Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met yesterday evening with an @AIPAC-organized delegation of Republican members of the US Congress.
https://t.co/olwXa7cLOZ
🇵🇸🇺🇸 NEW via @guardian: A 16-year-old Palestinian-American boy, Muhammad Zaher Ibrahim, has been jailed by Israel for over five months without trial. He was 15 when Israeli forces raided his home in Silwad, in the occupied West Bank. He was blindfolded taken to the notorious Megiddo prison—known for torture and medical neglect.
Muhammad is accused of throwing rocks— a charge his family has denied.
The Guardian reports that in five months he’s lost 12kg (26 lbs) and developed scabies, which is rampant in Israeli prisons, rights groups say by design. U.S. officials confirmed his condition and said they’ve been blocked from recent visits.
Muhammad is one of over 400 Palestinian children held in Israel’s military prisons, where advocates say even U.S. citizenship “offers no shield.”
🟩The latest Pod Save America episode features the hosts forcefully condemning Israel’s starvation siege and assault on Gaza, describing the mass killing and widespread hunger with clarity.
Yet even as the conversation on the conflict evolves, political analysts continue to portray Hamas as a singular evil—a “monster”—without addressing the political and material conditions shaping the movement’s stance, most critically the question of why it refuses to disarm.
Senior Palestinian resistance leaders have consistently told Drop Site News that disarmament under occupation would amount to total abandonment of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. It would clear the path for full-scale ethnic cleansing.
That’s why, after rejecting the Witkoff proposal in April, a senior Hamas official told the BBC that disarmament remains “a million red lines”:
“The Israeli proposal … called for the disarmament of Hamas without any Israeli commitment to end the war or withdraw from Gaza. Hamas therefore rejected the offer in its entirety.”
Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan expanded on this in a May interview with Jeremy Scahill:
“We are a people under occupation. We are not fighting because we like to fight. Even if a Muslim came to occupy my land, I would fight him. It’s not about religion—it’s about occupation.”
Despite reports in Israeli and some Arab media that Hamas might consider storing its weapons or handing them to a third party, Hamdan told Drop Site there have been no formal talks about such a proposal.
“What about the Israeli weapons? Are they going to store their weapons, too?” said Hamdan.
He stated that disarmament only follows a genuine political agreement between two parties:
“Such an experience happened in Northern Ireland,” he noted. “But there was a real political arrangement, which was accepted by both sides.”
Unless that happens, Hamdan said, the resistance will retain its arms until Palestinians achieve full statehood:
“If there was a Palestinian state, those weapons would be handed to the Palestinian government. Even the [resistance] fighters, they will turn to be part of the army or the police of this government.”
Until that day, Palestinians retain a legal right to resist illegal colonial occupation—a right codified in international law and affirmed in the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, which recognize the legitimacy of peoples fighting for self-determination “by all available means, including armed struggle.”
@TVietor08 You want us to protect your feelings first, THEN Palestine?! Stop thinking like a political strategist and take your deserved hits. Call Zionism what it is, terrorism, OR shut up and follow the people who have been screaming it since the 1940s
You want us to protect your feelings first, THEN Palestine?! Stop thinking like a political strategist and take your hits, asshole. Call Zionism what it is, terrorism, OR shut up and follow the people who have been screaming it since the 1940s
Tweeting "I told you so" at people who change their mind about what's happening in Gaza does nothing to help the kids who are being starved to death. Welcome people into the tent. Build a bigger coalition and use it to force political change.
The Arab slave trade was brutal, but it didn’t create the modern world.
The Atlantic one did.
It wasn’t just worse in scale.
It was worse in structure. In ideology. In permanence.
Only one system turned human life into finance.
Only one system built an empire of plantations, insurances, shipping companies, and racial science.
Only one system sold freedom while profiting from chains, and still calls itself a beacon of morality.
Islam didn’t invent slavery. Neither did Europe.
But only one taught the world to justify it with skin color.
To pass it down by bloodline.
To write laws, build banks, and found republics on it.
As for abolition?
Britain and the U.S. didn’t abolish slavery out of principle.
They abolished it out of calculation.
Only after centuries of profit.
Only after rebellion made the system unsustainable.
And even then, they replaced it with colonialism, segregation, debt peonage, and mass incarceration.
You do not get to rape the world, abolish your whip, then demand applause.
You ended the crime only after you became too rich to need it.
And if your only moral pride is that your empire stopped devouring bodies, after it was full, then you’ve proven the point.
This isn’t about conscience.
It’s about control.
And the fear of what happens when memory returns.
SCOOP: DOGE has built an AI tool to cut 50 percent of federal regulations. The goal is to kill 100,000 regs by the one year anniversary of Trump's inauguration. https://t.co/B2YVfLeMkA
w/ @JStein_WaPo @ddiamond@rachsieg