SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
international law
Israel Has Demolished Majority of Villages in Southern Lebanon—Mostly After the Ceasefire
Defense Minister Israel Katz has bragged that Israel was destroying "not one house at a time," but "the entirety of those villages."
Oct 12, 2026
When Israel and Lebanon reached a ceasefire in April, the Israel Defense Forces' systematic destruction of villages in southern Lebanon was supposed to halt. Instead, it was just getting started.
Israeli forces have largely leveled 48 of the roughly 60 villages and towns in occupied southern Lebanon, a New York Times investigation published Monday revealed, fueling fears that Israel intends to permanently prevent displaced residents from returning.
Rather than collateral damage from military attacks, the razing of Lebanese villages since April has largely been carried out through controlled demolitions by Israeli forces.
Nearly all the villages destroyed have been majority Shia—the sect from which Hezbollah draws much of its support—while those containing Christian, Druze, and Sunni Muslims have largely been spared.
In July, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz acknowledged that Israel had destroyed at least 24 historic Lebanese villages, describing it as punishment for their residents.
“Twenty-four Lebanese villages that were hundreds of years old—with Shiite residents who acted as enemies [of Israel] on behalf of Hezbollah and threatened our borders and our residents—we destroyed all of the buildings.”
“Not one house at a time," he emphasized. "The entirety of those villages—their demolition has been completed.”
Since March, Israel's military campaign has displaced at least 1.1 million Lebanese civilians, while its forces have entrenched themselves in an occupied swath of southern Lebanon extending as far as eight miles from the border.
Roughly 270,000 people remain barred from returning home. Many have no homes to return to. In many villages, homes, roads, utilities, and public facilities no longer function.
The Times found that Israeli forces have also burned about 16,500 acres of land—roughly 11% of the total occupied area—since the April ceasefire, including farmland and olive groves. Meanwhile, thousands of trees have been bulldozed.
As this life-sustaining infrastructure has come down, Israel has erected what appear to be the fixtures of a long-term military occupation: satellite imagery shows at least three new Israeli military outposts have been at least partially built since the ceasefire began, alongside new roads connecting them to Israeli territory.
The US-brokered ceasefire expressly prohibited "offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian, military, and other state targets, in the territory of Lebanon" except in cases where it was necessary to take defensive measures against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.
Israel's military told the Times it received no directive “to carry out widespread damage to structures or to demolish villages" in southern Lebanon. “The IDF operates in the security zone in southern Lebanon with the aim of removing threats posed by the Hezbollah terrorist organization to the residents of Israel and to IDF troops," it added.
Israeli officials have suggested that the occupation of southern Lebanon will continue indefinitely. Katz said last month that Israel "will not withdraw from the security zone" until Hezbollah disarms.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that some of the Christian villages would like to be annexed into Israeli territory. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, renewed his call last month for Israel to extend its borders north to the Litani River, which encompasses most of the Lebanese territory it currently occupies.
Israel has said it has razed entire villages to destroy Hezbollah military infrastructure and prevent fighters from returning to the area near the Israeli border.
Janina Dill, a professor of global security at the University of Oxford, has said using mass destruction to carry out this objective was "manifestly illegal" under international law, which says that destroying civilian property without an imperative military necessity can constitute a war crime.
"It’s deeply implausible that imperative military necessity applies to every house in a particular village," she told the Financial Times in August.
Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, said in July that Israel was engaging in the "wholesale destruction" of civilian homes, adding that "demolition of this type raises huge flags about compliance with international humanitarian law.”
"In large parts of southern Lebanon, Israel’s ‘everybody-leave’ orders were followed by ‘don’t-come-back’ orders," said Kristine Beckerle, Amnesty International's deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa in June. "Israel’s forced displacement and prevention of return of tens of thousands of civilians from southern Lebanon amounts to unlawful transfer, which is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and thus a war crime."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Lists of Companies Complicit in Its Crimes Grow, Will Israel Finally Pay a Price?
Reports, databases, and sanctions remain insufficient—and risk becoming meaningless—unless they are followed by sustained monitoring and practical action.
Oct 10, 2026
Let’s start with the good news. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has added 61 companies to its database of businesses involved in activities linked to illegal Israeli settlements, expanding the list from 158 to 214 companies.
Why is this good news? Because it further illustrates a degree of seriousness within the international community to move its position on Israel from the realm of language to that of action.
Yet more good news: Five previously listed companies were removed after the office determined that their involvement in the relevant activities had ended.
For the Israeli mindset to change, the consequences of occupation, annexation, and genocide must become unmistakable.
This matters because it suggests that the mechanism can work: Sustained scrutiny can influence corporate behavior, and supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine can carry a price.
Expectedly, the updated list has been welcomed by Palestinian and international human rights organizations, though, rightly so, they insist that such lists are not enough unless followed by direct government action and expanded to other facets of the Israeli military and economy.
But before focusing on what else needs to be done, we must acknowledge the significance of such reports, especially when placed within the larger context of global initiatives aimed at isolating Israel and its extremist leadership.
First, the 2026 update demonstrates continuing institutional commitment by the UN Human Rights Office. The database was not a one-off initiative issued under temporary political pressure. Its continued expansion and revision show that corporate involvement in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise remains subject to international scrutiny.
Second, the addition of 61 companies reflects extensive research and follow-up by the UN, supported by information from Palestinian civil society and human rights organizations. The database is therefore not simply symbolic: It documents the international corporate networks that sustain and profit from Israel’s settlement project.
Third, the removal of five companies suggests that the mechanism can produce results. Its impact remains far below what Palestinians need, but the removals indicate that companies can end relevant activities and subsequently be removed from the database.
The list also provides civil society with credible material for accountability and boycott campaigns. More importantly, it can help move such efforts beyond individual consumer choices toward action by governments, financial institutions, and regulatory bodies.
This is particularly relevant as Western governments begin taking measures of their own.
On September 8, 12 countries—Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—announced their intention either to introduce national restrictions or support European restrictions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Britain went further, banning settlement goods and moving against companies involved in settlement construction.
The significance was difficult to miss. Heavyweights such as Britain, France, and Canada were no longer merely condemning settlement expansion; they were beginning to attach economic consequences to it.
But here lies the challenge: Reports, databases, and sanctions remain insufficient—and risk becoming meaningless—unless they are followed by sustained monitoring and practical action.
What is the worth of sanctions if they are not enforced, expanded, and accompanied by political pressure capable of changing Israeli behavior?
Decisions, lists, and threats are double-edged swords. They can become launchpads for sustained and meaningful political action. Or they can be used to mollify civil society, allowing politicians to buy time and votes while avoiding any fundamental policy change.
However, there is a way to help distinguish between the two.
An independent international monitoring group, composed of and supported by civil society figures with recognized moral authority, could systematically track governments that have committed to sanctions, boycotts, or trade restrictions: What was promised, what was implemented, what loopholes remain, and whether measures are producing tangible consequences.
Monitoring these governments is becoming almost as important as monitoring Israel itself.
The same principle applies to UN reports. Palestinian and international civil society organizations must incorporate their findings into the growing global boycott and accountability movement, while governments must ensure that companies under their jurisdiction are not contributing to illegal settlement activities.
Considering that Israel continues its genocidal assault on Gaza while accelerating settlement expansion and annexation measures in the West Bank, none of these steps can ever be sufficient on their own. They are, however, meaningful steps in the right direction.
Palestinians expect—and deserve—far more than the bare minimum. The situation in the occupied territories is simply too urgent for symbolic politics. Every passing day should bring another measure of accountability: another restriction, another divestment, another sanction, another political or economic consequence.
Israel has operated for decades on the assumption that it is effectively untouchable—that condemnation will remain rhetorical, reports will gather dust, and Western governments will ultimately retreat when meaningful pressure becomes politically costly.
That assumption must end.
For the Israeli mindset to change, the consequences of occupation, annexation, and genocide must become unmistakable. Sanctions cannot merely be announced; they must be enforced. Boycotts cannot remain symbolic; they must carry an economic cost. International law cannot simply be invoked; it must have consequences.
The real measure of these initiatives, therefore, is not how many companies appear on a list or how many governments announce sanctions. The real measure is whether these actions can finally impose a political and economic price on Israel high enough to make occupation, annexation, and genocide unsustainable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Why Would You Need Courage to Speak the Truth?': Navi Pillay, Who Led UN Report on Gaza Genocide, Wins Nobel Peace Prize
"Thank you so much," said the international jurist in a moment of jest. "If you clap a little bit more, I may share this prize with Trump."
Oct 09, 2026
The international reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize, which has suffered in progressive and human rights circles over recent years, may be on the path to improvement after Friday's announcement that this year's award has been given to Navi Pillay, a person of "exceptional courage" who has been at the forefront of accountability efforts for apartheid, prosecuting war crimes, and upholding international law for decades.
In its statement, The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Pillay—who during her career served as a judge on the High Court in South Africa, her native country, and later the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court (ICC)—"has been instrumental in ensuring that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are prosecuted."
Pillay also served for six years as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, from 2008 to 2014, and more recently chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which generated a 2025 report concluding that the Israeli government had committed genocide in Gaza.
"The last thing I did is the report on Gaza naming what is happening there as genocide. One of the main reactions to that report [was] paying tribute to me for my courage.. why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Navi Pillay upon winning the 2026 Nobel peace prize https://t.co/hYPA94eFLe
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) October 9, 2026
"The last thing I did is the report on Gaza naming what is happening there as genocide," Pillay said Friday. "One of the main reactions to that report is paying tribute to me for my 'courage.' And you can imagine our surprise—why would you need courage to speak the truth?"
"Is it true?" asked Pillay when first notified of the award, fittingly while at the Nuremburg Court where Nazi's were tried for their atrocities of last century.
In a moment of levity, surrounded by colleagues applauding her achievement, Pillay said, "Thank you so much. If you clap a little bit more, I may share this prize with [US President Donald] Trump."
Trump, accused of war crimes himself, has notoriously said he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize despite his record of violating international laws, kidnapping or assassinating foreign heads of state, initiating wars of aggression, and carrying out a lawless campaign of lethal attacks in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean which human rights experts have denounced as "murder spree."
Volker Türk, the current UN high commissioner for human rights, said the award going to Pillay represents "a proud moment for the global human rights movement," and that to call it "well-deserved" would be "a understatement."
"At a time when human rights are under attack on so many fronts, including from those who wield enormous power, this award is particularly poignant," Türk continued. "It is an award to all those who, around the world, dedicate their lives to the defense of human rights—at great risk to their security."
Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, called Pillay's selection an "amazing moment" for human rights.
"We are at the Nuremberg Court; I cannot think of a stronger symbol for her Nobel prize," said Callamard. "We are all so thrilled!"
Amazing moment. Navi Pillay has received the Nobel Peace Prize ! https://t.co/HL3r1PJzLOWe are at the Nuremberg Court; I cannot think of a stronger symbol for her Nobel prize. We are all so thrilled! This is her first reactions upon hearing the news: https://t.co/Crbj6XdiyQ
— Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) October 9, 2026
"At a time of existential challenges—including more wars and conflicts than the world has seen in a long time—international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity," the Nobel Committee said in its announcement.
Warning that "the system of international law is under tremendous pressure, and its institutions are under attack," the committee said "a shift towards power politics at the expense of legal frameworks and global respect for law and justice" threatens peace and stability worldwide, a veiled but clear reference to the antagonism the US government under Trump has shown to the ICC, the United Nations, and other legal institutions and frameworks.
"Whenever might overtakes right, it undermines stability, trust and peaceful co-existence," the statement said. And continued:
History has shown that a world operating without the rule of law is unjust, unwise and inhumane. The judges – those who guard the thin red line between order and chaos—are therefore highly deserving of our praise. But today, as these same judges are sanctioned, and their institutions are attacked, we need people of courage, vision and determination—qualities that Navi Pillay demonstrates in her work on the bench.
Pillay, it concluded, "is one of the great defenders of international legal principles in our time. Her distinguished career reminds us of the need to support, fortify and expand the global rule of law. Navi Pillay’s commitment to justice and human dignity is a source of hope and inspiration to all who seek to bring about a more peaceful world."
As Türk put it in his remarks, recognition of Pillay's work and legacy by the Nobel committee is "a reaffirmation that human rights, the rule of law and justice and accountability are fundamental to everything—to peace, security and prosperity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How 'Never Again' Lost Meaning in Gaza
Three years of impunity, of unprosecuted genocide, reveal that the value of human life is being measured on a sliding scale; that it is weighed based on race, geography, and political utility.
Oct 09, 2026
Looking across the devastated landscape of the Gaza Strip, where surviving generations now carry the permanent physical and psychological scars of war, the ultimate indictment of our era is damning: The world watched the horror unfold in real time, possessed all the legal, political, and institutional mechanisms to stop it, and did nothing.
For months, then years, the catastrophe in Gaza tested the fabric of international law, the integrity of global governance, and the moral conscience of humanity. From the halls of the United Nations to the high courts of The Hague, what followed was not information failure, but a shameful surrender of political and moral will.
Rarely does history deliver such swift and scathing hindsight. Three years after October 7, 2023, the real horror of Gaza is that this barbarity was never hidden; it was broadcast live in high definition to a global audience that watched, debated, proceduralized, and allowed it to continue.
There was never any doubt about the genocide, nor a dearth of international laws to end it. Instead, the failure lies entirely with Western institutional gatekeepers who have lacked the courage to act.
Israel’s war on Palestinians continues uninterrupted. Despite having the influence to halt the crisis, major international powers have not intervened, allowing the regime and its colonizers to increase their violence across both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
As time lifts the fog of war, the systemic breakdown of global institutions and governments becomes unmistakably apparent. The world failed to stop the genocide in Gaza not because it lacked awareness or warning. It faltered because the “rules-based” international order (aka Western order) is structurally and morally bankrupt, paralyzed by complicity, cowardice, and double standards.
The war exposed international humanitarian law as a selective tool of the West—applied swiftly to some, but suspended when it inconveniences the powerful. Governments that traditionally postured as champions of human rights have prioritized strategic alignments over universal legal and humanitarian obligations.
During the initial months of the onslaught, as the number killed rose into the tens of thousands and entire neighborhoods were flattened with their residents inside, global diplomats did what they do best: Use bureaucratic delays to stall for time.
While hospitals were besieged and children underwent amputations without anesthesia, on blood-soaked floors, the UN Security Council degenerated into a theater of deadlock. The world’s premier body for collective security rendered global consensus impotent and buckled under superpower threats.
Repeated resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire were either vetoed or watered down into toothless rhetoric. Meanwhile, international courts meticulously deliberated over the legal nuances of genocide while graves multiplied and atrocities continued uninterrupted.
Today, as the International Court of Justice unhurriedly considers its final ruling on South Africa’s 2023 genocide case against Israel, tangible memories of Palestine are being erased; centuries of history, culture, and ancestral lineages are being obliterated. For Palestine, justice delayed is not justice denied; it is genocide completed.
Three years of impunity, of unprosecuted genocide, reveal that the value of human life is being measured on a sliding scale; that it is weighed based on race, geography, and political utility.
In retrospect, these procedural and administrative delays look less like structural gridlock and more like an active cover-up. Every month spent debating the semantics of humanitarian corridors or compliance with international law gave carte blanche to Israel’s military onslaught.
The harshest criticism of the last three years falls on Western powers. Governments that never tire of lecturing the world on human rights, rules-based order, and international jurisprudence performed moral gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable.
We watched as world leaders converged on Israel with blank checks of allegiance, supplying an uninterrupted stream of munitions that reduced universities, schools, hospitals, markets, bookstores, bakeries, places of worship, and apartment blocks to rubble.
While publicly wringing their hands, in private, these same leaders approved the weapon shipments. And, in a cruel theatrical act of humanitarian absolution, they authorized the aerial dropping of meager sacks of flour into the very zones in Gaza they helped leave in ruins.
Failure was not restricted to the halls of power; the entire mainstream media landscape failed alongside it. For months, reporters on the ground in Gaza—those who were not among the hundreds systematically targeted and killed—fought to pierce a wall of severe censorship and dehumanization.
In the West, corporate media tied itself in knots trying to sanitize language in order to obscure Israel’s direct responsibility for the ongoing violence. Outlets downplayed Palestinian deaths by using passive language like "died" to treat mass casualties as collateral damage, all while elevating voices that defended the legitimacy of the war.
The public response, however, revealed a deeper fracture. Millions marched in cities worldwide, launching one of the largest sustained anti-war mobilizations in a generation. Yet, the disconnect between the governed and the governing remained absolute. Western democracies proved entirely immune to the moral demands of their own citizens.
The silence of the last three years has been deafening. There was never any doubt about the genocide, nor a dearth of international laws to end it. Instead, the failure lies entirely with Western institutional gatekeepers who have lacked the courage to act.
Allowing genocide to go unpunished creates a dangerous precedent for global security. If international law and justice are buried in the rubble of Gaza, the global community will ultimately be digging its own grave.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Bombastic UN Diatribe Marked a New Low for US Leadership
In directly challenging an international system that is arguably dead, his diatribe puts front and center the state of American decline on the global stage.
Oct 01, 2026
Hegemonic decline comes in many different forms. From the Roman empire to the Islamic caliphates of old, great powers of the world have repeatedly risen and collapsed under the weight of their excess. While the arc of human history and empire carry diverse experiences and paths, it is near the end of the imperial line that often sees some of humanity’s most volatile moments. Today, the United States represents the end of that line in a rapidly transforming world, with US President Donald Trump’s United Nations General Assembly speech embodying a challenge to the international system and the American decline accompanying and driving it.
To be sure, no one should be surprised by bombastic rhetoric at the UNGA’s annual gatherings. World leaders often use the international forum more as an opportunity to bolster their domestic image at home than for diplomacy and problem solving, as intended. This dynamic is understandable: As the adage goes, “All politics is local.”
Yet it is this exact cliché that makes Trump’s speech different.
The world understands the United States in this context: An empire at the height of its decline, hellbent on aggrandizement in a desperate attempt to grip what remains of its global primacy, even at the expense of the international system.
Approaching the UNGA podium on day one of the plenary session speeches by world leaders from countries like Brazil, Türkiye, and France, Trump understood his political position. The supposed leader of the free world, the American president is in his second and final term in the White House, which has reached a pinnacle moment that will define his legacy.
That moment and legacy are imperiled, if not already ruined. Trump’s sinking domestic approval rating, at its lowest across his two presidential terms, stems from a disastrous domestic and global economy hitting the working class and most vulnerable. His ongoing forever war with Iran and its allies in the Middle East with no end or direction drives those economic problems and the worsening polls.
As such, Trump finds himself underwater politically. His response has been clear: He is as stubborn as ever.
The president launched into a tirade at the UNGA. Opening with a statement that could understandably be confused for a stump speech on a campaign trail or rhetoric meant for the State of the Union, he boasted about his would-be accomplishments at home and abroad. Trump repeated his old lie that he has single-handedly ended multiple wars across the globe. He claimed to have saved the United States, kicking of a “Golden Age of America” while arguing that the country has never been stronger.
Yet it was his rhetoric on multiple American wars in 2026 that should speak. On Venezuela, Trump openly bragged about overthrowing a neighboring country to extract their natural resources—in this case, oil. He gloated about military strikes on alleged cartel boats in the Caribbean Sea, actions amounting to extrajudicial killings. He threatened military action against another neighbor—Cuba—in the near future.
If these boasts reflect a foreign policy disconnected from international law, then Trump’s comments on Iran mark an insult to humanity. In this regard, the American president openly used genocidal language to threaten the country he has taken the United States to war with for the last seven months, openly pondering: “Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly… Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness [f]or generations?”
To use such bombastic rhetoric at the UNGA—the heart of global diplomacy, even for all the UN’s warts—marks a new low for American leadership and foreign policy. In directly challenging an international system that is arguably dead, his diatribe puts front and center the state of American decline on the global stage.
These words represent the mindset of an American president who chose a war of aggression against a sovereign state without authorization from the US Congress, meaning American citizen approval, the UN Security Council, or any real international legal basis. These checks—largely cast aside in recent decades—exist with their own warts specifically because this war represents a strategic and humanitarian disaster, as have the wars of the past that informed the international legal system the world understands today.
Instead of leaning into concepts of diplomacy and humanity, playing a leading role in bringing nations together through diplomacy and in support of the principles of international law, the president of the United States has leaned deeper into imperial and interventionist desires, going so far as to hearken to a pre-World War II system of chaos in which the world operated on a simple rule: “To the winner goes the spoils.” Trump used this cliche when discussing American efforts to steal Venezuelan oil.
Instead of recognizing the pain that war, in no small part waged by US weapons and defended in the UNSC by American diplomats, Trump espoused the importance of it in perpetuity to fight some ill-defined “evil.” Instead of recognizing how the inertia of US foreign policy has become an illness for people at home and abroad alike that many akin to the true “evil,” he crowed on about war and violence as if they constitute abstract concepts and games, not real consequences for people around the globe.
The people of Minab, where American missiles hit a school full of children and teachers, killing over 150 civilians, would dispute the abstractness of American power and the giddy willingness to use it in such brutal fashion. Iranians writ large can and do contest the use of genocidal language against their country and civilization. The American people, tired of war amid major domestic problems at home, do not see strength in their president bragging about his would-be personal accomplishments abroad that reflect more of the same mistakes of the past.
People around the world did not see a man espousing American greatness at the UNGA. They witnessed a leader with immense power brag about his ability to cause unspeakable pain and suffering at will as his popularity at home collapses. This comes as the United States proves itself incapable of seriously using its position as a global power to enact real change for the better abroad. In fact, it uses that position in increasingly malign ways and has done so for years.
The world understands the United States in this context: An empire at the height of its decline, hellbent on aggrandizement in a desperate attempt to grip what remains of its global primacy, even at the expense of the international system.
From Ukraine to Gaza to Iran, the old world is regressing to a time before the international legal system was crafted in a way that proclaimed and systematized a simple term: “Never again.” While states will always act with raw power considerations and national interests in mind, the international system marked a valid and worthwhile attempt to temper humanity’s worst instincts. Trump and other leaders of the world, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, represent those worst instincts, explaining why they work to destroy ideals that ultimately improve the human experience—diplomacy, cooperation, development, and human rights.
The UNGA, despite Trump’s ramblings, can and should remind the world that these values matter, just as pure national interests can still be informed by such principles. Such an approach to foreign policy is not a contradiction as strength and humanism are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they must form the basis of how Washington and other capitals approach the world now and in the future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Battle Over Illegal E1 Settlement in Occupied West Bank Escalates a Month Before Israeli Election
Critics around the world continue to call the proposed settlement "a plan to progress the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."
Sep 27, 2026
Israel's far-right finance minister and other settlers living in the illegally occupied West Bank fumed on Sunday after their country's attorney general pushed a key deadline for the widely condemned E1 project until after the Israeli Knesset election.
Although the International Court of Justice, plus governments and human rights groups around the world, have concluded that all Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory violate international law, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has charged ahead with expansion plans, granting final approval for the building of 3,401 housing units in the E1 area last year.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had celebrated that decision, declaring that the project "buries the idea of a Palestinian state," as it would split the West Bank in two by connecting Jerusalem and the settlement Ma'ale Adumim. While signing a related agreement a year ago, Netanyahu similarly said that "there will be no Palestinian state."
Despite an ongoing legal challenge to the E1 plan from Bedouin Palestinians who live in the area and Israeli peace groups, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing last month issued a tender to build seven residential compounds with 1,234 units, giving contractors until October 19—a week before the October 27 election—to submit bids.
"This is a last-minute maneuver that is part of the scorched-earth policy the government is pursuing at the end of its term to secure long years of conflict and bloodshed for Israel," the Israeli watchdog Peace Now said at the time. "The government is trying to sign contracts with contractors before the elections so that it will be much harder for the next government to cancel the construction."
The office of Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara this week ordered a monthlong postponement of the deadline for bids, "so that it will fall after Election Day, thereby reducing the concern that the tender could be used for prohibited election propaganda."
Smotrich on Sunday accused her of "trying to stop the construction in E1" and "interfering in the election campaign" to help Gadi Eisenkot, the Yashar party leader who could lead a coalition government that ousts Likud's Netanyahu, depending on the results.
The finance minister called on Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, who chairs the Central Elections Committee (CEC), to intervene to "ensure that the attorney general and her people do not turn into active players in the election campaign in an attempt to back up the left, prevent the right from forming a government, and to enable the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger the existence of the state of Israel."
Ma'ale Adumim also challenged the attorney general's move on Sunday, with a petition to the High Court of Justice. Mayor Guy Yifrach said that "if the claim is that continuing the tender is political, I say exactly the opposite: Stopping it now is an intervention with political implications."
"The E1 plan is already facing heavy international pressure, and developers and contractors need certainty," Yifrach added. "Is it not enough that outside Israel they are trying to deter them from the project, now we are adding uncertainty from within our home as well?"
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada jointly announced bans on imports from illegal Israeli settlements, and partnered with nine other nations—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden—for a statement that describes the situation in the West Bank as "rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project."
Then, 19 US Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to sanction people or companies that facilitate the construction for Israeli settlers in the E1 area, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the lead co-sponsors, condemning the project as "a move towards de facto annexation of the West Bank."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), another lead sponsor and longtime supporter of Israel, said on social media Friday that "the Netanyahu campaign to extinguish the possibility of a future Palestinian state by building Israeli settlements in the E1 area of the West Bank must end. I'm leading a new effort to sanction those involved in its development and preserve a future pathway for peace."
In addition to pushing for the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Netanyahu has overseen a genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Despite a ceasefire agreement reached nearly a year ago, Israeli attacks continue, and the official death toll keeps rising, topping 74,000 on Sunday.
The bleak milestone came two days after The New York Times corroborated Haaretz’s recent reporting that in September 2023, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan warned Netanyahu about now-deceased Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's plans "for a major event" targeting Israel. The Israeli leader has denied those reports, and even threatened to sue Haaretz.
However, in a signal that Netanyahu and his allies are worried about the upcoming election, the CEC this week voted to disqualify all Arab-majority political parties from the election, while declining to take similar action against Smotrich's Religious Zionism, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir's Otzma Yehudit, and Zehut, founded by Moshe Feiglin, a former Likud member. The Supreme Court is set to review the disqualifications this week.
Meanwhile, Eisenkot suggested this weekend that the barred parties would not be part of any government he leads. As Haaretz summarized, he said that "all coalition partners would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, uphold the values of the Declaration of Independence, support mandatory military service, and recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization that must be destroyed."
Yoav Segalovich from the United Arab List's Knesset slate responded that anyone seeking to lead the country must "show leadership and not fold in the face of the Likud's scare campaign," adding: "Israel needs deep change and genuine partnership, through courageous leadership. Eisenkot will not have a government without the United Arab List."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why We Need a Carbon War Tax
What if every war came with a bill for the carbon it releases into the atmosphere?
Sep 25, 2026
When a bomb destroys a home, we see the rubble. When a factory burns, we see the smoke. When forests are set on fire, we see the devastation. But one consequence of war is almost impossible to see: the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
And that carbon does not stay where the bombs fall. Once released, greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere and contribute to global warming far beyond the borders of the country at war. A war may begin in one place, but part of its climate cost is carried by the entire planet.
The smoke may clear. The carbon does not simply stay behind.
The Carbon War Tax is not simply about creating another tax. It is about changing the way we understand the price of war.
Yet when we talk about the cost of war, that climate cost is rarely part of the bill.
That gap in accountability led Saravana Kumar Nagarajan and his colleague Sean Xavier to develop the idea of a Carbon War Tax, documented in their 2021 master's thesis at Klaipėda University and the University of Bergen. The question behind it was simple: if industries are increasingly expected to measure and account for their carbon emissions, why should warfare be treated differently?
The Carbon War Tax proposes a new principle: Measure the greenhouse-gas emissions caused by war, assign responsibility, and attach a financial obligation to those emissions.
Military fuel use, weapons production and transportation, fires, destroyed factories and power plants, damaged infrastructure, and burning forests can all create emissions. Scientific models, satellite imagery, and other data could help estimate them. The goal would not be perfect accounting overnight. It would be to make an invisible cost visible.
And then make someone responsible for it.
The money generated through such a system could support carbon capture and storage, environmental restoration, ecosystem recovery, pollution cleanup, and climate-resilient rebuilding in communities affected by war.
That creates a striking possibility: The environmental cost of destruction could help pay for restoration.
The Carbon War Tax is not a proposal to put a price on human suffering. No amount of money can compensate a family for a life lost or a community destroyed. It addresses one specific consequence of war—the carbon and environmental damage that reaches far beyond the battlefield.
Today, we count the cost of weapons. We count military spending. We count destroyed buildings and economic losses. We count refugees and reconstruction.
The Carbon War Tax asks us to add another question: How much carbon did this war release—and who is responsible for paying for it?
That question could also change the economics of war.
No tax will magically end conflict. Wars are driven by power, territory, security, ideology, and politics. But economic consequences influence decisions. If military escalation carried a measurable climate liability, governments would have one more cost to consider before choosing destruction over negotiation.
And there is a deeper question of justice.
Why should a community devastated by war inherit the environmental damage? Why should people who had no role in starting a conflict bear the climate consequences of the emissions it creates? And why should future generations inherit an atmospheric debt they never chose?
The Carbon War Tax is not presented as a finished international policy. It is a starting framework that needs to be tested, challenged, and developed.
Climate-policy researchers could determine how wartime emissions should be measured. Scientists could improve methods for calculating emissions from military operations and conflict-related destruction. Economists could study how a financial mechanism could work without creating unintended consequences. International-law experts could examine questions of responsibility and enforcement. Policymakers, diplomats, and peace organizations could explore how such a system might fit within existing international climate and legal frameworks.
In other words, the idea needs a global research effort to turn a powerful concept into a credible mechanism that could one day be implemented.
That work has not yet been done. And that is precisely why the conversation should begin.
The idea began as an academic question in 2021. It now deserves to move beyond the pages of a thesis and into the hands of the researchers, policymakers, and institutions capable of testing its possibilities.
Because if the world can develop systems to make industries accountable for their carbon, perhaps it can eventually develop a system to make war accountable for its carbon.
Imagine a future in which governments considering military escalation must confront not only the human and financial costs of war, but also the environmental debt it could create.
Imagine that debt helping restore forests, ecosystems, and communities damaged by conflict.
Imagine peace having not only a moral argument, but another economic one.
The Carbon War Tax is not simply about creating another tax.
It is about changing the way we understand the price of war.
War destroys lives. War destroys communities. And war can leave behind a carbon debt carried by the entire planet.
Perhaps it is time that debt became visible.
Perhaps it is time that the world studied how to make it accountable.
And perhaps, if developed into a workable international mechanism, the Carbon War Tax could give peace one more powerful reason to prevail.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With 'Blood-Soaked War Criminal' Set to Land in Mamdani's NYC, Calls Grow to Arrest Netanyahu
The mayor has said New York can’t enforce the ICC warrant against Israel’s prime minister, but one human rights lawyer argued it’s “not the only tool available to the US when it comes to holding Netanyahu accountable.”
Sep 23, 2026
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to land in New York for a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, calls are once again mounting for the accused war criminal to be arrested.
While campaigning last year, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani pledged that if the prime minister ever set foot in his city, he'd find himself in handcuffs, pursuant to an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant, which accused him of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, where Israel's genocidal military assault has killed nearly 74,000 people, including more than 21,000 children.
After becoming mayor, Mamdani backed off the pledge earlier this summer, stating that New York lacked the “independent legal authority” to detain him under the ICC warrant. However, he said Netanyahu should still be "arrested and tried" by the federal government.
In the days leading up to his visit to New York, which is expected to be brief, Netanyahu indicated he planned to address the mayor during his General Assembly speech, falsely accusing him of supporting Hamas and inciting riots against Jewish New Yorkers.
“I'm coming to the UN,” the prime minister said. “I'm going to tell the truth about our heroic soldiers, and I'm going to tell the truth about you."
Mamdani hit back during a CNN interview on Tuesday: "I have been clear about the way that I see the world. And I always owe New Yorkers that honesty. And when it comes to Benjamin Netanyahu, I have described him as I believe him to be: a war criminal and an architect of a horrific genocide of the Palestinian people."
Of the ICC warrant, he reiterated that it was "something that should be honored, because what we want to see... is a faith in our politics, a faith in accountability."
In July, a YouGov poll found that 49% of Americans believed the US government should arrest Netanyahu under the warrant, 27% said it should not, and 23% were unsure.
President Donald Trump stated earlier this summer that Netanyahu “will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form" while visiting the US. His administration's position, as stated in a February 2025 executive order, is that Netanyahu can't be arrested. The ICC, it says, “has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel” because, unlike most other nations, neither is a party to the Rome Statute, which created the court.
Jake Romm, a legal adviser for the Hind Rajab Foundation—a group named after a 5-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces—argued Tuesday in The Nation that even if the ICC warrant can't be enforced on US soil, it "is not the only tool available to the US when it comes to holding Netanyahu accountable."
Romm noted the existence of "two robust federal criminal statutes," the War Crimes Act and the Genocide Statute, which he said incorporate "important international instruments into US law"—the Geneva Convention governing the laws of war and the Genocide Convention, respectively.
He wrote that both of these laws give the US jurisdiction over alleged war criminals “regardless of where the crimes have been committed” when the suspect is physically present in the US, or the crimes were committed against US nationals.
Romm acknowledged that Netanyahu is shielded from arrest during his official UN visit and that sitting heads of government generally enjoy immunity from national courts, but argued that those protections do not eliminate the United States' underlying authority to prosecute him under federal war crimes and genocide laws.
"The United States has the ability to arrest Netanyahu for crimes under US law and to prosecute him in US courts," Romm wrote. "I stress this not because I believe that an administration that has, at every turn, deepened its complicity in Israel’s crimes will suddenly change. I stress the US’s ability and obligation to arrest Netanyahu—and all Israeli perpetrators of the genocides in Palestine and southern Lebanon—in order to make one thing clear: Every day that Netanyahu remains free is a day that the US has allowed him to remain free."
It's not just the United States that has allowed Netanyahu to travel freely despite the warrant. Emma Fourreau, a French member of the European Parliament, accused her nation's government—which is obligated to arrest Netanyahu under the Rome Statute—of having "trample[d] on international law" by giving his aircraft clearance to pass through its airspace en route to New York.
Craig Mokhiber, a former senior UN human rights official who resigned in 2023 while accusing Israel of carrying out a “textbook genocide” in Gaza, said the fact that Netanyahu would be showing up at the UN unencumbered, even while being "universally despised, and blocked from travel to most countries on the planet," was a "stain" on the entire institution.
"He will even be allowed to enter UN premises and to address the [General Assembly], received as a VIP rather than the blood-soaked war criminal that he is," Mokhiber said on social media, describing it as one of many failures of the institution to respond to Israel's actions in Gaza.
He noted that the General Assembly had not stripped Israel of its credentials as it did with apartheid-era South Africa, that the UN Security Council had endorsed the Trump-led "Board of Peace" proposal to govern postwar Gaza, and that Secretary-General António Guterres had declined to use the word "genocide" to describe Israel's conduct, even while other top UN experts had.
"The genocidaires are not just walking among us, they are ruling over us. They are trying to normalize genocide and apartheid," Mokhiber said. "We, in our millions, must act to denormalize these scourges, to hold the perpetrators and accomplices accountable, and to ensure they never have a moment’s peace until justice prevails."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Don't Waste Our Time' With Courts, Says Trump, Bragging of Extrajudicial Murders in Pacific and Caribbean
Critics have described Trump's boat strikes as extrajudicial killings that violate due process. At a meeting during this week's gathering of the UN General Assembly, he seemed to agree.
Sep 23, 2026
Critics have often described President Donald Trump's campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific—which have taken the lives of at least 234 mostly unknown people—as extrajudicial killings that flout the very basics of due process.
On Tuesday, Trump essentially described them that way too, seeming to suggest that killing people outside the law is the whole point.
"For years, administrations just played games, and they'd bring them to a court in Miami or something, and the judge would release them immediately, and they'd go back to selling drugs," Trump said. "But now, we don't waste our time doing it."
He was speaking at a meeting of the Washington-led "Shield of the Americas" coalition, an alliance of leaders and foreign ministers ostensibly dedicated to stamping out drug cartels and other criminal organizations across the Americas.
The boat strike campaign—known first by the Defense Department as “Operation Southern Spear” before it was rebranded last month as Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere—is part of this effort. The administration says the more than 70 vessels it has targeted with lethal strikes since last September were engaged in “narco-trafficking,” and that killing their operators is a justifiable form of self-defense.
The principal illicit cargo on the maritime routes targeted by Southern Spear is cocaine. But the White House rarely provides any evidence publicly to substantiate that the boats it targets are involved with drug trafficking, and members of Congress have complained that even classified briefings lacked hard evidence. Some of those killed in the strikes have later been identified as ordinary fishermen and other civilians with no known ties to the drug trade.
An investigation from the Washington Office on Latin America found in July that the military has relied on extraordinarily broad criteria to launch the strikes against anyone deemed to be "affiliated" with a secret list of designated terrorist groups. They do not require the commanders launching them to know the identities of those aboard a vessel or have any evidence that it is carrying drugs at all.
Even if the boats were engaged in drug trafficking as the administration claims, wrote Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, in a report released earlier this week, there are no “international legal rights to unilaterally use military force” to counter drug cartels or other organized crime groups that have not mounted any “armed attack” against the US.
The strikes, Saul added, were not a “last resort” or “necessary or proportionate” since the US had not tried to use non-lethal means like intercepting or boarding them before resorting to bombings.
Concurring with several other UN experts, he said that the strikes were "contrary to international law, violate the human right to life, and plausibly constitute crimes against humanity," including "murder."
Trump's comments on Tuesday seemed to underscore what Saul and others critical of the boat bombings have emphasized: that rather than using lethal force as a last resort to repel an immediate threat, his administration was simply killing suspects as an alternative to avoid a cumbersome legal process.
Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said in a post on social media that Trump's comments were "worthy of the International Criminal Court."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested the administration’s calls to “dismantle” the ICC are in part out of concern that the court, which prosecutes war crimes and other international criminality, could be used to prosecute members of the Trump administration over the boat strikes.
Trump described the ICC as “anti-American” and “evil" during a speech at the UN General Assembly earlier on Tuesday, in which he also threatened to "annihilate" Iran and celebrated that he was claiming the "spoils" of war from Venezuela.
During that same speech, he also boasted that his administration “has carried out dozens of strikes on cartel drug boats, destroying 97% of the drugs coming into the ocean and sea," a claim that his administration has not provided evidence to substantiate.
An internal analysis by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), reported on in July by the Washington Post, found the opposite, in fact, stating that the strikes “failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States.”
As Trump heralded the boat strike campaign before the eyes of the world on Tuesday, a coalition of more than 70 lawmakers across the Americas called for the US to end what it said were "hundreds of extrajudicial killings of civilians."
The statement was signed by 15 Democratic members of the US Congress, including Reps. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). It was also signed by lawmakers from Puerto Rico as well as 12 other countries across the Americas—Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.
"The identities of nearly all the victims remain publicly unknown, and many families lack effective or safe avenues to obtain information or redress. Coastal and fishing communities face fear and uncertainty as these attacks put lives and livelihoods at risk," the lawmakers wrote.
"The rights to life, due process, and protections against the arbitrary use of force are core principles of democratic rule of law that our countries have committed to uphold," they added. "Allegations of drug trafficking, however serious, do not circumvent or override these protections, nor do they justify lethal force against people who pose no imminent threat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
They Told the World the War Was Over—Gaza Knows Better
A ceasefire cannot mean peace when people are still being killed, buried under rubble, and denied the basic conditions for rebuilding their lives.
Sep 09, 2026
When US President Donald Trump declared in October 2025 that “the war is over,” the statement quickly became part of the international language surrounding Gaza. Headlines shifted. Political leaders began speaking about a post-war phase. The world was encouraged to look forward—to reconstruction, diplomacy, and what might come next.
But from inside Gaza, the distinction between “war” and “peace” has never been so simple. A ceasefire may reduce the intensity of bombardment. It may change the language used by politicians and diplomats. But for Palestinians who remain surrounded by destruction, displacement, deprivation, and the remains of those who were killed, the war does not simply disappear because leaders declare a new phase.
On August 4, Gaza witnessed a devastating reminder of this reality. The remains of 112 Palestinians were buried in a mass funeral in Gaza City, more than two and a half years after they were killed in an Israeli strike on the Sabra neighborhood. The victims included 37 children. Rescue workers spent weeks searching through the ruins for their remains, working with almost no equipment and identifying bodies through fragments, clothing, family testimony, and whatever personal belongings could be recovered.
For the families, the violence did not end when the bombs stopped falling on that neighborhood. It continued in the rubble. And the 112 bodies were not an isolated tragedy. Gaza's Civil Defence has estimated that around 8,000 bodies remain beneath the rubble across the strip. Recovery teams say that removing them will require heavy equipment that is still desperately lacking. Without that equipment, the dead may remain trapped for years.
A ceasefire should be the beginning of ending the violence—not an excuse to redefine its consequences as peace.
This is what it means to tell Palestinians that the war is over. For many people outside Gaza, war is measured by explosions: the number of airstrikes, the intensity of fighting, or the number of military operations reported each day. For those of us living here, war is also measured in what remains after the explosions.
It is measured in the family searching for the body of a missing relative. It is measured in children growing up among destroyed schools. It is measured in homes that no longer exist, universities reduced to ruins, hospitals struggling to function, and displaced families who cannot return to places that once defined their lives. It is measured in the enormous task of removing the dead from beneath the rubble before their families can bury them.
The language of a “post-war” Gaza therefore risks becoming another form of erasure. It suggests that the violence belongs to the past, while the consequences are treated as a humanitarian problem waiting to be solved.
But Gaza cannot simply be rebuilt like a damaged road. A society has been shattered. Families have been separated and destroyed. Communities have disappeared. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost homes. Children have lost years of education. The physical destruction is accompanied by grief that cannot be captured by reconstruction statistics. And yet, international attention has increasingly moved elsewhere.
This is perhaps the most painful part. People around the world demonstrated for Gaza. Students occupied campuses. Human rights organizations documented violations. Workers and trade unions called for solidarity. Millions of ordinary people refused to accept the destruction of an entire population as normal.
But public sympathy does not automatically produce political action. Western governments can express concern while continuing to treat Gaza as a diplomatic file rather than a human emergency. Leaders can call for peace while failing to ensure that Palestinians have the conditions necessary to live with dignity. Statements can be issued, condolences offered, and conferences held—while the consequences of the destruction remain largely the responsibility of Palestinians themselves.
This is why the words “the war is over” matter. Words shape political reality. When a government, president, or media institution describes Gaza as post-war, audiences far from the strip may assume that the emergency has passed. Attention moves elsewhere. Political pressure decreases. The suffering becomes background noise.
But the people of Gaza cannot move on simply because the world has decided to. The 112 people buried in August had already waited nearly three years for a grave. Thousands more remain beneath the rubble. Their families are still waiting. And millions of Palestinians are still trying to understand what “peace” is supposed to mean when they have nowhere safe to return to and so little ability to rebuild what was destroyed.
A ceasefire should be the beginning of ending the violence—not an excuse to redefine its consequences as peace. If the international community truly wants to speak about a post-war Gaza, it must first confront what the war has left behind. That means guaranteeing sustained humanitarian access; enabling the removal and identification of those buried beneath the rubble; supporting the rebuilding of homes, schools, hospitals, and universities; and establishing meaningful accountability for violations of international law.
Most importantly, Palestinians must not be treated merely as recipients of humanitarian assistance. They must be recognized as people with rights, agency, and a future that belongs to them. The world may want to turn the page on Gaza. We cannot. We are still living in the pages that came before.
For those of us here, the war is not an entry in a history book. It is the rubble outside our doors, the empty chair at the family table, the child who cannot return to school, and the grave that took years to become possible. So when the world is told that the war is over, listen to Gaza.
Look beneath the rubble.
Count the graves.
And ask whether peace can truly be declared while thousands of the dead are still waiting to be found.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy