Thursday, January 2, 2025
■ Today's Top News
"History will reveal those who spoke out against this genocide, and those who did not," said one rights group.
By Julia Conley
A pediatrician working in Gaza was among those on Thursday who condemned "how deaf the world has become to repeated cries" from people in the enclave as Israel continues its assault and humanitarian aid blockade, which has plunged parts of Gaza into famine conditions, according to experts.
"I'm watching children die in every possible way whether it's violence, cold, hunger, disease—all directly as a consequence of a carefully orchestrated Israeli military campaign that has been enabled by the United States and other countries that are turning a deaf ear and blind eye," Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan toldAl Jazeera.
At least seven infants have died of hypothermia in the enclave in recent days, their families among 1.9 million people who have been forcibly displaced by Israel's bombardment of Gaza. With 92% of housing units destroyed or damaged, people across Gaza have resorted to living in makeshift tents that don't protect them from wind, heavy rain, and cold nighttime temperatures.
"I struggle for words to describe how horrific the situation has become and how deaf the world has become to repeated cries from humanitarian workers, and mostly from Gazans themselves," said Haj-Hassan. "They have documented on a daily basis their own genocide and have been killed for doing so."
Paula Gil, president of the Spanish chapter of Doctors Without Borders or Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), said Israel's U.S.-backed assault has reduced Gaza to "a death trap."
"This does not happen in a vacuum. The hypocrisy and complicity of Israel's allies is allowing the social fabric of Gaza to be destroyed with impunity."
"Families are surviving in makeshift shelters made of wood, plastic, and mattresses," she told Al Jazeera. "Now the cold and the storms have arrived. How will they face the winter in these conditions?"
Haj-Hassan's and Gil's comments came as Israel bombed the coastal area of al-Mawasi, a so-called "humanitarian zone" that has nevertheless been attacked by the Israel Defense Forces numerous times. At least 63 Palestinians were killed in attacks across Gaza on Thursday, including 12 in al-Mawasi.
A report by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) on Wednesday showed that around 100,000 Gaza residents have left the enclave since Israel began its assault in October 2023 and more than 45,000 people have been killed, while 10,000 are missing and presumed dead.
Those statistics mean that the population of Gaza is down 6% since Israel's current escalation started.
Israel, said the PCBS, has "raged a brutal aggression against Gaza targeting all kinds of life there; humans, buildings, and vital infrastructure... Entire families were erased from the civil register. There are catastrophic human and material losses."
Human rights groups have said Israel's relentless bombardment of Gaza and its recent ground offensive in northern Gaza—where Israeli military leaders seek to execute the so-called Generals' Plan to forcibly displace everyone in the area and kill anyone who remains through starvation or other means—amounts to ethnic cleansing.
"As the world watches in silence, the far-right government of indicted war criminal [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu is carrying out its intentional campaign of slaughter, mass destruction, forced starvation, and ethnic cleansing in Gaza," said the Council on American Islamic Relations. "History will reveal those who spoke out against this genocide, and those who did not."
The U.S. government—the largest international funder of the Israel Defense Forces, has continued to give political and material support to Israel as it has bombarded and blockaded Gaza, making more than 100 weapons transfers to the Israeli government.
"This does not happen in a vacuum," said Gil. "The hypocrisy and complicity of Israel's allies is allowing the social fabric of Gaza to be destroyed with impunity... There is no future. There is no hope. In Gaza, humanity is being destroyed and we cannot look away."
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," said one advocate.
By Julia Conley
Citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that stripped federal agencies of their regulatory powers, an all-Republican panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on Thursday ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to reinstate net neutrality rules.
The panel ruled that broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service," which is more heavily regulated under the Communications Act, and said the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit telecommunications companies from blocking or throttling internet content and creating "fast lanes" for certain web companies that pay a fee.
Last April the FCC voted to reinstate net neutrality rules, which were first introduced under the Obama administration but were repealed by former Republican FCC Chair Ajit Pai, who was appointed by President-elect Donald Trump.
The ruling cited by the 6th Circuit panel was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine last year. Under the decades-old legal precedent, judges have typically deferred to federal agencies' reasonable interpretation of a law if Congress has not specifically addressed an issue.
"Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC's vacillations" between imposing and repealing net neutrality rules, said the judges on Thursday.
The ruling serves as "a reminder that agencies are going to be neutered across any and all industries," said one observer.
John Bergmayer, legal director for the free expression and digital rights group Public Knowledge, said that by "rejecting the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service, the court has ignored decades of precedent and fundamentally misunderstood both the technical realities of how broadband works and Congress' clear intent in the Communications Act."
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," added Bergmayer. The decision could harm the FCC's ability to protect against everything from broadband privacy violations to threats to universal service programs for low-income and rural households.
Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel for another media justice group, Free Press, said the ruling was "just plainly wrong at every level of analysis."
"In April, the FCC issued an order that properly restored the agency's congressionally granted oversight authority to protect people from any [internet service provider] discrimination and manipulation. That commonsense FCC order tried to ensure that the companies providing America with the essential communications service of this century don't get to operate free from any real oversight," said Wood.
Companies and industry groups that sued over the regulations, including the Ohio Telecom Association, "baselessly claim that any regulation will hurt their bottom line," Wood added. "Treating broadband like a common-carrier service does nothing to dampen or dissuade private investment in this crucial infrastructure. And the question for any court interpreting the Communications Act must be what is in the public's best interest, not just one industry sector's financial interests."
The groups, along with FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, called on Congress to take legislative action to protect internet users and small web businesses from discrimination.
"Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair. With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law," Rosenworcel said.
Congress must "clarify the FCC's authority—and responsibility—to protect the Open Internet and broadband users," said Bergmayer.
Bergmayer also noted that the ruling leaves states' ability to enforce their own net neutrality laws in place, and said the group "will continue to look to states and local governments to help lead on broadband policy."
"This administration will likely be coming very quickly to try to take down the Palestinian rights movement," said a Jewish Voice for Peace Action leader.
By Jessica Corbett
Victims of violence by U.S.-armed Israeli forces and advocates for Palestinian rights across the United States are sounding the alarm over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's looming return to the White House and GOP control of Congress.
President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the divided 118th Congress have faced intense criticism for giving Israel diplomatic and weapons support to kill at least 45,581 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the past 15 months and attack Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The outgoing Democratic administration and lawmakers have also faced backlash for their response to anti-war protests, particularly on U.S. university campuses, some of which were met with police brutality.
However, recent reporting in the United States and Israel has highlighted fear about promises from Trump and his Republican Party that, as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz put it last week, a "quick and complete" crackdown "on pro-Palestinian sentiment in America will be a defining factor of his administration's early days."
"The Palestinian rights movement is very clear-eyed in understanding that it is very likely that this Trump administration will mean that things get much worse for Palestinians."
Beth Miller, political director of the advocacy group Jewish Voice for Peace Action, told Politico on Wednesday that "the Palestinian rights movement is very clear-eyed in understanding that it is very likely that this Trump administration will mean that things get much worse for Palestinians."
"This administration will likely be coming very quickly to try to take down the Palestinian rights movement," Miller added.
Leaders with the Adalah Justice Project and Arab American Institute also noted concerns about efforts to silence advocates and even dismantle organizations—some of which are already underway. In November, 15 House Democrats joined all but one Republican in voting for the so-called Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495).
The legislation would enable the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it deems a "terrorist-supporting organization" without due process. Advocates for various causes have condemned what they call the "nonprofit killer bill."
Although H.R. 9495 never made it through the Democrat-held Senate, Republicans are set to take over the chamber on Friday. The GOP will also retain control of the House, which during this session has repeatedly voted to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, or discrimination against Jews.
In addition to likely facing a new wave of legislative attacks—potentially spearheaded by GOP leaders like incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a U.S. military veteran who has volunteered with the Israel Defense Forces and denied the existence of "innocent Palestinian civilians"—rights advocates in the United States could be targeted by key officials in the next Trump administration.
As Haaretz recently detailed, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump's second choice to lead the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), his nominee for secretary of state; and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), his candidate for ambassador to the United Nations, have expressed support for deporting pro-Palestinian protesters who have student visas.
Although former federal prosecutor Kash Patel, Trump's pick to direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "doesn't have much of a record on campus protests, he is most notorious for his desire to remove any of Trump's critics and doubters from the national security apparatus," the newspaper noted. "Further, Patel's experience as the National Security Council's senior director of counterterrorism during Trump's first term positions him to crack down on pro-Palestinian sympathizers."
Haaretz also highlighted comments from Harmeet Dhillon, Trump's pick to lead the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, and Linda McMahon, his nominee for education secretary, as well as Project Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism—an October proposal from the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that is also behind the sweeping Project 2025 policy agenda.
"The virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American groups comprising the so-called pro-Palestinian movement inside the United States are exclusively pro-Palestine and—more so—pro-Hamas," states the Project Esther report. "They are part of a highly organized, global Hamas Support Network (HSN) and therefore effectively a terrorist support network."
Two co-chairs of the Heritage-backed National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, James Carafano and Ellie Cohanim, wrote earlier this week at the Washington Examiner that "Project Esther is a blueprint to save the U.S. from those utilizing antisemitism to destroy it."
"The objective is to dismantle the infrastructure by denying it the resources required for its antisemitic activity," they argued. "Targeting the groups and organizations that receive the funding and deploy it to their grassroots followers who engage in antisemitic activity, the useful idiots we see on college campuses, for example, will divorce the means from the opportunity, thereby rendering these activists incapable of threatening U.S. citizens."
Posting the piece on X—the social media platform owned by billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk—Carafano declared that "when Donald Trump starts to take on the global intifada he will need partners. We will need to be there."
One analyst said the House Ethics Committee has "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use."
By Jake Johnson
The bipartisan House Ethics Committee announced earlier this week that it unanimously opted to close several investigations involving alleged campaign finance violations by three Republicans and one Democrat, a move that one expert characterized as a "New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre."
The decision to close the investigations into Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), and Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) was made public in a vaguely worded press release published the day before New Year's Eve.
The panel, composed of five Republicans and five Democrats, said while "there was evidence" that lawmakers who were under investigation "did not fully comply with the applicable standards relating to personal use of campaign funds," the committee determined there wasn't proof that "any member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit."
The committee also criticized Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules pertaining to personal use of campaign funds as "often ambiguous" and issued its own updated guidance for House members.
Additionally, the committee said it dropped "other confidential matters that have been under review," without offering specifics.
The committee said its only action in response to its findings was contacting the lawmakers to provide them with the updated campaign finance guidance "as well as specific findings and recommendations with respect to that member's campaign activity."
"The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing."
Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, argued that the panel's decision "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use by members of the House of Representatives" by establishing "a new weak standard" and ignoring evidence of wrongdoing provided by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
"They can now take dollars from donors and put them in their pocket," Schuman wrote in his newsletter. "It's not what they said they did, but under the cover of the New Year's holiday, Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans pulled a fast one, legalizing a money laundry so blatantly corrupt it would embarrass Walter White. They also made many other allegations of wrongdoing disappear."
Schuman noted that the committee's probes into Bishop, Mooney, Hunt, and Jackson stemmed from OCE reports on each of the lawmakers dating back to 2020. Republicans have repeatedly targeted the OCE and are currently trying to drop "ethics" from its name.
In the case of Mooney, Schuman wrote, the OCE found in October 2021 that he "used campaign funds to purchase more than $17,000 in gift cards in violation of FEC rules and had the effect of concealing the ultimate recipient of those funds (which may have been Rep. Mooney's pocket)."
The West Virginia Republican said in a statement that he was "grateful" for the House Ethics Committee's decision and dismissed allegations of misconduct as "driven by politically motivated actors on the extreme left."
As for Bishop—the lone Democrat among the four lawmakers who faced House Ethics Committee probes—the OCE found on February 10, 2020 that he "may have improperly disbursed campaign funds for personal use and improperly spent his official member funds for annual holiday parties in the district," Schuman noted.
"Among the inappropriate costs incurred were golf club memberships, the purchase of golf clubs, brunch for family members, groceries, and so on," Schuman added.
"The ethics process is broken," he concluded. "There must be an independent ethics process where investigations and their recommendations are divorced from internal party politics and not designed to shield members from accountability for apparent wrongdoing. The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing and to be honest and forthright to the public about their behavior."
Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, echoed Schuman's assessment, arguing in a statement that by "summarily dismissing all charges of potential violations of ethics rules, the House Ethics Committee is shirking its responsibilities to both the House of Representatives and the American public."
"The press release from the Ethics Committee hinted that violations may have indeed occurred with personal use of campaign funds ('a gray area' and 'did not fully comply' with the rules, stated the release) and avoided any discussion of the other allegations, but dismissed the charges nonetheless," said Holman.
Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen's co-president, added that the decision "is further evidence that the House Ethics Committee, on its own, is too embedded with members of Congress to adequately enforce ethics rules."
"A fair and impartial congressional ethics process needs the public awareness and oversight provided by the outside Office of Congressional Ethics," Gilbert said.
The Senate leader called the Wisconsin Democratic Party chair "one of the best organizers in the country" and said he "knows how to win."
By Julia Conley
Rep. Jim McGovern said the House GOP's rules package offers "the clearest window yet into their agenda for the next two years."
By Jake Johnson
Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern said Wednesday that the House GOP's newly released rules package for the incoming Congress shows that Republicans are "doubling down on their extremism" by moving to further diminish the power of the minority party and paving the way for a legislative agenda that rewards billionaires and large corporations.
McGovern (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, said in a statement that the GOP's proposed changes "would, for the first time in American history, shield the speaker from accountability to the entire chamber by making it so that only Republicans can move to oust the speaker."
The provision in question states that a resolution to vacate the House speakership "shall not be privileged except if it is offered by a member of the majority party and has accumulated eight cosponsors from the majority party at the time it is offered." Axios noted that "for most of U.S. history, any singular House member in either party has been able to introduce a motion to vacate."
The new GOP rules package for the 119th Congress would also set the stage for fast-tracked consideration of a dozen Republican bills, including a measure to sanction the International Criminal Court and prohibit any moratorium on fracking.
Under the proposed rules, neither party would be allowed to offer amendments to the 12 bills.
In his statement Wednesday, McGovern said that the Republican bills offer "the clearest window yet into their agenda for the next two years."
"Here's what I see: Nothing to help workers. Nothing to bring down grocery prices. Nothing to lower rent or make housing more affordable. Silent on inflation and healthcare costs. Next to nothing on jobs and the economy," said McGovern. "Instead, I have no doubt they'll find time to pass tax breaks for billionaires and massive corporations at the expense of everyday Americans."
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Republicans intend to offset the massive cost of their proposed tax cut package by slashing federal nutrition assistance, imposing work requirements on Medicaid recipients, and blocking a rule that would require Medicare and Medicaid to cover anti-obesity medications, among other changes.
"The American people did not vote for whatever the hell this is," McGovern added, "and you better believe that Democrats will not let Republicans turn the House of Representatives into a rubber stamp for their extremist policies."
The GOP's proposed rules package will receive a vote in the House once a speaker is chosen—which could happen as soon as Friday. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), backed by President-elect Donald Trump, is running for reelection for the leadership post, but he has very slim margins and at least one Republican opponent—Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
As The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote Thursday, "One problem for Republicans is that they only have three days to get the Speaker in place before January 6, when the presidential electors are confirmed by Congress, rolls around."
"The typical scenario for the House is that they must select a speaker first, and only move forward afterward. Members-elect aren't even sworn in as members of the House until there's a speaker," Dayen added. "The signs of another dysfunctional two years in Congress are all around. That doesn't completely nullify what Trump can do—much of his agenda, like mass deportations and tariffs, will be carried out mostly unilaterally—but it does mean that a unified Democratic Party could make things very difficult for Republicans. Someone should tell that to Democrats!"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.