Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

Oslo at 33: Anatomy of an ongoing Palestinian disaster

September 3, 2026

MEM, September 3, 2026 at 8:00 am

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres (C) signs the historic Israel-PLO Oslo Accords on Palestinian autonomy in the occupied territories on September 13, 1993 in a ceremony at the White House in Washington, D.C. [J. DAVID AKE/AFP via Getty Images]

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres (C) signs the historic Israel-PLO Oslo Accords on Palestinian autonomy in the occupied territories on September 13, 1993 in a ceremony at the White House in Washington, D.C. [J. DAVID AKE/AFP via Getty Images]

Listen

0:00/–:–−

1.0x+

Ready

According to the popular narrative surrounding the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), some sort of fully functioning, internationally recognized Palestinian state should have been established over two decades ago. The Declaration of Principles signed in 1993 explicitly mandated a transitional “interim period” not to exceed five years, setting May 1999 as the strict deadline for a permanent-status agreement covering Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and borders. Yet a meticulous examination of the text reveals a structural paradox at the very heart of Oslo: while the diplomatic marketing and global expectations framed the process as a march toward eventual Palestinian statehood, the word “state” does not appear once in the agreements—substituting sovereign independence with vague language about “interim self-government.” 33 years later we ended up with much bloodier, brutal and wider occupation than it was when Oslo was signed. 

Instead of a bridge to incremental steps toward full independence, Oslo established a permanent interim administration, the Palestinian Authority (PA), whose powers were systematically eroded by Israel until making it an empty shell. Now The PA has evolved into a third hand of the Israeli occupation it was supposed to gradually end.

It functions as a security subcontractor tasked with suppressing local Palestinian resistance to protect the very forces colonising its land. Rather than fostering democratic statehood or focusing on ending the occupation—at least within its own administered areas—the PA’s administrative structure, with the direct or indirect help of the occupation, mutated into an authoritarian regime marked by deep-seated corruption, arbitrary detentions, and violent suppression of civilian dissent, typified by the fatal  beating of activist Nizar Banat in June 2021. Clinging desperately to power in Ramallah, the PA leadership remains headed by Mahmoud Abbas—the very  architect who signed the Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993—ensuring that the same hands that sealed the initial structural trap continue to enforce its endless, destructive survival. 

READ: Palestinian commission records 2,030 Israeli army and settler attacks in West Bank in August

Turning to the Gaza Strip, the contrast between Oslo’s promises and today’s grim reality is staggering. It is worth recalling that Gaza, alongside Jericho, was the very first territory transferred to the emerging PA under the 1994 Cairo Agreement—another Oslo based deal. Yet today, the situation in the Gaza Strip is more tragic than words can convey. After nearly two decades of a crippling Israeli blockade that transformed the enclave into an open-air prison, the occupying forces have escalated their campaign into unrestrained brutality.

Israeli officials have openly declared policies of total siege and starvation, forced mass displacement, and engaged in a military campaign that the highest international courts are investigating as genocide.

All of this is happening in the exact same Gaza that Oslo envisioned as Palestine’s gateway to the world—a blueprint not only for independence but for economic development and state-building. Instead, those promises have evaporated. Today, the Oslo Accords are nothing more than a bitter memory for Palestinians, whether they are enduring the occupied West Bank, surviving a devastated Gaza, or living the harsh realities of the global Diaspora.

WATCH: Is Evidence of Genocide in Gaza Being Erased? | Palestine This Week

Thirty-three years on, international lip service to a “two-state solution” functions not as a pathway to peace, but as a convenient diplomatic shield. By maintaining the fiction that a sovereign Palestinian state remains just around the corner, global powers have effectively bought time for Israel to finalize its violent territorial absorption of the West Bank and reduce Gaza to rubble. Even as the genocidal war in Gaza generated unprecedented pro Palestinian political momentum—prompting European nations like Norway, Ireland, Spain, UK and Slovenia to formally recognise Palestinian statehood—such recognition remains nearly meaningless without sovereign control on the ground.

Declarative statehood without borders, airspace control, or protection from Israeli military aggression only reinforces the Oslo apparatus, where process eclipsed substance and endless negotiations served to cover the physical erasure of Palestinian geography.

What Oslo Accords envisioned as an incremental peace process meant to culminate in Palestinian independence has instead been crushed under Israeli apartheid policies and reduced to empty rhetoric. At no point in the history of the conflict has the denial of Palestinian statehood been more explicit, driven by daily, aggressive raids by illegal settlers against Palestinian villages. State-backed settler violence is actively encouraged by far-right cabinet ministers—themselves illegal settlers—such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who openly call for the total annexation of the West Bank. This official Israeli backing directly fuels the surge of armed settler invasions of Palestinian homes, illustrated starkly by the village of Qusra near Nablus. There, violent settler attacks unfold under the direct protection of Israeli occupation forces, who either stand passively by or actively assist settlers in trapping and forcing Palestinian families from their land. Far from restraining this theft the Israeli government, last July, allocated  $434 million this year alone to build and expand illegal settlements across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, systematically severing any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. 

To speak of Oslo today as a “failed peace process” is to misunderstand its function: it succeeded entirely in eradicating international accountability while establishing a permanent infrastructure of Israeli control, shifting the argument away from an illegal occupation that must end and toward a mere dispute over land. The major powers, particularly through the UN Security Council, must directly reassess and formally rewrite the Oslo framework, which can no longer serve as the basis for any legitimate conflict settlement. Continuing to frame the conflict through a traditional “balance of power” dynamic is a pure distraction—it ignores Israel’s long-term strategic objective of permanently burying the Palestinian people’s rights to freedom and independence. Moving forward requires discarding the hollow machinery of 1993 and confronting the reality on the ground: a single, entrenched apartheid occupation that cannot be reformed through “interim” illusions, but must be dismantled through direct international accountability.

The West Bank’s Ultra-Apartheid (and the Collusive International Silence)

September 3, 2026

Gaza showed the genocidal face of Israel’s expulsive strategy. In the West Bank, the same objective is realized with incremental escalation. The ultimate goal is the same – the final expulsion of the Palestinians.

by Dan Steinbock | Sep 3, 2026

Today, the West Bank is a nightmare of vicious settlement expansion, land seizure, economic strangulation, settler violence and forced displacement.

With the collusion of the Israeli military and police, the Israeli-occupied territories are effectively ruled by the Messianic far-right settlers who see their mob-like racist pogroms of Palestinians as a divine step to Final Redemption.

The ongoing year has accelerated the process from settlement expansion toward territorial consolidation and displacement. The scale is stark.

Displacement becomes systematic

By August 10, the UN reported 76 Palestinians killed in the West Bank, including 18 children; about 3,800 Palestinians had been displaced during 2026 through settler violence, demolitions and evictions, nearly half children.

More than 1,430 settler incidents had been recorded, affecting roughly 260 Palestinian communities.

The crucial point is not simply Jewish settler violence but its geographical and economic function. Settler attacks increasingly target homes, agricultural land, livestock, water and electricity infrastructure.

In a recent podcast, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right extremist who believes in Jewish racial supremacy, urged Israelis to kill “30 to 40” Palestinians in Gaza every night. He also supports aggressive, lethal actions against Palestinians in the West Bank, applying a similarly hardline approach through legislative, judicial, and security policies.

These statements no longer reflect a “lunatic fringe,” as often portrayed by the media in the West. They reflect the brutal repression of Palestinians that’s now the new normal. OCHA reports that displacement caused by demolitions, settler violence and access restrictions has averaged 17 Palestinians a day in 2026; twice the average of the preceding three years.

Since 2023, 127 communities have experienced full or partial displacement; 47 have been completely emptied.

The economic damage compounds the demographic pressure. UNCTAD estimates that West Bank GDP contracted 17% in 2024, while cumulative unrealized Palestinian GDP from occupation-related restrictions between 2000–24 reached $170.8 billion – about 17 times 2024 West Bank GDP.

The settlement economy in Area C and East Jerusalem, by contrast, generated an estimated $53 billion in 2024.

Great conjuncture

Right before Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, I warned about an impending war, as the status quo was approaching a boiling point in Gaza. After all, it was the 50-year anniversary of the Yom Kippur War.

In The Fall of Israel (2024), I used the term great conjuncture to refer to structural forces that account for a series of cumulative disasters in the Middle East, starting with the waves of Palestinian expulsions since the 1940s.

Second, it refers to the aggressive expansion of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The rise of the Messianic far-right has fostered settler militarization accelerating anti-Arab pogroms in the West Bank, which is being annexed into Israel.

Third, the great conjuncture is fueled by a half century of failed American diplomacy in the Middle East. The Fall of Israel showed how the US-Israeli ties moved from hedging and choosing sides to partnership and eventually a symbiosis. These are not ties that bind, but ties that blind. They account for 50 years of military destabilization in the region and U.S. complicity to genocidal atrocities, even ecocide – both in Gaza and Lebanon.

Finally, instead of fostering peace in the region, America’s massive military aid to Israel has amplified Israel’s parallel securitization degrading its economy, politics and military. Washington has provided at least $22 billion in direct military aid to Israel, alongside up to $12 billion spent on related U.S. military operations in the region, since October 7, 2023. From Gaza and beyond, Israeli authorities and security forces have deliberately targeted Palestinians and Palestinian children.

These four structural forces feed on each other forming a vicious cycle, thereby intensifying and broadening regional escalation. When I extended the argument into a book, these views were still seen largely as marginal. Today, things have dramatically changed. Even the bipartisan consensus over the U.S.-Israel ties has collapsed.

But this erosion came only after Gaza has been obliterated and ethnic cleansing escalates in the West Bank with the tacit blessing of the international community.

Ethnic cleansing from Gaza to the West Bank

In the Israeli occupied territories, ethnic expulsion has not been an accidental by-product but a recurring political mechanism. From Labor’s post-1967 Allon Plan through the Likud era and the Messianic far right, its logic has been cumulative as it has sought to

  • acquire territory;
  • fragment Palestinian space;
  • make Palestinian economic and social life increasingly unviable;
  • if massacres don’t suffice, use genocidal atrocities;
  • expand Jewish civilian presence;
  • and eventually convert temporary occupation into permanent sovereignty.

The objective is not simply “security,” nor even the exploitation of Palestinian labor, but the Judaization of territory and prevention of a sovereign Palestine.

The Palestinian expulsions are intimately linked to both ideology and political economy. Land, subsidized settlements, real estate and state resources create constituencies that benefit materially from Palestinian dispossession.

Gaza became the extreme version: bombardment, destruction of housing and infrastructure, displacement and proposals for population “transfer” created conditions in which Palestinians were physically removed and territory becomes available for redevelopment or settlement.

In the West Bank, the mechanism used to be more incremental: settlement outposts, land seizures, demolition orders, restrictions on building and movement, settler violence and pressure on herding communities.

In the absence of international penalties, sanctions and blockades, settlers have been dramatically emboldened. They avoid one spectacular expulsion but seek to make the remaining Palestinian communities progressively untenable.

Their goal is the “Judaization” of Palestine – death by a thousands cuts.

Apartheid and “ultra-apartheid”

Not only has Israel evolved into an apartheid state. It is practicing ultra-apartheid.

Classical South African apartheid was brutally exploitative but effectively accommodationist. White minority rule sought to preserve racial hierarchy, segregate the black majority, deny political rights and extract cheap labor. The system needed the black population to remain economically useful. As a result, black South Africans’ income relative to whites actually rose during apartheid, from 8.6% to 13.5% between 1948 and 1994.

Israel’s system goes “beyond” apartheid. Palestinians are subjected to differentiated legal systems, military rule, checkpoints, territorial fragmentation, restricted mobility and unequal access to land and resources, while Jewish settlers in the occupied territory fall under Israeli civilian law.

The occupied territories consequently resemble South African Bantustans: fragmented enclaves, walls, restricted mobility and economic dependence.

But the decisive difference is the end-state. Israeli apartheid is not designed indefinitely to contain and exploit a Palestinian population. It is an interim instrument for displacement and dispossession. Segregation reduces Palestinian territorial, economic and political viability while expanding Jewish settlement.

That distinction also explains why the West Bank is strategically more important than it may appear. Fragmentation is not merely a condition; it is the mechanism by which territorial annexation becomes politically and physically irreversible. Hence the Israeli “ultra-apartheid”: that is, apartheid plus an expulsive logic.

What makes Israeli ultra-apartheid different is its ultimate purpose: ethnic expulsions, even genocidal atrocities. It sees Palestinian labor as a redundant surplus that will eventually have to be expunged or decimated.

And it is ultra-apartheid – first in Gaza and now in the West Bank – that the international community is witnessing yet trying to ignore.

Smotrich’s “Decisive Plan” for Gaza

Meanwhile, the political machinery has moved toward annexation. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s control over the Civil Administration, land declarations and settlement approvals institutionalize de facto annexation.

As documented by The Fall of Israel two years ago, Smotrich is executing a decade-old plan. In 2017, when he was still a young Knesset member, he presented his “Decisive Plan” in closed religious Zionist circles. It represented an endgame of sorts for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The plan portrayed the conflict as devoid of any reconciliation. It rejected partition. It shunned any idea of a Palestinian state, or even Palestinian presence. Smotrich envisioned a singular state from the sea to the river, for one nation only: the Jewish people. True to his beliefs, he built on biblical allegories, which to him were no allegories at all:

When Joshua entered the land, he sent three letters to its inhabitants: Those who want to accept [our rule] will accept; those who want to leave, will leave; those who want to fight, will fight…

When they have no hope and no outlook, they will leave, just as they left in 1948.

Since October 7, Smotrich has championed his not-so-voluntary population transfer. The logic is simple: Eliminate the adversary, resolve the dilemma.

The approaching October 2026 Israeli election sharpens the incentive. The Knesset has dissolved and campaigning is underway. Today, four in ten Jewish Israelis favor full West Bank annexation and 55% want all settlements retained under Israeli sovereignty. That’s Netanyahu’s legacy.

As Israel approaches its October 2026 election, the question is no longer whether the occupation is becoming permanent, but whether the West Bank is being progressively emptied of Palestinians to make annexation irreversible.

The electoral center of gravity is not moving toward Palestinian statehood. It is moving further away from any reconciliation – with longstanding U.S. support.

Three West Bank scenarios

In the current status quo, there are three plausible future trajectories.

Accelerated annexation and “silent transfer” (most likely).
The present trajectory continues settlements expand, outposts become normalized, Area C is progressively absorbed into Israel, Palestinian construction remains restricted, and settler violence – mostly tolerated and inadequately restrained by the state – pushes vulnerable Bedouin and farming communities out.

There need be no formal annexation declaration. Facts on the ground accomplish the same result.

The UN’s 2026 reports verify the mechanism operating. Violence, demolition, restricted access, economic strangulation and displacement reinforce one another. The October election could strengthen this trajectory if Netanyahu requires the far right to construct another governing coalition.

Scenario II – Managed containment, not peace. A centrist or more pragmatic coalition emerges after the election and faces heavy U.S., European and Arab pressure. It slows settlement expansion, restrains the most provocative settler actions and restores some Palestinian economic access – but avoids dismantling the settlement architecture or recognizing full Palestinian sovereignty.

This would resemble a renovated Allon-plan/Bantustan model: Palestinian enclaves with limited autonomy surrounded by Israeli-controlled territory.

This could stabilize the system but only temporarily without resolving its underlying contradiction. But it would also set the stage for annexation by a subsequent conservative cabinet.

Scenario III – Rupture and international reversal. A major escalation – mass displacement, annexation, renewed Palestinian uprising, regional war, or a severe Israeli political crisis – could finally make the status quo untenable.

International recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, sanctions against settlement activity, economic pressure and an externally imposed political framework could halt territorial consolidation.

This is the least likely short-term scenario, but potentially the only route to reversing the trajectory.

The conflict can no longer be solved by Israeli-Palestinian bargaining alone. The asymmetry of power has made meaningful external intervention indispensable.

Bottom line: Gaza shows what happens when the expulsive logic is pursued through overwhelming military force. The West Bank is demonstrating a presumably more subdued version: settlement, fragmentation, coercion, economic pressure and incremental displacement.

The decisive question after the October election is therefore less whether Israel will “annex” the West Bank formally than how much of it can be absorbed – and how many Palestinians can be induced or forced to leave or decimated in new genocidal atrocities – before the process becomes irreversible. 

The original commentary was published by Informed Comment (US) on Aug 30, 2026

If you liked this article, please support Antiwar.com.
We are 100% reader-supported.

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized visionary of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net 

Israel Is Cementing its Control Over The West Bank And East Jerusalem While The World Is Distracted

September 2, 2026

September 1, 2026

Share this:

Martin Kear, University of Sydney

With the world’s attention focused on the ongoing US-Iran conflict and the delicate negotiations over the fate of Gaza, it’s easy to overlook what’s happening in the other occupied Palestinian territories.

In recent days, the Israeli government has given final approval to a plan to build a new settlement in an area of the West Bank known as E1, east of Jerusalem. The government has opened up tenders for the construction of some 1,200 housing units.

Settlements in E1 would effectively split the West Bank into two parts, cutting off the Palestinian city of Ramallah in the north from Bethlehem in the south. It would also separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. Palestinians consider East Jerusalem an indispensable part of any future Palestinian state.

Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, indicated this was precisely the point. He said every new settlement in the West Bank puts “another nail in the coffin” of a Palestinian state.

Israel has held off on approving settlements in E1 for decades due to international pressure, particularly from previous US administrations that have tried to maintain the possibility of a future Palestinian state, however remote.

A joint statement by nearly two dozen Western nations condemned the move to develop E1 last week and called “for its immediate reversal in the strongest terms”.

However, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political fortunes waning in the lead-up to elections in October, it appears he is willing to risk international opposition to shore up votes at home, with the belief the Trump administration will shield Israel diplomatically.

The move comes amid rising violence from Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, which has led to at least 80 deaths this year.https://flo.uri.sh/story/3801560/embed

Earlier this month, settlers laid siege to the homes of Palestinian families in the village of Qusra. They cut off water and electricity supplies, damaged orchards and prevented the families from leaving their homes.

The international reaction was swift. Even the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a longtime supporter of Israeli settlements, denounced what he called the “inexcusable and repugnant” actions of the settlers in Qusra.

The Israeli police, however, didn’t make any arrests. And the Israeli soldiers sent to the area threw clothing belonging to a families out of the window of their homes.

Expanded settlements in West Bank

The situation in Qusra is emblematic of a rapidly deteriorating security situation for Palestinians across the West Bank since the October 2023 attacks by Hamas and Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

The United Nations estimates thousands of Palestinian homes have been demolished, seized or sealed by Israeli soldiers or settlers. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced.

In June, Amnesty International published a report arguing settler attacks are not being conducted by rogue extremists, but are instead an integral part of an organised state policy. The report concludes the Israeli government is actively engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank.

Since October 2023, Israel has also expropriated more Palestinian land and expanded the construction of settlements that are considered illegal by many states under international law.

In 2024, Peace Now, an Israeli activist group that tracks settlement expansion, revealed that Israel had declared 23 square kilometres of the West Bank as state land. This was the largest transfer of land to Israeli control in decades. Such declarations mean Palestinians cannot own the land; instead, the government can lease it to Israelis.

And earlier this year, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved 34 new settlements in the West Bank. This brings the total number of settlements established since Netanyahu’s right-wing government came to power in 2022 to more than 100.

Steady incursions at East Jerusalem holy site

In addition to the proposed building of settlements in the E1 area, Israel is also seeking to assert its sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, the site of the al-Aqsa Mosque compound and Western Wall. The site in the Old City of Jerusalem is sacred for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967. In their 1994 peace agreement, Israel agreed that Jordan would retain custodianship of the site.

Under the agreement, only Muslims have the right to pray in the compound that contains the al-Aqsa Mosque. Jews are permitted to pray at the Western Wall.

The issue of access to the compound is so sensitive that Palestinians consider any entry by Israelis to be extremely provocative. It’s seen as an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the third-holiest site in Islam and an essential part of any future Palestinian state. https://www.youtube.com/embed/aWWt_tH7lZs?wmode=transparent&start=0 Right-wing Israeli rabbi accused of provocation at Jerusalem holy site.

For example, when then-Opposition Leader Ariel Sharon visited the compound in 2000 accompanied by hundreds of police, it was considered one of the sparks of the Second Intifada (2000–05).

In 2021, when Israeli security forces prevented thousands of Palestinians from praying at the compound during Ramadan, it triggered a brief, deadly conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

And last month, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, accompanied by armed police and more than 4,000 supporters, entered the Temple Mount site to pray and wave Israeli flags. Ben-Gvir said “everywhere, people understand that the State of Israel is the sovereign authority” at the site.

Jordan has been very concerned by these persistent Israeli incursions. On August 5, it convened an emergency meeting of Arab and Muslim foreign ministers to discuss what it called the “imminent” threat of an Israeli takeover of the site.

Jordan’s foreign minister also warned that any attempt by Israel to alter the status quo at the site “could trigger a religious conflict that could reverberate beyond Palestine and Jordan into the whole Muslim world”.

What all of this means

This pattern of events shows the Israeli government is trying to change the “facts on the ground” in the the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is doing this by expelling Palestinians from what little territory they still inhabit and asserting sovereignty over Palestinian lands and religious sites. This would make any future Palestinian state impossible.

If these actions continue, they will be the death knell for any chance at peace between Israel and the broader Muslim world.

Martin Kear, Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.

Donate Online

Send a Check

You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.

Please share this story and help us grow our network!

The Definition of Insanity

September 2, 2026

by Ron Paul | Sep 2, 2026

Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Whether he actually said it or not, the definition stands.

This definition also very well describes the Trump Administration’s war with Iran. According to media reports, President Trump was cajoled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that this would be an “easy war,” like Venezuela. Just assassinate the Iranian leadership, he promised, and the regime change would bring in a pro-America regime in Iran.

The CIA disagreed with the assessment, but Trump went with Netanyahu and the rest is history.

The “decapitation strikes” did not change leadership in Iran. As was the case in the US after the 9/11 attacks, the people rallied around the flag. The new leadership was less interested in a compromise than their murdered predecessors.

So the bombing began. Weeks of bombing. But that didn’t work – it only depleted our already-low weapons supplies.

Then “diplomacy” was substituted for bombs and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by both sides. The US side immediately broke the agreement by attempting to open a new ship corridor by force and the bombs started flying again.

For the past month, the bombs stopped only to start up last weekend, with a US strike on an Iranian island. This was followed again by multiple Iranian strikes on US bases in the region.

Bombs then diplomacy, bombs then diplomacy. President Trump has told us dozens of times that us the war is over, and we have won, but no one believes it any longer. He claims that the US completely controls the Strait of Hormuz while the shipping corridors are empty.

The US military has been stretched to the breaking point. US sailors and Marines endured a record-breaking deployment with terrible conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and other ships at sea. But this past weekend we saw the most telling sign of a military pushing back against orders that make no sense. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned his position, reportedly due to disagreements with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the toll the war is taking on military readiness. Driscoll follows several high-ranking US Army officials who have resigned. It seems clear that US Military leadership does not believe in the mission.

Maybe President Trump should listen to them instead of his “War” Secretary Pete Hegseth?

Doing the same thing and expecting different results may be the definition of insanity, but another definition might be starting a war halfway across the globe against a country that has neither attacked nor threatened you. Insanity might be starting a war based on the self-serving lies of a foreign leader who just happens to benefit from the fighting. Insanity might be further depleting the US arsenal of missiles and other weapons after years of proxy war against Russia through Ukraine. Insanity might be burdening future generations with a national debt of $40 trillion and climbing.

It is time for some very difficult decisions to be made. This war will not be won with more bombing, and the Iranians no longer trust us as negotiating partners after broken agreements and false claims. The only course of action is to pack up and come home. Let the people of the region solve their own problems.

If you liked this article, please support Antiwar.com.
We are 100% reader-supported.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a former Republican congressman from Texas. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president

Netanyahu Boasts of Efforts To Convince US To Launch War Against Iran

September 1, 2026

The Israeli leader credited his frequent appearances on US television networks and his ‘intimate knowledge’ of US leaders

by Dave DeCamp | August 31, 2026 at 5:49 pm ET | Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has boasted of his efforts to convince the US to launch a war against Iran, crediting his frequent appearances on US television networks and his “intimate knowledge” of US leaders.

Netanyahu made the comments Sunday night on Israel’s Channel 14, and a clip of his appearance was posted on X by the account Clash Report, which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later shared.

The Israeli leader said that he had been against Iran for “nearly 40 years” and that it took him a long time to get the Israeli security establishment and the US on board.

“It took a long time to bring the US in,” he said, according to Channel 14. “I was able to do this because I had close to a thousand hours on American television, influence in the United States, and intimate knowledge of all its leaders – both those who support us and those who do not.”

The New York Times reported in April that 17 days before the US and Israel launched the war on February 28, Netanyahu presented President Trump with an intelligence briefing at the White House and made a “hard sell” for the war. The report said that Netanyahu had been “pressing for months” for the US to agree to a major attack on the Islamic Republic.

Sources told the Times that during the briefing, Netanyahu made a series of predictions about the potential war that proved to be wrong, including the idea that Iran was ripe for regime change, that its ballistic missile program could be destroyed within weeks, that it would be too weak to close the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran’s missile strikes on US interests in regional countries would be minimal.

Responding to Netanyahu’s comments about his influence on the US, Aragchi said that the Israeli leader was openly bragging about how he “suckered” the US into the war.

“In Hebrew, Netanyahu openly crows that he suckered the US Administration into a war on Iran on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu explicitly laughs about how he ‘influenced’ America through 1,000 hours of airtime on US networks,” the Iranian diplomat wrote on X. “In English, he praises POTUS’ leadership. Serpent.”

If you liked this article, please support Antiwar.com.
We are 100% reader-supported.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Israel’s Ben-Gvir lauds harsh conditions for Palestinian female prisoners

August 31, 2026

Palestinian groups condemn prison footage as humiliation and intimidation.

Israel's Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir speaks to the media.
Israel’s Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir visits the site of a rocket attack on March 1, 2026 in Tel Aviv, Israe[Erik Marmor/Getty Images]

By Al Jazeera Staff and Anadolu

Published On 30 Aug 202630 Aug 2026

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has posted footage from a prison holding Palestinian women on social media, boasting that he is responsible for the harsh conditions imposed on them.

The video, posted on Ben-Gvir’s X account on Sunday, shows him entering a section holding female prisoners and confronting them about their complaints regarding detention conditions.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4

Israel’s ‘Green Rafah’ plan aims to fragment Gaza, experts say

list 2 of 4

Israeli forces detain Palestinians during raid in occupied West Bank

list 3 of 4

Israel continues deadly Gaza truce breaches as US seeks to strengthen deal

list 4 of 4

Sixty Palestinians detained by Israel return to Gaza, describe abuses

end of list

One prisoner tells him: “This is our third day without showering. We are not receiving medical treatment, and our clothes are not clean.”

Ben-Gvir responds: “The good conditions in the prisons are over. This is the current situation, and I am directly responsible for everything. I am pleased with these conditions.”

In a post accompanying the video, the far-right minister wrote that the “whining” of prisoners over their conditions would not influence him, arguing that Israeli captives held in Gaza had not enjoyed adequate conditions.

“I’ll continue to lead a policy of the bare minimum of the minimum,” he said.

Palestinian groups condemn footage

Gaza’s Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs condemned Ben-Gvir’s visit, saying the filming of female prisoners amounted to intimidation and humiliation.

It said his entry into the women’s section of the facility was “not an inspection visit”, but rather a “political spectacle and public incitement against the female prisoners” aimed at intimidating them and breaking their will in front of cameras.

The Palestinian agency said Ben-Gvir’s remarks showed that conditions inside Israeli prisons were part of what it described as a systematic policy of retaliation based on “humiliation, torture, starvation and deprivation”.

FILE - An Israeli police officer stands outside Ofer military prison near Jerusalem, Monday, Oct. 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean, File)
An Israeli police officer outside Ofer military prison near Jerusalem, October 13, 2025 [Mahmoud Illean/AP Photo]

The Palestinian Prisoner’s Society also condemned the footage, telling Al Jazeera that Ben-Gvir’s filming and publication of the women constituted “an assault on their human dignity”.

It said hundreds of testimonies from released detainees and prisoners had documented serious abuses inside Israeli prisons and detention facilities.

Push for harsher conditions

Since becoming national security minister in late 2022, Ben-Gvir has pushed for tougher conditions for Palestinian prisoners, including reducing food and water supplies, restricting family visits, limiting shower times and removing privileges inside prison sections.

He has also overseen the transfer of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners between facilities.

Ben-Gvir has previously rejected efforts to improve conditions for prisoners. In 2025, he publicly opposed an Israeli court ruling requiring authorities to ensure Palestinian prisoners received adequate food, insisting that harsh conditions should continue.

According to the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, about 9,400 Palestinians are currently being held in Israeli prisons, including 88 women and more than 350 children.

“They Want People Scared”: Former Palestine Action Member Blasts Trump’s Terror Sanctions

August 30, 2026

Anti-genocide organizers say the “terrorism” label is intended to crush direct action against Israeli weapons shipments.

Jonah Valdez, The Intercept, August 27 2026

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - 2026/04/11: A protester is being arrested by the police for holding a placard reading "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action" during the rally. Protesters gathered for a demonstration organised by Defend Our Juries calling for the lifting of restrictions on protest rights in the United Kingdom. More than 300 demonstrators staged a mass sit-in in Trafalgar Square, holding signs reading "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action" as part of the protest. Police moved in to arrest participants on suspicion of offences related to displaying support for a proscribed organisation, while activists argue the action highlights concerns over civil liberties and freedom of expression. (Photo by Andrea Domeniconi/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Police arrest protesters at a sit-in opposing the U.K. government’s crackdown on Palestine Action in London on April 11, 2026.Photo: Andrea Domeniconi/LightRocket via Getty Images

When police in Kent, United Kingdom, arrested American peace activist Max Geller in 2021 for chaining himself to a van parked in front of an Israeli-owned weapons factory, he knew he might be jailed and face charges for his protest. 

What he didn’t realize was that he could be hit with U.S. sanctions five years later for his past ties to a so-called terrorist organization. 

The Trump administration on Wednesday announced sanctions against the U.K.-based anti-genocide protest group Palestine Action, which organized the 2021 demonstration and dozens of subsequent actions at U.K. factories owned by Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems. The goal, in the U.S. government’s words, is to “protect Americans from the risks posed by far-left terrorism.”

“A major threshold has been crossed,” said Geller, who was previously Palestine Action’s spokesperson but left the group in 2025, when the British government made membership punishable by 14 years in prison. “They’re now treating regular Americans who want to effectively oppose genocide as terrorists.”

The specific parameters of the U.S. sanctions are not yet clear, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged the government would “continue to cut the financial lifelines of these groups until they are eliminated.” Sanctioned groups and individuals cannot receive funds, goods, or services from American people or business — meaning they’re cut off from both the U.S. banking system and from any donations from Americans who might want to support them. They can have an isolating global effect: Financial institutions outside the U.S. that do business with American companies are often hesitant to affiliate with sanctioned individuals.

As a result, the sanctions could severely curtail their organizing abilities — and restrict their ability to try to stop the flow of weapons that Israel is using to carry out its ongoing genocide in Gaza.

“We are facing unprecedented attacks on dissent by the same powers that are committing genocide in Gaza,” said Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, in an interview with The Intercept. “We are at a point in history where it’s extremely crucial to continue to resist and grow in our movement, rather than back down and to adapt and become less reliant on institutions which are essentially controlled by the powers we’re fighting against.” 

Related

They Weren’t Convicted of Terrorism, But These Palestine Activists Got Sentenced as Terrorists Anyway

While the new U.S. sanctions are a part of a long history of post-9/11 policies in its so-called war on terror, the U.K. government has made itself notorious for its specific draconian crackdown on pro-Palestine dissent. Last year, as Palestine Action members began to face terror charges in court for their demonstrations, the U.K. government proscribed the group as a terrorist organization. The organization in the U.K. immediately ceased operations after the terror proscription. Dozens of members in the U.K. are facing criminal trials for their actions at Elbit weapons factories, and more than 1,200 people have been arrested and charged under the U.K.’s Terror Act for attending rallies merely supporting the group. 

Reporting from The Telegraph, which first reported the sanctions, suggested Ammori and fellow co-founder Richard Barnard would face lifetime bans from traveling to the U.S., and that British citizens who continue to support the group would be met with harsh visa restrictions.

Geller, who lives in London, wondered if his bank accounts would be frozen, along with his Venmo and PayPal accounts. He said he normally travels back and forth between the U.S. and U.K. to visit his elderly parents — and the thought of doing so now “suddenly has become scary.”

“They want people scared to even think about supporting or engaging in this kind of work,” Geller said. “This is about materially hurting Palestine.”     

Most Read

A New Tree-Sit Movement to Block Trump’s Border Wall Natasha Lennard

The Richwood Correctional Center, an ICE detention facility, is seen in this aerial photo in Monroe, La., Wednesday, April 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Trump Admin Said She Was Lying About Stillbirth in ICE Custody. New Evidence Points to Lack of Prenatal Care. Timothy Pratt, Andrew Free

Western North Carolina Pleaded for Hurricane Help. It Got ICE Instead. Austin Campbell

The new sanctions against Palestine Action, which were announced alongside sanctions against Autistici/Inventati and Masar Badil, were the latest attack in President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to suppress advocacy for Palestinian rights and opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Last year, Trump issued sanctions against the International Criminal Court after the court ordered war crime arrest warrants for Israel’s leaders. Those sanctions targeted people and organizations that work with the court, such as U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, who has been outspoken about the crippling effects of the sanctions. The administration has also sanctioned long-standing Palestinian human rights organizations for their work with the ICC.  

Related

YouTube Quietly Erased More Than 700 Videos Documenting Israeli Human Rights Violations

“The Trump administration is once again weaponizing counterterrorism authorities to criminalize Palestinian political organizing and solidarity,” said Raed Jarrar, advocacy director with Democracy for the Arab World Now, which last month sued to reverse the Trump sanctions on the ICC. “Sanctions are supposed to target genuine threats to national security, not serve as a political weapon against movements challenging Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.”

The vagueness of the new sanctions is meant to strike fear in anyone who is considering support for the sanctioned group, civil liberties advocates told The Intercept. Does a social media post expressing support violate sanctions? How about hosting a talk with an individual in the group?

“Treasury hasn’t been clear on where the line is, and that’s part of the chilling effect,” said Xiangnong (George) Wang, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who specializes in U.S. sanctions. “In sanctioning Palestine Action, I think their target is more broadly a community of people and groups, including Americans who engage with Palestine Action.”

The Treasury Department did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.  Read our complete coverage Chilling Dissent

The sanctions also follow the government’s case against pro-Palestine organizer Fergie Chambers, a past supporter of Palestine Action who was detained for extradition in Spain last month on alleged charges of funding terror groups. The humanitarian aid group Sameer Project, which provided meals and services to Palestinians in Gaza, previously received financial support from Chambers and this month announced it had paused operations in Gaza due to lack of funds.

The Trump-era crackdowns have extended beyond Palestine and Israel, targeting leftists groups in the U.S. who most recently have resisted Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mass deportation campaign. Under National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or NSPM-7, the administration has used post-9/11 terrorism laws against protesters, such as pursuing terrorism charges and decades-long prison sentences in the Prairieland Detention Center trial and the government’s case against protesters in Minneapolis.  

The repression, said Ammori, has “expanded much more overtly to be used to crush any type of dissent.”

Despite the U.K.’s crackdown on Palestine Action, support for the group and Palestine remains energetic. Rallies in solidarity with Palestine Action and Palestinian rights continue to sprout up across the country even as the government has arrested at least 3,000 people for simple actions such as holding signs that read “I support Palestine Action.” And last year, Elbit closed its facility in Bristol after being targeted by Palestine Action, days before the government outlawed the group.

Related

They Got 60 Days in Jail for Protesting Israel’s Largest Arms Maker — and Say That’s a “Huge Victory”

In the U.S., the group formerly known as Palestine Action U.S., now called Unity Fields as of August 2024, no longer has ties to the U.K.-based group. Though Palestine Action in the U.K. is dormant, secretive cells of Palestine Action are based throughout the U.S. and are continuing to carry out actions. Other Palestine Action cells are targeting the Israeli weapons supply chain in other countries such as Spain, Germany, Ireland, and Poland.

“We have a responsibility to create a huge dent in the Israeli war machine,” Ammori said. “They need to be profitable to operate, and if they’re operating, they’re killing Palestinians — it’s really as simple as that.”

Contact the author:

Jonah Valdez jonah.valdez@theintercept.com @jonahmv.05 on Signal @jonahmv on

Hamas must not concede in talks what Israel failed to win on the battlefield

August 29, 2026

Sami Al-Arian

MME, 28 August 2026

As pressure mounts to disarm and incorporate it into a reconstructed Palestinian order, the movement needs strategic patience to preserve its independence and resistance identity

Hamas fighters secure the area as Egyptian workers and Red Cross officials search for the remains of the last Israeli captive, in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, on 8 December 2025

Hamas fighters secure the area as Egyptian workers and Red Cross officials search for the remains of the last Israeli captive, in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, on 8 December 2025 (Omar al-Qattaa/AFP)

Some moments in the history of liberation movements require courage to act; others require equal courage to wait.

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, on 7 October 2023, was a daring decision that shattered assumptions that had governed the Palestinian question for years.

It brought Palestine back to the centre of world politics, exposed the illusion that it could be managed or bypassed, and confronted Israel and its western supporters with a conflict they had convinced themselves could be contained indefinitely.

Nothing that followed can justify transferring responsibility for Gaza’s destruction from those who destroyed it to those who resisted them.

Responsibility for the devastation of Gaza, the killing of its civilians and the ruin of its homes, hospitals, universities and schools belongs to those who carried it out. Criticism of Palestinian strategy must never become a mechanism for absolving the perpetrators and their supporters.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

The scale of that sacrifice demands a harder look at how it is being managed politically.

Hamas today faces perhaps the most difficult transition in its history. The movement that entered Al-Aqsa Flood as an armed resistance organisation now confronts enormous pressure to emerge from the war disarmed, removed from governing Gaza, integrated into a reconstructed Palestinian political system and dependent upon arrangements designed principally by the US and Israel with the tacit support of regional mediators.

Tactical flexibility is indispensable to any resistance movement, but it must serve a coherent strategy rather than gradually displace it.

Four developments should concern anyone who believes the resistance must preserve its independence: the political trajectory signalled by Hamas’s 2017 document, the handling of postwar negotiations, the mounting pressure for disarmament and the movement’s re-engagement with its old Fatah-aligned rivals.

A political wager

Hamas’s 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies, issued well before Al-Aqsa Flood, was widely understood as an effort to present a more pragmatic face to the world. It accepted a sovereign Palestinian state along the 4 June 1967 lines as a formula of national consensus, while refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the Zionist state and maintaining the right of resistance.

The position had a long pedigree. As early as 2009, Khaled Meshaal, then the head of Hamas’s political bureau, told the New York Times that his group “had accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return [of Palestinian refugees] based on a long-term truce”.

The document represented a political wager: that moderation would break the movement’s isolation and open doors in Europe and beyond.

Hamas should study Fatah’s experience and refuse ever to surrender a strategic position in exchange for a promise of future reciprocity

European figures discussed whether it justified engagement. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair after leaving his post as the envoy for the Middle East Quartet – which includes the US, EU, UN and Russia – courted Hamas’s leadership, and later acknowledged that the boycott imposed after the movement won the 2006 elections had been a mistake. Yet the broader political opening never came.

Therein lies the lesson: a liberation movement should distinguish between flexibility exchanged for concrete political gains and concessions offered in anticipation of western acceptance. The real danger is a process in which each concession becomes the starting point for the next.

Fatah travelled down that road decades earlier, with each concession presented as the gateway to the next diplomatic breakthrough: recognition was to produce reciprocity, negotiation to deliver statehood and security cooperation to build confidence, while Oslo itself was supposed to be transitional.

Instead, the transitional became permanent as settlements expanded, the occupation deepened and sovereignty receded, leaving Fatah today a shadow of its past.

Hamas should study that experience and refuse ever to surrender a strategic position in exchange for a promise of future reciprocity. Western approval is not a Palestinian national objective.

Squandered leverage

The second concern is more immediate. Negotiations are a contest over interests conducted through bargaining power, yet since the war entered its diplomatic phase, Hamas has repeatedly appeared willing to relinquish leverage before securing reciprocal, enforceable gains.

The release of the Israeli-American soldier Edan Alexander in May 2025 was presented as a goodwill gesture intended to reopen diplomatic space, but goodwill has value in negotiation only when the other side treats it as something to reciprocate.

The larger test came with US President Donald Trump‘s Gaza initiative in September 2025. In its initial response, Hamas agreed to release the Israeli captives, living and dead, under the exchange formula, and accepted the transfer of Gaza’s administration to an independent Palestinian technocratic body.

As the world fixates on Hamas, who will disarm the Israeli settlers storming West Bank villages?

Read More »

On the broader future of Gaza and fundamental Palestinian rights, however, it insisted that such questions belonged within a comprehensive national framework.

I had argued for precisely this approach days before the movement issued its response on 3 October 2025.

Once the captives were exchanged and that undertaking fulfilled, Hamas should have considered stepping back from direct negotiation over the larger questions, since a resistance leadership does not have to conduct every negotiation itself.

It could have entrusted the bargaining to experienced independent Palestinian negotiators versed in international law, diplomacy, American politics, Israeli negotiating practice, maps and security arrangements, while itself defining the objectives and the red lines.

One of the tragedies of the Palestinian negotiating experience since the 1980s has been the repeated confusion of revolutionary legitimacy with negotiating competence, which was among Fatah’s costliest mistakes under Yasser Arafat.

The record of Oslo makes the asymmetry plain. Israel fielded specialised teams, serving generals and the seasoned foreign ministry lawyer Joel Singer; as Mahmoud Abbas himself later acknowledged, the Palestinians were negotiating against “an experienced, capable delegation” without comparable expertise of their own. Negotiation is a profession, and recognising that a movement lacks it costs far less than pretending otherwise.


Follow Middle East Eye’s coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza


The Vietnamese understood this well. Throughout the long Paris talks, Hanoi treated diplomacy as one instrument within a larger political and military strategy: the Politburo set the objectives and the permissible concessions, while veteran negotiators such as Le Duc Tho conducted the bargaining.

When the talks moved beyond positions the leadership was prepared to accept, the negotiators were instructed to return to the earlier agreement as the basis for settlement. The art lay in knowing what could be traded, what had to be preserved and when compromise served the wider goal.

More than weapons

These questions have become urgent because Hamas has moved from discussing governance to entertaining formulas concerning its weapons.

Recent proposals would see them stored or transferred as part of a demilitarisation arrangement tied to Israeli withdrawal, an approach Israel has rejected while insisting on complete disarmament first. Are Palestinians really expected to hand over their weapons while the tanks are still at the border?

The pattern is familiar from the Oslo years: a Palestinian concession enters the diplomatic record, Israel rejects the arrangement as insufficient, and the next negotiation begins from the concession rather than from the position that preceded it. The reward for an unreciprocated concession is usually another demand.

Disarmament therefore goes to the identity and strategic purpose of the movement itself. Restraint can itself be a form of resistance, and Hamas need not return to governing Gaza: relinquishing direct administration might even free the movement from the contradiction between governing a besieged population and functioning as a resistance organisation. Leaving government and abandoning resistance are entirely different propositions.

The greater danger is that a movement exhausted by war and subjected to extraordinary pressure from mediators and international powers could be transformed, incrementally, into merely another Palestinian faction seeking a place in an electoral order whose parameters others have designed.

Fatah’s transformation came about exactly that way. A concession was justified as tactical, another was required to preserve the political process, and another was demanded to demonstrate seriousness, until an organisation established to liberate Palestine became the governing component of an authority operating under occupation.

The movement’s re-engagement with its old rivals in Fatah’s orbit belongs to the same set of concerns. In August, Hamas met officials from the Democratic Reform bloc of the former Gaza security chief Mohammed Dahlan, in contacts a Hamas official confirmed to Al Jazeera, ahead of Palestinian legislative elections scheduled for November.

Weeks earlier, a senior aide had said that Dahlan intervened in the disarmament negotiations through direct contacts with the US president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Political circumstances change, and old adversaries meet. Yet Hamas should ask what purpose these returns are designed to serve, and why the very powers now pressing for its disarmament appear so comfortable with them.

Strategic patience

Defenders of the present course will ask what the alternative is, and the answer is strategic patience: a movement under immense pressure does not have to resolve every question immediately. Hamas can fulfil the limited agreements it has made while declining to negotiate away questions that belong to the Palestinian people as a whole, using the intervening period to reorganise while the environment becomes clearer.

The region has changed since 2023 in ways in which the consequences are still unfolding. A growing number of analysts argue that the confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the US may leave Tehran strategically stronger than many anticipated. Washington and Tel Aviv, meanwhile, have expended enormous military, political and diplomatic capital.

Gaza itself remains under a fragile ceasefire, with the sequencing of Israeli withdrawal and disarmament unresolved. Why should Hamas negotiate as though today’s balance of power were permanent?

There is a time to fight, a time to negotiate and a time simply to hold one’s position

Elections are a legitimate instrument of popular representation, and Palestinian institutions desperately need renewal after years of stagnation and eroded democratic legitimacy. Taking part in them is one thing; allowing them to redefine the movement’s relationship to resistance is another. Hamas needs to state clearly what it now considers its strategic constants, and how armed, popular, political, legal and diplomatic forms of resistance fit within them. Such questions cannot be answered through piecemeal agreements negotiated under pressure.

There is a time to fight, a time to negotiate and a time simply to hold one’s position, which is sometimes nothing more than the refusal to make irreversible concessions under temporary pressure.

Al-Aqsa Flood came at an almost unimaginable human cost to Gaza, and that cost must never be used to delegitimise Palestinian resistance or shift responsibility from those who devastated the Strip. Neither does the magnitude of Palestinian sacrifice exempt Palestinian leaders from strategic accountability: a resistance movement has to protect the political value of the sacrifices made in the name of its cause.

Hamas can leave the government of Gaza, contest elections under the right conditions and negotiate when circumstances require, without allowing tactical concessions made under extraordinary pressure to redefine its principles. Where its own negotiating capacity is inadequate, it should have the confidence to entrust the bargaining to professionals while retaining the authority to set the red lines.

The gravest danger facing Hamas now lies beyond the battlefield. Having survived one of the most destructive wars in modern history, it could gradually concede at the negotiating table what its adversaries failed to attain by force.

What Israel could not extinguish through military might and genocide should not be surrendered through the fine print of an agreement concocted in Washington.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Sami Al-Arian is the Director of the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) at Istanbul Zaim University. Originally from Palestine, he lived in the US for four decades (1975-2015) where he was a tenured academic, prominent speaker and human rights activist before relocating to Turkey. He is the author of several studies and books. He can be contacted at: nolandsman1948@gmail.com.

Haaretz: Israel arms drug dealers to commit new ‘Sabra and Shatila’ in Gaza

August 27, 2026

Criminal gangs have expelled Palestinians and looted homes while serving as an ‘operational arm’ of Israel’s military

Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of an Israeli air strike in Gaza City on 24 August (AFP/Omar Al Qattaa)

MEE staff

Published date: 27 August 2026

There are growing fears that Israel may be creating the conditions for local atrocities in Gaza “reminiscent of the Sabra and Shatila massacre,”  according to a report by the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz.

During the 1982 massacre, Israeli-allied Lebanese Phalangist forces slaughtered up to 3,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians as Israeli troops surrounded the Beirut refugee camps and oversaw the killing.

In a report publish on Wednesday Haaretz warned that the Israeli army is expanding its use of mercenaries, criminal gangs and drug dealers to commit “war crimes” on Israel’s behalf in Gaza.

Based on testimony from Israeli soldiers, UN reports and satellite imagery, the investigation found that increasingly well-armed collaborator militias have expelled Palestinians from their homes and carried out operations across Gaza.

Israel has trained at least five militia groups, and potentially a sixth, operating from heavily fortified bases inside Israeli-occupied areas of the enclave.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

One Israeli soldier described how the state, army and Shin Bet intelligence service send armed and “trained militias to commit war crimes, and I’m the one who has to protect them during their operations so they don’t get hurt”.

The Israeli army has itself committed war crimes across Gaza.

Why the Mecca Agreement is a necessary show of force

Read More »

Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice, while the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At least one militia armed and supported by Israel had links to the Islamic State group. Its leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, was killed by Hamas in December 2025.

Many Palestinians celebrated Abu Shabab’s death, while his own family had renounced him as a traitor for collaborating with Israel.

“But the militia project he came to symbolize continues to evolve and expand – particularly since the October 2025 ceasefire was announced,” Haaretz reported.

Another militia leader, Shawqi Abu Nasira, openly acknowledged his collaboration with Israel in a video posted online.

“I made the decision to liberate the land from Hamas. If people say that makes me a collaborator, then I’m a collaborator.”

The vast majority of Palestinians view collaboration with Israel as treason and betrayal, regardless of their position on Hamas.

‘They entered every structure, looted everything they could get their hands on, came out with piles of stuff – and then burned down the house’

– Unnamed Israeli soldier

Israel has also built infrastructure for the gangs amid Gaza’s widespread destruction. Near a militia base in Shujaiya, Israeli forces levelled a large Palestinian cemetery and replaced it with an extensive training ground.

The relationship between the gangs and the Israeli military has become increasingly intertwined. Fighters roam freely around Israeli army outposts, according to soldiers who spoke to Haaretz.

“The gunmen stage displays of force, film them and upload the footage to their Facebook pages for propaganda and recruitment purposes,” the investigation said.

Israel supplies the gangs with weapons and provides artillery and drone support during their operations.

‘Reminiscent of Sabra and Shatila ‘

The mercenaries also serve another purpose. They attack Palestinians struggling to survive Israel’s genocide, drive families from their homes, loot their belongings and burn their houses.

Israeli ministers have repeatedly called for making life in Gaza unbearable as part of efforts to ethnically cleanse the enclave and replace its Palestinian population with Jewish settlers.

In one account, Israeli soldiers said the mercenaries arrived in pickup trucks before “they just ran and shot at people”.

“They entered every structure, looted everything they could get their hands on, came out with piles of stuff – and then burned down the house,” one unnamed Israeli soldier said.

gaza
Boys fly a kite against the backdrop of smoke rising from the Gath shelter for displaced Palestinians, after an Israeli air strike in Gaza, on 31 January (AFP/Bashar Taleb)

Reports that Israel has used local gangs to outsource parts of its strategy to ethnically cleanse Gaza are not new. Their activities have been documented for more than a year.

The soldiers’ testimony, however, provides further evidence that the mercenaries now function as an “operational arm” of the Israeli army and Shin Bet.

Israel continues to arm criminal gangs while demanding that Hamas disarm and opposing the formation of any independent Palestinian security force in Gaza. The arrangement allows Israel to use the militias against anyone it labels a Hamas member while unleashing them against ordinary Palestinians.

Hamas sources told Haaretz that they would not surrender their “defensive weapons” while the militias remain armed and receive Israeli support, because the groups would seek to target them.

Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.

With “economic D-Day” against Iran, Washington escalates conflict with China

August 26, 2026

Andre Damon@Andre__Damon, 26 Aug 2026

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks to members of the media outside the White House in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026. [AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin]

The Trump administration on Monday launched what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called an “economic D-Day” against Iran—a campaign of secondary sanctions aimed at every country, bank and company that trades with Tehran, above all China, which took roughly nine-tenths of Iran’s oil exports before the US blockade choked them off.

Six months of US and Israeli bombardment, which killed at least 3,468 people in Iran by June 10, has not brought down the government in Tehran, and most shipping still avoids the Strait of Hormuz. The administration is now carrying the war into the world economy, on a course that leads to confrontation with China.

The campaign Bessent announced at a Washington press conference Monday adds shipping, gold, digital assets, aviation and technology to the sectors covered by US secondary sanctions, which already reach Iran’s oil and banks.

Among the nearly 60 companies, people and ships sanctioned Monday are trading and logistics firms in China and Hong Kong and entities in Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Switzerland, Britain, France, Greece, Syria, Ukraine and the Marshall Islands, according to Al Jazeera’s tally of the Treasury list.

“Every country has a defined timeline to shut down activities we have identified,” Bessent said, without naming them. China, India, Turkey, Iraq and the UAE are the most exposed, experts told CNN.

Asked by reporters whether Chinese banks would be hit, Bessent replied that “no one is above the reach of US sanctions” and said to expect “a major announcement of a financial institution being sanctioned by the end of this week.”

President Donald Trump set the campaign in motion with a Truth Social post last Wednesday. “ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences,” he wrote.Available from Mehring BooksThe struggle against imperialism and for workers’ power in IranA pamphlet by Keith Jones

Bessent followed on CNBC on Thursday, calling the campaign “a one-two punch” of blockade and sanctions and saying that Washington was telling other governments, “You’re either with us or against us.” He added, “Keep in mind that the Chinese get 50 percent… of their energy from inside the Gulf.”

Three days before the announcement, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, in a lead editorial printed Saturday, made clear that the central target is China. “After six months of war with Iran, President Trump has a credibility problem,” it wrote. “No President has yet climbed the Iran sanctions ladder with China, moving from the isolated ‘teapot’ refineries that buy Iran’s oil to the Chinese state-owned enterprises that support them. Nor has any President given Dubai an ultimatum to shut down Iran’s illicit financial network and meant it.”

The editorial’s final paragraph warned that “Iran may lash out militarily in response, targeting Gulf energy again, and the US will have to be ready with a firm response.”

The Washington Post’s editorial board wrote Monday evening that delivering Bessent’s “zero-leakage approach… will require picking a big fight with China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil.” The editorial noted that US sanctions so far have fallen on “independent refiners and intermediaries rather than major Chinese banks or state-owned companies.”

The Post continued: “The Trump team cannot help but describe its recalibrated approach in martial terms… But D-Day evokes a military campaign with a clear objective: the enemy’s unconditional surrender. Economic pressure rarely works that way… That’s why containment is not really about regime change. Its immediate goal is to make an already battered Iran weaker so that it’s less capable of threatening its neighbors and developing nuclear weapons.”

This is a testament to the deepening political crisis triggered by the failure of US imperialism to achieve its strategic objectives in its war against Iran.

The war was conceived as a means of seizing the chokepoint of the world’s oil supply and gaining a decisive advantage over China. Instead, the United States confronts a political debacle, and it is China’s position that has been strengthened.

The sanctions campaign is an attempt to recoup by economic force what could not be won by bombing, and it aims that force at Beijing. Washington has paused the bombing since late July but has not renounced it; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Monday that “by no means are we foreclosing using kinetic strikes anywhere in the Strait of Hormuz or around Iran.”

Socialism AI Logo

Socialism AI

by the WSWSSocialismAI.com

Questions about this article? Ask Socialism AI

What exactly are ‘secondary sanctions’ and how have they been used historically as a tool of US economic warfare against other countries?What is the longer history of US oil embargoes and financial blockades—like those against Cuba or Russia—and how effective have they actually been at forcing political change?How does this escalation against China over Iranian oil connect to the broader US “pivot to Asia” strategy that’s been building for years?

Ask more questions at SocialismAI.com

The war the sanctions are meant to salvage began on February 28, when Washington and Tel Aviv started the bombing. A cease-fire in April and a June 17 memorandum with Tehran lifted the blockade and let Iran export oil until Washington broke the arrangement in early July by sending ships through a route in the strait to which Iran had not agreed. When Iran fired on the ships the US struck back, and on July 8 Trump declared the cease-fire over. The blockade was reimposed. On August 17, the day the memorandum expired, Trump said of Oman, with which Iran is negotiating a shipping corridor, “If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the shit out of them.”

To “sever every economic lifeline” of Iran, as Bessent put it, means to sanction the Chinese refineries, shipping companies and banks that buy and move its oil, and behind them the Chinese state. Behind the refineries stands the largest manufacturing economy in the world, whose trade in raw materials and finished goods a “zero-leakage” sanctions regime would have to police.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said at a briefing Tuesday that “China will do everything necessary to firmly safeguard its rights and interests.” Asked by Bloomberg whether China would change course, he said its cooperation with Iran “should not be disrupted.” Beijing, the Financial Times reported Tuesday, has told Washington that any broad extension of the sanctions to Chinese companies will bring retaliation.

Asked on Monday why the sanctions were not being imposed at once, Bessent replied: “Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?”

Bessent’s statements are an admission of the provocative character of US actions. Desperate to shore up its geopolitical position, it is taking a series of increasingly reckless and desperate steps, whose impact is to widen the global scope of the war.

The Financial Times wrote in an editorial Tuesday that the operation “seemed more like a series of warning shots fired from far offshore,” and concluded that it “amounts to another risky gamble on a road that, for both sides, ultimately has to lead back to the negotiating table.”

However, the sequence Washington has followed does not lead to a negotiating table. It leads to a widening global conflagration, centrally targeting Russia and China.