SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
If this entire shenanigan reveals something, it is that no matter what you do and no matter what your policies are, as long as you are protecting the interest of capital, the elite has your back. (Photo: Cumbre de Lideres de America del Norte 2016/flickr/cc)
Former US President Barack Obama endorsed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's bid for re-election.
For the centrist status quo liberals, this is a moment of elation. Two tried-and-tested leaders that have respect on the international stage for being progressive heartthrobs, supporting each other against a mounting Conservative opposition. Sounds great.
Except, it isn't.
The problems with this endorsement are being seen by both the Left and the Right.
While the Right cries "electoral interference," which may be only a plausible argument, the Left has something much more deeper to worry about.
It has to worry about hypocritical leaders trying to squander whatever they can in a last ditch attempt to hold onto power. It has to worry about leaders whose inactions speak louder than their abstract rhetoric. It has to worry about the reign of neoliberalism capitalism.
It has to worry about the class unity of the 1 percent.
Barack Obama was elected in 2008 to replace George Bush after he had plunged the US into expensive foreign wars and an unprecedented economic crisis.
Obama rose through and resonated with Americans with a much more progressive message. Nobody liked wars, everyone wanted economic recovery, and everyone wished for health care reform.
Obama bombed 7 countries in the Middle-East during his tenure. He turned Libya into a slave market, effectively ended up funding Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels in Syria, and supported Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.
Obama did deliver, to some degree. He did introduce Obamacare that did improve health care access for a fair amount of people. Obama did stimulate economic growth and brought the US out of the 2008 recession.
However, Obamacare was nothing but a milquetoast initiative that left millions out of coverage. While it was something better than before, there is a reason Bernie Sanders campaigned on Medicare for All because he know Obamacare was not working.
Obama's bailouts effectively concentrated more resources in the hands of the very people that caused the Financial Crisis of 2008. It gave more power to the corrupt 1 percent who had broken the laws and caused the collapse of the entire global economy.
And obviously, Obama's most blatant act of hypocrisy was the numerous foreign interventions he took part in. Obama bombed 7 countries in the Middle-East during his tenure. He turned Libya into a slave market, effectively ended up funding Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels in Syria, and supported Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.
Obama was not a progressive leader.
Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015 to replace the Conservative Stephen Harper on a message much more progressive than that of the actual socialist party, the NDP.
Trudeau's calls for feminism, electoral reform, and helping the middle class earned him a majority. He managed to multiply the Liberal party's share of seats by five times.
He started his term with great enthusiasm; he maintained a diverse cabinet both in terms of sex and ethnicity; he launched plans for an ambitious carbon tax; he instituted policies that got nearly 300,000 children off of poverty; he vocally promoted strong reconciliation and consulation with the indigenous community.
He seemed like a hero.
Except of course he wasn't.
Trudeau still continues to sell armaments to Saudi Arabia which shows a stark contrast from his feministic and pro-human rights rhetoric.
Trudeau gave over CA$14 billion to large companies in corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. The SNC-Lavalin scandal also shattered his reputation on ethics and feminism when he fired his female indigenous Attorney-General for trying to tell the truth.
Trudeau bought the TMX pipeline which, while being notoriously detrimental to the environment, goes through certain indigenous lands without their consent.
Trudeau gave exemptions of upto 80% to big polluters on his carbon tax, effectively placing the burden on the most economically marginalized and rural people of Canada.
Trudeau sued indigenous children when a verdict was delivered that his government would have to pay them for reconciliation.
Trudeau has not released a clear plan to budget any money for universal pharmacare, instead making vague references his in policy platform for this election.
And of course, how can one forget, the infamous blackface scandal where the world discovered Trudeau covered in black paint over his entire body, on 3 separate occasions.
Trudeau is not a progressive.
If this entire shenanigan reveals something, it is that no matter what you do and no matter what your policies are, as long as you are protecting the interest of capital, the elite has your back.
Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama represent peak neoliberalism, where in they change as little as possible in terms of social structures but allow for unfettered capitalism to continue its economic savagery.
Of course, the argument isn't as black and white as it seems, as mentioned with how Trudeau has uplifted thousands out of poverty and Obama helped millions get health care. The argument is about knowing that you can do more, saying that you can, then not doing it and using your PR team to brand you as a progressive prince.
He chose Trudeau because he would allow more opportunities for corporate welfare. He chose Trudeau because behind his socially progressive overtones, are his menacingly capitalistic undertones.
If Barack Obama truly cared about endorsing a progressive economic leader, or even a leader of colour just like him, he could have chosen Jagmeet Singh of the left-wing New Democratic Party. But he didn't.
He chose Trudeau for the specific reason that Trudeau won't tax the 1 percent, not because Trudeau was "the only realistic option" against Scheer. He chose Trudeau because he would allow more opportunities for corporate welfare. He chose Trudeau because behind his socially progressive overtones, are his menacingly capitalistic undertones.
As Jagmeet Singh's sharp attacks and courageous campaigning seeks to unseat numerous Liberal and Conservative ridings, Trudeau's attempt to gain political credibility and authoritative forgiveness from the likes of Barack Obama actually highlight the state of panic his campaign is in.
As class unity is trying to prop up the Leftist cause, the Right is trying to consolidate its own class unity.
The reigns of capital and billionaires are threatened after a very long time. And it is the right time to strike on it the Left-wing's hammer.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Former US President Barack Obama endorsed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's bid for re-election.
For the centrist status quo liberals, this is a moment of elation. Two tried-and-tested leaders that have respect on the international stage for being progressive heartthrobs, supporting each other against a mounting Conservative opposition. Sounds great.
Except, it isn't.
The problems with this endorsement are being seen by both the Left and the Right.
While the Right cries "electoral interference," which may be only a plausible argument, the Left has something much more deeper to worry about.
It has to worry about hypocritical leaders trying to squander whatever they can in a last ditch attempt to hold onto power. It has to worry about leaders whose inactions speak louder than their abstract rhetoric. It has to worry about the reign of neoliberalism capitalism.
It has to worry about the class unity of the 1 percent.
Barack Obama was elected in 2008 to replace George Bush after he had plunged the US into expensive foreign wars and an unprecedented economic crisis.
Obama rose through and resonated with Americans with a much more progressive message. Nobody liked wars, everyone wanted economic recovery, and everyone wished for health care reform.
Obama bombed 7 countries in the Middle-East during his tenure. He turned Libya into a slave market, effectively ended up funding Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels in Syria, and supported Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.
Obama did deliver, to some degree. He did introduce Obamacare that did improve health care access for a fair amount of people. Obama did stimulate economic growth and brought the US out of the 2008 recession.
However, Obamacare was nothing but a milquetoast initiative that left millions out of coverage. While it was something better than before, there is a reason Bernie Sanders campaigned on Medicare for All because he know Obamacare was not working.
Obama's bailouts effectively concentrated more resources in the hands of the very people that caused the Financial Crisis of 2008. It gave more power to the corrupt 1 percent who had broken the laws and caused the collapse of the entire global economy.
And obviously, Obama's most blatant act of hypocrisy was the numerous foreign interventions he took part in. Obama bombed 7 countries in the Middle-East during his tenure. He turned Libya into a slave market, effectively ended up funding Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels in Syria, and supported Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.
Obama was not a progressive leader.
Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015 to replace the Conservative Stephen Harper on a message much more progressive than that of the actual socialist party, the NDP.
Trudeau's calls for feminism, electoral reform, and helping the middle class earned him a majority. He managed to multiply the Liberal party's share of seats by five times.
He started his term with great enthusiasm; he maintained a diverse cabinet both in terms of sex and ethnicity; he launched plans for an ambitious carbon tax; he instituted policies that got nearly 300,000 children off of poverty; he vocally promoted strong reconciliation and consulation with the indigenous community.
He seemed like a hero.
Except of course he wasn't.
Trudeau still continues to sell armaments to Saudi Arabia which shows a stark contrast from his feministic and pro-human rights rhetoric.
Trudeau gave over CA$14 billion to large companies in corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. The SNC-Lavalin scandal also shattered his reputation on ethics and feminism when he fired his female indigenous Attorney-General for trying to tell the truth.
Trudeau bought the TMX pipeline which, while being notoriously detrimental to the environment, goes through certain indigenous lands without their consent.
Trudeau gave exemptions of upto 80% to big polluters on his carbon tax, effectively placing the burden on the most economically marginalized and rural people of Canada.
Trudeau sued indigenous children when a verdict was delivered that his government would have to pay them for reconciliation.
Trudeau has not released a clear plan to budget any money for universal pharmacare, instead making vague references his in policy platform for this election.
And of course, how can one forget, the infamous blackface scandal where the world discovered Trudeau covered in black paint over his entire body, on 3 separate occasions.
Trudeau is not a progressive.
If this entire shenanigan reveals something, it is that no matter what you do and no matter what your policies are, as long as you are protecting the interest of capital, the elite has your back.
Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama represent peak neoliberalism, where in they change as little as possible in terms of social structures but allow for unfettered capitalism to continue its economic savagery.
Of course, the argument isn't as black and white as it seems, as mentioned with how Trudeau has uplifted thousands out of poverty and Obama helped millions get health care. The argument is about knowing that you can do more, saying that you can, then not doing it and using your PR team to brand you as a progressive prince.
He chose Trudeau because he would allow more opportunities for corporate welfare. He chose Trudeau because behind his socially progressive overtones, are his menacingly capitalistic undertones.
If Barack Obama truly cared about endorsing a progressive economic leader, or even a leader of colour just like him, he could have chosen Jagmeet Singh of the left-wing New Democratic Party. But he didn't.
He chose Trudeau for the specific reason that Trudeau won't tax the 1 percent, not because Trudeau was "the only realistic option" against Scheer. He chose Trudeau because he would allow more opportunities for corporate welfare. He chose Trudeau because behind his socially progressive overtones, are his menacingly capitalistic undertones.
As Jagmeet Singh's sharp attacks and courageous campaigning seeks to unseat numerous Liberal and Conservative ridings, Trudeau's attempt to gain political credibility and authoritative forgiveness from the likes of Barack Obama actually highlight the state of panic his campaign is in.
As class unity is trying to prop up the Leftist cause, the Right is trying to consolidate its own class unity.
The reigns of capital and billionaires are threatened after a very long time. And it is the right time to strike on it the Left-wing's hammer.
Former US President Barack Obama endorsed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's bid for re-election.
For the centrist status quo liberals, this is a moment of elation. Two tried-and-tested leaders that have respect on the international stage for being progressive heartthrobs, supporting each other against a mounting Conservative opposition. Sounds great.
Except, it isn't.
The problems with this endorsement are being seen by both the Left and the Right.
While the Right cries "electoral interference," which may be only a plausible argument, the Left has something much more deeper to worry about.
It has to worry about hypocritical leaders trying to squander whatever they can in a last ditch attempt to hold onto power. It has to worry about leaders whose inactions speak louder than their abstract rhetoric. It has to worry about the reign of neoliberalism capitalism.
It has to worry about the class unity of the 1 percent.
Barack Obama was elected in 2008 to replace George Bush after he had plunged the US into expensive foreign wars and an unprecedented economic crisis.
Obama rose through and resonated with Americans with a much more progressive message. Nobody liked wars, everyone wanted economic recovery, and everyone wished for health care reform.
Obama bombed 7 countries in the Middle-East during his tenure. He turned Libya into a slave market, effectively ended up funding Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels in Syria, and supported Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.
Obama did deliver, to some degree. He did introduce Obamacare that did improve health care access for a fair amount of people. Obama did stimulate economic growth and brought the US out of the 2008 recession.
However, Obamacare was nothing but a milquetoast initiative that left millions out of coverage. While it was something better than before, there is a reason Bernie Sanders campaigned on Medicare for All because he know Obamacare was not working.
Obama's bailouts effectively concentrated more resources in the hands of the very people that caused the Financial Crisis of 2008. It gave more power to the corrupt 1 percent who had broken the laws and caused the collapse of the entire global economy.
And obviously, Obama's most blatant act of hypocrisy was the numerous foreign interventions he took part in. Obama bombed 7 countries in the Middle-East during his tenure. He turned Libya into a slave market, effectively ended up funding Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels in Syria, and supported Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.
Obama was not a progressive leader.
Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015 to replace the Conservative Stephen Harper on a message much more progressive than that of the actual socialist party, the NDP.
Trudeau's calls for feminism, electoral reform, and helping the middle class earned him a majority. He managed to multiply the Liberal party's share of seats by five times.
He started his term with great enthusiasm; he maintained a diverse cabinet both in terms of sex and ethnicity; he launched plans for an ambitious carbon tax; he instituted policies that got nearly 300,000 children off of poverty; he vocally promoted strong reconciliation and consulation with the indigenous community.
He seemed like a hero.
Except of course he wasn't.
Trudeau still continues to sell armaments to Saudi Arabia which shows a stark contrast from his feministic and pro-human rights rhetoric.
Trudeau gave over CA$14 billion to large companies in corporate welfare at the expense of the taxpayer. The SNC-Lavalin scandal also shattered his reputation on ethics and feminism when he fired his female indigenous Attorney-General for trying to tell the truth.
Trudeau bought the TMX pipeline which, while being notoriously detrimental to the environment, goes through certain indigenous lands without their consent.
Trudeau gave exemptions of upto 80% to big polluters on his carbon tax, effectively placing the burden on the most economically marginalized and rural people of Canada.
Trudeau sued indigenous children when a verdict was delivered that his government would have to pay them for reconciliation.
Trudeau has not released a clear plan to budget any money for universal pharmacare, instead making vague references his in policy platform for this election.
And of course, how can one forget, the infamous blackface scandal where the world discovered Trudeau covered in black paint over his entire body, on 3 separate occasions.
Trudeau is not a progressive.
If this entire shenanigan reveals something, it is that no matter what you do and no matter what your policies are, as long as you are protecting the interest of capital, the elite has your back.
Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama represent peak neoliberalism, where in they change as little as possible in terms of social structures but allow for unfettered capitalism to continue its economic savagery.
Of course, the argument isn't as black and white as it seems, as mentioned with how Trudeau has uplifted thousands out of poverty and Obama helped millions get health care. The argument is about knowing that you can do more, saying that you can, then not doing it and using your PR team to brand you as a progressive prince.
He chose Trudeau because he would allow more opportunities for corporate welfare. He chose Trudeau because behind his socially progressive overtones, are his menacingly capitalistic undertones.
If Barack Obama truly cared about endorsing a progressive economic leader, or even a leader of colour just like him, he could have chosen Jagmeet Singh of the left-wing New Democratic Party. But he didn't.
He chose Trudeau for the specific reason that Trudeau won't tax the 1 percent, not because Trudeau was "the only realistic option" against Scheer. He chose Trudeau because he would allow more opportunities for corporate welfare. He chose Trudeau because behind his socially progressive overtones, are his menacingly capitalistic undertones.
As Jagmeet Singh's sharp attacks and courageous campaigning seeks to unseat numerous Liberal and Conservative ridings, Trudeau's attempt to gain political credibility and authoritative forgiveness from the likes of Barack Obama actually highlight the state of panic his campaign is in.
As class unity is trying to prop up the Leftist cause, the Right is trying to consolidate its own class unity.
The reigns of capital and billionaires are threatened after a very long time. And it is the right time to strike on it the Left-wing's hammer.
"We sounded the alarm, and they're backing off," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "But the fight's not over."
Social Security advocates celebrated a hard-fought win on Wednesday while still stressing that the Trump administration poses a dire threat to millions of Americans' earned benefits.
The Social Security Administration on Tuesday seemingly walked back plans to require beneficiaries to verify their identities using an online system and force those who couldn't do so to provide documentation at an SSA field office—some of which may soon be targeted for closure.
"Beginning on April 14, Social Security will perform an anti-fraud check on all claims filed over the telephone and flag claims that have fraud risk indicators," the agency wrote Tuesday on X, the social media platform owned by billionaire Elon Musk, head of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"Individuals that are flagged would be required to perform in-person ID proofing for the claim to be further processed. Individuals who are not flagged will be able to complete their claim without any in-person requirements," the SSA explained. "We will continue to conduct 100% ID proofing for all in-person claims. 4.5 million telephone claims a year and 70K may be flagged. Telephone remains a viable option to the public."
The Trump administration was previously accused of trying to "sabotage" SSA by cutting phone services and forcing people who could not verify their identity online through "my Social Security" to do so in-person. That policy was initially set to take effect at the end of March, a rapid rollout reportedly pursued at the request of the White House.
Then, late last month, SSA delayed the start date until April 14, and said that people applying for Medicare, Social Security Disability Insurance, or Supplemental Security Income would be exempt from the rule and could complete their claims by phone.
Reporting on the policy's apparent full rollback on Wednesday, Axios shared an email from a White House official who said that "because the anti-fraud team implemented new technological capabilities so quickly, SSA can now perform anti-fraud check on all claims filed over the phone."
Those who are flagged "would be required to perform in-person ID proofing for the claim to be further processed," the official told the outlet, echoing the X posts. "The administration remains committed to protecting our beneficiaries from fraud. There will no disruptions to service."
Welcoming the development on X, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: "We sounded the alarm, and they're backing off. But the fight's not over. Trump and Musk still want to fire thousands of Social Security workers, close offices, and cut services. We'll keep fighting back."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly said in a statement: "Organizing and mobilizing works. From the moment DOGE announced its dangerous plan to eliminate SSA telephone services, our members sprang into action—making thousands of calls to elected officials, organizing rallies and demonstrations, and demanding the protection of the services they have earned and paid for."
"We are grateful that our voices were heard. As of today, most Americans will still be able to apply for their earned retirement, survivor, or disability benefits through the method that works best for them—whether by phone, in person, or online," Fiesta continued. "Forcing millions of seniors and people with disabilities to rely solely on an understaffed network of closing field offices or an online-only system would have placed an unreasonable burden on vulnerable people and done little to curb fraudulent claims."
Like Warren, he vowed that "we will continue to fight to ensure that SSA is fully staffed and that local field offices remain open and accessible to the public."
Social Security Works also celebrated the news, writing on X: "After a massive public outcry, Elon Musk's DOGE is backing away from cuts to Social Security phone service that would have forced millions of Americans into overcrowded field offices. Your voice matters!"
"But DOGE is still making other huge cuts to the Social Security Administration," the advocacy group added. "These cuts are already making it far harder for Americans to claim their earned benefits. We need to stay loud! Plan or join a rally on April 15th."
"Elon Musk orchestrated a plan to rip off consumers with impunity when he tweeted 'Delete CFPB' and Congress just rubber-stamped it," said one campaigner.
In a move likely to further enrich Elon Musk, the world's richest person, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to revoke a rule empowering a federal agency to oversee digital payment applications including Apple Pay, CashApp, and Venmo like it monitors banks and credit card companies.
House lawmakers passed S.J. Res. 28 by a party-line vote of 219-211, a move that followed the Senate's vote last month to rescind the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau (CFPB) rule requiring payment apps to be regulated under the agency's supervisory authority.
"The vote," the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress said, "is the latest in a damning and telling chain of events benefiting Elon Musk," chairman of the social media company X.
The group laid out the timeline:
"Musk is now on a glide path to launch X Money this year without the watchdog agency to ensure that he follows federal rules mandating data security standards, disputes for fraudulent payments, consumer protections against debanking, and more," Demand Progress said.
"And through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Musk now has access to sensitive information about competitors in the digital payments space like Cash App, PayPal, and Venmo that have been investigated by the CFPB, potentially giving X Money an unfair business advantage," the group added.
BREAKING: Congress just voted to strip the CFPB of its power to make sure payment apps like CashApp protect consumers, just as Elon Musk gears up to turn Twitter into his own payment app.
[image or embed]
— Demand Progress (@demandprogress.bsky.social) April 9, 2025 at 2:03 PM
As Consumer Reports noted Wednesday:
The CFPB's rule (also known as the larger participant rule) applies to digital wallet and payment providers handling more than 50 million transactions per year. The most widely used apps subject to the rule process an estimated 13 billion consumer payment transactions annually, according to the CFPB.
In 2023 alone, consumers reported losing $210 million to scams on peer-to-peer payment apps, a staggering 62% increase from 2021. In addition, users who accidentally send a payment to the wrong person find it nearly impossible to get their money back.
"Elon Musk orchestrated a plan to rip off consumers with impunity when he tweeted 'Delete CFPB' and Congress just rubber-stamped it. Today's shameful vote means that X, an app already swarming with bots and scammers, will be able to connect to your bank account and allow fraudsters to take your money without accountability," Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at Demand Progress, said Wednesday.
"Thanks to the CFPB's supervision, $120 million was refunded to consumers who were scammed through Cash App," Peterson-Cassin added. "That kind of policing will be significantly harder now that Congress has voted to strip the CFPB of its ability to proactively watch over payment apps. And thanks to DOGE's intrusions into the CFPB's databases, Musk now has access to sensitive financial data from companies investigated by the agency, including virtually all would-be competitors to X Money in the digital payments space."
Other consumer advocates also panned the House vote, with Consumer Reports advocacy program director Chuck Bell arguing that "by voting to repeal the CFPB's rule, Congress is turning a blind eye to the fraud that runs rampant on payment apps and the privacy risks users can face when Big Tech companies collect their sensitive financial data and share it widely with other companies."
"Today's vote weakens the CFPB's ability to stop unfair practices that put consumers who use payment apps at risk and ensure that Big Tech companies are following the law," Bell added.
"The entire city of Rafah is being swallowed up," warned one Israeli human rights group. "The massive death zone... continues to grow by the day."
The Israel Defense Forces is preparing to permanently seize the largely depopulated Palestinian city of Rafah—comprising about 20% of Gaza's land area—and incorporate what was once the embattled enclave's third-largest city into a borderland buffer that IDF troops have described as a "kill zone" rife with alleged war crimes.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Wednesday that "defense sources" said an area from the so-called Philadelphi corridor along Gaza's border with Egypt and the Morag corridor—the name of a Jewish colony that once stood between Rafah and Khan Younis—will be incorporated into the buffer zone that runs along the entire length of the Israeli border.
The affected area includes the entire city of Rafah—which is thousands of years old—and surrounding neighborhoods, which were home to more than 250,000 people before Israeli launched what United Nations experts have called a genocidal assault on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
As Haaretz's Yaniv Kubovitch reported:
Expanding the buffer zone to this extent carries significant implications. Not only does it cover a vast area—approximately 75 square kilometers (about 29 square miles), or roughly one-fifth of the Gaza Strip—but severing it would effectively turn Gaza into an enclave within Israeli-controlled territory, cutting it off from the Egyptian border. According to defense sources, this consideration played a central role in the decision to focus on Rafah...
It has yet to be decided whether the entire area will simply be designated a buffer zone that is off-limits to civilians—as has been done in other parts of the border area—or whether the area will be fully cleared and all buildings demolished, effectively wiping out the city of Rafah.
In recent weeks and for the second time during the war, IDF troops forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands residents from Rafah and other areas of southern Gaza in an ethnic cleansing campaign reminiscent of the 1948 Nakba, or "catastrophe" in Arabic, through which the modern state of Israel was founded. Most Gaza residents today are Nakba survivors or descendants of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from other parts of Palestine in 1948.
Earlier this month, Israeli officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a fugitive from the International Criminal Court wanted for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—and Defense Minister Israel Katz announced plans to seize "large areas" of southern Gaza to be added to what Katz called "security zones" and "settlements."
Jewish recolonization of Gaza is a major objective of many right-wing Israelis. Last month, Katz announced the creation of a new IDF directorate tasked with ethnically cleansing northern Gaza, which Israeli leaders euphemistically call "voluntary emigration." Katz said the agency would be run "in accordance with the vision of U.S. President Donald Trump," who in February said that the United States would "take over" Gaza after emptying the strip of its over 2 million Palestinians, and then transform the enclave into the "Riviera of the Middle East." Trump subsequently attempted to walk back some of his comments.
Earlier this week, the Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence published testimonies of IDF officers, soldiers, and veterans who took part in the creation of the buffer zone. Soldiers recounted orders to "deliberately, methodically, and systematically annihilate whatever was within the designated perimeter, including entire residential neighborhoods, public buildings, educational institutions, mosques, and cemeteries, with very few exceptions."
Palestinians who dared enter the perimeter, even accidentally were targeted, including civilian men, women, children, and elders. One officer featured in the report told The Guardian: "We're killing [men], we're killing their wives, their children, their cats, their dogs. We're destroying their houses and pissing on their graves."
Most of Gaza's more than 2 million residents have been forcibly displaced at least once since Israel launched the war, which has left more than 180,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Widespread starvation and disease have been fueled by a "complete siege" which, among other Israeli policies and actions, has been cited in the ongoing South Africa-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.