J. B. Pritzker, Billionaire Hotel Heir—and Progressive Hero? - As the governor of Illinois, J. B. Pritzker has managed to unstick a dysfunctional state government while pushing through an unapologetically liberal agenda. Can his strategy work on a national level? - link
Biden’s Middle East Burden - Visiting Israel, the President will express support for a traumatized nation, but he must also try to steer it from the blindness of rage. - link
The Symbiotic, Democracy-Eroding Relationship Between Donald Trump and Jim Jordan - Jordan is a perfect ally for Trump, and a walking embodiment of a radicalized G.O.P. That won’t change, even if his Speaker bid fails because enough Republicans from Biden-majority districts hold the line. - link
Jerome Powell Is Still Puzzling Over the Strength of the U.S. Economy - Even as the Fed chair and his colleagues have raised interest rates to bring down inflation, spending and hiring have picked up recently, and G.D.P. growth looks strong. - link
The Devastation of Be’eri - In one day, Hamas militants massacred, tortured, and abducted residents of a kibbutz, leaving their homes charred and their community in ruins. - link
How the mainstream left is trying to save its approach to Israel from the pro-Hamas fringe.
They marched on the White House to make their demands clear: a Biden-brokered ceasefire — now; the release of hostages held by Hamas militants; more forceful American condemnation of Israel’s bombing of Gaza; and, eventually, major changes to the current Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.
The protestors, gathered Monday afternoon by progressive Jewish American activist organizations, represented various segments of the US political left: Palestinian and Israeli Americans, Jewish and Muslim people, longtime activists, and newer allies sympathetic to a more nuanced position of peace and reform for Israel and Palestine.
But they also represent a more mainstream progressive vision of Palestinian liberation and anti-Zionism than the one elevated in the days after the Hamas attack last week. Early news coverage, social media algorithms, and politicians and commentators from both major parties zeroed in on protests celebrating Hamas, social media posts by far-left groups, and open letters and rallies organized on college campuses as the true face of the American left. But many of these activists and organizers have spent the last week rebutting that image, refocusing the political and media narrative about the consequences of the Israel-Hamas war and American complicity, and building up support for American diplomacy from the grassroots and in Washington.
This wasn’t the first major demonstration in the capital — a weekend protest organized by the pro-Palestinian advocacy group American Muslims for Palestine also drew thousands — but these anti-war protestors marched to the White House as their calls picked up institutional recognition and support in the halls of Congress. On Monday, 13 progressive members of Congress — not just the Squad — signed on to a resolution calling on the Biden administration to broker an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Palestine and urge de-escalation in order to bring humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.
“That resolution represents what most of us actually want to see,” Beth Miller, the political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, one of the groups that organized the Monday protest, told Vox. “The most important thing for our members of Congress to understand and for the general American public to understand is that there is no military solution to what is happening right now. Israel is dropping bombs on entire families and neighborhoods of people, and it will not solve anything. It will only lead to more violence in the long run.”
The protest, which continued into the evening as demonstrators blocked roads and entrances to the White House and adjoining government buildings, came on a day when activists said they felt winds changing. Yes, there was early splintering in the left’s response and domination by fringe and radical elements during the days following Hamas’s mass infiltration of southern Israel. But progressive groups are better organized now, feel more emboldened to make demands of American leaders, and feel like they’re gaining support in Congress. They say the images from Gaza, the rhetoric of politicians in Israel and the US, the devastation caused by the Israeli military, and the “blank check” issued by American leaders to Israel are all fueling their movement and reinforcing the message they want the public to hear. On Wednesday, these same organizers would take protestors directly to Congress, marching to the Capitol, sitting-in at a congressional office building, and, like at the White House, some would get arrested.
The hearts, minds, and policies they’re trying to change won’t be easily altered. Though most Americans were sympathetic to both Palestinians and Israelis and open to more nuanced solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict, public polling from last week following Hamas’s attack shows Americans, including more Democrats and independents, warming to the Israeli military’s response. This shift is likely driven by a desire to support a nation that has just suffered a massive, graphic, and morally reprehensible attack.
“Over the last week, what we have seen come out of Washington, DC, is overwhelming vitriol — vitriolic hostility toward Palestinians. I worked in this movement for about 13 years, and I have been blown back by some of what I’ve seen and heard from our own elected officials,” Miller said. “Our own government is currently working to support mass atrocities being committed by the Israeli government. That’s essentially the state of affairs right now in DC.”
That perspective is what makes progressive activists feel like their efforts are all the more urgent: If more war crimes and atrocities are imminent, they need to act now.
Washington’s official consensus has long been strong support for Israel; that stretches across the overwhelming majority of both elected Republicans and Democrats. Criticism of Israel, its occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, and its treatment of Palestinians in general, has long been taboo — and usually limited to the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
For progressive activists, the first congressional resolution circulated in the wake of the Hamas attack and Israel’s military response is evidence of this institutional bias. The four-page statement, introduced by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee three days after the attack, has massive bipartisan support — over 400 members of Congress have signed onto it. It condemns Hamas, is a statement of resolute support for and solidarity with the state of Israel, and mourns American and Israeli lives lost — all of which made sense in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Yet the statement makes no mention of Palestinian lives lost since Israel started its campaign of airstrikes in Gaza, and it hasn’t been updated to include the civilian deaths Israel’s military response has caused in the region.
“That resolution is going to go down as one of the most shameful resolutions in terms of its timing and its content,” said Miller. “That resolution essentially says that the United States will stand with Israel pretty much no matter what it does, and it only talks about or mourns the loss of Israeli life without even paying lip service to or even acknowledging the fact that the Israeli military has killed Palestinians.”
The growing number of civilian deaths in Gaza, coupled with reports of worsening humanitarian conditions and the escalating tactics used by Israel — like cutting off electricity and water to the Gaza Strip and ordering the evacuation of 1 million people to southern Gaza in anticipation of a ground invasion — have all made it easier, and increasingly urgent, for more rank-and-file Democrats to step up their criticism of Israel in the past few days. Earlier this month, a contingent of 17 House Democrats urged the State Department to step up information and resources for Palestinian Americans and American citizens currently stuck in the Gaza Strip.
Congressional reactions to media reports of the northern Gaza evacuation order seemed to mark a turning point: Suddenly, more House Democrats felt more comfortable voicing concerns about Israel’s response. That shift contributed to a second House effort on October 13. Led by progressive Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI), 55 House Democrats signed a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to remind Israel and neighboring countries that its actions “must be carried out according to international law and take all due measures to limit harm to innocent civilians.” They called for the establishment of a humanitarian corridor to bring aid into Gaza and allow Palestinians and other civilians out of the Strip, and asked that humanitarian aid be ensured for “both Palestinians in Gaza and Israelis,” among other requests.
But that statement came short of calling for a ceasefire, which left-leaning activists are now demanding, in part over fears that such a call would drive down the number of Democrats who eventually signed on to the letter, according to a report from the Intercept. Ultimately, 13 of the most progressive Democrats would introduce their own resolution centered on a ceasefire and recognition of the civilian lives lost in both Gaza and Israel.
This marks a major change from the way Congress was operating in the days after the Hamas attack, when a Fox News reporter chased Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib — the only Palestinian American member of Congress — around the basement tunnels of the US Capitol asking her to condemn Hamas, and when other members of Congress were criticizing progressives for raising concerns about Israel’s response. Few Democrats chose to defend their colleagues; some angrily confronted them or criticized them in the press. Some took the time to cut ties with leftist organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which had immediately expressed solidarity with Palestinians after the Hamas attack and whose New York City chapter had been linked to an at-times antisemitic protest in Times Square that weekend.
DSA-backed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned that protest, and allies of Rep. Jamaal Bowman told the New York Times that the congressman was no longer a DSA member. Rep. Shri Thanedar, another DSA-backed progressive, similarly condemned the demonstration and disassociated himself with the group.
Thanedar, a self-described progressive, also told Vox last week that calls for de-escalation and a ceasefire were premature: “Now is not the time to talk about restraint; this is the time to go after the terrorists and Israel is justified in sending the message that such terroristic acts will not be tolerated.”
The same sentiment was echoed by the White House last Tuesday. When Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about congressional progressives’ statements calling for a ceasefire, she said the White House believed they are “wrong,” “repugnant,” and “disgraceful.”
“Our condemnation belongs squarely with terrorists who have brutally murdered, raped, kidnapped hundreds — hundreds of Israelis,” Jean-Pierre said. “There can be no equivocation about that. There are not two sides here. There are not two sides.”
No progressive groups or activists who spoke with Vox were claiming there were two sides to the killing of civilians by Hamas in Israel — but they all agree that there should be no equivocation about the thousands of civilian deaths and injuries in Gaza since Israel launched its air campaign in response.
They all condemned Hamas’s atrocities against civilians. They say that at this point in the conflict their fears of a potential “genocide” in the Gaza Strip should be the most immediate concern. They point to the hawkish and violent rhetoric coming from political leaders in both Israel and the US as signs that military restraint is off the table, that concern for civilian lives is not a factor, and that few Democratic and essentially no Republican leaders care about the rising civilian death toll in Gaza since Israel began its military operations.
“Most mainstream, responsible, progressive, humane voices are doing everything they can to raise the alarm about the possibility of mass, indiscriminate violence in Gaza,” Simone Zimmerman, a co-founder of the progressive American Jewish organization IfNotNow and an organizer with the Diaspora Alliance, an organization working to fight antisemitism, told Vox. “Most of us are just really trying to call on anyone who will listen to try to help move the situation towards de-escalation and to stop the Israeli government from perpetuating mass atrocities on 2 million people who do not deserve to die.”
In the immediate term, Zimmerman and other organizers said that they want more American leaders to forcefully condemn the killing of civilians, emergency response workers, journalists, and United Nations personnel by Israeli strikes in Gaza. They are shocked that more Democrats have not spoken out about Israel cutting off water and power to the Strip, about the fate of American citizens in Gaza, or the long-expected Israeli military ground incursion. They’d like some acknowledgement of Palestinian lives lost in addition to Israeli lives. They demand an end to “collective punishment.” And they urge Western leaders to be careful with just how much of a blank check they are willing to give the Israeli government.
In the long run, progressive activists and organizers say they still stand by a more nuanced position for the US to be critical of Israel’s unequal treatment of Palestinian people, of the occupation of Palestinian territory in Gaza and the West Bank, and of American military support that ignores human rights violations. And they hope more progressive lawmakers amplify that message in Washington.
“This situation is also clear evidence of why the US needs to do more to prioritize and address resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that means securing self-determination and safety and freedom for both the Israeli and Palestinian people,” said Logan Bayroff, the communications director for the liberal Israeli American group J Street. “Those sentiments can coexist with full-throated, unequivocal condemnation of Hamas slaughtering civilians and support for Israel trying to counter Hamas.”
These activist groups are now working to make their section of the American left the one best heard in DC and around the country; the Monday protest at the White House and Wednesday’s protest on Capitol Hill were a way of doing this. But they weren’t the voices picked up by news outlets, politicians, commentators, and social media in the immediate aftermath of the attack. In the days after October 7, a combination of right-wing broadsides and the radical responses from a swath of self-described leftists made it harder for them to get their message to the public and to government leaders. It’s hard to quantify just how big the contingent of war-crime apologists in the American left is, but the fact that it was even a topic of conversation is evidence of the problem other left-leaning activists have to overcome.
Those extreme reactions — the ones that called the massacre of civilians a legitimate and “desperate” form of resistance, the ones that appeared to stand with Hamas, the ones that celebrated the deaths of concertgoers — have already gotten plenty of coverage.
Many right-wing media commentators, conservative politicians, and pro-Israel hardliners seized on the more provocative left-wing reactions to conflate apologists for Hamas’s war crimes with critics of the Israeli status quo more broadly. In attacking the White House response, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, has spent much of the last week promoting statements from these leftist groups and referencing “Israel-hating leftist activists” and “rampant, unchecked antisemitism” when criticizing the White House’s response, highlighting a since-deleted State Department statement urging “restraint” and attacking progressive Congress members’ calls for a ceasefire. Fox News host Sean Hannity spent the top of his Wednesday night show using those radical reactions to attack the Democratic Party as a whole. And thought piece after thought piece has meditated on what the future of the activist left could be after the flawed and splintered response.
“There is a desire from some to use these moments of tragedy as an excuse to try to cut off any serious policy debate or discussion … to try to use this as an excuse to label anybody who expresses any support whatsoever for Palestinian rights, for Palestinian statehood, any opposition to ongoing occupation, as somehow you being a hater of Israel, a supporter of Hamas, an antisemite,” said Bayroff.
Meanwhile, the nuanced, unequivocal statements by progressive groups like Win Without War, Indivisible, J Street, IfNotNow, the Adalah Justice Project, and the Center for International Policy did not get picked up in the same way as those more radical voices promoted on social media — something progressive leaders wanted to contrast with the statements by more fringe groups.
As Israel’s response continues, as horrific stories of death and destruction trickle out, and as the pro-Israel majority in Washington carries on, progressive politicians and activists face an asymetric challenge: holding their left-wing coalitions together, winning over more on the center-left of elected power, beating back attacks from the political right, and doing it all with a political and media environment that is stacked against them.
Republicans are united in support of whatever Israel does. Amid the fixation on leftist campus activists and social media posts, lawmakers are openly calling for war crimes: Republican senators like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida have used extreme rhetoric. Graham urged Israel to “level” Gaza while Rubio said Israel should destroy Hamas by whatever means necessary (“This tragically necessary effort will come at a horrifying price,” he said on X, formerly known as Twitter). Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has said Israel shouldn’t be held responsible for civilian deaths: “As far as I’m concerned, Israel can bounce the rubble in Gaza. Anything that happens in Gaza is the responsibility of Hamas,” he said on Sunday. So far, they seem to have escaped official opprobrium.
Though more House Democrats have spoken up, few in the Senate, with notable exceptions like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ed Markey (D-MA), have spoken up to urge restraint.
That status quo “is a much bigger problem because, while there may be some fringe elements on campuses or at rallies who are saying horrific things about Hamas, we have people saying horrific things about Palestinians at the highest levels of our government in both parties, or they’re turning a blind eye toward it,” Waleed Shahid, the former spokesperson for the progressive political organization Justice Democrats, told Vox. “Jamaal Bowman, AOC, other progressive leaders, have condemned what happened at this rally in New York and what happened with this group in Chicago, [but] I haven’t heard Joe Biden or Hakeem Jeffries, or anyone condemn what Lindsey Graham said or what Netanyahu has said repeatedly about the Palestinian people.”
And that asymmetry, some activists said, extends to whose stories get told in national news coverage. “There’s this obsessive one-sided fixation on Israeli victimhood and lengthy interviews with Israeli parents, while Palestinian families are entirely ignored, even though they’re being decimated,” said Omar Baddar, the former communications director for the Institute for Middle East Understanding. “To ignore that, I think … is a travesty. And right-wing media should be called out for their absolutely racist coverage and their selective outrage for some victims and not others.”
These calls for restraint, for de-escalation, for humanitarian aid and forceful condemnation of the killing of civilians “aren’t a very radical position,” said Sandra Tamari, a Palestinian American organizer in St. Louis, Missouri, who leads the Adalah Justice Project. “Right now, the demands are very simple: stop the bombs and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza so that more people don’t die.”
Deep-sea mining threatens the world’s untapped and unknown underwater pharmacies.
In 1987, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the world’s first medication to treat HIV. The drug, known as AZT, was a beacon of hope for the millions of people who were living with the virus. It helped lengthen countless lives.
In 2010, the agency approved a drug called Halaven to treat advanced breast cancer. In a clinical study, people who took the drug lived, on average, 25 percent longer than those who received other anticancer treatments, according to the drug’s maker.
In 2020, the FDA approved Remdesivir to treat Covid-19. The drug is given intravenously, making it harder to access than some other antivirals, but research indicates that it dramatically reduces the risk of death in patients hospitalized with the infection. A 2020 trial of more than 1,000 people hospitalized with Covid-19 found that remdesivir significantly reduced their risk of dying, and those who took it recovered faster.
These drugs have one thing in common: They are derived from a sponge. Yes, a sponge. Or more specifically, a sea sponge.
Sea sponges, a kind of aquatic animal found in oceans and some lakes, may look blobbish. They may live in the shadows of more picturesque corals and fish. Yet sponges are some of the most important animals on Earth. They not only provide homes for countless other critters, but they’re a living pharmacy that helps save human lives. They produce more chemical compounds than most (if not all) other animals on the planet, and many of those chemicals possess anticancer, antiviral, antimalarial, and antibacterial properties.
That’s what makes this so concerning: Troves of these creatures could soon be stamped out. As demand for clean technologies rises, so does the need for more metals such as nickel and cobalt. Companies and countries are now looking to the deep sea as a potential place to mine them, yet this region — though perceived by some as desolate — is full of sponges. Most of those sponges have yet to be studied, their chemical compounds still unknown.
This has created a complex conundrum: Deep-sea metals are essential to the fight against climate change, and climate change harms wildlife. But those sponges, and other animals of the deep sea, may be essential, too, by helping to treat human ailments. Is it worth sacrificing these animals when scientists don’t even know what they do?
Before there were dinosaurs, there were sponges. They’ve lived on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, making them one of the oldest — if not the oldest — animals on the planet. That means sponges have had plenty of time to evolve clever adaptations to life in the world’s oceans and lakes.
Most of the roughly 15,000 known sponge species feed by pumping water through their bodies and filtering out tiny organisms. A sponge the size of a milk carton can filter a swimming pool worth of water every day, said Chris Freeman, a marine ecologist at the College of Charleston. They’re basically Britas of the sea. You can actually see these pumps in action when divers inject fluorescent dye around the base of a sponge:
Some sponges, meanwhile, are carnivorous: They eat meat. These include the unusually shaped and aptly named ping-pong tree sponge and harp sponge, shown below. These related sponges, found in the deep sea, are covered in barbed, Velcro-like hooks, which they use to ensnare tiny crustaceans that are swept into them by ocean currents. The sponges then absorb these animals into their bodies. (It’s not clear why they take such odd shapes, but it may help them capture food or reproduce.)
There are also glass sponges — sponges that build skeletons out of silica, likely as a form of protection. Most remarkable is a glass sponge known as Venus’s flower basket, which has been shown to house a mated pair of shrimp inside its intricate glass structure. The shrimp enter when they’re young and small enough to squeeze through openings in the structure, but as they grow up they become too big to escape. They spend their lives caged inside the sponge’s skeleton.
It’s beneficial imprisonment. In exchange for cleaning the sponge, the shrimp are given food (sponge excrement) and a safe place to live. And when they procreate, their babies are small enough to escape, pair up, and search for their own glass homes.
Many of these sponges live among other weird creatures in the deep sea, hundreds of feet down, far away from humans. The region has long been left alone, its depths inaccessible to scuba divers and left unexploited by miners — until now.
As the world moves away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner technologies, it relies more and more on batteries, like those you find in electric cars. This, of course, is a good thing for a planet threatened by climate change. But even green technologies require inputs including metals like cobalt, manganese, and nickel.
That’s where the deep sea comes in. Scientists have known for decades that the sea floor is laden with mineral deposits that are embedded in rocks, some of which are just sitting on the seabed. These deposits are difficult and expensive to harvest, yet rising demand for metals has made the business case for it more compelling. Many companies and countries are already gearing up to mine, especially in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a large patch of ocean that lies between Hawaii and Mexico.
Companies have argued that deep-sea mining — which can entail sinking large tractor-like machines to vacuum up mineral-rich rocks — would be less harmful to the environment than existing mining operations. There’s no doubt that mining minerals like cobalt on land has a long history of environmental destruction and human rights abuses. Exploiting the deep sea, those companies say, is a better alternative, even though it will damage the environment.
The problem with those arguments is that they assume the deep sea is relatively lifeless, that there’s not much to lose. It’s true that these potential mining hot spots lack iconic underwater landscapes like vibrant coral reefs or kelp forests. But what they do have is lots of marine sponges. A recent study, for example, suggests that sponges are among the most common animals in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Some of them live directly on top of the very mineral deposits that companies want to extract.
In any given CVS or Walgreens pharmacy, there are lots of drugs that come from plants, animals, or microorganisms. Aspirin, for example, is derived from the bark of a willow tree. “Nature has been a source of most drugs currently in use,” said Bill Baker, an expert in natural chemicals at the University of South Florida, referring to both compounds found in nature and those that were inspired by the structure or behavior of natural chemicals.
On land, plants are the standout source of medical compounds, partly because humans have been using them as natural remedies for centuries. But at sea, it’s sponges; they’re the “dominant source” of marine chemicals, Baker said.
Like plants, sponges are stuck in place, so they use chemicals to defend themselves from predators and other potential attackers. Pumping all that water also means they’re exposed to huge amounts of viruses and pathogens that may try to harm them. Chemicals, again, are their defense.
And they produce a lot of them. In the last 50 years or so, scientists have discovered more than 10,000 new chemical compounds from sponges, according to one 2019 paper. That amounts to roughly a quarter of all the compounds found in the marine realm to date, Baker said. It’s a lot.
A more recent review found that, within the last decade alone, researchers have documented more than 2,700 new sponge compounds. Importantly, roughly half of them have been shown to have properties that make them potentially useful to medicine, from fighting cancer cells and tumors to resisting malaria and bacterial infections. What’s especially fascinating is that many of these useful compounds are actually produced by bacteria or other microorganisms that live within sponges and make up their microbiome.
Only a handful of these sponge compounds or their derivatives are actually on the market today as commercial drugs including Halaven and Remdesivir. The drug development process can take a few decades, Baker said, and scientists really only started exploring the ocean for drugs in the 1980s.
This is an important point: The ocean is still largely unexplored, especially places that are hard to reach like the deep sea. “We’ve only sampled the low-hanging fruit,” he said. In the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, for example, scientists don’t even know what lives there, let alone what chemical properties those animals possess. Recent studies suggest that 90 percent of the region’s species are not yet known to science.
The limited research that does exist indicates that deep-sea sponges may possess chemicals that help combat bacterial resistance and forms of cancer. And so a big concern is that mining in a place like the Clarion-Clipperton Zone could destroy unknown sources of lifesaving medicines.
Put another way: It’s not clear what there is to lose. This is true not only in the deep sea but in all kinds of ecosystems, from rainforests to prairies to coral reefs.
“We’re destroying biodiversity as rapidly as we can,” said Eric Schmidt, a professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Utah. “Commonly, when you investigate a new species, new molecules are found with unknown potential. So there’s a chance that we don’t know even what we’re destroying.”
Some human rights groups have reached this conclusion based on how the crime is defined in international law.
In recent years, human rights organizations and legal experts have increasingly described Israel’s policies toward Palestinians as apartheid, adding to a longstanding debate about whether this is an accurate way to categorize the country’s practices.
Apartheid, a term originating from the South African government’s systematic oppression of Black residents, is a crime against humanity under international law. At its core, it refers to policies intended to elevate one racial group over another, with the goal of maintaining the dominant group’s hegemony. In 1998, the International Criminal Court (to which Israel is not a party) defined it as “inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group … and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
Human rights groups have argued that the Israeli government’s policies on land access, restrictions on movement, and limitations on the right to vote meet the ICC’s standard and that it has institutionalized racism against Palestinians in order to ensure Israeli Jews remain the dominant group across Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT), which includes the West Bank and Gaza. Israel and its allies, including the US and the European Commission, have rejected this assessment.
International organizations’ use of this term has grown in the last five years.
In 2021, Human Rights Watch (HRW) put out a report noting that the Israeli government engaged in “systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts,” which ultimately “amount to the crime of apartheid.” In 2022, Amnesty International reached a similar conclusion, saying that the Israeli state “imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians” that “amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.” That same year, Michael Lynk, then the UN special rapporteur focused on human rights in occupied Palestinian territories, stated that the Israeli government used a “deeply discriminatory dual legal and political system,” which privileges Israeli Jewish settlers while disadvantaging Palestinian residents in these areas. (Lynk’s position was based on his review of Israeli government policies and does not reflect the position of the UN as an institution, which has a commission currently investigating this charge.)
Some Israel scholars and former Israeli officials have also started using this designation. In 2022, Michael Ben-Yair, a former attorney general of Israel, said that “it is with great sadness … I must also conclude that my country has sunk to such political and moral depths that it is now an apartheid regime.” Earlier this year, Tamir Pardo, a former head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, emphasized, too, that “there is an apartheid state here” featuring “two people [who] are judged under two legal systems.”
In protests and critiques of the Israeli government’s military actions this month, political leaders and activists around the world have often referenced the term while condemning the country’s policies.
The Israeli government, meanwhile, has argued that any claims that it practices apartheid are “preposterous and false,” antisemitic, and dedicated to singling out the country. (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also condemned and examined apartheid elsewhere, including in Myanmar, where the Rohingya minority group has faced a great deal of violence.)
Israel isn’t alone in its criticism of the term, which has been the source of international debate. Those who oppose its use, including the pro-Israel civil rights group Anti-Defamation League, argue that some of Israel’s restrictive policies toward Palestinians in the occupied territories are driven by security concerns and that they don’t view these policies as motivated by racism. Some critics also claim that the term apartheid cannot be used because only Palestinian noncitizens outside of Israel’s internationally recognized borders suffer from confinement and other potentially “inhumane acts,” while Palestinian citizens of Israel purportedly have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens, such as the ability to vote and run for office.
The US and other Western allies of Israel have pushed back on this label as well. In 2023, the US House passed a resolution stating that Israel is not a “racist or apartheid state,” and in recent years, the Biden administration has said it disagreed with human rights analyses that argue that Israel practices apartheid. In January 2023, the European Commission also said that it is “not appropriate” to associate the term apartheid with the Israeli state.
Human rights experts have countered these claims, noting that Israel’s policies in both Israel and the occupied territories are discriminatory against non-Jewish residents and that actions in the West Bank and Gaza far surpass any response possibly justified by security concerns. To better understand human rights groups arguments’ regarding the term apartheid, as well as the debate around it, Vox spoke with eight human rights, policy, and legal experts, including some who supported the designation and others who did not. This reporting focused on human rights organizations because those groups have been the key drivers of conversations about Israel’s policies, and in recent years have drawn new conclusions about what they constitute.
“It’s an accurate legal designation of a situation of institutionalized discrimination and racial superiority. It is a harsh term, but this is a harsh situation,” Lynk, the former UN special rapporteur, told Vox.
The term apartheid, which translates to “apartness” in Afrikaans, is most closely associated with policies and a legal system that segregated white and Black South Africans.
In apartheid South Africa, laws deprived Black people of access to land, the right to vote, and the ability to move freely across the country. In the last 50 years, international bodies have put forth multiple definitions of apartheid, including the UN’s 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which was established with South Africa in mind, and the ICC’s 1998 definition, which is broader and more commonly known as the Rome Statute.
Some of the human rights analyses, like Lynk’s, have specifically focused on the Israeli government’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Others, however, like Amnesty International’s, apply the term to policies in both the occupied territories and within Israel’s borders. Broadly, they argue that apartheid is upheld in the OPT by the fact that Palestinians have limited ability to move freely, have no right to vote in Israeli elections, and are tried under a completely different legal system. Many experts also point to the passage of an Israeli law in 2018 establishing Israel as the “nation state of the Jewish people,” which was seen as effectively deeming non-Jewish residents second-class citizens.
There’s a broader consensus among human rights experts that the Israeli government’s actions in the occupied territories constitute apartheid, though there isn’t as widespread consensus as to whether apartheid exists within Israel’s borders.
In the past five years, human rights experts — building on decades of research into Israel’s policies by Palestinian and Israeli groups including Al-Haq and B’Tselem — have relied on the two international legal definitions when weighing whether to designate Israel as a country that practices apartheid. To conduct their review, human rights groups and experts have used a three-part test, based on both the 1973 Convention and the Rome Statute. Their reports state that apartheid exists if:
Ultimately, Lynk at the UN — who examined the occupied territories — and HRW and Amnesty International, which looked at both the occupied territories and Israel, found that the Israeli government met all three criteria. Below were some of their findings, based on an examination of dozens of policies in the region:
1. Established an institutionalized regime of systematic racial oppression and discrimination
In the occupied territories, Israeli settlers have a completely different set of legal rights than Palestinians, says Lynk.
While Israeli settlers in the territories can vote in Israeli elections, Palestinians cannot. Israeli settlers are also able to travel freely across the occupied territories and into Israel, while Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank cannot: They must apply for permits, which are difficult to obtain. Most Palestinians in Gaza are unable to leave the area at all, and those in the West Bank face onerous military checkpoints to travel through and out of the area. Furthermore, Israeli settlers are tried in Israeli civilian courts if accused of a crime, while Palestinians are tried in Israeli military court — which has an extremely high conviction rate and limited due process rights. And while Israeli settlers have the freedom of political speech and protest, Palestinians are governed by military orders that restrict these rights.
This binary also exists when it comes to land access and confiscation in the occupied territories, where Palestinians have seen their land seized and used for Israeli settlements and infrastructure. Additionally, Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank are walled off and isolated from one another, and certain roads are segregated for Palestinian and Israeli traffic.
Omer Bartov, an Israeli-born Holocaust historian at Brown University, said of the policies in the West Bank: “Anyone who observes the reality on the ground can have no doubt about the nature of this regime, whereby 3 million Palestinians live under one set of laws and half a million Jewish settlers live under another set of laws.”
“The rights they have are entirely determined on their nationality and their ethnicity … and then we have, of course, the situation in Gaza, where they’re entirely fenced off from the rest of the world through an elaborate blockade since 2007,” says Lynk.
Palestinian citizens of Israel have a wider set of rights than Palestinians in the occupied territories. They have the ability to vote in Israeli elections and serve in the Knesset, but they face limited opportunities to own land and build homes, along with evictions, differences in immigration policy, and implicit restrictions on social service access. Palestinian citizens face major challenges to get residential home permits approved due to zoning restrictions that limit expansion, and often risk demolition by building without them. Additionally, they’ve been the subject of evictions that human rights groups say are aimed at clearing the way for more Jewish-majority neighborhoods. The 1950 Law of Return also enables any Jewish person to move to Israel and become a citizen, while Palestinians do not have this right even if their families were previously displaced from land now within Israel’s borders.
Furthermore, Israel ties some social benefits — including financial aid for education and discounted building permits — to military service. While Jewish Israelis must serve in the military (barring exceptions for certain religious groups, like ultra-Orthodox Jewish Israelis who may apply for exemptions), Palestinian Israelis aren’t required to do so, and many don’t. Because of that, most Palestinian citizens are left with reduced access to important benefits; ultra-Orthodox Jews who are exempted from military service also have to navigate this policy, but they have access to education subsidies that Palestinian citizens are not eligible for, per HRW.
Overall, Palestinian Israelis have a more precarious political status than their Jewish counterparts because, as Amnesty International notes, Palestinian and Jewish citizens have different legal statuses: “Whilst they are granted citizenship, Palestinian citizens of Israel are denied a nationality, establishing a legal differentiation from Jewish Israelis.” This distinction matters because policies related to issues such as immigration are tied to nationality rather than citizenship.
“When it comes to poverty, housing, getting permits to build houses, to equal rights when it comes to school education, everything, we are being treated as worse than second-class citizens,” Tamar Nafar, a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, previously told ABC News.
2. Establishing the intent to maintain the domination of one racial group over another
Those arguing that Israel practices apartheid point to the passage of a 2018 law known as the “nation-state law” as well as multiple statements that Israeli leaders have made emphasizing that they seek to prioritize the rights of Israeli Jewish residents in the region over those of other groups.
That law — which was widely criticized by Palestinians and liberal Israeli Jews as undemocratic — explicitly stated that the right to “national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” That line underscored the reality that there was no political appetite for a one-state solution in which Palestinians and Israelis were treated equally, and its critics argued it made plain that Palestinians are second-class citizens.
Additionally, the law said that “the state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development,” while downgrading Arabic from its designation as an official language. These tenets were also interpreted as legally treating Palestinian citizens different from their Jewish counterparts.
Coupled with statements by Israeli government officials, groups say the intention to maintain the dominance of one group over others is evident.
Israel is “the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people,” Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2019.
Outside of Israel’s borders, the Israeli government has supported what UN leaders describe as illegal settlements in the occupied territories, which have pushed Palestinians out of their communitie. According to a 2023 UN report, 700,000 Israeli settlers are living illegally in 279 settlements in the West Bank. Their influx has been linked to violence against Palestinians who live in the area and has led to the displacement of more than 1,100 Palestinians in the region in 2023 alone.
“Israeli political leaders, past and present, have repeatedly stated that they intend to retain control over all of the occupied territory in order to enlarge the blocs of land for present and future Jewish settlement while confining the Palestinians to barricaded population reserves,” Lynk writes in the UN report.
3. A series of inhumane acts that were committed as an integral part of this regime
The UN has a list of what constitutes an inhuman act, which ranges from “denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty” to “persecution of organizations and persons … because they oppose apartheid.”
Many items on the list apply to Israel, the reports argue. Among other things, they point to the blockade of Gaza as an example of what the UN calls measures “designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups.” They also note that ”the disproportionate killings and woundings of civilians by the Israeli military” is a case of the UN’s “infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm,” and the limitations Palestinians face in freedom of expression and protest as an example of Israel’s “persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms.”
Throughout the reports, Israel stands accused of repeatedly engaging in nearly every inhuman act the UN convention describes.
“The most stark thing I could say to try to illustrate this is that the poorest Israeli Jewish settlement in the West Bank enjoys more political, more economic, and more legal rights than the best and most well-off of Palestinian communities living right beside them,” says Lynk. “And that is probably the starkest and most visible example of how this huge differentiation of rights favors Israeli Jews and disadvantages Palestinian Arabs.”
Lynk’s UN report, and other recent decisions to label Israel an apartheid practitioner, follow decades of advocacy by Palestinian groups for the adoption of the term. More recently, Israeli human rights organizations including B’tselem have begun describing Israel as such. This past August, leading historians and Israel scholars, including Bartov, penned a letter criticizing the “regime of apartheid” by the Israeli government in the occupied territories.
A large part of what’s fueling the current shift in rhetoric is the belief that the Israeli government’s occupation of Palestinian territories is a long-term arrangement.
“I think the realization that a one-state reality is effectively here to stay and that there is no horizon for peace based on partition made people realize that [the] one-state reality is apartheid,” says Arab Center fellow Yousef Munayyer. Groups note, too, that by clearly demarcating these policies as apartheid and a crime against humanity, they can more accurately describe the reality of what’s taking place on the ground and urge international leaders to take sufficient action such as conditioning aid to Israel on changing its Palestine policy.
Organizations have been careful to note that they have made this conclusion using the international legal framework and are not drawing a direct comparison with the apartheid system in South Africa, which included unique policies that aren’t all present in the Israel-Palestine context, such as “petty apartheid,” referring to laws that, for example, segregated benches and water fountains. South African leaders have been outspoken, though, in the similarities between the two systems, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who noted, for instance, that Israel had created an “apartheid reality” and that “parallels to my own beloved South Africa are painfully stark indeed.”
Although more and more human rights groups are now describing Israel’s policies as apartheid, there’s also been pushback from some international law experts and groups like ADL. The Biden administration, the US House of Representatives, and the European Commission have also disagreed with the use of this term.
Some of these groups point to the ICC definition to bolster their claims. Rather than focusing on “inhumane acts,” these groups stress the part of the definition that states a central feature of apartheid is “systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.” These groups argue that racism, and race itself, is not at the center of the Israeli government’s policies — security is — and therefore apartheid cannot exist. Additionally, they suggest that the rights Palestinian citizens have in Israel negate the idea that such policies are driven by a discriminatory rationale.
The term apartheid “often doesn’t leave space to consider the need for security considerations in policy design and implementation,” Yuval Shany, chair in public international law at Hebrew University, told Vox, arguing that travel restrictions between Israel and the West Bank criticized by many human rights groups were established due to concerns about suicide bombers.
Generally, human rights experts take issue with the idea that many of the policies Israel has imposed in the West Bank and elsewhere have a security justification. “[M]any abuses, including categorical denials of building permits, mass residency revocations or restrictions, and large-scale land confiscations, have no legitimate security justifications,” Human Rights Watch states. Additionally, they note, the need for national security can be leveraged to legitimize human rights abuses.
Others who take issue with the term apartheid note that Palestinian citizens of Israel have key rights, including the ability to serve in the Knesset, and use that fact to argue institutionalized racism doesn’t drive the country’s policies.
“Israel does not have a racial segregation implemented by law,” Haaretz opinion editor Anat Kaam wrote in the Daily Beast in October 2022. “There are Arab citizens—citizens with full, equal rights—in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as in the Israeli court system, including the Supreme Court. There are Arab doctors, professors, policemen, teachers, and countless other professions, working side by side with Jews.”
This argument was expanded upon at length by the American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow, a Trump attorney, and Robert Ash, in a 2023 paper. They argue that the fact that Arab citizens of Israel have an opportunity of success in Israel — structural factors complicating that reality aside — undercuts the claim that the government uses race in its policies. Instead, they too claim that Israel’s policies in the occupied territories are driven by the ongoing conflict between Palestinians in these areas with the Israeli government.
Such assessments, however, fail to acknowledge the ways that Israel discriminates against Palestinian citizens inside its borders, human rights groups say. Again, Palestinians in Israel face restrictions on the land they can buy and barriers to certain social services as well as family reunification. Inside Israel, despite Palestinians comprising around 20 percent of the population, Palestinian municipalities make up just 3 percent of its land, Human Rights Watch says. And while Palestinian citizens of Israel may have more rights than Palestinians in the occupied territories, experts emphasize that the disparities they experience are undergirded by the same institutionalized racism at their core.
“If there are 7 million Israeli Jews and 7 million Palestinian Arabs under the rule of Israel, and Israel is meant to be a Jewish state, then there is no other explanation than race and ethnicity to explain the treatment of the 5.2 million Palestinians under occupation without rights and the 1.8 million Palestinian citizens of Israel with second-class rights,” says Lynk. “None of this is acceptable under any modern understanding of democracy.”
Australia vs Pakistan | Records galore as Warner, Marsh score centuries - Both Australian openers David Warner and Mitchell Marsh scored centuries, becoming only the fourth pair to do so in a World Cup game
Jim Ratcliffe could have major say in Man United if he buys minority stake in club - Ratcliffe’s bid would mean the Glazers remain in control of United. But if he is given responsibility of running the sporting side, it would give him a real opportunity to improve the team’s performance on the field.
Hardik Pandya ruled out of New Zealand game - Injured Hardik Pandya is likely to have a cortisone shot at the National Cricket Academy in Bengaluru for treatment
Sorry for stealing it from Jaddu but wanted to make it big and finish off: Kohli - Jadeja, who returned with figures of 2/38 on a batting belter along with a stunning catch at point would have got that trophy on any other day
Morning Digest | Canada pulls 41 diplomats out of India; Biden addresses Americans to make case for Israel, Ukraine aid, and more - Here is a select list of stories to start the day
No violation of Vienna Convention in seeking “parity” in diplomatic representation, India tells Canada - The MEA statement came after Canada acquiesed to India’s demand, reducing its diplomatic strength by 41; in-person services will no longer be available at Canadian consulates in Chandigarh, Mumbai, Bengaluru
Same-sex marriage and the fundamental right to marry | Explained - Why did the Supreme Court rule against the fundamental right to marry? What do prior verdicts of the court say in this regard? Is the ruling in consonance with international precedents?
**Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan denies Deve Gowda’s claim that he approved of LDF partner JD(S)‘s tie-up with BJP** - Pinarayi says Deve Gowda’s claim is ‘baseless and devoid of truth’
Delhi HC dismisses AAP leader Sanjay Singh’s plea against arrest in money laundering case - Sanjay Singh, who was arrested by the ED on October 4, had moved the High Court last week challenging his arrest and remand in the money laundering case related to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy
DMK keen on protecting corrupt Ministers: BJP leader Annamalai - Mr. Annamalai said that agitation by the MSMEs had gone unnoticed and he exhorted the Tamil Nadu government to bring down the power tariff.
French arrests after bomb scares trigger evacuations at airports and Versailles - The Palace of Versailles, the Louvre as well as schools, airports and hospitals have been targeted.
Italy PM Giorgia Meloni splits from partner after off-air lewd TV remarks - Giorgia Meloni says the relationship is over after a TV show airs her partner’s off-air comments.
Biden seeks ‘vital’ war aid for Israel and Ukraine - The president says an expected $105bn funding request would bolster US security “for generations”.
EU bids to tighten migration rules after attacks in Arras and Brussels - Killings by militants in France and Belgium prompt calls for better screening of migrants.
Berlusconi’s ‘worthless’ art proving a headache to heirs - The ex-Italian prime minister bought many of his 25,000 paintings from late-night telesales programmes.
Are you near Houston? Come to our IT event at Space Center Houston on November 1! - Learn about resiliency, AI, and the future of IT—then hang out with us and talk space! - link
Rocket Report: Key Ariane 6 test delayed; NASA urged to look at SLS alternatives - “NASA’s aspirational goal to achieve a cost savings of 50 percent is highly unrealistic.” - link
Nonprofit hospitals skimp on charity while CEOs reap millions, report finds - Nonprofit hospitals got $28 billion in tax breaks—which made up 44% of their net income. - link
Report: US needs much more than the IRA to get to net zero by 2050 - Current policies cut emissions in half—can we keep cutting? - link
The latest high-severity Citrix vulnerability under attack isn’t easy to fix - If you run a Netscaler ADC or Gateway, assume it’s compromised and take action … fast. - link
An inexperienced young dude hooks up with a rather experienced MILF on Tinder… -
They make out, when she says - hey, you ever had a 69? “No, what’s that?”, he replies. She says “let me show you”, as she pulls down her undies and straddles his face, taking his dick in her mouth.
Few minutes into it, she’s hot and bothered, and lets out the tiniest “feeeeeeeeepppp” fart warmly into his face. But BJ is so good, the just rolls with it.
Until few minutes later, when she rips a louder one right under his nose " Bbbbrrrraappp!"
Dude nearly chokes, but being a good sport says nothing.
Few minutes later, she’s squirming and gushing, but this time she rips a solid 10-pointer on a richter scale right in his nostrils.
Dude pushes her off, face red, wet, and with chocolate sprinkles all over it, pleading: “Hey lady, don’t get me wrong - the bj is fantastic, but I don’t think I can handle 66 more of these”
submitted by /u/SamVimesCpt
[link] [comments]
A 21-year-old Texan was still a virgin, so he travelled to a brothel in Dallas to see what he’d been missing. -
He got the address of a reputable place and in no time at all he was in bed with an attractive hooker. She sensed he was inexperienced, so she took his hand and placed it on her money maker. “Is that what you’re looking for?” He said “I don’t know ma’am. I’m a stranger in these parts.”
submitted by /u/Major_Independence82
[link] [comments]
In Hong Kong, there once lived a rich prestigious old man known as Grandpa Li. -
Grandpa Li lived together with Grandma Li in a big mansion with 3 daughters, each known as Miss Li.
The eldest Miss Li got married. Since she came from a very prestigious family, she decided to keep her last name, and then known as Madam Li.
Madam Li had a Son and a Daughter. They are very kind and generous to the neighborhood kids. They treat others as their own siblings, so they are known as Brother Li and Sister Li. Madam Li soon became known as Mother Li, and her husband is knowns as Father Li.
The second Miss Li also got married and had 2 daughters. The daughters and Brother Li and Sister Li called each other Cousin Li.
The third daughter is still single as she hadn’t had much luck with romance. As the youngest, she had preference for men from the West.
One day, Johnny from US decided to go on a vacation to Hong Kong. He heard rumors of the youngest daughter of the prestigious Li family looking for a western man to marry.
When Johnny met Miss Li, they instantly had chemistry. They went on dates and decided to be in a relationship. Johnny of course have to return home after vacation, but Miss Li decided to follow Johnny to US for a vacation of her own.
They went back and forth between Hong Kong and US, but they haven’t got married yet as they were still discussing whether to settle in Hong Kong, or in US.
One day when they are in Hong Kong, Johnny got news of a lockdown in US due to Covid. Believing it to be only for a few weeks, Johnny decided to return home to take care of his old Mother. Miss Li decided to stay in Hong Kong, in case the same thing happened at home.
The lockdown turned out to go on for 1 year! All that time, Johnny and Miss Li exchanged messages and calls, and are very much in love.
After the lockdown lifted, Johnny decided to visit Hong Kong one last time and prepare for citizenship, buy a property, and find a job in his field. Johnny is very good at his job, so he easily found a high paying job close to his purchased property, where he decided to move out with his mother later.
When he arrived in Hong Kong, Miss Li greeted him while carrying a child in her arms. Johnny became confused. Unbeknownst to him, Miss Li was pregnant when Johnny last visited Hong Kong before the lockdown.
Seeing as Miss Li is very wealthy, her family had no problems taking care of the pregnancy, and they decided to surprise Johnny with his son when he returned to Hong Kong.
Excited, but in shock, they went to rest at a nearby hotel. The three of them reunited: Johnny, Miss Li, and the affectionately called Baby Li. Johnny decided to break the news to his mother as he decided she would be more excited to move to Hong Kong now.
Johnny called and the phone rang three times before his mother picked up. “Hello?” said his Mother. “Mom, I have great news, but please don’t freak out,” said Johnny. “My girlfriend was actually pregnant when I left last year. I have a son now.”
“I am now a father, a Parent Li”
submitted by /u/Brief_Carrot
[link] [comments]
During the winter war, the Soviets where attacking a Finnish position -
At first the Soviet command sends five soldiers in, and they all get killed by The enemy.
A Finnish soldier then yelled to the Soviets “Is that all you’ve got? I’m only one here.”
Then the Soviet command sends in 15 soldiers, who all, again, is killed by the enemy.
The Finnish soldier then yelled again “I’m only one here. Do better”
The Soviet commander is beginning to become frustrated about the Finns, so now he sends in 50 soldiers, that again all gets killed by the enemy.
The Finnish soldier again taunts the Soviets because he only is one guy.
Then with increased impatience and frustration, the Soviet commander sends 500 soldiers in, that all get killed by the enemy.
The Finnish soldier then yells “send all the men you can, and let’s see who wins. One man, or all the Russians?”
Now with immense frustration and impatience, the Soviet command orders a mass push against the Finn, with 1000 soldiers.
Only one returns badly wounded and yells from roughly 250 meters distance (820.2 feet) “he’s lying, he’s lying. There are two.” Before being shot in the back of the head.
submitted by /u/Hjalle1
[link] [comments]
A 7 year old and a 4 year old are in their bedroom. “You know what, I think it’s time we started swearing” said the 7 year old. -
“When we go downstairs for breakfast, I’ll swear first, then you.”
“Sure.” replied the 4 year old.
They make their way downstairs and their mum asks the 7 year old what he wants for breakfast.
“I’ll have Frosties, bitch”
WHACK, he flew out the chair crying his eyes out. Mum looks at the 4 year old and says sternly “And what do you want?”
“I don’t know, but it won’t be fucking Frosties”
submitted by /u/Reecethehawk
[link] [comments]