Forum Topics

Rise in support for Palestine

"As of mid-to-late 2025, recent surveys indicate a continued shift in global attitudes towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, with public sympathy for Palestinians increasing in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East following the war in Gaza. The war has also led to growing pessimism about a peaceful resolution among Israelis. United StatesRecent U.S. surveys show a significant and growing partisan divide, with overall public support for Israel declining:Approval of Israel's military action: A July 2025 Gallup poll found that only 32% of Americans approved of Israel's military action in Gaza, a 10-point drop from September 2024. In the same survey, 60% disapproved.Partisan divide: The Gallup poll also revealed a stark partisan gap in attitudes, with 71% of Republicans approving of Israel's conduct, compared to just 8% of Democrats.Sympathy: A March 2025 Gallup poll found American sympathy for Israelis at its lowest level in 25 years (46%), while sympathy for Palestinians reached a new high (33%).Two-state solution: Support for a two-state solution among Americans remains consistent, at 55% in a March 2025 Gallup poll. However, a Pew Research Center poll in April 2025 found that fewer than half (46%) now believe peaceful coexistence is possible, a decline from 52% in late 2023.Excessive force: An August 2025 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 59% of Americans believe Israel's military response in Gaza has been excessive, an increase from 53% in February 2024. IsraelAmong the Israeli public, recent surveys show increasing pessimism regarding the conflict's outcome:Potential for peace: A June 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that only 21% of Israelis believe a peaceful coexistence with an independent Palestinian state is possible. This figure is the lowest since 2013 and has been declining for over a decade.Obstacles to peace: Jewish Israelis largely view a lack of trust as the main obstacle to peace, while Arab Israelis are more likely to cite Israeli settlements and the division between Hamas and Fatah. United KingdomBritish attitudes have also shifted, with support for Palestinians and for recognizing Palestinian statehood gaining ground:Sympathy: In a July 2025 YouGov poll, 29% of Britons sympathized more with Palestinians, compared to 15% with Israelis. Sympathy with Palestinians is higher than before the conflict started in 2023.Palestinian statehood: A July 2025 YouGov survey found that 45% of the British public support the recognition of a Palestinian state, compared to only 14% who oppose it.Justification of Israeli actions: A slim majority of Britons (51%) in a July 2025 YouGov poll consider Israel's actions in Gaza unjustified, while 21% believe they are justified. Arab WorldSurveys conducted in the Middle East and North Africa reveal that the war has significantly impacted public opinion:Decline in normalization support: According to a June 2025 Arab Barometer and Foreign Affairs report, public backing for normalizing relations with Israel has plummeted across the region following the war.Growing support for Palestinians: Commitment to the Palestinian cause has deepened among citizens in countries across the Middle East and North Africa.Persistent support for two-state solution: Despite widespread condemnation of Israel's actions, majorities in many Arab countries continue to support a two-state solution.EuropeEuropean attitudes reflect a growing division over the conflict:EU policy division: In late August 2025, EU foreign ministers were reportedly divided on how to pressure Israel regarding the war in Gaza.Criticism of Israel: A Pew Research Center poll from June 2025 noted that majorities in most surveyed European countries hold an unfavorable view of Israel.Government stances: Individual European governments have been split, with some, such as Ireland, Norway, and Spain, moving to recognize a Palestinian state." (AI)

David Ainsworth ● 426d2 Comments ● 425d

Trump to rebrand "Pentagon" as "Penthouse"

No, not really.But:-"Trump faces criticism over to order to rebrand Pentagon as ‘Department of War’Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of US politics where opponents have criticised Donald Trump’s expected move to rebrand the Department of Defense as the “department of war”.The president is expected to sign an executive order on Friday authorizing the rebrand, the White House said, as part of an attempt to formalize the name change without an act of Congress.The order will designate “department of war” as a “secondary title”, an administration official said, as a way to get around the need for congressional approval to formally rename a federal agency.But the order will instruct the rest of the executive branch to use the “department of war” name in internal and external communications, and allows the defense secretary Pete Hegseth and other officials to use “secretary of war” as official titles.Trump and Hegseth have been publicly pushing for the rebrand for weeks, claiming the change would present the US military as more aggressive to the world by reverting to the name that was used when the US was victorious in the first and second world wars.“Everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was the Department of War,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office last week. “Then we changed it to Department of Defense.”The move could cost tens of millions of dollars, with letterheads and signs on buildings in the US and at bases worldwide possibly needing to be changed.But there has been criticism over the move. Democratic senator Tammy Duckworth – a war veteran who lost both her legs serving in Afghanistan and who is now a member of the armed services committee – said:'Why not put this money toward supporting military families or toward employing diplomats that help prevent conflicts from starting in the first place?Because Trump would rather use our military to score political points than to strengthen our national security and support our brave service members and their families - that’s why'"Strange. What does Trump think that the "D" stands for in IDF?

David Ainsworth ● 428d3 Comments ● 427d

That's why you shouldn't ask the victims

"Inquiry finds British committed genocide on Indigenous Australians""British colonists committed genocide against Australia's Indigenous population in Victoria, a landmark Aboriginal-led inquiry has found.The Yoorrook Justice Commission found violence and disease reduced the local Indigenous population by three quarters in the 20 years after the state was colonised, in the early 1830s.Its report included 100 recommendations to "redress" harm caused by "invasion and occupation" - though several of the authors disagreed with unspecified "key findings".The Commission was set up in 2021 as Australia's first formal "truth-telling" inquiry, and tasked with examining past and ongoing "systemic injustices" suffered by the Indigenous people in the state.It is part of a wider national push for Australia to engage in a reconciliation process with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which community leaders say should include inquiries into the nation's history, treaty-making, and granting First Nations people greater political say.Held over four years, The Yoorrook Justice Commission gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the opportunity to formally share their stories and experiences.The commission's brief covered a wide gamut of issues including land and water rights, cultural violations, killing and genocide, health, education and housing.The inquiry found Victoria's Indigenous population dropped dramatically after colonisationThe report found that from 1834, "mass killings, disease, sexual violence, exclusion, linguicide, cultural erasure, environmental degradation, child removal" as well as assimilation contributed to the "near-complete physical destruction" of Victoria's Indigenous community.The population dropped from 60,000 to 15,000 by 1851."This was genocide," the report said.The report, which drew from more than two months of public hearings and over 1,300 submissions, called for "redress" to acknowledge a range of human rights violations, which could include reparations.Among its other recommendations were a significant overhaul of the education system to include greater input from Indigenous people, and a government apology for Aboriginal soldiers who served during the world wars and were excluded from a scheme gifting diggers land when they returned from the battlefields.On the state's health system, the report found that racism was "endemic" and called for more funding for Indigenous health services and policies to get more Aboriginal staff in the system.Three of the five commissioners - Sue-Anne Hunter, Maggie Walter and Anthony North - "did not approve of the inclusion of the key findings in the final report", however no further detail was provided.In response to the report, Victoria's Labor government said it would "carefully consider" the findings, with Premier Jacinta Allan saying they "shine a light on hard truths".Jill Gallagher, head of Victoria's peak body for Aboriginal health and wellbeing, said the genocide finding was "indisputable". "We don't blame anyone alive today for these atrocities," she told the ABC, "but it is the responsibility of those of us alive today to accept that truth - and all Victorians today must accept, recognise and reconcile with these factual findings."The commission's report is the first of its kind in Australia, though similar inquiries are happening in other states and territories with varying degrees of progress, depending on which party is in government.For example, in Queensland, a truth-telling inquiry was cancelled after the Labor government was replaced by a new Liberal-National government.[What a surprise!]In recent years, the national dialogue on how to recognise the traditional owners of Australia at all levels of governments has prompted heated debate.Australians voted against a historic referendum in October 2023, rejecting a change to the constitution that would have created an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, a national body for Indigenous people to give advice on laws."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn413zlld4mo

David Ainsworth ● 428d1 Comments ● 428d

Farage the Failed Distraction from Trump’s All-Out Assault on Free Speech

Washington, D.C. (September 3, 2025)—Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered opening remarks at the full committee hearing examining how Republicans are obsessing about a so-called free speech crisis in Europe to distract from President Trump’s unprecedented assault on the First Amendment rights of all Americans.Hearing on “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation”September 3, 2025"I imagine that in a hearing about threats to freedom of speech abroad we might hear from a Russian dissident about Putin’s massive violations of political freedom. Or the death of Alexei Navalny in prison. Or perhaps from a Chinese pro-democracy activist about President Xi’s attacks on free speech in Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang or the persecution and trial of Jimmy Lai. Or maybe from a journalist about the Saudi Crown Prince’s brutal assassination of Jamal Kashoggi, the Washington Post writer who demanded freedom from the reign of religious repression and persecution in Saudi Arabia. But no, the dictators of the world have nothing to fear from this hearing. The Republicans called it to attack our democratic allies in Europe. The star witness is not a human rights leader like Navalny, but a far-right, pro-Putin politician who leads the UK Reform Party, a party that is 4 members out of 650 members in the Parliament. He calls England an “authoritarian regime” while saying that Vladimir Putin is the world leader he admires the most. Well, this hearing mimics Vice President JD Vance, who went to the Munich Security Conference in February and in the first two minutes of his speech, whitewashed the world’s leading autocratic regimes proclaiming that the threat that worries him is “Not Russia, it’s not China,” but rather it’s our European allies. Amazing. Republicans are promoting far-right and neo-fascist parties in Europe like Alternative für Deutschland, Reform UK and Rassemblement National Français, and ignoring massive repression in Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and among all the autocrats of the world. The Republicans are vilifying robust European liberal democracies simply for engaging in the kind of line-drawing exercises that we engage in under our First Amendment with respect to the epidemic of child pornography, protecting children from other harmful content, defamatory speech, online scams and false advertising, and speech inciting riots and imminent lawless action—all forms of speech that the First Amendment does not protect and whose tricky contours must still be drawn by law.We could have a meaningful hearing on this complicated subject, but this hearing is just a drive-by hit against a strong democratic ally to benefit a Donald Trump sycophant and wannabe.But it’s even worse than this. Not only are our Republican colleagues ignoring intensifying repression in the world’s dictatorships, but they are also trying to distract the world from the attack on freedom taking place right here in America every day.Americans are not worried about the European Union or the Online Safety Act in the UK. We’re not worried about white nationalists and not having enough license to incite lynch mobs to set immigrants on fire in their bedrooms.Americans are worried that Donald Trump is working to rewrite and whitewash our history in our museums, our textbooks and our national parks, to destroy PBS, NPR, and public broadcasting, to ban books in our libraries, and to censor news stories critical of him by installing political henchmen in private broadcast rooms.We fear that academic freedom at colleges and universities is in danger when the Administration cancels and withholds billions of dollars in scientific and medical research funding from American universities, even for urgent and life-saving studies about breast cancer or heart attacks, as a way to force schools to impose a government orthodoxy on curriculum, hiring, admissions, and any student and faculty speech that MAGA considers politically incorrect.Americans see Trump trying to harass, intimidate, control or shut down the press, like ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and PBS. The Republican-controlled FCC essentially blackmailed media companies Skydance and Paramount into agreeing to install a spy, a monitor, a “minder,” I think the Brits might say, to police CBS news programs—to make sure they are being sufficiently “Trumpy” in giving us the news—in order to get approval of a merger from FCC. Meanwhile, Trump sued 60 Minutes and CBS personally for $20 billion for the frivolous cause of action that he thought an interview with Kamala Harris was edited—in Trump’s view—too favorably, and walked away with a cool $16 million in a shakedown settlement for his library, all part of now a familiar pattern. When Trump doesn’t like the news, he sues the broadcaster and unleashes the FCC on them until they pay up and agree to a government spy stationed in their office. Free speech is so much in danger in the U.S. that if the government tries to violate our rights, we might not even be able to find a lawyer to defend ourselves because Trump is systematically exacting retribution against law firms that represent anyone on the other side of the case against him. Our country loves free speech—we fight for free speech, we fought for free speech—and we know it’s in danger when students who are lawfully in the United States are taken off the street and arrested without warrants by masked federal agents in unmarked cars for writing an article or attending a rally that Stephen Miller doesn’t like. Free speech is in danger when visitors to our country have their social media accounts screened at the border for criticism of Donald Trump. Free speech is in danger when To Kill a Mockingbird, The Handmaid’s Tale, 1984 and The Kite Runner are banned from our schools and libraries across the country, and even families defending our freedom abroad have to fight for their kids’ right to read freely in public schools run by the Department of Defense.Freedom is in danger when the administration tramples the Civil Service rights of hundreds of thousands of nonpartisan, expert civil servants. Civil servants who have been protected from political discrimination for more than a century to maintain the excellence and independence of our federal workforce, but are now being fired simply for doing their jobs, like prosecuting violent criminals and insurrectionists who tried to overthrow our government and attack our police officers, or because they honestly gave honest economic information and labor statistics to the public. These honorable civil servants are being fired because they won’t be the political hacks Trump demands them to be.When private comments made by federal employees are scrutinized for “anti-Trump bias,” and they can lose their jobs because of it, then we have entered the realm not just of Vladimir Putin but of Joseph Stalin.Mr. Trump and Mr. Farage both claim they are protectors of free speech, but they only want to protect speech they agree with. In the UK, Mr. Farage is promoting the abolition of the Human Rights Act of 1998, to be replaced with a “British Bill of Rights” that limits the right of free speech to British citizens and legally sanctioned residents. He complains that racist threats against immigrants are not protected free speech, while he proposes to strip migrants, tourists and perhaps even visiting American Congresspeople of any free-speech rights at all. I had my own close encounter with that when Mr. Farage and his team presented for more than an hour in a conversation we had about free speech, and after three minutes of talking, he cut me off and terminated the meeting because he didn’t like what I was saying. That’s the kind of free speech he’s committed to.There is a free speech crisis in America, but there is no free speech crisis in Britain. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has not shut down GB News, where Mr. Farage has his own show, just because Mr. Farage has used his airtime to call for banning peaceful protests he disagrees with. No one has stopped him from going on Russian TV 17 times and saying also and repeating that the one world political leader he most admired was Vladimir Putin, even though Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and a dictator who has regularly interfered in other countries’ democratic elections.No one has stopped Mr. Farage from parroting Putin’s absurd talking points, like when Farage claimed that NATO, the United States and Britain “provoked this war” in Ukraine.For a man who fashions himself as some kind of free speech martyr, Mr. Farage seems most at home with all the autocrats and dictators of the world who are crushing freedom on earth.Mr. Farage wants to get rid of the Online Safety Act in his country, a law shepherded by the Conservative Party and implemented by the Labour Party, which bans child pornography online, protects children from harmful content, forbids nonconsensual pornography and other unlawful content. He should go and advance that position in Parliament, which is meeting today, if he’s serious about it. To the people of UK who think this Putin-loving free speech impostor and Trump sycophant will protect freedom in your country, come on over to America and see what Trump and MAGA are doing to destroy our freedom, kidnap college students off the street, ban books from our libraries, militarize our police and unleash them against our communities, take over our universities, wreck our professional civil service and turn the government into a money-making machine for Trump and his family. You might think twice before you let Mr. Farage “Make Britain Great Again.”" https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-s-opening-statement-at-hearing-on-republicans-failed-distraction-from-trump-s-all-out-assault-on-free-speech

David Ainsworth ● 428d7 Comments ● 428d