Families First in SAN FRANCISCO!

Saturday, July 26

11am – 12pm PDT

Ocean Beach, Stairway 7

Great Highway & Balboa Street

San Francisco, CA 94121

On July 26, Americans in every corner of the country will come together in peaceful marches, rallies, and actions to say: our families come first—not billionaires, not authoritarians, and not corrupt politicians.

From rural towns to major cities, Families First actions will bring people together to collectively demand an end to policies that harm children, seniors, and our families. We reject the Administration's actions that have gutted essential programs like Medicaid, FEMA, food stamps, school lunches, and more, all so a handful of billionaires can get tax giveaways.

We are coming together to say in unity: our families come first.

A core principle behind all Families First events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events.

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

Memorial for David Johnson of the San Quentin 6

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

A Trial Date Is Set on August 26 for Alejandro Orellana, Join the Call for National Protests to Drop the Charges!

https://stopfbi.org/news/a-trial-date-is-set-on-august-26-for-alejandro-orellana-join-the-call-for-national-protests-to-drop-the-charges/

A trial date of August 26 was set for immigrant rights activist Alejandro Orellana at his July 3 court appearance in front of a room packed with supporters. Orellana was arrested by the FBI on June 12 for protesting against ICE in Los Angeles. He faces up to 5 years in prison for two bogus federal charges: conspiracy to commit civil disorder, and aiding and abetting civil disorder.

The Committee to Stop FBI Repression is calling for a national day of protests on the first day of Orellana's trial, August 26th, to demand that the charges be dropped. To everyone who believes in the right to free speech, to protest ICE, and to say no to deportations, we urge you to organize a local protest on that day at the nearest federal courthouse.

Orellana has spent much of his adult life fighting for justice for Chicanos, Latinos, and many others. He has opposed the killings of Chicanos and Latinos by the LAPD, such as 14-year-old Jesse Romero, stood against US wars, protested in defense of others targeted by political repression, and has been a longtime member of the activist group, Centro CSO, based out of East LA. His life is full of examples of courage, integrity, and a dedication to justice.

In contrast, the US Attorney who charged him, Bilal Essayli, believes in Trump's racist MAGA vision and does a lot to carry it out. He defended Trump's decision to defy the state of California and deploy the California National Guard to put down anti-ICE protests. Essayli has charged other protesters, including David Huerta, the president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was held on a $50,000 bond.

Another Centro CSO immigrants rights activist, Verita Topete, was ambushed by the FBI on June 26. They served her a warrant and seized her phone. Orellana and his fellow organizers like Topete stand for the community that protested Trump last month. Essayli represents Trump’s attempts to crush that movement.

This case against Orellana is political repression, meant to stop the growth of the national immigrants rights movement. The basis for his arrest was the claim that he drove a truck carrying face shields for protesters, as police geared up to put down protests with rubber bullets. People of conscience are standing with Orellana. because nothing he did or is accused of doing is wrong. There is no crime in protesting Trump, deportations, and ICE. To protest is his - and our - First Amendment right. It’s up to us to make sure that Essayli and Trump fail to repress this movement and silence Orellana's supporters.

Just as he stood up for immigrants last month, we call on everyone to stand up for Orellana on August 26 and demand the charges be dropped. On the June 27 National Day of Action for Alejandro Orellana, at least 16 cities held protests or press conferences in front of their federal courthouses. We’ll make sure there are even more on August 26. In addition to planning local protests, we ask that organizations submit statements of support and to join in the call to drop the charges.

You can find protest organizing materials on our website, stopfbi.org. Please send information about your local protests and any statements of support to stopfbi@gmail.com. We will see you in the streets!

On August 26, Protest at Your Federal Courthouse for Alejandro Orellana!

Drop the Charges Now!

Protesting ICE Is Not a Crime!

Thanks for your ongoing interest in the fight against FBI repression of anti-war and international solidarity activists!

Our mailing address is:

Committee to Stop FBI Repression

PO Box 14183

Minneapolis, MN 55414

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

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

By Monica Hill

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 Kagarlitsky

We, 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 Kagarlitsky

https://freeboris.info

The 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.

Donate to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Emergency Legal and Medical Defense Fund, Official 2024

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
Prison Radio is a project of the Redwood Justice Fund (RJF), which is a California 501c3 (Tax ID no. 680334309) not-for-profit foundation dedicated to the defense of the environment and of civil and human rights secured by law. Prison Radio/Redwood Justice Fund PO Box 411074, San Francisco, CA 94141

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

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

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

Articles

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

1) Israeli Strikes Hit W.H.O. Site After Military Expands Gaza Offensive

The aid agency says its buildings in the central part of the territory were attacked after the military targeted Deir al-Balah, which had largely been spared.

By Aaron Boxerman and Bilal Shbair, July 22, 2025

Aaron Boxerman reported from Jerusalem, and Bilal Shbair from al-Zawayda, Gaza

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-deir-al-balah-who.html

Men and women carrying bags of belongings walk down a dirt road.

Gazans hauling belongings on Tuesday in Deir al-Balah, in central Gaza, after the Israeli military broadened its operations in the area. Credit...Hatem Khaled/Reuters

The World Health Organization has accused Israel of attacking its site in central Gaza after the Israeli military expanded its operations in a part of the territory that had been left relatively unscathed during the war with Hamas.

Israel has leveled much of Gaza during the 21-month war. But Israeli forces had not previously launched a major assault on the city of Deir al-Balah, fearing that Hamas was holding Israeli and foreign hostages there.

In recent days that seemed to be changing after the Israeli military ordered residents in parts of the city to leave. Some Palestinians hoped the warning over the weekend was a tactic to force Hamas to make concessions in cease-fire talks, but Israel has stepped up attacks in the area.

A W.H.O. staff residence was damaged by airstrikes on Deir al-Balah on Monday, the agency said in a statement. An Israeli military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to comply with protocol, said the strike took place after the staff was evacuated.

Israeli forces also entered the building, handcuffed and stripped male staff and family members sheltering there, and held them at gunpoint, the statement added. Women and children were forcibly evacuated, the agency said.

Another W.H.O. building, a major warehouse, was damaged in a separate attack and later looted by “desperate crowds,” the U.N. agency said.

The Israeli military said that its forces had come under fire while operating in the vicinity, leading them to respond “toward the area from which the shooting originated.” It did not deny raiding the W.H.O. facility but said any “suspects” had been treated “in accordance with international law.”

The Israeli military has launched strikes and ground operations around Deir al-Balah but has not advanced into the densely populated city center, where some residents were already fleeing north.

Yasser Rihan, 37, who left one of the evacuation zones on the southern outskirts of the city, said his family had huddled at home on Sunday night as airstrikes pummeled the area and gunfire echoed all around.

By Monday morning, other residents were frantic to get out, waving white flags in the hopes that they would not be shot, he said.

“The whole scene was unspeakable: children crying, women screaming in fear, everyone shouting and confused, asking, ‘Where should we go?’” Mr. Rihan said.

Deir al-Balah had been an informal refuge for Palestinians escaping other parts of Gaza, and huge tent camps have sprung up in the city. In the relative calm, a modicum of normalcy had survived. The city also hosts major warehouses for the United Nations, as well as guesthouses for the organization’s staff.

Many Palestinians fled to the north of the city after Israel issued its evacuation order, seeking safety in areas that the Israeli authorities had not declared potential combat zones. According to the United Nations, tens of thousands of people were sheltering in the zone covered by the evacuation order.

But there are few places left to flee to in Gaza. More than 85 percent of the enclave is under direct Israeli military control or subject to Israeli evacuation orders, according to the United Nations. The rest of Gaza’s nearly two million residents have been mostly hemmed into the shrinking parts that remain.

More than 57,000 people, including thousands of children, have been killed in the Israeli campaign against Hamas in Gaza, according to the Gaza health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.

A wider offensive in Deir al-Balah is unlikely to generate many major achievements for Israel, even if its forces manage to kill additional Hamas fighters in the area, said Shlomo Brom, an Israeli retired brigadier general.

Nearly two years into the war, which began with the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has said it will continue its military campaign until Hamas is destroyed. But the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to articulate a clear vision publicly for who could take Hamas’s place in leading Gaza.

Some members of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition government want to control Gaza indefinitely and establish Jewish settlements there, but Mr. Netanyahu has rebuffed those demands for now.

Without a clear path toward an alternative postwar order in Gaza, Israel’s military is simply “treading water,” General Brom said.

“A ground offensive and aerial strikes, no matter how intense, won’t change affairs except to increase the killing and suffering of the local population, even as we continue to lose more soldiers,” he added.

For the families of Israeli hostages, the potential of expanded attacks in Deir al-Balah has fueled fears for the lives of their loved ones. About 50 of the 250 captives seized during the Hamas-led attacks in October 2023 remain in Gaza, though dozens of those are presumed by the Israeli authorities to be dead.

The Hostage and Missing Families Forum, an advocacy group, has demanded that the Israeli government explain how an attack in central Gaza would avoid putting captives’ lives at risk.

“The people of Israel will not forgive anyone who knowingly endangered the hostages,” the forum said in a statement on Monday.

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

2) JD Vance Claims One of Our Worst Traditions as His Own

By Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, July 23, 2025

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/opinion/jd-vance-claremont-american-citizen.html

Vice President JD Vance stares ahead.

Ken Cedeno/Reuters

More than most recent vice presidents, JD Vance seems to be locked out of the room where it happens.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, is by most accounts the president’s point person on mass deportation and immigration enforcement. Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, leads the effort to terrorize federal employees, bring the federal bureaucracy to heel and seize the power of the purse from Congress. The Department of Government Efficiency, formerly run by Elon Musk, is busy dismantling the nation’s research capacity and working to centralize government data on Americans.

Vance might have been on the ballot in November, but you’d be hard-pressed to find him anywhere in this triumvirate. He holds no particular portfolio of issues or items to pursue and he appears to have no special relationship with the president. On occasion, you’ll see Vance engaged in the sorts of civic activities that vice presidents are often made to perform — those events where it is important that someone from the high end of the administration makes an appearance, but not so important that you would send the president or the secretary of state. Even then, however, Vance seems to do less of this than past vice presidents. This is perhaps because unlike his predecessors, President Trump is less interested in governing than he is in playing the role of head of state.

As Trump himself will tell you, he tends not to know what his deputies are doing with their time. He professes to be ignorant of the actions of his government. Asked, for example, if his administration was planning to send migrants to Libya, he replied, “I don’t know. You’ll have to ask the Department of Homeland Security.” He saves his attention and enthusiasm for the pomp and circumstance of the presidency. He’s eager to host other heads of state, to attend celebrations and to speak to crowds of supporters. He also spends a lot of his time at his clubs and resorts, golfing, gossiping and glad-handing with passers-by and hangers-on.

With Trump consumed with the responsibilities of a typical vice president and other members of the administration doing the work of running the country, JD Vance is left largely on the sidelines, away from the action. Why does the vice president of the United States spend so much time writing posts on social media, preening for his allies or tussling with his ideological opponents? Well, why does anyone?

In fairness to the vice president, his online presence speaks to the main role he does seem to have in the White House, something akin to the president’s official fanboy. And in addition to acting as cheer captain for his boss, Vance also works to give the administration a veneer of intellectualism to cover its cruelty, corruption and incompetence — a spokesman for the president’s brand of national populism.

In February, for example, he spoke at a high-profile security conference in Germany, where he chastised European leaders for allowing significant immigration, fighting election interference and opposing the far right in their countries. In March, he touted the administration’s plans — thus far unrealized — to reinvigorate American manufacturing with tariffs. And this month, he met with the right-wing Claremont Institute to collect an award for statesmanship as well as speak on citizenship, in an address that built on key ideas from his acceptance speech last summer for the Republican vice-presidential nomination.

“America is not just an idea,” Vance declared. “It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. It is, in short, a nation.” And although he did not say it explicitly, Vance seemed to suggest — in recounting his personal connection to the heritage of the United States — that American identity was less about our national ideals than it was attachment to “a homeland.”

At Claremont, Vance made his meaning clear: “If you think about it, identifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let’s say, of the Declaration of Independence, that’s a definition that is way over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time,” the vice president said, taking aim at traditional American creedal nationalism. “What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, it would include hundreds of millions, maybe billions of foreign citizens who agree with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Must we admit all of them tomorrow? If you follow that logic of America as a purely creedal nation, America purely as an idea, that is where it would lead you.”

If the egalitarian values of the Declaration would lead you to see millions of people around the world as potential Americans, then for Vance they would also lead you to exclude those Americans who reject those ideals, even if they had deep roots in the nation. “That answer would also reject a lot of people that the ADL would label as domestic extremists,” he said — referring, without explanation, to the Anti-Defamation League — “even those very Americans” who “had their ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.” For Vance, this is simply unacceptable. “I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War,” he said, “have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong.”

Now, the vice president did not completely exclude more recent arrivals from the national political community. He took care to praise the contributions of immigrants. But he conditioned his acceptance of new citizens on their gratitude, condemning those who would criticize or critique the United States as ungrateful. To make this point, Vance went after Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, for the latter’s Independence Day message describing America as “beautiful, contradictory, unfinished.”

“Has he ever looked in the mirror and recognized that he might not be alive were it not for the generosity of a country he dares to insult on its most sacred day?” Vance said. “Who the hell does he think that he is?”

Vance and Mamdani are equal citizens under the law, but the vice president seems to believe that his heritage entitles him to speak in ways that Mamdani can’t. There are tiers of belonging, according to Vance, one for those who can trace their lineage to one of the nation’s two founding revolutions and another for those who can’t.

For Vance, this is something close to common sense. And for some Americans it was, before the Civil War.

The chief issue in Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided in 1857, was whether Scott, the plaintiff, could sue in federal court as a citizen. He had been enslaved in Missouri but brought to both Illinois and the northern territories of the Louisiana Purchase, where slavery was illegal. Upon returning to Missouri, he sued for his freedom, on the grounds that he was emancipated after his extended time on free soil. The defendant, John Sandford — brother-in-law to Scott’s former owner — charged that Scott lacked citizenship and could not sue, “because he is a Negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as Negro slaves.”

In his opinion for the court, Chief Justice Roger Taney agreed. Blacks could never be citizens, he argued, because the founders had never intended it. Blacks were considered, he insisted, “a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race.” Neither Scott nor any Black American, Taney said, could root himself in the nation’s history of freedom. Their heritage made them subjects. And because in his view, the Constitution spoke “not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers,” Black Americans could never be citizens either. Their status was fixed.

But what about the Declaration of Independence and its promise of egalitarian freedom? “The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood,” Taney wrote. “But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”

For the chief justice, too, the words of the Declaration were overinclusive. They conferred citizenship and belonging to more people than the framers could have possibly meant. And so, Taney concluded, we must look to other sources — in his case, slavery and racial prejudice — to find the truth, which is that American citizenship was a closed door and the United States was a tiered society of rigid hierarchies.

It was against this view that the first generation of Republican politicians defined themselves and their movement. Abraham Lincoln was, as you would expect, especially clear on this point. Here’s what he said on July 10, 1858, in a speech on “popular sovereignty,” the Dred Scott ruling and the expansion of slavery.

“We have besides these men — descended by blood from our ancestors — among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe — German, Irish, French and Scandinavian — men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”

At one point in his speech, when he’s scolding Mamdani for his ingratitude, Vance asks whether Mamdani has “ever read the letters from boy soldiers in the Union Army to parents and sweethearts that they’d never see again?” It is striking that the vice president invokes the Civil War to make his point.

The great ideological victory of that conflict was to establish the United States as a nation “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” When, at Gettysburg, Lincoln pronounced a “new birth of freedom,” consecrated by those who “gave the last full measure of devotion,” he meant the egalitarian freedom that Taney and others like him sought to deny.

If Vance knows this — and it’s clear he does, as Claremont, where he gave this particular speech, was founded by students of a prominent Lincoln admirer — then he must also know that he is rejecting one of the key outcomes of the Civil War, that he’s cutting the “electric cord” of the Declaration and treating Appomattox as a dead letter.

Vance sees the egalitarian ideals of our founding documents but says, as Taney did, that we must look elsewhere for our vision of American citizenship. And that elsewhere is your heritage — your connection to the soil and to the dead.

It’s here that Vance truly speaks for Trump, who entered American politics as a demagogue denouncing the nation’s first Black president as a foreign usurper. And it’s here that we see the logic of Trump’s attack on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, which wrote the egalitarian promise of the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution itself.

Trump and Vance envision a world of tiered citizenship, each in his own way, where entry depends on heritage and status rests on obedience. The best traditions of our country make this difficult. And so they have found refuge in our worst.

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

3) E.P.A. Is Said to Draft a Plan to End Its Ability to Fight Climate Change

According to two people familiar with the draft, it would eliminate the bedrock scientific finding that greenhouse-gas emissions threaten human life by dangerously warming the planet.

By Lisa Friedman, Published July 22, 2025, Updated July 23, 2025

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/climate/epa-endangerment-finding-rescind.html

White clouds of exhaust pour from a smokestack at a coal-burning power plant.

The E.P.A. has sent to the White House a draft plan to repeal a rule known as the “endangerment finding,” according to people familiar with the plan. Credit...Benjamin Rasmussen for The New York Times

The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan.

The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration known as the “endangerment finding,” which scientifically established that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives.

That finding is the foundation of the federal government’s only tool to limit the climate pollution from vehicles, power plants and other industries that is dangerously heating the planet.

The E.P.A. proposal, which is expected to be made public within days, also calls for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. Those regulations, which were based on the endangerment finding, were a fundamental part of the Biden administration’s efforts to move the country away from gasoline-powered vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

The E.P.A. intends to argue that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice, according to the two people familiar with the administration’s plan. They asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorized to discuss the draft proposal.

The draft proposal could still undergo changes. But if it is approved by the White House and formally released, the public would have an opportunity to weigh in before it is made final, likely later this year.

Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., did not confirm the details of the plan. In a statement she said the E.P.A. sent the draft proposal to the White House on June 30, and that it “will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator.”

If the Trump administration is able to repeal the endangerment finding, it would not only erase all current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources. It would prevent future administrations from trying to tackle climate change, with lasting implications.

“The White House is trying to turn back the clock and re-litigate both the science and the law,” said Vicki Arroyo, who teaches environmental law at Georgetown University. She called the evidence that climate change is harmful “overwhelming and incontrovertible.”

Since taking office, President Trump has abandoned U.S. efforts to tackle global warming. He also has moved to roll back virtually every federal policy aimed at curbing greenhouse gases from the burning of oil, gas and coal. His administration has encouraged more production and use of fossil fuels while stifling the growth of clean energy and electric vehicles.

In calling to repeal the endangerment finding, the draft E.P.A. rule does not appear to focus on the science or try to make the case that fossil fuels aren’t warming the planet.

Instead, it argues that the E.P.A. overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare. It makes the case that the E.P.A. administrator has limited power that apply only to specific circumstances.

Joseph Goffman, who led the air office at the E.P.A. under the Biden administration, said the rule would all but certainly face legal challenges if it is finalized.

He said the Trump administration’s proposed rule conflicts with the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., a landmark case that found for the first time that greenhouse gases were a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That led the E.P.A. to make the finding in 2009 that said that six greenhouse gases were harming public health.

In more than 200 pages, the E.P.A. at that time outlined the science and detailed how increasingly severe heat waves, storms and droughts were expected to contribute to higher rates of death and disease.

Maxine Joselow contributed reporting.

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

4) A Genocide Scholar on the Case Against Israel

An Israeli historian answers his critics and explains why his home country’s conduct in Gaza constitutes genocide.

By Omer Bartov and Daniel J. Wakin, Produced by Jillian Weinberger, July 23, 2025

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/opinion/israel-gaza-genocide-scholar-response.html

llustration by The New York Times; photograph by Ali Jadallah/Getty

Omer Bartov grew up in Israel and served in the Israel Defense Forces. He went on to study the Holocaust and genocide as a historian. In this conversation, he tells the Opinion editor Daniel J. Wakin why he believes Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and what that means for the future of the Middle East and the next generation of Jews in Israel and the United States.

A Genocide Scholar on the Case Against Israel

An Israeli historian answers his critics, and explains why his home country’s conduct in Gaza constitutes genocide.

Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.

The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Daniel J. Wakin: I’m Dan Wakin, an international editor for New York Times Opinion.

The historian Omer Bartov grew up in Israel in a Zionist home. He spent his career researching and writing about the Holocaust and genocide, and last week he published an essay in Times Opinion, describing Israel’s actions in Gaza as just that: a genocide.

We received a huge response to the piece — both positive and negative — because this issue is deeply fraught for many. So I wanted to talk to Bartov about what moved him to write this essay now, and to ask him to respond to some of the criticism we’ve received. And because Bartov is a historian, I wanted to know what using this word means for how we talk about the past and for the way we think about and study the Holocaust.

Omer, thanks for joining me today.

Omer Bartov: Thanks for having me, Dan.

Wakin: I think it’s important to start by saying that you reached this conclusion over time. In fact, about a month after Oct. 7, you published a Times Opinion essay that said, “as a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza.”

A lot has happened since you wrote that first essay. Can you please talk about the process of how you changed your mind?

Bartov: The point of that earlier op-ed was not simply to say that no genocide is happening. What I was trying to say in it was that I could see that there were war crimes being carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza and to warn that if this were not stopped, then what the I.D.F. was doing may deteriorate into genocide. So it was written as a warning, and I was, of course, hoping that somebody would pay attention, either in Israel or, more likely, in the United States.

So at the time, my view was this: If the Biden administration had told Netanyahu in November or December 2023, you have two weeks to wrap it up, and after that, you’re on your own, Israel would’ve stopped. And possibly, we wouldn’t be talking about a genocide in Gaza at all.

In the November op-ed, I cited various political and military leaders in Israel making statements that appeared to be genocidal. At the time, one could argue these were said in the heat of the moment, in response to the massacre of 800 Israeli civilians by Hamas. But it turned out that when you looked at the pattern of operations by the I.D.F., it was implementing precisely those statements: We need to flatten Gaza. There are no uninvolved people there. They’re human animals. They should get no water, no food. All of these statements had a genocidal tone, and they also served as incitement to the troops on the ground, coming directly from their own political and military leaders.

By May of 2024, I concluded that what the I.D.F. was involved in was not simply trying to destroy Hamas and to release the hostages, but instead was engaged in an operation that is ongoing to demolish Gaza altogether — to make the Gaza Strip into a completely uninhabitable territory to the extent not only that people would not be able to live there, not even on the ruins of their own homes, but also that they would never be able to reconstitute their identity as a group even if the fighting were to stop — and one hopes that it will finally stop.

Wakin: I think this is a good point to jump in and ask: How do you define a genocide?

Bartov: So genocide is a different type of crime to all others. And it was conceived and articulated by a Jewish Polish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, who began thinking about this issue in the 1930s when he was considering what happened to the Armenians in World War I. He was trying to understand what it meant when you’re not simply massacring people as a regime, as an organization, but you’re trying to destroy the group as a group.

During World War II, Lemkin had to flee from Poland because he was Jewish. His family was murdered. He ended up in the United States. He published a book in 1944 in which there’s a chapter that defines genocide, and his definition, with all kind of changes, was eventually voted on by the United Nations in 1948 and came into force in 1951. That definition of genocide says that you’re killing people or making life impossible for people, or creating conditions that make their existence increasingly difficult, not as individuals, but as an ethnic, national or religious group. Your goal is to eradicate the group as a group.

So what you have to show if you want to indict a country or any individual for genocide is that they have the intent to do that and that they’re trying to implement that intent. So, of course, numbers matter. They have to be significant numbers. And I’ve seen responses saying, “If Israel killed a million Gazans, then it would be a genocide, but 50, 60, maybe 100,000 — not good enough.” It is good enough if the intent is to destroy the group as a group by violent means, destruction, deprivation of food and chances of life from children, from the next generation and destruction of all the cultural, educational and health institutions. That is clearly an indication of an intent to carry out genocide against that group. That is to eradicate it in whole, in part, as such.

Wakin: The same critics, I think, would also raise the idea that in World War II, the Nazis were killing Jews because they were Jewish, because of their Jewishness. And these critics would say, Israel is not inflicting casualties on Palestinian civilians because they are Palestinian, it’s because Israel is fighting an enemy embedded among the Palestinians: Hamas. That Palestinians may be dying even though Israel is trying to do everything it can to protect them. Is there a distinction there?

Bartov: No. If you really wanted to make an analogy with the Nazis, I would say that the distinction would be between a particular Nazi racial, biological, scientific, racist ideology, which was quite unique for a regime. And in Israel, although there are members of the cabinet who are Jewish supremacists, the Israeli government as such does not speak in those racial terms. However, what Israel is doing is fighting a war against Palestinians. And the goal of this government is to make it impossible for Palestinians to have any right of self-determination or any ability to resist oppression and occupation by the State of Israel.

Wakin: One of the objections raised to your piece was that you’re blaming Israel for carrying out genocide in Gaza, when all that has to happen to stop this situation is for Hamas, which started the war, to surrender and let the hostages go. They could end this there, and they could have ended it at any time. So it’s somehow false to accuse Israel of a genocide when its actions are the result of Hamas’s failure to surrender.

Bartov: Yeah, that unfortunately is merely an indication of the success of Israeli propaganda. If Hamas were to surrender, to hand over the hostages, what do you think Israel and the I.D.F. on the ground would do? They would just wrap up their tents and put their tanks in reverse and leave Gaza? No. The only thing that is preventing the I.D.F. from completely demolishing Gaza, whatever is left of it, from taking over everything, is the presence of Israeli hostages there.

So the only limit on movements by the I.D.F. to completely destroy Gaza is the fact that there’s still hostages there. And Netanyahu himself has said that; his goal is absolute victory. Of course, it’s not really defined what he means by absolute victory, but it means complete control over the Gaza Strip.

Wakin: And finally, critics of the piece have pointed out that in World War II, hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were killed — the atomic bombings in Japan, the fire bombing of Dresden. Why was that not considered a genocide, and why is this case considered a genocide?

Bartov: That’s a question that’s often asked in World War II. Especially British and American bombers killed and firebombed in Germany alone about 600,000 civilians intentionally. Now, you could have said that was a war crime, why is it not genocide? Well, think about what happened when the Americans occupied Germany. Did they kill all the Germans? Did they say that Germany’s going to never exist again? Did they flatten Germany? No. They decided on the Marshall Plan. Now, they had reasons for that because they were worried, of course, about communist influence. So they wanted to make Germany a viable society. And the German economic miracle was in large part because it began with a Marshall Plan.

And even with Japan — once America came to occupy Japan, it didn’t destroy Japan. Complaints were by the winners that the losers were doing so well economically that they lost the war, but won in the economic competition. Now, had Israel said: Look, we are fighting Hamas. We’re not fighting Palestinians. We’re not fighting the Palestinian people. We are on your side. Inhabitants, help us destroy Hamas and we will help you build a new society together with us. You won’t find such statements in Israel.

Wakin: So let’s move away from the politics and the issue of morality and talk a bit about you personally. You served in the I.D.F. in the 1970s as a young man. You were on patrol in Gaza. And you’ve written that your military service there made you understand what it meant to occupy other people. Did you think about your experiences in Gaza as you wrote this essay? And, if so, how did you think about them?

Bartov: Yes. Look, I was a young officer at the time. My battalion headquarters was in the city of Gaza. It was highly congested. There had been a lot of violence there. People were living in derelict quarters — it was not a great place. I served also in the West Bank as a soldier, and you have to understand, I was raised in Israel, I was raised in a Zionist home. I wanted to be a combat soldier. I was your usual Israeli male.

And it began dawning on me that when you occupy people, there is something about that situation — how would I say it? It was not a profound sort of intellectual consideration. It was a sensation of being an occupier, of being unwanted by the population and asking yourself, Why am I here? There was a sense of mutual threat. When you patrol in a city and you are walking 30 men with guns in a city, you are obviously there to threaten people. That’s what you’re doing. But you see them behind their windows, and there are many of them, and you don’t know who they are and what they might do to you. You feel constantly threatened. That’s a situation of occupation that creates this kind of mutual dehumanization. And for me, this was the beginning. It was a process of several years of realizing what occupation does.

More than 50 years later, I think occupation corrupts and it corrupts completely and it seeps into society. The society that I was a member of in the early 1970s and Israeli society today are completely different. The army is completely different, and much of that is a result of precisely that occupation, of the dehumanizing aspect of occupation.

I always think about sitting in a nice cafe in Tel Aviv, having a coffee or a drink with a young man, and they’re nice people. They’re friendly, they’re open, they have a sense of humor, they look great. They’re like anybody else that you would meet in New York or London or Berlin. But the day before, they were in uniform. And what were they doing? They were controlling the occupation. And how do you do that? You show that you are the boss. And how do you do that? You break into people’s homes at 4 in the morning. You drag old people out of their beds. You break children’s toys. That’s how you enforce an occupation.

What does it do to you? What does it do to your society? And that’s without talking about the effect that Gaza will have on a whole generation of young Israelis who have been fighting there and destroying that place.

Wakin: Is that kind of dehumanization a prerequisite to genocidal action?

Bartov: Yes, it is. One of the signs of genocide is that you start talking about a particular group as not human — as different, and somehow not deserving the same rights or not having the same qualities. You can say: They’re all thieves, they’re all rapists. Or you can say they’re cockroaches. You can say they’re human animals. All this terminology is a prerequisite. It doesn’t mean that necessarily genocide will ensue, but you have to think of the other group as not having rights and not having rights to have rights. And that is something that developed in Israel over time. That for most Israelis — and I’m not talking about the right wing — for most Israelis, the idea that Palestinians should have the same rights as us and the same dignity and the same equality, doesn’t at all rise to people’s consciousness.

People got used to the occupation. That’s one reason I would say why they were so appalled by Oct. 7, because suddenly those people broke out of their cage and attacked us. And we were used to them being on the other side of the fence and being patrolled by our troops, who then the next day could sit with us in a cafe and be completely normal people.

Wakin: You’ve spent your career studying the Holocaust, and many Jews around the world believe that education about the Holocaust is paramount, encapsulated by the slogan “never again.” What do you think that Israel’s conduct in Gaza now will mean for the future of how we think about “never again” and how we think about the Holocaust?

Bartov: So I spent the early part of my career actually studying the crimes of the German Army on the Eastern Front and the brutalization of soldiers, which for obvious reasons I was interested in. Then I started increasingly studying genocide and the Holocaust. And actually, I wrote about what I thought about the notion of the lessons of the Holocaust, and I was always a bit skeptical about that, in the sense that I was always worried about the idea that the lesson of the Holocaust is that what we need is more tolerance, more humanity. If we teach the Holocaust, then we will understand that. And I was never sure why, when you teach brutality, dehumanization, that that should somehow make you more humane. Make you understand that we are all the same as human beings.

So I was always a little wary about that. That was very much the American interpretation of the Holocaust as it grew because it was not always there. It took a long time. It really came in the 1980s and ’90s. In Israel, of course, the understanding of the Holocaust was always completely different. The understanding of the Holocaust was that the Holocaust meant that the Jews should stick to themselves, and if anyone threatens them, they should eradicate them.

I think, again, on two levels, in the case of Israel, what Gaza has done, it will become increasingly difficult for Israel to be able to argue that because of the Holocaust, because of what was done to the Jews, it can do whatever it takes, and it does not have to pay attention to international law or criticism by other states because it is fighting for its bare existence. See what happened to us in Auschwitz. That because Israel was engaged in such extraordinary destruction of human lives, such callous treatment of other people, it won’t be able to draw on that moral capital anymore.

In terms of the whole culture of memory, commemoration, teaching, pedagogy that use the Holocaust with very good intentions to teach tolerance and humanity — that is becoming increasingly difficult now because those institutions and many of the individuals in those institutions who were charged or appointed themselves to disseminate that culture of commemoration, of memory with the humanistic message of “never again” — never again what? Never again in humanity. Never again genocide. Never again indifference to human lives. They have been silent over what is happening in Gaza. They have not spoken out now for two years. And that, I think, has greatly diminished their authority. And I’m afraid the result of that may be that this culture of commemorating the Holocaust may recede back to where it began, which is a kind of ethnic enclave of Jews talking about their suffering with other Jews.

Wakin: I don’t know how to put this. It’s hard to say can anything good come of this. As a historian, maybe 50 years from now — casting yourself in the future, if you look back could you see some kind of positive or some sort of cathartic effect of what is happening? Is that at all possible? Can you even speak of this in those terms?

Bartov: Yes, of course you can, because we’ve seen this happen with other countries, countries that had violent regimes that were engaged in a great deal of violence. And at some point, whether you talk about Germany or South Africa, these countries have shook themselves free of it and rebuilt themselves as completely different societies. But in order to do that, it doesn’t happen simply because people changed their minds. In Germany it happened because Germany was defeated in World War II. In South Africa, it happened because South Africa was under a huge sanctions regime and just could no longer maintain apartheid.

So I think that it can happen, but I have to say that right now, Israel has enjoyed such incredible impunity in the international community — and especially in that community that matters to it, which is the United States and Western Europe, who are its main supporters — that I’m afraid the more likely prediction for now is that Israel will become increasingly authoritarian and may end up being a full-blown apartheid authoritarian state. And such states don’t last very long.

So, yes, after that there may be a reckoning. If that reckoning comes, it would have to come with a process of truth and reconciliation because Israel will not be able to shake itself free just by erasing what happened — the memory of what it did in Gaza. It will have to confront that. It will have to go back all the way to 1948, and it will have to begin a process of truth and reconciliation that could lead to some kind of settlement between the Jewish and Palestinian inhabitants of that land. But right now it’s heading in the opposite direction.

Wakin: The implications for Israel in the immediate future, particularly when it comes to American support, there’s a big growing divide in this country. A generational divide over Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Younger Jews are much more likely than their parents to see Israel as a committer of crimes, as an occupying force. What will that mean for the future of American support for Israel, and what does that mean for Israel’s future?

Bartov: So it took a long time for Israel to build up the kind of support — in many ways, love — for Israel that exists in the United States. In Europe, things are a bit different because there’s also a sense of guilt about the Holocaust, but also a kind of admiration for Israel. It took many, many years to build that — decades — and that is now being eroded. And I can’t say that I’m happy about that.

If Israel loses support and it becomes increasingly violent, erodes any of what is left there of liberal democracy — as is happening right now — then this will not bode well for the state of Israel itself. And, unfortunately, it will also have, I would say, a harmful effect on Jewish communities around the world because Israel presents itself as the representative of the Jews around the world. And so it makes them responsible, willy-nilly, for its own actions. And so that process will not only erode support for Israel, but I’m afraid it can also give license to more prejudice against Jews wherever they are.

Wakin: You’re hinting at this slightly in your last response, but I’m just curious, how do you feel about Israel inside yourself, emotionally? What is your feeling now as a human being, as an individual — not as a scholar about this but as the country of your birth and your origin?

Bartov: Look, I mean, it’s actually heartbreaking. I grew up there. My best friends are there. I have family there. And there are many things I love, and certainly loved, about that country. To see it change so dramatically, both through a long-term process and then in this kind of accelerated, on-steroids transformation since Oct. 7, is heartbreaking.

What I can say is that I’m a big supporter of the state of Israel. I’m an Israeli citizen. I believe the Jewish people, like every other people, have the right to self-determine. I’m not against Zionism at all. I think Zionism was a movement that called for the emancipation and liberation of Jews, for human rights. But the kind of Zionism that exists in Israel now, the kind of state it has become, I can’t support it.

Wakin: Omer, thank you so much for joining me in this conversation. I really appreciate it.

Bartov: Thanks very much, Dan.

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

5) Trump Is Building a Machine to Disappear People

By Jeff Crisp, July 23, 2025

Mr. Crisp is an expert on migration and humanitarian issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/opinion/migration-deportation-sudan-trump.html

The shadow of a woman against a wall, next to a bed.

Natalie Arrué

In May, the United States flew a group of eight migrants to Djibouti, a small state in the Horn of Africa. For weeks, the men — who are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan — were detained in a converted shipping container on a U.S. military base. More than a month later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the men, who had all been convicted of serious crimes, could be transferred to their final destination: South Sudan, a country on the brink of famine and civil war. Tom Homan, the border czar, acknowledged that he didn’t know what happened to them once they were released from U.S. custody. “As far as we’re concerned,” he said, “they’re free.”

Deporting foreign nationals to countries other than their homeland has quickly become a centerpiece of the Trump administration’s immigration policy. Thousands of people have been sent to countries in the Western Hemisphere, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Panama. At a recent summit of West African leaders, President Trump pressed them to admit deportees from the United States, reportedly emphasizing that assisting in migration was essential to improving commercial ties with the United States. All told, administration officials have reached out to dozens of states to try to strike deals to accept deportees. The administration is making progress: Last week, it sent five men to the tiny, landlocked country of Eswatini in southern Africa after their home countries allegedly “refused to take them back,” according to an assistant homeland security secretary, Tricia McLaughlin. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.

In some ways, this is nothing new. It has become increasingly common for the world’s most prosperous countries to relocate immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees to places with which they have little or no prior connection. Previous U.S. administrations from both parties have sought third-country detentions as easy fixes. In the 1990s, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both sent thousands of Haitian refugees to detention camps in Guantánamo Bay before forcibly repatriating most of them to Haiti.

What is new about the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, unlike previous European or even past U.S. attempts, is their breadth and scale, effectively transforming migrant expulsions into a tool for international leverage. By deporting foreign nationals to often unstable third countries, the Trump administration is not only creating a novel class of exiles with little hope of returning to either the United States or their country of origin, but also explicitly using these vulnerable populations as bargaining chips in a wider strategy of diplomatic and geopolitical deal making.

This strategy marks a significant evolution in a practice that has been gaining traction throughout the developed world. In the early 2000s, Australia devised the so-called Pacific Solution, an arrangement that diverted asylum seekers arriving by boat or intercepted at sea to holding centers in the island states of Nauru and Papua New Guinea in exchange for benefits, including development aid and financial support. In 2016, amid what was then the largest displacement of people in Europe since World War II, the European Union struck a deal that allowed it to send migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey through irregular means back to Turkey — to the tune of six billion euros.

Some of these efforts have faced legal challenges. Starting in 2022, for example, the United Kingdom attempted to establish a program that would have automatically deported some asylum seekers and migrants entering the U.K. illegally to Rwanda, costing over half a billion pounds — more than 200 million of which were paid upfront. The British Supreme Court ruled that the policy was unlawful, and Britain’s prime minister scrapped the plan last year.

But many countries remain undeterred. In 2023, Italy signed a deal that allowed it to send certain migrants rescued by Italian ships in international waters to detention centers in Albania, and is persisting with the effort even in the face of legal setbacks. This spring, the European Union proposed establishing “return hubs” in third countries for rejected asylum seekers.

Although these deals take various forms, states that enter them are motivated by similar concerns. The world’s richer states wish to retain control of their borders and are particularly aggrieved by the arrival of people who enter by irregular means, especially when they are coming from low-income countries that many associate with crime, violence and terrorism. Governments in destination countries are attracted to such deals by the promise of financial, diplomatic and military support.

Throughout much of the West, as public sentiment has turned against newcomers, policymakers and pundits alike have portrayed migrants as a threat to national security and social stability. These migrants, they argue, impose an unsustainable burden on government budgets and public services and deprive citizens of jobs. Racism and xenophobia, fueled by populist politicians and right-wing media outlets, have also played an important part in creating a toxic environment in which the expulsion of migrants to arbitrary destinations is increasingly considered legitimate.

But how legitimate is it? Third-country deportations often sidestep due process and violate international law, under which it is forbidden for states to deport such people to any place where their life or liberty would be at risk. It is also plainly unethical, imposing additional stress on people who have undergone traumatic journeys and who are then dumped in far-off, unfamiliar places.

Several of the countries slated as deportation destinations have bleak human rights records and are unsafe for all civilians, let alone foreign deportees, who are likely to be targets of abuse and exploitation. In the worst instances, as with U.S. deportees in El Salvador, they can find themselves in jails where the authorities routinely inflict physical and psychological violence on inmates.

These deportation deals also have corrosive consequences for international politics. They encourage smaller, weaker countries to engage in transactional behavior, commodifying human life by trading immigrant bodies for cash, development aid, diplomatic support and international impunity. They may even strengthen the impunity of authoritarian regimes that violate the human rights of their own citizens. In the case of El Salvador, for example, deportees from the United States reportedly included some leaders of the criminal gang MS-13, who were thought to be in a position to expose links between President Nayib Bukele and the gang.

For nearly three-quarters of a century, a network of international instruments, institutions and norms have acted as guardrails, if imperfect ones, to ensure that refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants are treated humanely. Now it seems as though the president is looking to rewrite the rules of this system to one in which people are pawns.

By expanding the practice of forced relocation, Mr. Trump is using migrants as currency in a global network of geopolitical negotiation. His administration is normalizing the use of vulnerable people as bargaining chips to extract better deals with friends and foes alike. He is setting a dangerous precedent for other democratic countries by ignoring the moral and reputational cost of shipping desperate people into terrible conditions. As Mr. Trump works to bring this new paradigm to life, leaders the world over will be watching closely. If he can pull it off, so can they.

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

6) Aid Groups Blame Israel’s Gaza Restrictions for ‘Mass Starvation’

More than 100 organizations, including Save the Children and Doctors Without Borders, added to growing calls for aid restrictions to be eased and the war to end.

By Matthew Mpoke Bigg, Reporting from London, July 23, 2025

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/world/middleeast/aid-groups-gaza-starvation.html

People holding empty metal pans stretch their arms imploringly.

Waiting for food in Gaza on Wednesday. After two years of war, aid groups and governments say the territory is facing a severe hunger crisis. Credit...Saher Alghorra for The New York Times

More than 100 aid agencies and rights groups, including Save the Children and Doctors Without Borders, warned on Wednesday that “mass starvation” was spreading across Gaza, adding to calls for Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid to the besieged enclave.

The joint statement is the latest attempt to draw attention to a growing hunger crisis in Gaza. It was released after the European Union and at least 28 governments, including Israeli allies like Britain, France and Canada, on Monday condemned the “drip feeding of aid” and said that civilian suffering had “reached new depths.”

Doctors Without Borders in Gaza has reported a “sharp and unprecedented rise in acute malnutrition.” Adults frequently collapse from hunger, the aid groups said in their statement, adding that stockpiles of food and other supplies warehoused outside the territory were being prevented from reaching people in need.

Gaza’s health ministry said on Wednesday that hospitals had registered 10 deaths because of famine or malnutrition in the previous 24 hours, bringing the total number of deaths from hunger since Saturday to 43.

There was no independent confirmation of the toll and the ministry did not give details. Health experts say that deaths from malnutrition are often undercounted because acutely hungry patients often die of other causes, such as diarrhea or viral infections, that their bodies are too weak to fight.

The United Nations’ World Food Program said this week that nearly a third of Gaza’s population, which stands at 2.1 million, was not eating for multiple days in a row. “People are dying for lack of humanitarian assistance,” it said in a statement.

Israel blocked deliveries of aid between March and May after it ended a cease-fire with Hamas. Since then, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private Israeli-backed group, has managed a new system in which people go to a few distribution sites to obtain aid. The government says that the new system is designed to prevent Hamas from stealing aid, and the sites are in areas of Gaza controlled by Israeli forces.

But the new system has been marred by near-daily violence. The United Nations said last week that more than 670 people had been killed near the new aid sites, many as a result of gunfire, and that hundreds of others had been injured. One consequence has been that some people have been deterred from approaching the sites, which itself has exacerbated hunger, aid groups say.

On Wednesday, Israel’s foreign ministry rejected the aid groups’ claims, and said that the organizations were echoing Hamas’s talking points.

Israel has also blamed the United Nations for failing to distribute supplies that are already in Gaza. On Tuesday, COGAT, the Israeli government agency that oversees policy in Gaza and the West Bank, said that nearly 4,500 aid trucks had recently entered the territory, carrying flour, 2,500 tons of baby food and high-calorie food for children.

The United Nations has said that insecurity and restrictions imposed by the Israeli military often make delivering food within Gaza impossible. Around 500 trucks of aid and commercial supplies were delivered to Gaza each day before the war, it said, but that number plummeted after the conflict started and has dropped even further since the cease-fire collapsed.

The Trump administration has argued that its immediate priority is to secure a new cease-fire, given that the amount of aid entering Gaza spiked during the previous truce.

The administration’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, was set to travel to the region this week for talks on the war, a State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters on Tuesday. Mr. Witkoff wanted to achieve a cease-fire and a “humanitarian corridor for aid to flow,” she added.

Israel’s foreign ministry said that by issuing the statement, the aid groups were impeding the chances of a new cease-fire to pause the war, which began when Hamas launched a deadly raid on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

“These organizations are serving the propaganda of Hamas, using their numbers, justifying their horrors, instead of challenging the terror organization,” it said in a statement on social media.

The groups that signed the statement, which also included CARE, Christian Aid and Amnesty International, said the U.N.-led system that had previously handled aid to Gaza had worked but that it was “prevented from functioning.” They said that only 28 trucks of aid were now being distributed in Gaza each day.

The groups added that their workers in Gaza, whose job is to provide support to civilians, were so hungry that they were now risking their own lives by joining food lines.

Civilians in Gaza said the lack of food had become critical. A’eed Abu Khater, 48, who said he was living in a tent in Gaza City in the north of the enclave, said that his 17-year-old son, Atef, had been hospitalized with severe malnutrition for 15 days and his condition was deteriorating.

“I had to leave the hospital — I couldn’t bear to see him like this. He is not responding to the treatment,” Mr. Khater said in a telephone interview, adding that the boy had been healthy before the war. “I can’t describe how terrible the situation is. I can’t hold back my tears. This is my son.”

David Mencer, an Israeli government spokesman, blamed Hamas for the suffering in Gaza. In a briefing to journalists, he said that Israel facilitated aid through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and shipments of goods for bakeries and communal kitchens coordinated by the United Nations.

“In Gaza today, there is no famine caused by Israel. There is, however, a man-made shortage engineered by Hamas,” he said, adding that aid groups were issuing “false warnings.”

Rawan Sheikh Ahmad and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

7) A New Golf Course and Old Grudges Await Trump in Scotland

Many Scots refuse to make peace with President Trump or his golf resorts, even after he deepened his investment in the land where his mother was born.

By Mark Landler, Visuals by Andrew Testa, Reporting from Balmedie, Scotland, July 23, 2025

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/world/europe/trump-visit-scotland-golf-resorts.html

Trump International Scotland, a beachside golf resort in Aberdeenshire.

Michael Forbes has been at odds with President Trump since the day Mr. Trump turned up with a plan to build a golf resort next to his farm on Scotland’s northeast coast. That was nearly 20 years ago, and Mr. Forbes, a retired quarry worker and salmon fisherman, hasn’t lost any of his vinegar.

“There’s no way I’m ever going to sell,” Mr. Forbes, 73, said this week of his property, which is surrounded by a new golf course that Mr. Trump is expected to dedicate when he visits his two resorts in Scotland this week. “I keep three Highland cows behind the house,” Mr. Forbes said, chuckling that the bucolic spectacle annoys his neighbor, clashing with his manicured landscape.

Such cussedness comes naturally on this wild stretch of the Scottish coast, where the North Sea winds can snap a full-grown spruce tree in two. But it captures a wider refusal among many Scots to make peace with Mr. Trump, even after he regained the White House and deepened his investment in Scotland — a token of his ties to the land where his mother was born.

“Everyone in Scotland hates him,” Mr. Forbes said, a claim that was thrown in doubt a few minutes later by John Duncan, a nearby contractor who clears ditches for Mr. Trump. “I love the man,” Mr. Duncan said, noting that the president’s resort, Trump International Scotland, employs 35 greenskeepers alone.

Mr. Duncan likened Mr. Trump to Nigel Farage, the populist leader of the anti-immigrant party Reform U.K., and said Britain would benefit from their brand of take-no-prisoners leadership. Still, he conceded, “There’s folks who don’t like Donald Trump, and nothing is ever going to change that.”

The police in Scotland are bracing for demonstrations against Mr. Trump during his visit, which will include a weekend at his other Scottish resort, Trump Turnberry, on the west coast about 50 miles from Glasgow. A survey in February by the market research firm Ipsos found that 71 percent of those polled in Scotland had an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Trump, compared with 57 percent of the broader British public polled.

Some of this antipathy may reflect his turbulent history in Scotland, which has been marked by feuds with noncompliant neighbors, breakups with political officials over his business plans, and longstanding grudges, like Mr. Trump’s hostility toward the offshore windmills that turn lazily within sight of his guests in Aberdeenshire.

The common thread is a belief that Mr. Trump never delivered on the promises he made in 2006 when he bought the Menie estate, eight miles north of Aberdeen. Mr. Trump talked about putting up a sprawling hotel to supplement the manor house already there, as well as hundreds of vacation homes. With a total investment projected at 150 million pounds ($202 million), it would have created hundreds of jobs.

None of that happened, though the second golf course at the resort in Aberdeenshire, which Mr. Trump will dedicate this week, is evidence that the Trumps are still pouring money into the project. The resort reported losses of 1.4 million pounds ($1.9 million) in 2023, according to a financial filing. It is listed as having an asset value of 37 million pounds ($49 million) and 84 employees.

“President Trump is proud of his Scottish heritage and roots,” the White House communications director, Steven Cheung, said in a statement. Mr. Trump’s mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, was a native of Lewis, in Scotland’s western isles.

“He has created projects that have a positive economic impact,” Mr. Cheung said, “generating good jobs and boosting economic activity in the area.”

There is no dispute that the resort has injected some money into a region that depends on its ties to the North Sea oil industry. Mr. Trump alluded to that when he told the BBC last week that he planned to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain in Aberdeen, which he called the “oil capital of Europe.”

“They should get rid of the windmills and bring back the oil,” said Mr. Trump, who fought for years to block the installation of the wind farm off the resort’s coast.

“Windmills,” he said, “are really detrimental to the beauty of Scotland.”

Analysts said Mr. Trump had the dynamics of the two industries backward. Oil production in the North Sea has declined steadily for the last 20 years, while offshore wind is one of Britain’s fastest-growing industries.

“Trump’s thinking would have been way more credible in the 1980s than it is now,” said Tessa Khan, the executive director of Uplift, a research group that campaigns for the transition away from fossil fuels.

Mr. Trump’s history with Turnberry is far less contentious than that with Aberdeen. Turnberry was a faded dowager when he bought it in 2014, and he is credited with restoring the luster of its three courses. But it, too, has become a target: A pro-Palestinian activist group recently painted the slogan “Gaza is not 4 Sale” on the grounds, prompting calls from Mr. Trump to Mr. Starmer.

During his first term, Mr. Trump lobbied the Scottish government to award the coveted British Open golf tournament to Turnberry, which has not played host since 2009, before he owned it. The R&A, a golf association in St. Andrews that runs the tournament, has signaled a greater openness to going back to Turnberry but said its lack of hotel rooms and transport links was a hurdle.

In Aberdeenshire, the tensions are environmental. The links there are carved between sand dunes, which were designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest because of the way they shift over time. A plaque behind the clubhouse, next to a vendor selling Trump Grab & Go sandwiches, declared that the dunes help make it “the greatest golf course anywhere in the world!” But the Scottish authorities withdrew the scientific site designation in 2020, saying the construction of the links had deprived the dunes of their special character.

As technical as that might seem, it has registered with locals, who are proud of the dunes and relish walking among them. On a recent evening at the Cock and Bull restaurant, across the road from the resort, two men could be overheard discussing Mr. Trump and the dunes’ lost “SSSI status.”

Not everybody is nursing grievances. Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, wrote this spring in The Times of London that “President Trump’s affinity for Scotland is real, regardless of what people think of his politics.” He said Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, leader of the Scottish National Party, had mismanaged his relationship with the president.

A few days before last year’s U.S. election, Mr. Swinney endorsed the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris. He and Mr. Trump are still expected to meet during the president’s visit.

Even Mr. Trump’s most implacable foes recognize there are limits to the feuding. David Milne, who lives in a converted coast guard lookout bordering the Aberdeenshire resort, spent years theatrically protesting his neighbor. He flew the Mexican flag above his house in 2016, when Mr. Trump vowed to build a wall on the southern American border.

Mr. Milne’s views on Mr. Trump have not softened any more than those of Mr. Forbes, with his Highland cows. Mr. Milne, too, said he had no plans to sell his house, which Mr. Trump once called “ugly.” But he has had no run-ins with the resort for years, he said, and has no plans to fly his Mexican flag when Mr. Trump is in residence next week.

“Once the Mexican people told him where to go, there didn’t seem to be any point,” Mr. Milne said. “They’re quite capable of taking care of themselves.”

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

8) Gazans Are Dying of Starvation

Severe hunger has gripped the war-torn Palestinian enclave, where growing numbers of people are starving and the doctors treating them are working on empty stomachs.

By Rawan Sheikh Ahmad, Isabel Kershner and Abu Bakr Bashir, Visuals by Saher Alghorra, July 24, 2025

Rawan Sheikh Ahmad reported from Haifa, Israel; Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem; and Abu Bakr Bashir from London. Saher Alghorra recorded images in Gaza.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/world/middleeast/gaza-starvation.html

Palestinians holding metal and plastic bowls crowd against a wall, awaiting food distribution.

Waiting for food aid in Gaza City on Wednesday.

Atef Abu Khater, 17, who was healthy before Gaza was gripped by war, lies in intensive care in a hospital in the north of the Palestinian enclave, suffering from severe malnutrition.

“He is not responding to the treatment,” said his father, A’eed Abu Khater, 48, who has been sheltering in a tent in Gaza City with his wife and five children. “I feel helpless,” he added in a phone call, his voice strained with grief. “We lost our income in the war. Food is unaffordable. There is nothing.”

Gaza’s hospitals have struggled since early in the war to cope with the influx of Palestinians injured and maimed by Israeli airstrikes and, more recently, by shootings meant to disperse desperate crowds as they surge toward food convoys or head to aid distribution sites.

Now, according to doctors in the territory, an increasing number of their patients are suffering — and dying — from starvation.

“There is no one in Gaza now outside the scope of famine, not even myself,” said Dr. Ahmed al-Farra, who leads the pediatric ward at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza. “I am speaking to you as a health official, but I, too, am searching for flour to feed my family.”

The World Food Program, an arm of the United Nations, said this week that the hunger crisis in Gaza had reached “new and astonishing levels of desperation, with a third of the population not eating for multiple days in a row.”

Dr. al-Farra said the number of children dying of malnutrition had risen sharply in recent days. He described harrowing scenes of people too exhausted to walk. Many of the children he sees have no pre-existing medical conditions, he said, giving the example of Siwar Barbaq, who was born healthy and now, at 11 months old, should weigh about 20 pounds but is under nine pounds.

After 21 months of devastating conflict set off by the deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the lack of available food and water is taking a heavy toll on Gaza’s most vulnerable civilians — the young, the old and the sick.

The Gaza ministry of health has reported more than 40 hunger-related deaths this month, including 16 children, and 111 since the beginning of the war, 81 of them children. The data could not be independently verified.

Throughout the war, U.N. agencies and independent aid groups have accused Israel of allowing far too little food into Gaza, warning of impending famine for its more than two million people. For much of that time, Israel has said that enough food was reaching Gaza, blaming diversions by Hamas and mismanagement by aid groups for problems.

Yahia al-Najjar was 4 months old when he died of severe malnutrition on Tuesday at the American Hospital in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, his aunt, Safa al-Najjar, 38, said in an interview.

Yahia was born without serious health issues, but his condition soon deteriorated, she said.

The family has been sheltering under a tent made of a blanket held up by four poles. Yahia’s mother, subsisting on one meal of lentils or rice per day, could not produce enough milk to nurse him, though she had no problems nursing her previous three children. The family could not afford baby formula.

At the hospital, the doctors tried to help, but he was already in critical condition and had lost weight. He died shortly after, she said.

After Israel ended a two-month cease-fire in mid-March and resumed its military campaign in Gaza, it imposed a total blockade on the entry of goods for about 80 days to try to pressure Hamas into surrendering, exacerbating the already severe deprivation.

Now, aid enters in two ways. One is a new, much-criticized system run by private American contractors under the auspices of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private Israeli-backed group, which has a few set distribution sites in southern Gaza and one in the center of the strip. The other consists of convoys of aid brought in by independent international organizations.

Both systems have been plagued by worsening chaos and violence after months of siege, war, mass displacement and lawlessness. Most of the Israeli shootings, according to the United Nations, have occurred around the Israel-backed distribution sites.

The hunger crisis is the result of human failings, with each of the involved parties blaming someone else for the suffering.

Israel accuses Hamas of engineering a narrative of starvation by looting aid trucks and disrupting the distribution of aid to Gazans. It also accuses the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations of failing to collect hundreds of truckloads of aid that have piled up on the Gaza side of the border crossings.

Aid groups blame Israel for laying siege to Gaza, restricting supplies and failing to provide safe routes for their convoys inside Gaza. The only solution, they have long said, is an extensive increase in food deliveries.

Israel countered the images of starving children this week with images of pallets of supplies lying uncollected on the Gaza side of a border crossing and footage of what the military described as Hamas terrorists enjoying platters of food and fresh fruit in the group’s underground tunnels. The military declined to say when the video was recorded.

The leaders of Israel and Hamas are engaged in sluggish negotiations, through mediators, for another temporary cease-fire that could bring relief and have Hamas release hostages it is holding in the tunnels in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody.

Doctors warn that malnutrition in early childhood can have long-term effects, disrupting growth, cognitive ability and emotional development.

Mohammad Saqr, head of the nursing department at Nasser Medical Complex, said that on Monday afternoon alone, the hospital received 25 women and 10 children requesting intravenous glucose solution.

While the treatment may briefly relieve symptoms, Mr. Saqr warned, “they feel the hunger again soon after.” He added, “Some arrive shivering from hunger.”

The hospital’s limited supply of IV solution cannot meet the growing demand, he said, adding: “The team is exhausted from hunger. Yesterday, some staff members ate just 10 spoons of plain white rice.”

Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City had recorded three deaths from malnutrition in the previous 36 hours, Dr. Mohammad Abu Salmiya, the hospital director, said in an interview on Tuesday. One was a 5-month-old baby.

*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*

BAUAW NEWSLETTER

7/23/2025

Bay Area United Against War Newsletter, July 24, 2025

Russia Confirms Jailing of Antiwar Leader Boris Kagarlitsky

Petition in Support of Boris Kagarlitsky

Sign to Demand the Release of Boris Kagarlitsky

https://freeboris.info

Join the Fight for Mumia's Life

Donate to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Emergency Legal and Medical Defense Fund, Official 2024

Updates From Kevin Cooper

Resources for Resisting Federal Repression

https://www.nlg.org/federalrepressionresources/