Coverage of pro-Palestinian protest was dangerously sanitized
While the article quoted signs critical of Israel and cited multiple reports portraying Israeli actions harshly, it omitted that protestors were chanting "From the river to the sea," a slogan widely recognized as a call for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Including some slogans while omitting that slogan amounts to whitewashing rhetoric that crosses the line from protest into hate.
There is a staggering hypocrisy in accusing Israel of genocide while calling for the destruction of the world's only Jewish state. This wasn't just a call for humanitarian aid — it was defined by inflammatory, extremist language that contributes directly to rising antisemitic violence.
We saw that reality hours later, when Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, two Israeli embassy staffers, were gunned down outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., reportedly by an assailant shouting "Free Palestine."
That didn't happen in Gaza or Tel Aviv, it happened on American soil, and it was fueled by the very hate, on our streets, your paper chose to ignore.
By omitting the most provocative chant and offering no Jewish perspective, the Press Herald didn't just report incompletely — it helped normalize hate.
Justin Schair
Freeport
Copy the Story Link
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
10:35 AM ET: Sean 'Diddy' Combs guilty on prostitution charges, acquitted on others - CNN Breaking News Alerts - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
10:35 AM ET: Sean 'Diddy' Combs guilty on prostitution charges, acquitted on others CNN Breaking News Alerts 10:43 AM EDT It's a mixed verdict for Sean "Diddy" Combs. Listen for more details.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
News Of Haitian TPS, Travel Ban & Supreme Court Order Stun Immigrants
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 07: Supporters of immigrants' rights protest against U.S. President ... More Donald Trump's immigration policies on February 07, 2025 in Homestead, Florida. President Trump has directed agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. (Photo by) News of three U.S. immigration-related developments recently surprised immigrants and immigration advocates. The cancellation of Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands, the revival of a broad travel ban targeting 19 countries (including eight Muslim-majority nations), and a quiet yet significant victory at the Supreme Court limiting the power of federal judges to block unconstitutional executive actions nationwide were momentous decisions with wide-ranging consequences for the United States. Each action raises serious legal and moral concerns. Collectively, they indicate a dangerous mix of policy overreach, discriminatory motives, and the weakening of judicial protections that could affect not only this government but future ones—Democratic or Republican. TPS Terminations: Focusing on the Most Vulnerable In late June, the Trump administration announced its plan to end TPS for about 430,000 Haitians, effective September 2, 2025. At first glance, the figure seems shocking—but it hides even a much harsher reality. Nearly half of these individuals, around 200,000, have already been deported through previous measures: Title 42 expulsions, humanitarian parole terminations, and strict border interceptions. TPS, a humanitarian provision embedded in U.S. immigration law, offers legal residence and work authorization for individuals fleeing natural disasters, conflict, or extraordinary conditions in their home countries. It is not a loophole. It is a lawful status granted and extended by successive administrations of both parties in recognition of humanitarian necessity. Revoking this protection on a large scale, especially when around 1.75 million immigrants from various countries currently in the United States could be affected by such actions, not only upsets lives and families but also breaches the trust in the rule of law. TPS holders are not undocumented immigrants. They entered legally or were granted lawful residence due to circumstances beyond their control. Their removal does not serve a mandate to deport 'illegal immigrants,' but instead shows a preference for politically convenient targets. In Trump's zeal to meet his goal of 'deporting 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally,' he is deporting legal immigrants. Worse still, the administration seems to be skipping necessary legal procedures. Before TPS can be revoked, the Department of Homeland Security must properly review country conditions, consult with other federal agencies, issue a 60-day notice, and offer a wind-down period of 6–18 months. These protections are in place to prevent deportations from returning individuals to danger. The courts might still step in, as they did in Ramos v. Nielsen, when a lower court found that the Trump administration's previous TPS cancellations were discriminatory and biased. The administration's new attack on TPS might follow a similar path—litigation, injunctions, appeals. But for thousands of Haitians, the uncertainty is already traumatic. The Travel Ban Revisited: Familiar Faces, Persistent Bias Adding to the TPS decision is the Trump administration's reimposition of a travel ban, now expanded to include 19 countries, eight of which are majority-Muslim. Though presented as a national security measure, the origins and focus of the policy resemble the earlier 'Muslim Ban' that was partially struck down by courts and widely condemned as discriminatory. This recent iteration does little to ease those concerns. The list of affected countries remains unclear, the criteria are random, and the process lacks transparency or meaningful oversight by Congress. Entire families—spouses, children, students—are now denied entry, regardless of their personal history, reason for travel, or connections to the U.S. These bans do not improve national security. They alienate allies, harm economies, and increase xenophobia. Even more, they weaken the core Canadian promise: that people are judged by their deeds and character, not their nationality or religion. Supreme Court's Injunction Ruling: A Win for Executive Authority Perhaps the most far-reaching—and least noticed—development is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Casa case, which significantly narrows the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The case originated from Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship. The constitutional issue—whether the 14th Amendment protects the citizenship rights of all U.S.-born children—was avoided by the Court, which instead chose to focus on procedural matters. In doing so, the Court determined that federal judges can no longer routinely issue injunctions that block presidential actions nationwide. This decision, while cloaked in administrative reasoning, has explosive implications. Historically, nationwide injunctions have been one of the few effective tools to limit executive overreach. When a federal court uncovers credible evidence of constitutional violations—such as family separations, discriminatory bans, or revocation of legal status—it must be able to halt the action consistently. The alternative is chaos: legal rights that vary depending on the region, with one federal district upholding citizenship and another not. The criteria for these injunctions are strict: These are not impulsive decisions. They are rooted in law, precedent, and thorough judicial review. Removing courts' authority in this area creates a fragmented legal system, causes delays in justice, and exposes vulnerable groups to lasting harm while appellate review processes unfold slowly. While conservatives may celebrate the ruling as a victory over 'judicial activism,' they might soon regret it. Future Democratic governments could now implement sweeping directives—on guns, climate, or abortion access—without fearing immediate nationwide injunctions. Judicial restraint, once a safeguard against tyranny, has now been selectively weakened. Checks, Balances, and Consequences The Trump administration's recent immigration developments are not just isolated mistakes. They reflect a deliberate plan: to push the boundaries of executive power, sideline the courts, and change immigration law by decree rather than through legislation. In each of the three instances—TPS cancellation, the travel ban, and the limitation on nationwide injunctions—the pattern remains consistent. Lawful immigrants and minorities are targeted. Established legal procedures are ignored or weakened. And judicial oversight is reduced or compromised. The Constitution envisions a balance of powers — not an unchecked presidency. When courts can no longer act quickly to stop illegal or discriminatory acts, it is not only immigrants who suffer but also the integrity of the law itself. The cancellation of the Haitian PTS program, the introduction of a broad travel ban, and the Supreme Court's decision to limit nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts should concern all Americans—regardless of political affiliation. Today, it affects Haitian families and Muslim travellers who face the consequences. Tomorrow, it could be any group that falls out of political favour. The real question is not whether Trump's actions were lawful but whether they were right—and whether future leaders will feel unjustly constrained by them.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Trump administration freezes billions in funding for after-school and summer programs
Day camp providers and schools say the Trump administration's funding freeze could ruin summer for low-income American families and jeopardize some after-school programs next year. The administration is holding back over $6 billion in federal grants for after-school and summer programs, English language instruction, adult literacy and more as it conducts a review to ensure grants are aligned with President Trump's priorities. The move creates uncertainty for states and schools as they budget for programs this summer and in the upcoming school year because they don't know if or when they'll receive the funding. Democrats say the administration is flouting the law by holding back congressionally appropriated money. Without the funds, schools say they won't be able to provide free or affordable after-school care for low-income kids while their parents work and may not be able to hire staff to teach children who are learning English. Classes or camps underway this summer could be in jeopardy, too. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America depend on some of this funding to run their camps and other summer programming for low-income students. If it's not restored soon, the programming could end mid-season, said Boys and Girls Club President Jim Clark. After-school programming in the fall could also take a hit. "If these funds are blocked, the fallout will be swift and devastating," Clark said. As many as 926 Boys and Girls Clubs could close, affecting more than 220,000 kids, the group said. Programs relying on the money were expecting it to be distributed July 1, but an Education Department notice issued Monday announced the money would not be released while the programs are under review. The department didn't provide a timeline and warned that "decisions have not yet been made" on grants for the upcoming school year. "The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President's priorities and the Department's statutory responsibilities," Education Department officials wrote in the notice, which was obtained by The Associated Press. The department referred questions to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. GADSDEN, Ala. Cassiyah Hayes takes a moment to read a book in the media center of George W. Floyd Elementary School in Gadsden, Ala., on June 25, 2025. Andi Rice for The Washington Post via Getty Images In Gadsden City Schools in Alabama, officials say they'll have no choice but to shutter their after-school program, which serves more than 1,200 low-income students, if federal funds aren't released. There's no other way to make up for the frozen federal money, said Janie Browning, who directs the program. Families who rely on after-school programs would lose an important source of child care that keeps children safe and engaged while their parents work. The roughly 75 employees of the district's after-school programs may lose their jobs. "Those hours between after school and 6 o'clock really are the hours in the day when students are at the most risk for things that may not produce great outcomes," Browning said. "It would be devastating if we lost the lifeline of afterschool for our students and our families." Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, said withholding the money could cause lasting damage to the economy. Some advocates fear the grants are being targeted for elimination, which could force schools to cut programs and teachers. Mr. Trump's 2026 budget proposal called on Congress to zero out all of the programs under review, signaling the administration sees them as unnecessary. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington pressed the Trump administration to spend the money as Congress intended. "Every day that this funding is held up is a day that school districts are forced to worry about whether they'll have to cut back on afterschool programs or lay off teachers instead of worrying about how to make sure our kids can succeed," Murray said in a statement. The six grant programs under review include one known as 21st Century Community Learning Centers. It's the primary federal funding source for after-school and summer learning programs and supports more than 10,000 local programs nationwide, according to the Afterschool Alliance. Every state runs its own competition to distribute the grants, which totaled $1.3 billion this fiscal year. Also under review are $2 billion in grants for teachers' professional development and efforts to reduce class size; $1 billion for academic enrichment grants, often used for science and math education and accelerated learning; $890 million for students who are learning English; $376 million to educate the children of migrant workers; and $715 million to teach adults how to read. These programs account for over 20% of the federal money the District of Columbia receives for K-12 education, according to an analysis by the Learning Policy Institute, a think tank. California alone has over $800,000 in limbo, while Texas has over $660,000. "Trump is illegally impounding billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to serve students this fiscal year," said Tony Thurmond, California's state superintendent, in a statement. "The Administration is punishing children when states refuse to cater to Trump's political ideology. The loss of funds could "put several more school districts in extreme financial distress," said Chris Reykdal, superintendent of public instruction in Washington state. Districts have already adopted budgets, planned programming and hired staff, assuming they'd receive the money, Reykdal said. If the funding freeze remains, children learning English and their parents would be especially affected. Some districts use the money to pay for summer programming designed for English learners, family engagement specialists who can communicate with parents and professional development training for staff. Rural districts would be hit the hardest. "They're trying to send a message," said Amaya Garcia, who oversees education research at New America, a left-leaning think tank. "They don't believe that taxpayer funding should be used for these children." Umatilla School District in rural eastern Oregon — with a sizable population of migrant families and students learning English — relies heavily on federal funding for its after-school and summer school programs. Superintendent Heidi Sipe says she is meeting with state officials soon to find out if the district will have to plan an early end to summer school, an option 20% of students are using. Come this fall, if federal money stays frozen, she'll have to lay off staff and eliminate after-school programs attended by around half the district's students. "It's an essential service in our community because we don't have any licensed child care centers for school-age children," she said. Sipe said it's particularly frustrating to deal with these funds being put into limbo because the school district was in the middle of a five-year grant period. "It feels preventable," she said, "and it feels as though we could have done a better job planning for America's children."
