hoped to get their own place. But Ms. Mayne must now handle the loss of her SNAP benefits, $650, for their family of eight.
“We’re stretching all of our meals,” she said. “Everyone hates me for it, but it’s necessary.”
For dinner recently, she used one pound of ground beef, instead of three, mixing in rice and beans for added protein. She also took on more credit card debt to pay for groceries.
“It’s just shameful. I feel bad about it,” she said of her situation. “I feel like I’m failing as an adult.”
Kirsten Noyes contributed research.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
8) When a Vietnam Protest on Campus Turned Deadly
In May 1970, National Guard troops clashed with students at Kent State University in Ohio. Four students were killed, and nine were injured.
By Leslie Dela Vega, Amisha Padnani and Michael S. Rosenwald, Nov. 7, 2025
At the end of April 1970, President Richard M. Nixon announced that American forces had entered Cambodia — a major expansion of the Vietnam War. Protests on college campuses raged, including at Kent State University in Ohio.
In response, Gov. James A. Rhodes of Ohio ordered more than 100 members of the National Guard to patrol Kent State. Armed with M1 military rifles and other tactical gear, the guardsmen clashed with students on May 4, opening fire on hundreds who had gathered on the university commons to demonstrate.
John Cleary, a 19-year-old freshman architecture major, stood by, taking photos. He was one of nine students wounded; four others were killed.
Mr. Cleary died on Oct. 25 at his home near Pittsburgh. He was 74. Here are photos and audio excerpts from one of the most chilling moments of the turbulent Vietnam era.
The Protesters
After President Nixon’s announcement, hundreds of student protesters began gathering on campus. Their initial rallies ended peacefully, but confrontations with the police soon become heated — and violent. On May 2, the school’s R.O.T.C. building was set ablaze. The crowd of protesters continued to grow.
The Protesters
After President Nixon’s announcement, hundreds of student protesters began gathering on campus. Their initial rallies ended peacefully, but confrontations with the police soon become heated — and violent. On May 2, the school’s R.O.T.C. building was set ablaze. The crowd of protesters continued to grow.
The National Guard
By then, the National Guard had arrived at Kent State. Using tear gas and bayonets, the troops cleared the campus and ordered students back to their dormitories. The peace did not last long.
The Confrontation Escalates
The protesters ignored a prohibition on rallying, and thousands continued to gather. When they refused to disperse, some 100 guardsmen marched up a hilly slope, throwing tear gas and ultimately opening fire.
The Aftermath
The students were unarmed, and most did not realize that the guardsmen were carrying live ammunition. In 13 seconds, the troops fired between 61 and 67 shots. Four students were killed. Nine others, including Mr. Cleary, were wounded.
As Mr. Cleary lay on the ground bleeding, several students rendered first aid. The nine shooting survivors called themselves the Blood Brothers. After Mr. Cleary’s death, five remain.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
9) John Cleary, Wounded in Kent State Shooting, Dies at 74
A photo of him lying on the ground and bleeding made the cover of Life magazine after the 1970 shooting.
By Michael S. Rosenwald, Nov. 7, 2025
The Ohio National Guard opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University on May 4, 1970. John Cleary, lying on the ground, was a bystander when he was shot in the chest. Four students were fatally shot and nine others were wounded during the incident. Howard Ruffner/Getty Images
The Ohio National Guard opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University on May 4, 1970. John Cleary, lying on the ground, was a bystander when he was shot in the chest. Four students were fatally shot and nine others were wounded during the incident.Howard Ruffner/Getty Images
John Cleary, who was shot in the chest by Ohio National Guard troops during an antiwar protest at Kent State University in 1970, a chilling moment in American history that was captured in a Life magazine cover photo, died on Oct. 25 at his home in Gibsonia, Pa., near Pittsburgh. He was 74.
His death was announced by Kent State. Mr. Cleary was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2019.
Apolitical and more interested in watching “Bonanza” than the nightly news, Mr. Cleary was a 19-year-old freshman architecture major at Kent State when protests against the Vietnam War turned violent on campus.
“Most of the people in my major, we were basically just concentrating on getting our homework done and helping one another study for tests or kind of bantering back and forth about design issues,” Mr. Cleary said in an oral history conducted by the university in 2010. “To be honest, politics really didn’t come up.”
In early May 1970, after President Richard M. Nixon announced that American forces had expanded the war into Cambodia, an R.O.T.C. building at Kent State was set on fire. Gov. James A. Rhodes, a Republican, ordered more than 100 members of the National Guard — armed with M1 military rifles and other tactical gear — to patrol the campus.
“There was a lot of tension that was created from the fact that there were military vehicles, jeeps, trucks and personnel kind of almost setting up camp on the campus,” Mr. Cleary said. “That created a tension between the students and the guardsmen.”
On May 4, a Monday, a large protest was scheduled for noon on the university commons. After attending his morning classes, Mr. Cleary borrowed a camera from a classmate and headed over.
“I went to kind of just see what was going on and observe the protesters,” he said.
After students ignored an order to disperse, the guardsmen, positioned atop a hill, launched canisters of tear gas. Mr. Cleary snapped some photos, then decided to head to a nearby building for his next class.
The guardsmen moved in.
“I wanted to get one last picture of them before they went over the crest of the hill, so I was kind of getting my camera, I was winding it, getting ready to take another shot and suddenly, they just turned and fired,” he said. “It was like this volley of gunshots.”
A bullet struck him in the chest.
“I guess the best way I can describe it is like getting hit in the chest with a sledgehammer,” Mr. Cleary said. “It just really knocked me down.”
Four students were killed. Nine others, including Mr. Cleary, were wounded.
As he lay on the ground bleeding, several students rendered first aid. Howard Ruffner, a Kent State student working that day as a freelance photographer for Life, snapped an image of the moment.
“I was shocked like everyone else that the Guard opened fire,” Mr. Ruffner said in an interview. “I just kind of instinctually kept taking photographs of things that I thought showed emotion and care.”
Mr. Ruffner’s photo ran on the cover of Life. A photo taken by another student, John Filo, showed Mary Ann Vecchio screaming as she knelt alongside her classmate, Jeffrey Miller, who was lying facedown and dead. It ran on the front page of The New York Times, and Mr. Filo won the Pulitzer Prize for spot news photography.
While both photos became defining images of the Vietnam era, Mr. Ruffner’s had a more widespread and immediate impact illustrating the country’s violent political divisions, because it had appeared on the cover of one of the most widely read magazines in America.
After seeing the Life photos, Neil Young of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young wrote the song “Ohio," with the lyrics “Tin soldiers and Nixon coming/We’re finally on our own/This summer I hear the drumming /Four dead in Ohio.” The band quickly recorded and released the song, and it became an essential anthem of the protest movement.
“People today just don’t grasp the power that Life magazine had back then,” Brian VanDeMark, a former U.S. Naval Academy historian and author of “Kent State: An American Tragedy” (2024), said in an interview. “I think it intensified the impact of what happened to John Cleary in terms of people’s perception and understanding of the tragedy.”
John Robert Cleary was born on Feb. 28, 1951, in Glenville, N.Y., a town near Schenectady, to Robert and Doris (Miller) Cleary. His father was an engineer at General Electric.
Living in a rural area, John grew up fishing, camping and skiing. His parents were conservative, but there wasn’t a lot of political talk during dinner. The family had one television, and it was usually tuned to a western or a Disney program.
“I was just kind of cruising along,” he said in an oral history interview conducted in 2022 by Binghamton University in New York. “It really was not until I went to Kent that I really began to be exposed to anything going on outside our little community.”
Following the shooting, Mr. Cleary spent weeks in a hospital and then moved back home. He returned to Kent State the following year to resume his studies. After graduating in 1974, he married his college sweetheart, Kathy Bashaw, and they settled near Pittsburgh.
For the next decade, he barely mentioned the shooting and declined to take part in reunions or commemorations. He estimated that 90 percent of his friends and colleagues didn’t know he was the wounded student on the cover of Life.
“I was starting out in my career, and work was tough,” Mr. Cleary said. “And I had a family to support.”
There was another reason.
“In the aftermath of the shooting, his conservative family and neighbors in upstate New York pressured him to say nothing critical about the guardsmen who had shot him and 12 others,” Mr. VanDeMark wrote in his book. “He began not just hiding his involvement but denying it.”
That changed in 1981, when his son Andrew was born — on May 4.
“I felt like God was telling me something,” he said. “You cannot bury this. You cannot pretend it did not happen to you. You cannot put it behind you. It is something that you need to confront.”
Mr. Cleary began attending anniversary events at Kent State. He agreed to be interviewed by reporters. And slowly, he became a quiet yet powerful voice in warning about the dangers of poisonous political discourse and the suppression of free speech. The lesson, he said, was to de-escalate.
“John became the public face of the price of protest without even having been a protester himself,” Thomas Grace, another Kent State student who was shot that day, said in an interview. “It shows how complicated and complex the past can be.”
Mr. Cleary is survived by his wife and son; a daughter, Elizabeth Dove; and four grandchildren.
The nine shooting survivors called themselves the Blood Brothers. After Mr. Cleary’s death, five remain.
“One by one, these voices are going away,” Roseann Canfora, a Kent State journalism professor whose brother Alan Canfora was killed in the shooting, said in an interview. “John’s experience — and especially his voice — remind us about how precious our democracy is and the courage that it takes to defend it.”
Mr. Cleary, frail and weak from illness, returned to Kent State this past May for anniversary events. A student organization chose him to ring a campus bell to honor the victims.
“It was an unforgettable moment,” Professor Canfora said. “There were tears everywhere.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
