Sunday, September 06, 2026

Twilight’s Last Gleaming

 by Andrew P. Napolitano | Sep 4, 2026

There is a point in the decline of republics when the problem is no longer that government breaks its own laws. Governments will always behave unlawfully. The deeper problem comes when the constitutional machinery designed to prevent those acts stops functioning — when spending becomes detached from arithmetic, presidential power becomes detached from law, and Congress and the courts become detached from the Constitution.

That’s where America is today.

The fiscal warning could hardly be clearer. The government’s debt has now passed $40 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.9 trillion federal deficit for fiscal year 2026, with annual deficits rising to $3.1 trillion by 2036.

Worse, borrowing itself is becoming more expensive. Ten-year Treasury yields recently reached 4.6% and 30-year yields 5.2%, as investors demand greater compensation for lending money to Washington. The July 2026 deficit alone reached $432 billion.

The uniparty government in the past 110 years has produced a vicious circle: It spends more than it collects, borrows the difference, pays interest on the borrowing and borrows still more to pay the interest. Eventually, arithmetic becomes destiny.

But fiscal insolvency is only half the story. What is more frightening is the simultaneous deterioration of constitutional norms.

The president increasingly acts as though his personality is the source of his legal authority.

The United States has gone to war without the congressional authorization that the Constitution was designed to require. And the U.S. has attacked speedboats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, with more than 220 people murdered and no legal basis for killing and dispensing with due process.

In January, the United States military killed 47 persons in Venezuela during its violent kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Whatever one’s opinion of Maduro, the fundamental question remains: By what constitutional authority does an American president decide that a foreign head of state may be violently seized by the United States? None.

This is not a defense of Maduro. It is a defense of the principle that American presidents do not possess a roving commission to decide whom the United States may depose, kidnap or kill.

The distinction matters because constitutional government is supposed to stand between political power and its targets. The president is supposed to enforce the law, not create it. Congress is supposed to write the laws, not ignore them. The courts are supposed to enforce the Constitution, not evade it.

Yet Congress increasingly behaves as though presidential power is someone else’s problem.

Members of Congress complain loudly when the other party occupies the White House and become remarkably accommodating when their own party holds it. The result is an informal bipartisan transfer of power from the legislative to the executive. Every president inherits the precedents accumulated by his predecessor and then adds a few of his own. The next president inherits those precedents and stretches them further.

Eventually, there are no meaningful limits.

The same disease infects the courts. Judicial review remains theoretically formidable, but judicial intervention often comes after the government has already exercised power unconstitutionally. A constitutional right that can be violated first and litigated later is a fragile right. The person who has been silenced, imprisoned, deported, injured or killed cannot be restored to his previous condition merely because a court eventually announces that the government acted unlawfully and awards damages. Nor can a half-built, never-congressionally-authorized, $1 billion ballroom-for-billionaires be feasibly demolished.

The central question should be: What are the government’s legal authorities and what are their limits?

Instead that question has become: What can the president get away with?

A free people should not have to depend upon the temperament of the person occupying the Oval Office. The Constitution was designed precisely because the founders understood that limited government cannot depend upon a few good people. They assumed that presidents would sometimes be venal and unscrupulous, Congress sometimes pliant and cowardly, and judges sometimes wrong. So they constructed competing institutions, with divided authorities and checks and balances, making governing difficult.

That difficulty was intentional.

A government that can spend without limit, wage war without Congress, kill without trial, kidnap without consequence and employ overwhelming force without due process is a government behaving outside the Constitution.

And the financial numbers make the constitutional deterioration even more ominous. A government approaching $40 trillion in debt cannot endlessly promise every constituency that someone else will pay.

This is how great powers decline — not necessarily with a dramatic explosion, but through accumulated exemptions, exceptions and evasions.

The president says the Constitution permits whatever he wants to do because the national security demands it. Congress permits the president to do what he wants because confronting him is politically inconvenient. The courts intervene only after it is too late to undo the damage and strain at a gnat to avoid hard decisions. The Treasury borrows another trillion dollars because balancing the books would be a nightmare.

The public becomes accustomed to extraordinary government power because yesterday’s outrage becomes today’s precedent.

Then, one morning, people wake up and discover that the constitutional republic they inherited exists mostly on paper.

But the night before this realization — at twilight’s last gleaming — the nation that once possessed protections for personal freedoms, opportunities for wealth, and a unique cultural environment sees its former fidelity to the first principles that made those things possible slipping away.

A republic survives only when the passionate among us light brushfires of freedom by insisting that the U.S. stays out of other countries’ business, presidents obey the law, Congresses exercise constitutional powers, courts enforce constitutional limits, war is a last resort, and governments acknowledge that borrowed money is not free money.

The alternative is gradual normalization of unlimited debt, unlimited executive discretion and unlimited rationalizations.

The twilight of our constitutional republic has not arrived because the sun suddenly disappeared. It has arrived because, little by little, nearly everyone became accustomed to the darkness.

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

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution. The most recent isSuicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO – DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Saturday, September 05, 2026

The Freedom Flotilla Sails Again To Break The Blockade

 Scheerpost, September 4, 2026

Share this:

Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

Vessels have begun international port-to-port voyage to Gaza.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) today announced that a new international mission to challenge Israel’s illegal and deadly blockade of Gaza is underway.

The violence and torture that Israel inflicted on hundreds of flotilla volunteers this past spring, including severe beatings, repeated tasering, and sexual assault, has not deterred the FFC, just as Israel’s murder of 10 flotilla activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, in 2010 did not stop the movement. If anything, action is needed now more than ever. While much of the world has moved on from Gaza, believing a supposed “ceasefire” has ended the genocide, Israel continues to kill Palestinians in Gaza at will; use its blockade to restrict and manipulate the entry of the food, medicine, and fuel that a besieged population depends on to survive; and deny Palestinians their fundamental right to freedom.

The new mission involves a port-to-port voyage throughout Europe, bringing together human rights advocates, union activists, elected representatives, journalists, medical professionals, and other supporters of Palestinian freedom. In June and July 2026, FFC vessel, Handala II, sailed around Scandinavia, making stops at ports in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Earlier this month, the vessel, Kate, launched from Bristol, UK and has made port calls in Ireland, Germany, and France. Upcoming stops include ports in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, before the flotilla continues on to Gaza. At every stop, the flotilla will stand with local communities to press their own governments to end their complicity in genocide by blocking weapons and energy shipments that arm Israel’s aggression, ending diplomatic and military cooperation, and imposing real sanctions. The journey will build public support and international pressure ahead of the flotilla’s planned attempt to reach Gaza in October 2026.

“The Freedom Flotilla sails again because our governments continue to fail to uphold their obligations,” said Zohar Chamberlain Regev, FFC Steering Committee member. “At every port, we will carry the demand that Palestinians be free to live with dignity. In October, we intend to carry that demand and the solidarity of people around the world to Gaza’s shores.”
Throughout the port-to-port journey, FFC and its local partners will organize public welcomes, community gatherings, media events, and opportunities for supporters to visit the vessels. Details of port calls and public events will be released as arrangements are confirmed.
Since 2010, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition has brought together civil-society organizations and grassroots campaigns from around the world to challenge the blockade by sea. Its work continues the precedent established by the Free Gaza Movement, whose vessels began sailing to Gaza in 2008.

The FFC calls on governments to:

  • Demand safe, unimpeded passage of the flotilla to Gaza, including by making clear that any attack, seizure, or unlawful detention will have consequences;
  • Demand immediate and unrestricted access to Gaza and an end to Israel’s obstruction of food, water, medicine, and other essential no
  • Defend the freedom of navigation by declaring that any attack, boarding, seizure, diversion, or other use of force against flotilla vessels will trigger immediate diplomatic action;
  • Use diplomatic, economic, legal, and other available measures to end Israel’s unlawful blockade and prevent further violations of Palestinians’ fundamental rights and international humanitarian law; and Commit publicly to holding accountable any state or actor responsible for attacking, unlawfully detaining, or otherwise endangering flotilla participants.

“We know that sailing toward Gaza carries serious risks,” said Edward Digilio, an engineer from Maryland, United States. “But silence and inaction carry a much greater cost for Palestinians and the world. This mission is an expression of shared humanity and a refusal to accept the destruction of an entire people as normal.”

Subscribe

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!

Democrats Attack Trump’s Venezuela Imperialism… From the Right!

Tim Kaine gestures.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) speaks during the Senate Budget Committee hearing titled Should Taxpayer Dollars Go to Companies that Violate Labor Laws?” in Dirksen Building on Thursday, May 5, 2022.

(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

We face an unprecedented fascist and imperialist threat from the Trump administration; mealy-mouthed centrist imperialism just won’t do the trick.

Joseph Bouchard

Sep 04, 2026 Common Dreams

On Friday, the Trump administration announced a “deal” handing the United States 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan crude oil, roughly a fifth of the country’s total reserves (the largest on Earth), on leases running up to 100 years. They would give $200 billion, or just about $3 a barrel (just 3% of market value) to Venezuela. If this was a fair “deal,” following market value, it should be over $6 trillion. That may be the biggest fraud in human history.

Billionaires are already circling like vultures. A Coinbase co-founder is in talks to run his own Venezuelan oil fields, and pro-Israel megadonor Paul Singer is positioned to profit too. The arrangement comes eight months after US special forces stormed and carpet-bombed Caracas and abducted President Nicolás Maduro.

RECOMMENDED…

Oil Tanker anchored in Venezuela

‘Yet Another Trump Grift’: Congress Called to Stop US Takeover of Venezuelan Oil Fields

Anti-War Protest In Madrid

US Progressives to Challenge Trump ‘Donroe Doctrine’ at Pan-American Congress

Marines have openly occupied the streets of Caracas since, doing numerous muscle-flexing helicopter raids across the city. The administration has said Venezuela is “not ready yet” for elections, despite running their own elections for decades—plus, why does the US get to dictate when and if countries can have elections, anyway?

The Pentagon itself reportedly holds a 35% stake in the venture set to extract the oil, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio runs the country as its de facto “viceroy,” according to The New York Times. The whole scheme was backed by neocons like the Vandenberg Coalition and the Florida lobby.

Would the US accept it if China, Russia, Iran, or Mexico kidnapped a US president, bombed American fishermen, seized American oil fields, and installed a puppet government because officials in Beijing or Tehran deemed it “in the national interest”?

I guess they’ve stopped pretending this was ever about democracy or drugs (the original bogus reason). It is now even being sold as the cure-all for a worsening recession and a pre-midterm buy-off, even as the affordability crisis worsens.

President Donald Trump and the neocons’ message seems to be: It’s fine to steal trillions from other countries, kidnap their leaders, kill civilians, and install puppet governments, for profit. We skipped the Cold War and went straight back to old-school imperialism.

As almost always, most of the windfall from this “deal” will go to the super rich. Gas prices keep climbing, but oil majors are hitting record highs on Wall Street. Chevron’s stock sits near an all-time high as it committed $7 billion to the new venture. Canada’s largest oil investor also hit an all-time high in the stock market the day of the news.

You may ask yourself, how have Democrats responded to all this depravity and barbarism? Well, would it shock you if I said most Democratic politicians have attacked Trump from the right, and legitimated his warmongering? Unfortunately, it probably won’t.

My home state’s senator, the ever-boring Tim Kaine (D-Va.), joined by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), filed a war-powers resolution to block what they called an “illegal war” with Venezuela. “Illegal” is the operative word. Their objection is that Congress never voted on this, not that invading, bombing, and looting a sovereign country is morally wrong.

In a Tweet, quoting the right-wing oil-funded Wall Street Journal, Kaine added that Trump had “Invaded Venezuela, Removed the dictator Maduro but… Kept his VP in power While blocking opposition leader and Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado from returning home and delaying all talk of elections,” ending on “So the US could control Venezuelan oil in violation of its constitution!”

He’s basically saying, “We want to coup foreign governments to put in a far-right puppet and take their oil, LEGALLY.” We don’t need Mickey Mouse anti-imperialists.

If Congress had passed a resolution approving all of it, the way it did for the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, would that make it morally acceptable? Of course not. Torture under the Bush administration was legal, as was the US colonization of the Philippines, and even the Transatlantic Slave Trade, for that matter.

But for Democratic leadership, this was never about principle, or backing a truly progressive foreign policy vision; they just care about opposing Trump for its sake, and respecting the oh-so-perfect process. Though legislating morality is the purpose of law, legality and morality are not the same—and in this case, legal approval means nothing.

This is nothing new. Democrats have spent decades backing a hawkish, neoliberal Venezuela policy. During the 2002 coup that briefly ousted democratically elected president Hugo Chávez, then-Sen. Joe Biden dodged the question on television before pivoting, months later, to demand Washington “ratchet this up” against Chávez. By 2006 he was warning of an “axis of oil” led by Venezuela, echoing talking points from neoconservatives like Iraq War architect John Bolton.

Washington-aligned opposition forces also waged the 2002-2003 PDVSA oil lockout meant to strangle Chávez’s government economically. In 2019, when Trump anointed the unelected Juan Guaidó as president, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recognized him, and most congressional Democrats stayed silent or lined up behind her.

Now, with the Pentagon routinely bombing fishing boats off Venezuela’s coast for months, which it says, without evidence, are narco boats, killing hundreds of civilians, Democrats’ loudest objection was, again, that Congress hadn’t authorized it.

They wanted to see “proof” of these being narco boats, rather than focusing on the more important point: Are we okay with just murdering any suspected criminal? This is the kind of logic that leads to right-wing politicians arguing to kill thieves and petty drug peddlers, like in Brazil and the Philippines.

Hillary Clinton, of all people, said more than many elected Democrats would. Now Democrats are lining up behind Delcy’s far-right replacement-in-waiting, María Corina Machado. Even the Central Intelligence Agency thought she was too extreme and alienating to be Maduro’s replacement. Yet, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) met with Machado months before she shamefully won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize (before giving it to Trump). Durbin later co-sponsored a resolution honoring her alongside far-right Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rick Scott (Florida). Most Democrats have been backing her as the next president, calling her a “champion of democracy,” among other ridiculous stolen valor.

Machado, backed by the Bush administration and US intelligence agencies, backed the 2002 coup; relentlessly pushed for and defended the sanctions that starved her own country; wants to privatize PDVSA and hand away her country’s, in her own words, “trillions of dollars of natural resources” to the US on Donald Trump Jr.’s podcast; and has praised autocrats like Daniel Noboa, Javier Milei, and Nayib Bukele.

Machado is “completely aligned,” historian Greg Grandin told Democracy Now!, “with the most militarist and darkest face of US imperialism. She was the main force lobbying for the coup against Maduro, and has supported the boat strikes on fishermen, her own fellow citizens. She has been supported by neocon war criminals like John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Mike Pompeo—does that sound like someone the Democrats should be backing?

There are, still, some exceptions worth naming. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has made the actual moral case, not just the legal one, calling Trump’s approach a return to “the era of gunboat diplomacy where might makes right” and saying plainly, “It’s not just that it’s strategically wrong. It’s morally wrong.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has also warned against letting “control of the world’s most powerful military” rest in one man’s hands, and called out Trump’s imperialism plainly.

Expanding the anti-war coalition, libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has repeatedly co-sponsored bipartisan war-powers resolutions with Democrats Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Joaquin Castro (Texas), arguing, “This is not about drugs; this is about oil and regime change… our troops are not pawns to be risked for the profits of oil companies and investment bankers.” A real transpartisan anti-war bloc is possible, it just needs bold politicians to lead it.

We face an unprecedented fascist and imperialist threat. Washington is using its world-bending power to expand its territory, remove leaders who won’t play ball with US crony and intelligence interests, and turn sovereign countries into de facto American possessions. Venezuela, as even the often-disappointing New York Times has reported, has effectively become a US colony.

Mealy-mouthed centrist imperialism just won’t do the trick. A legal invasion is still an invasion. Pursuing “US interests” doesn’t give any official carte blanche to roam the world like rogue thugs. Would the US accept it if China, Russia, Iran, or Mexico kidnapped a US president, bombed American fishermen, seized American oil fields, and installed a puppet government because officials in Beijing or Tehran deemed it “in the national interest”? They might nuke them within the hour.

All empires end at some point. When it does, no power will grant the US the mercy it denied the countries it pillaged.

Democrats, and American officials generally, should recognize their precarious position in a world increasingly turning toward rivals like China, and finally build that coalition in earnest. Thankfully, there are now constituencies challenging Washington’s neo-imperial consensus, in academia, in think tanks, at the State Department, and even in Congress, that are growing too significant to ignore.

 

Friday, September 04, 2026

UN says Israeli attacks kill 24 Palestinians in Gaza in five days

MEM, September 4, 2026 at 9:12 am

 

A view of a body as several people are killed and others are injured in an Israeli airstrike targeting a group of Palestinians on Al-Thawra Street in Gaza City, Gaza, Palestine, on September 3, 2026. [Ali Jadallah - Anadolu Agency]

A view of a body as several people are killed and others are injured in an Israeli airstrike targeting a group of Palestinians on Al-Thawra Street in Gaza City, Gaza, Palestine, on September 3, 2026. [Ali Jadallah – Anadolu Agency]

The UN said on Thursday that 24 Palestinians, including four children and a woman, were killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza over five days, warning that civilians remain unsafe nearly a year after a ceasefire was announced.

The statement was issued by the UN Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amid continued Israeli violations of a ceasefire that has been in effect since 10 October 2025.

“There is no safe place, nor safe person, in Gaza,” the office said, despite the passage of nearly a year since the ceasefire was announced.

It said “24 Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks between 28 Aug and 1 Sept, including four children and a woman, with 21 of whom were killed in air strikes.”

The office also said that operations carried out by Palestinian armed groups, reportedly backed by Israeli forces, were causing harm to civilians.

Preliminary information indicated that on 1 Sept, the Israeli military carried out a raid in the Al-Katiba area west of Gaza City, accompanied by Palestinian armed groups and under the cover of air strikes. The raid killed a three-year-old girl, a 13-year-old boy and a 31-year-old man, the office said.

The fourth victim was a 49-year-old woman who was killed while Israeli forces were arresting her husband, 51-year-old Muein al-Arbid.

The UN office said al-Arbid holds the rank of colonel in the Internal Security Service of the de facto authorities in Gaza.

 

Trump in talks to declare war on Iran ‘over’ amid mass troop deployment to West Asia: Report

US fuel prices and global energy costs are soaring as a result of the illegal war and Iran’s retaliatory strikes, as polls indicate significant discontent among voters

 

News Desk, The Cradle, SEP 3, 2026

 

(Photo credit: AFP)

US President Donald Trump is having discussions with his senior aides about “whether to declare the Iran war over,” according to sources cited by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on 2 September.

“Trump has said he favors the idea. Trump also tells aides that he believes sticking with economic pressure will eventually force the regime either to dismantle its nuclear program or collapse,” the report states, citing US officials 

“Aides are advising Trump that an escalation of the Iran war beyond recent tit-for-tat strikes could endanger Republican prospects in the November midterm elections,” WSJ added.

Despite this, a massive US military buildup across the region continues. The outlet notes that Washington is maintaining a presence of 50,000 troops in West Asia.

This is “in part” to give Trump “flexibility” on “next steps,” given that “he isn’t taking electoral consequences into account when making decisions on the war.”

“US forces … stand ready to launch larger offensive attacks should Trump choose to escalate the war,” WSJ writes.

The report coincides with major discontent among the US public with the illegal war launched by Washington and Tel Aviv in February.

As part of the widespread global energy consequences of the US-Israeli war, US citizens are now facing surging fuel costs that have reached record levels. 

Long-term US borrowing costs have climbed to a two-decade high as investors pull away from US Treasuries, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz pushing Brent crude above $92 a barrel, driving up fuel prices for US consumers and feeding the inflation fears that weigh most heavily on long-dated debt.

“That energy spike is reinforcing inflation worries in a bond market already nervous about America’s $40 trillion mountain of debt,” CNN wrote this week, adding that “yellow lights are flashing” in the US bond market.

“The bond market stress will make it more expensive for consumers to get a mortgage, for businesses to borrow and for Washington to pay the bills,” the report goes on to say, while noting a “problem for the global economy.”

Polls also indicate opposition to the war among US citizens in general.

A University of Massachusetts (UMass) Amherst national survey revealed on 1 September that Trump’s approval rating has dropped to a record low of 32 percent due to the war on Iran and its economic fallout.

Late on Tuesday, Washington carried out a new and massive escalation, launching a series of strikes on the Islamic Republic, including a strike that killed and wounded dozens at a wedding in the country’s south.

Tehran has responded with heavy missile and drone attacks on US military infrastructure across the region.

The escalation follows the declaration of a US economic war of illegal sanctions against Tehran.

“With these desperate struggles, you will not only fail to escape the depths of the hell you have created for yourselves, but you will soon see that Iran’s new strategy on the battlefield, in diplomacy, and in confronting the economic blockade will shatter your very foundations,” the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, vowed on Wednesday.

US military bases across the region have been heavily damaged since the start of the war. 

Tehran has responded to Trump’s repeated threats of wiping out Iranian energy assets by warning that its forces will destroy all US-linked oil and gas infrastructure across the region. 

Reader pow

Thursday, September 03, 2026

Oslo Accords at 33: Anatomy of an ongoing Palestinian disaster

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)

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