Archives: Articles

By Andre Damon

The US military killed 11 people Monday in strikes on three boats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea in the deadliest single day so far this year of the Trump administration’s killing spree off the Latin American coast.

US Southern Command announced that four men were killed on one boat in the eastern Pacific, four on another in the eastern Pacific, and three on a boat in the Caribbean. It was the first time the military bombed targets on both sides of the Panama Canal in the same day. The military posted a 39-second video showing the three boats being destroyed—one on the move, two sitting motionless in the water. No evidence was provided that the vessels were carrying drugs or that those killed had any connection to drug trafficking.

The strikes are murders under international law. The men on these boats posed no imminent threat to anyone. They were not armed combatants. They were not engaged in hostilities. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Charter, and the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual, killing them is a crime. UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) Article 98 establishes a duty to rescue persons in distress at sea.

The US media treated the strikes as entirely routine. ABC News ran a write-up of approximately 130 words. The Washington Post filed its report under “national security,” not the front page. The killings did not receive even token condemnation from the Democratic Party. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said nothing in response to the strikes.

The strikes bring the total death toll to at least 145 people killed in 42 known strikes since early September 2025. Another 11 survivors of earlier strikes are presumed dead after the military left them to drown. Families of two Trinidadian fishermen killed in an October 14 strike have sued the US government, calling the campaign “lawless killings in cold blood; killings for sport and killings for theatre.”

In October, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk called the strikes “unacceptable,” stating that “none of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others.” In November, former ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo concluded that the strikes “likely constitute crimes against humanity.”

Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who viewed the classified video in December, described the scene: the men were “basically two shirtless people clinging to the bow of a capsized and inoperable boat, drifting in the water—until the missiles come and kill them.” Killing survivors is a direct violation of the Hague Regulations’ prohibition on denying quarter—one of the oldest rules of warfare.

An investigation by the Intercept published Monday revealed that when eight men jumped overboard during a December 30 triple strike, the Coast Guard took 45 hours to dispatch a rescue plane—into nine-foot seas and 40-knot winds where survival was measured in minutes. No survivors were found. “SOUTHCOM doesn’t want these people alive,” a government official told the Intercept.

The strikes take place in the context of a vast US military campaign across the Western Hemisphere. In January, the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, took part in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro amid a massive bombardment of the Venezuelan capital of Caracas.

The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy declares a “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” asserting that the United States will “restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere” and “deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.”

At the Munich Security Conference over the week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered an open defense of imperialist criminality: “We cannot continue to allow those who blatantly and openly threaten our citizens and endanger our global stability to shield themselves behind abstractions of international law.”

He boasted that the old international order “was unable to address the threat to our security from a narcoterrorist dictator in Venezuela.” The positions of the Trump administration that international law is an “abstraction” that the United States is not bound to observe.

The Ford carrier strike group has now been redeployed from the Caribbean to the Middle East, where it will join the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group. Approximately 50,000 US troops are deployed to the region. Reuters reported Friday that the Pentagon is planning “sustained, weeks-long operations” against Iran. Trump told troops at Fort Bragg that regime change in Iran would be “the best thing that could happen.”

The same carrier used to kidnap the president of Venezuela is being redeployed to wage war against a country of 88 million people.

Some Democrats made verbal criticisms of earlier strikes. In November, Tim Kaine said the double-tap “rises to the level of a war crime,” and in December, Himes called it “a violation of the laws of war.” But these criticisms have been completely dropped. War powers resolutions introduced by Kaine were defeated on party-line votes.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke at the Munich Security Conference last weekend and said nothing about the killing campaign or about the preparations for war against Iran. Instead, she accused Trump of insufficient aggression against Russia, called for reviving Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership to confront China and refused to rule out sending American troops to fight China over Taiwan.

Despite the total criminality of the Trump administration’s killing spree in the Caribbean, the Democrats have consistently voted to fund Trump’s war machine. The $901 billion National Defense Authorization Act passed the House 312-112 in December, with 115 Democrats voting yes. In the Senate, it passed 77-20, with the vast majority of Senate Democrats voting in favor.

Trump has called for a $1.5 trillion military budget for fiscal year 2027—the largest in American history. The Democrats have said nothing to oppose it. They supplied the votes to pass the spending bill that funds the ongoing killing spree in the Caribbean and every warship now sailing toward Iran.

18 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Occupied Palestine (QNN)- More than 100 prominent figures from the entertainment industry have signed an open letter backing the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, who is facing calls from European states to step down over her opposition to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

At last week’s Al Jazeera Forum, Albanese said “we as humanity have a common enemy”.

However, a fake video that was later debunked had her accusing Israel of being the “common enemy”.

She later explained in a social media post that she was referencing “the system that has enabled the genocide in Palestine” as the “common enemy”. She denounced this as a “manipulation” and “completely false”.

[https://twitter.com/FranceskAlbs/status/2020983308818186721]

Albanese is one of the most outspoken critics of Israel’s more-than-two-year genocide in Gaza which has killed more than 72,000 people.

She has called it the “the shame of our time” and says she always asks prime ministers, presidents and foreign ministers the same question: “How do you sleep? When will you act?”

The Italian-born legal expert, who began her unpaid role in 2022, was targeted with sanctions by the Trump administration in July last year over he anti-genocide position.

France and Germany called for Albanese to step down over her faked remarks last weekend.

A group of French MPs sent a letter to French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot on Tuesday denouncing Albanese’s remarks as “antisemitic”.

Barrot called for her to step down a day later, saying that France “unreservedly condemns the outrageous and reprehensible remarks”.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul on Thursday said her position was “untenable”.

In a letter organized by the Artists for Palestine group, over a 100 cultural figures backed her, including actors Mark Ruffalo and Javier Bardem, Nobel-winning author Annie Ernaux and British musician Annie Lennox.

The signatories “offer our full support to Francesca Albanese, a defender of human rights and therefore also of the Palestinian people’s right to exist,” the letter says.

“There are infinitely more of us, in every corner of the Earth, who want force no longer to be the law. Who know what the word ‘law’ truly means,” it concludes.

Published in French on the website of Artists for Palestine, it also reproduces the full remarks by Albanese who was speaking via videoconference at a forum last Saturday organized by the Al Jazeera TV network.

Other celebrities to offer support for her include actresses Rosa Salazar and Asia Argento, Oscar-nominated film directors Yorgos Lanthimos and Kaouther Ben Hania, Latin music star Residente, and photographer Nan Goldin.

Marta Hurtado, a spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said at a news briefing on Friday that her colleagues are “very worried” about the backlash against Albanese.

“We are concerned that UN officials, independent experts and judicial officials are increasingly subjected to personal attacks, threats and misinformation that distracts from the serious human rights issues,” Hurtado said.

[https://twitter.com/DropSiteNews/status/2022366456747315668]

16 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Occupied West Bank (QNN)- Israel has approved, for the first time since 1967, the registration of land in the occupied West Bank as “state property”, a move that will facilitate the dispossession and displacement of Palestinians, violate international law, and “bury the idea of a Palestinian state.”

The proposal was submitted by the Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, the Justice Minister, Yariv Levin, and Israel Katz, the Defence Minister, and was approved on Sunday.

The measure is expected to formalize Israeli control over extensive areas of Palestinian land, much of which has remained unregistered since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967.

It would allow Israel to legalize the confiscation of unregistered, or so-called abandoned, land by reclassifying it as “state land”.

In 1968, Israeli occupation authorities suspended a Jordanian-led land registration process, effectively preventing Palestinians from formally recording ownership of their property. 

In a joint statement, Katz, Smotrich and Levin described the decision as “an appropriate response to illegal settlement measures being pushed by the Palestinian Authority in Area C in violation of the law and agreements”.

They said the measure “will allow for a transparent and in-depth examination of rights, end legal disputes, and enable the development of infrastructure and the organised marketing of land”.

Katz called the decision an “essential security and governance measure designed to ensure control, enforcement and full freedom of action for the state of Israel in the area”.

“We are continuing the settlement revolution to control all our lands,” Smotrich said

The decision follows the approval last week of a series of measures advanced by Smotrich and Katz aimed at facilitating Israeli ownership of Palestinian land in the West Bank. The sweeping changes expand Israel’s civil control in Areas A and B – where all major Palestinian cities and towns are located – which since the Oslo Accords have officially been under Palestinian Authority (PA) jurisdiction. 

Smotrich said in a statement that the measures “fundamentally change the legal and civic reality” in the West Bank and “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

While Israel has increased the confiscation of Palestinian land through military orders, with the activity reaching record levels in 2025, the new move gives Israel a legal avenue that “systemati[ses] the dispossession of Palestinian land to further Israeli settlement expansion and cement the apartheid regime”, Bimkom, an Israeli human rights organisation that focuses on land and housing rights, said in a statement.

16 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

There are regimes that decay gradually, and there are regimes that accelerate their own demise with theatrical impatience. Pakistan’s ruling establishment chose the latter. In February 2024, it did not merely manipulate an election; it vandalized the very premise of electoral politics — and then expressed irritation that the country noticed.

February 8 was not incompetence. It was intent.

Results stalled with bureaucratic calm. Victories evaporated with procedural straight faces. Symbols disappeared as if democracy were a clerical error requiring correction. What had long been marketed as a “hybrid order” — that antiseptic euphemism for military guardianship over civilian décor — shed its final pretense. The regime did not manage democracy; it mugged it. Mandates were inverted. Representation was treated as an administrative nuisance. The fiction of consent was edited in real time.

Subtle authoritarianism requires confidence. This was something else: a system so insulated from consequence that it mistook audacity for durability. It assumed legitimacy could be restored by notification, that disbelief could be outlawed, that obedience was muscle memory.

But legitimacy is not administrative. It is relational. It depends not merely on the capacity to govern, but on the belief that governance is earned. When that belief collapses, institutions do not merely weaken — they hollow out. Courts become ornamental. Parliaments become decorative. Elections become choreography.

And when institutions empty, society recalibrates.

The nationwide political expression on February 8, 2026 — marking two years since the stolen mandate from Imran Khan’s Movement for Justice (PTI) — was not a routine protest. It was a coordinated shutdown and strike across the country, coupled with massive and strikingly spontaneous rallies in cities, towns, and villages. Markets closed. Roads filled. Crowds gathered without central choreography. It was a referendum conducted without permission.

Authoritarian systems are adept at crushing spectacle — rallies, slogans, charismatic leaders. But here, spectacle and silence fused. The country withdrew normalcy through shutdown, and then reasserted its presence through sheer numbers. How does one repress absence? How does one criminalize a closed shop? And how does one disperse a crowd that appears everywhere at once?

Withdrawal is rebellion refined. Mass presence is rebellion amplified.

The regime responded with pageantry. Festivals amplified. Cameras redirected. Stability simulated. Governance became stagecraft — color substituting for credibility. The state glittered while trust corroded. It was administration as performance art: if the optics sparkle, the crisis must be imagined.

But spectacle cannot substitute for substance indefinitely. Nor can coercion substitute for belief.

Imran Khan’s imprisonment exemplifies the regime’s deeper anxiety. His incarceration is less punishment than prevention. The establishment fears not merely the man but the contradiction he embodies: stripped of office yet central to political gravity; silenced yet omnipresent. Authority without affection governs through force. Legitimacy governs through belief. The state possesses the former and conspicuously lacks the latter.

If he were irrelevant, he would not require suffocation.

Yet the crisis is not reducible to personalities. February 2024 did more than injure one party; it exposed a structural truth long obscured by procedural fog. Pakistan’s military-civilian façade is not a constitutional balance but a patronage cartel sustained by coercion and insulated from accountability. The theft of the mandate was not an aberration. It was a clarification.

And clarity is corrosive.

For decades, the establishment relied on calibrated ambiguity. Elections could be nudged discreetly and absorbed into public cynicism. Militants could be categorized as “good” or “bad” depending on utility. Provinces could be securitized rather than politically included. Foreign hands could be blamed for domestic rot. The architecture functioned because it was plausibly deniable.

That plausibility has evaporated.

Pakistan is not merely confronting political illegitimacy; it is confronting the cumulative consequences of a state that treated militancy as leverage, governance as inconvenience, and accountability as foreign interference. The blowback is not accidental. It is structural.

For years, generals curated instability as strategic depth. Proxy warfare was rationalized as necessity. Extremists were parsed, repurposed, differentiated — assets when useful, threats when unruly. The underlying assumption was breathtaking in its arrogance: that violence could be domesticated, that chaos could be administered, that instability could be weaponized without becoming permanent.

That assumption has collapsed.

When bombs detonate in Balochistan or suicide attacks strike urban centers, the script assembles with suspicious speed. Foreign funding. Cross-border infiltration. Invisible conspiracies. The narrative arrives before the debris cools. Responsibility is projected outward with theatrical confidence. Introspection remains forbidden.

Yet the insecurity is overwhelmingly self-authored.

Balochistan is treated less as a political community than as a security theater: enforced disappearances, extractive economics, militarized governance. The unrest is then labeled foreign-backed, as if alienation were imported. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the former tribal regions, operations cycle through landscapes, displacing communities and deepening distrust. Resentment accumulates. It becomes recruitment capital.

Groups like the TTP or ISIS-K are vicious. But to present their resurgence primarily as foreign orchestration is analytical fraud. Militancy thrives where governance is corrupt, justice politicized, and political expression criminalized. Pakistan’s rulers have meticulously cultivated those conditions.

February 2024 sharpened this contradiction. A regime that must expend enormous coercive energy suppressing its electorate — manipulating results, intimidating dissent, shrinking civic space — diverts institutional capacity from public security toward regime preservation. Intelligence becomes politicized. Citizens become suspects. Trust collapses.

A state that fears its own population cannot protect it.

Meanwhile, Islamabad performs its diplomatic ballet: reassuring Washington of counterterror reliability, promising Beijing strategic permanence, courting Gulf capital with anxious opportunism. This is presented as grand strategy. It is, in fact, insecurity layered atop illegitimacy. External alignments become leverage points rather than assets. Credibility erodes abroad because trust has eroded at home.

The hypocrisy is staggering. The same establishment that once differentiated militants into usable and disposable now lectures the public on unity against extremism. The same architects of calibrated chaos express astonishment that chaos refuses calibration. The same engineers of electoral vandalism scold citizens for economic disruption during shutdowns.

It is not irony. It is projection.

Repression intensifies accordingly: pre-emptive detentions, media intimidation, administrative harassment. Peaceful dissent is securitized more aggressively than insurgent violence. The regime has inverted its priorities: criticism is treated as more dangerous than extremism. In hollowing elections and criminalizing politics, it narrows the channels through which grievances can be expressed nonviolently — and then performs bewilderment when instability metastasizes.

Violence does not emerge from a vacuum. It emerges from suffocation.

Authoritarian systems appear monolithic until coercion becomes permanent condition rather than episodic tool. Then even internal factions begin to question not morality but sustainability. How long can force substitute for belief? How long can spectacle override memory? How long can foreign villains compensate for domestic failure?

History is merciless toward regimes that mistake control for consent. They overreach. They misread silence as submission. They confuse exhaustion with acquiescence. And then they discover that society has internalized a new grammar — disciplined withdrawal, organized disbelief, visible defiance.

The events of February 8, 2026 confirmed that disbelief has matured.

The regime may command the barracks. It may command the courts. It may command the broadcast towers and the ballot boxes.

But it no longer commands belief.

And once belief is gone, power does not merely weaken — it decays.

Because fear can enforce obedience for a season.

But it cannot manufacture legitimacy.

And a state that rules without legitimacy does not stand on authority.

It stands on borrowed time.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.

12 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Geneva – The death and disappearance of dozens of migrants and asylum seekers after their boat capsized off the Libyan coast is deeply concerning. This recurring tragedy highlights the significant suffering faced by those fleeing persecution, conflict, and poverty due to border restrictions and the lack of safe pathways for asylum or migration.

This situation occurs as restrictions on civilian rescue operations tighten and humanitarian solidarity is criminalised, putting people at sea at greater risk of drowning without adequate protection.

An inflatable boat carrying around 55 migrants from African countries left the shores of Zawiya, a city in western Libya, on the evening of Thursday, 5 February. The boat travelled for approximately six hours before water started to leak in, causing it to capsize off Zuwara’s coast. During the Libyan search-and-rescue efforts, only two survivors were recovered, while 53 others, including two infants, are still missing and presumed dead, based on initial reports from authorities and local sources.

The frequent shipwrecks along the Mediterranean coast highlight a significant failure in providing adequate protection through current safety and rescue systems. More migrants and asylum seekers are risking their lives on unseaworthy vessels under dangerous conditions, yet little has been done to tackle the root structural issues that largely contribute to these recurring tragedies.

Data from the Missing Migrants Project by the International Organisation for Migration shows that in 2025, the Western, Central, and Eastern Mediterranean migration and asylum routes accounted for 1,873 migrant and asylum seeker deaths and disappearances. Additionally, from the start of 2026 until 5 February, about 524 people have been reported as missing or dead.

These figures indicate an increase in human losses this year, driven by limited official search and rescue efforts, greater restrictions on humanitarian activities at sea, and stricter migration and asylum policies.

This incident is linked to the wider European policies that facilitate militarised migration governance in the Mediterranean and restrict humanitarian work. These policies involve limiting rescue activities by NGOs, criminalising acts of solidarity, and backing coast guards in dangerous transit countries like Libya. This support enables intercepting migrants and forcibly sending them back to detention centres, which often violate basic humanitarian standards and are known for serious documented abuses.

Many shipwreck incidents should not be seen solely as accidents or inevitable events. Instead, they happen within a broader context of risks created by deterrence and prevention policies. These incidents are sometimes worsened by interception and pursuit practices at sea, which can increase the chance of drowning.

In this context, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor recalls an incident on 3 February off the Greek island of Chios, where at least 15 migrants and asylum seekers were killed, 26 others injured, and an unknown number remain missing.

In that incident, the Hellenic Coast Guard reported that the migrants’ boat sailed without lights, ignored warnings from a patrol vessel to stop, and abruptly changed course as the patrol vessel approached, causing a collision and capsizing the migrant boat. However, survivors claimed that their inflatable boat did not change course, that they received no warnings from the Coast Guard, and that they saw the patrol vessel only when it activated its lights shortly before impact.

Euro-Med Monitor suggests there are valid reasons to doubt the Hellenic Coast Guard’s explanation, given its inconsistency with survivors’ testimonies and repeated documented cases of excessive force and violent pushbacks at sea. This underscores the need for an independent, transparent investigation to uncover the facts and determine responsibilities.

The increase in shipwrecks and violent pushbacks in the Mediterranean is connected to recent EU legislative and policy changes. These include expanding the “safe third country” concept and adopting unified lists of countries considered “safe.” Such policies might limit thorough review of protection claims, weaken the principle of individual assessment, and increase the likelihood of asylum seekers being sent to countries lacking adequate protection or without a legitimate link to justify their reception.

These new measures conflict significantly with international legal obligations, especially the principle of non-refoulement and the rights to individual assessment and effective appeals in asylum processes. They exert added pressure on migrants and asylum seekers, increasing their vulnerability to risks such as being pushed onto more dangerous maritime routes and facing higher chances of being sent back to unsafe countries where they risk persecution or violence. Additionally, these measures could be exploited to justify violent pushbacks and forced returns, providing political cover for such actions.

The violent interception of migrants and asylum seekers in the Mediterranean, their forcible return to countries where they risk persecution, and the intentional abandonment of individuals to face drowning in deteriorated boats are clear breaches of international obligations. These include violations of the 1951 Geneva Convention, its 1967 Protocol, and the principle of non-refoulement, a rule binding under customary international law. Moreover, these actions oppose the protections offered by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguard the right to life and prohibit inhumane or degrading treatment.

The abandonment of people in distress at sea violates international maritime law, which mandates immediate aid. It also weakens European systems that ensure the right to fair asylum procedures and require individual, independent case assessments.

The continued militarisation of borders, obstruction of rescue vessels, and criminalisation of humanitarian solidarity with migrants not only constitute serious breaches of international law and refugee protection norms but also entail international legal responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of such policies, including preventable shipwreck incidents.

The European Union should urgently perform a thorough review of recent legislation, especially laws concerning the “safe third country” concept and the classification of ‘safe’ countries of origin. It is crucial to establish legitimate and secure legal pathways as viable alternatives to prevent asylum seekers from risking deadly sea journeys and to ensure that states adhere to the principle of non-refoulement.

Furthermore, Mediterranean countries need to stop militarising borders and avoid consistently blocking rescue ships run by non-governmental organisations. Euro-Med Monitor emphasises that maritime authorities, particularly in Greece and Libya, must comply with international maritime law. This law clearly requires them to offer immediate aid and carry out efficient search and rescue efforts, rather than resorting to violent pushbacks and chasing tactics that cause fatal shipwrecks.

All concerned states should initiate official and effective search and rescue operations to help migrants and asylum seekers confronting ongoing dangers in the Mediterranean. They should also establish safe and legal routes for submitting asylum applications. These actions would help prevent individuals from risking their lives on unseaworthy boats and reinforce their rights to protection under international law.

European governments must immediately stop funding and supporting coast guards in transit countries like Libya, where detention centres fail to meet basic humanitarian standards and are sites of serious, documented violations. Euro-Med Monitor stresses that ongoing support could make European states legally complicit in practices such as forced returns and torture, which migrants endure after interception and forced repatriation to unsafe countries.

An independent, transparent international investigation must be launched into shipwrecks involving migrants and asylum seekers, violent pushback, and interception operations in the Mediterranean. Euro-Med Monitor calls for identifying those responsible, including states that execute or fund forcible interception, to ensure accountability for violations and safeguard the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is a Geneva-based independent organization with regional offices across the MENA region and Europe

12 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Medea Benjamin

Marta Jiménez, a hairdresser in Cuba’s eastern city of Holguín, covered her face with her hands and broke down crying when I asked her about Trump’s blockade of the island—especially now that the U.S. is choking off oil shipments.

“You can’t imagine how it touches every part of our lives,” she sobbed. “It’s a vicious, all-encompassing spiral downward. With no gasoline, buses don’t run, so we can’t get to work. We have electricity only three to six hours a day. There’s no gas for cooking, so we’re burning wood and charcoal in our apartments. It’s like going back 100 years. The blockade is suffocating us—especially single mothers,” she said crying into her hands “and no one is stopping these demons: Trump and Marco Rubio.”

We came to Holguín to deliver 2,500 pounds of lentils, thanks to fundraising by CODEPINK and the Cuban-American group Puentes de Amor. On our last trip, we brought 50-pound bags of powdered milk to the children’s hospital. With Trump now imposing a brutal, medieval siege on the island, this humanitarian aid is more critical than ever. But lentils and milk cannot power a country. What Cubans really need is oil.

There were no taxis at the airport. We hitchhiked into town on the truck that came to pick up the donations. The road was eerily empty. In the city, there were few gas-powered cars and no buses running, but the streets were full of bicycles, electric motorcycles, and three-wheeled electric vehicles used to transport people and goods. Most of the motorcycles—Chinese, Japanese, or Korean—are shipped in from Panama. With a price tag near $2,000, only those with family abroad sending remittances can afford them.

Thirty-five-year-old Javier Silva gazed longingly at a Yamaha parked on the street. “I could never buy one of those on my salary of 4,000 pesos a month,” he said. With inflation soaring, the dollar now fetches about 480 pesos, making his monthly income worth less than ten dollars.

Cubans don’t pay rent or have mortgages; they own their homes. And while healthcare has deteriorated badly in recent years because of shortages of medicines and equipment, it remains free–a system gasping but not abandoned. When my partner Tighe had an asthma attack, we went to the clinic and within minutes, he was breathing in albuterol mist from a nebulizer. No insurance forms. No bill. Just care — delivered with competence and a smile. That’s what health care looks like when it’s treated as a human right.

The biggest expense for Cubans is food. Markets are stocked, but prices are out of reach—especially for coveted items like pork, chicken, and milk. Even tomatoes are now unaffordable for many families.

Holguín was once known as the breadbasket of Cuba because of its rich agricultural land. That reputation took a severe hit this year when Hurricane Melissa tore through the province, destroying vast areas of crops. Replanting and repairing the damage without gasoline for tractors or electricity for irrigation is nearly impossible. Less food means higher prices.

Production across the economy is grinding to a halt. Factories can’t function without electricity, and many skilled workers have given up their state jobs because wages are so low. Jorge, whom I met selling bologna in the market, used to be an engineer at a state enterprise. Verónica, once a teacher, now sells sweets she bakes at home—when the power is on. Ironically, while Marco Rubio claims he wants to bring capitalism to Cuba, U.S. sanctions are crushing the very private sector that most Cubans now depend on to survive.

I talked to people on the street who blame the Cuban government for the crisis and openly say they can’t wait for the fall of communism. Young people told me that their goal is to leave the island and live somewhere they can make a decent living. But I didn’t meet a single person who supported the blockade or a U.S. invasion.

“This government is terrible,” said a thin man who changes money on the street—an illegal but tolerated activity. But when I showed him a photo of Marco Rubio, he didn’t hesitate. “That man is the devil. A self-serving, slimy politician who doesn’t give a damn about the Cuban people.”

Others put the blame squarely on the United States. They point to the dramatic improvement in their lives after Presidents Obama and Raúl Castro reached an agreement and Washington eased many sanctions in 2014–2016. “It was the same Cuban government we have now,” one man told me. “But when the U.S. loosened the rope around our necks, we could breathe. If they just left us alone, we could find our own solutions.”

The only way Cubans are surviving this siege is because they help one another. They trade rice for coffee with neighbors. They improvise—no hay, pero se resuelve (we don’t have much, but we make it work). The government provides daily meals for the most vulnerable—the elderly, the disabled, mothers with no income—but each day it becomes harder as the state has less food to distribute and less fuel to cook with.

At one feeding center, an elderly volunteer told us he spends hours every day scavenging for firewood. He proudly showed us a chunk of a wooden pallet, nails and all. “This guarantees tomorrow’s meal,” he said—his face caught between pride and sorrow.

So how long can Cubans hold on as conditions worsen? And what is the endgame?

When I asked people where this is leading, they had no idea. Rubio wants regime change, but no one can explain how that would happen or who would replace the current government. Some speculate a deal could be struck with Trump. “Make Trump the minister of tourism,” a hotel clerk joked, only half joking. “Give him a hotel and a golf course—a Mar-a-Lago in Varadero—and maybe he’d leave us alone.”

Who will win this demonic game Trump and Rubio are playing with the lives of eleven million Cubans?

Ernesto, who fixes refrigerators when the power is on, places his bet on the Cuban people. “We’re rebels,” he told me. “We defeated Batista in 1959. We survived the Bay of Pigs. We endured the Special Period when the Soviet Union collapsed and we were left with nothing. We’ll survive this too.”

He summed it up with a line Cubans know by heart, from the great songwriter Silvio Rodríguez: El tiempo está a favor de los pequenos, de los desnudos, de los olvidados—time belongs to the small, the exposed, the forgotten.

In the long sweep of time, endurance outlasts domination.

Medea Benjamin is co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace.

12 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ranjan Solomon

Almost each of Trump’s forays into ruthless foreign policy demonstrates how catastrophic his choices can be.

The “Board of Peace,” announced with fanfare, was truncated even before its first meeting. When Trump launched the initiative, ostensibly to oversee Gaza’s post-war reconstruction and potentially address other global conflicts, it immediately faced scepticism. While over 20 countries were initially reported as signatories—including several Middle Eastern nations (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, UAE)—many traditional U.S. allies in Europe showed caution, with some declining to join.

Its leadership was thin in both content and capacity. It would require extraordinary imprudence to entrust a team consisting of Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair with founding responsibilities. An objective selection process would likely have found them politically patronised and lacking the necessary skills to oversee reconstruction of devastation on such an unprecedented scale. Worse still, they were themselves implicated in policy-making and influence connected to the very catastrophe they now propose to remedy.

Each brought political or business ambitions of their own. Kushner was widely seen as the “Riviera” architect. Witkoff and Rubio were positioned for political manoeuvring. Blair’s name remains linked to corruption allegations and the Iraq War. Self-interest hovered over the initiative.

Trump formally ratified the Board of Peace as an international organization on February 8, 2026, appointing himself chair with veto powers. It was scheduled to meet at the “Donald J. Trump U.S. Institute of Peace” in Washington on February 19, 2026. Yet the challenges it faces may render it self-extinguishing. It has no clear mandate and encroaches upon responsibilities traditionally assigned to the United Nations. The proposed headquarters is itself embroiled in a legal battle after the administration reportedly seized the facility and dismissed staff.

Critics, including Human Rights Watch, have questioned the structure of the board, with some describing it as a “pay-to-play” initiative in which permanent members are expected to contribute $1 billion.

The initiative has already faced setbacks in attempts to solidify a ceasefire. Some analysts remain unconvinced that it poses a long-term threat to the UN framework, suggesting it may merely offer participating nations a foothold in Gaza-related discussions.

Critics describe the Board of Peace as a top-down, foreign-led initiative that lacks Palestinian representation at its highest decision-making levels, raising serious concerns about legitimacy and effectiveness. The board, proposed by Donald Trump to manage Gaza’s post-conflict reconstruction and security, is seen by many as prioritizing foreign interests—particularly Israeli security objectives—over immediate Palestinian needs. Its development vision, centred on rapid economic transformation and high-rise construction, appears detached from political realities.

The board’s upper tier is composed entirely of foreigners, with no Palestinians in leadership roles. Critics argue this resembles colonial or neocolonial governance. Stability, as defined by the board, appears focused on territorial control rather than urgent humanitarian relief or genuine self-determination for Palestinians. It remains a foreign-led and non-representative body.

Although not in “ICU” in a literal sense, the Board of Peace faces profound international scepticism, along with structural and legal challenges from its inception. Critics characterize it as a “control architecture” prioritizing economic redevelopment—potentially facilitating Israeli land control—rather than addressing the core political conflict or urgent humanitarian needs. Although initially linked to a Gaza ceasefire, its charter notably omits any specific mention of Gaza, suggesting a broader global mandate.

Originally conceived as a mechanism for managing Gaza’s post-war reconstruction following the 2025 ceasefire, the board has expanded its scope into a global conflict-resolution body. The formal charter, signed in Davos on January 22, 2026, removed references to Gaza and authorized the body to address stability in regions “affected or threatened by conflict” worldwide. Power is heavily concentrated in the chair, including authority to appoint members. It has been criticized as a potential alternative to the UN framework.

While several Middle Eastern and some Asian nations joined, major European and Asian actors—including France, the UK, and Japan—have remained uncommitted, citing concerns about the board’s ambiguous mandate and its potential to undermine established international law. The Board of Peace has thus evolved from a Gaza-focused entity into a broader voluntary international organization.

Hamas has rejected the U.S.-backed Board of Peace (BoP) and its accompanying International Stabilization Force (ISF), authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in November 2025. Hamas views the plan—aimed at overseeing governance and disarming factions—as an “international guardianship” and a dangerous imposition that would perpetuate conflict. It has condemned the inclusion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the U.S.-led board as a troubling signal.

The ISF is proposed as a UN-mandated multinational force to secure and demilitarize Gaza, replace Hamas security control, train a new Palestinian police force, protect civilians, and oversee humanitarian aid. Its mandate includes dismantling militant infrastructure and securing borders under strategic guidance from the Board of Peace. However, it has struggled to secure firm commitments from contributing nations. Some countries, such as Turkey, have suggested prioritizing separation of Israeli forces from Hamas rather than immediate disarmament.

Hamas rejects disarmament under foreign supervision, arguing that stability requires ending occupation rather than imposing external governance. It contends that replacing Israeli control with an international force merely substitutes one form of dominance for another. Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan stated that no Palestinian would accept a committee headed by Donald Trump with figures such as Tony Blair involved. While Hamas has engaged in limited negotiations on ceasefires and hostage exchanges, it continues to oppose the broader governance and security architecture of the plan.

In response, the Arab League has focused on countering the Board of Peace by advancing an independent Arab-led alternative. Working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), it has promoted a comprehensive reconstruction framework.

Promoting the Arab Reconstruction Plan

• Supporting a Cairo-hosted pledging conference to establish an Arab-led Gaza reconstruction fund.
• Rejecting a “tabula rasa” reconstruction aligned with external control, instead advocating sustainable local recovery initiatives.
• Championing the creation of a Palestinian technocratic committee to manage day-to-day governance in Gaza rather than an externally imposed authority.

Diplomatic Pressure for a Two-State Solution

• Reaffirming the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative based on land-for-peace principles.
• Advocating recognition of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.
• Working toward full UN membership for Palestine.

Condemning and Limiting the Board of Peace

• Characterizing the BoP as an instrument that could entrench long-term foreign security presence.
• Encouraging member states to resist joining or funding it.
• Insisting that any international presence in Gaza operate under UN authority.

Seeking Accountability

The Arab League has also called for punitive measures against Israel, including:

• Suspension of Israel’s UN membership.
• An arms embargo.
• Coordinated diplomatic efforts at the Security Council to lift the blockade and halt operations in Gaza.

The Arab League’s reconstruction plan is presented as an indigenous effort to prevent displacement, halt what it describes as ethnic cleansing, and establish a technocratic Palestinian governance structure capable of restoring stability. Amid immense devastation, proponents argue that only a Palestinian-led vision can ensure sustainable reconstruction, economic revival, and the protection of residents’ rights.

Dr. Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age. After an accumulated period of 58 years working with oppressed and marginalized groups locally, nationally, and internationally, he has now turned a researcher-freelance writer focussed on questions of global and local/national justice. 

12 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Mohd Ziyauallah Khan

Introduction: When Names Alone Shake Power

In recent weeks, a new set of documents has gripped global attention for all the right and disturbing reasons. You guessed it right: the Epstein Files. These revelations have reopened uncomfortable questions about power, privilege, and impunity across the world. While the presence of a name in these files does not automatically establish criminal guilt, the sheer panic, resignations, denials, and silences surrounding them raise a far deeper question, what exactly were these powerful individuals afraid of? Here we will try to explore the various aspects of these files and its connection with Indian politicians. Lets start:

Who Was Jeffrey Epstein—and Why Did He Matter?

Jeffrey Epstein was no ordinary billionaire. A highly connected financier, he owned a private island equipped with palatial facilities, allegedly used to host influential politicians, business leaders, celebrities, and royals. Over the years, Epstein was repeatedly accused of exploiting young women, running what many describe as an international trafficking and blackmail network.

In 2008, Epstein served a controversial 13-month sentence despite grave allegations. In 2019, as fresh charges mounted and federal prosecution loomed, he was arrested again only to be found dead in his prison cell before trial. His death was officially ruled a suicide, but doubts about foul play persist to this day.

What made Epstein uniquely dangerous was not just the alleged crimes but the detailed documentation he maintained about his associations with the world’s elite.

Why the Files Matter Even Without Verdicts

Legally speaking, names in documents do not amount to convictions. But politically and morally, they carry enormous weight. Epstein’s meticulously kept records suggest a system where influence, pleasure, and power converged—often crossing legal and ethical boundaries.

The reason many public figures rushed to issue statements, resign, or distance themselves is simple: blackmail thrives in silence, and exposure threatens the carefully curated legitimacy of power.

From Secrecy to Slow Disclosure

For years, former US President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that Epstein’s files would expose liberals and political rivals. Yet, upon returning to power, the promised disclosures mysteriously stalled. It was only after sustained pressure within the US Congress that a bill was passed in November 2025, mandating the gradual release of these files.

As the documents began entering the public domain, they revealed names not only from the United States but also from the UK, Europe, the Middle East, and India—triggering political earthquakes across continents.

Global Fallout: Resignations, Suspensions, and Silence

In the United Kingdom, the controversy escalated sharply. Peter Mandelson, appointed US Ambassador by Prime Minister Keir Starmer despite known links to Epstein, was suspended after documents alleged financial transactions and sensitive exchanges. The crisis deepened when Morgan McSweeney, Chief of Staff to the UK PM and Mandelson’s recommender, resigned after his name surfaced.

In Norway, scrutiny fell on Crown Princess Mette-Marit, whose name reportedly appears hundreds of times in Epstein-related documents. Senior diplomats Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul also came under investigation after Epstein’s will allegedly earmarked $10 million for them days before his death. Former Norwegian Foreign Minister and current World Economic Forum head Børge Brende was revealed to have had multiple meetings with Epstein, raising serious questions about access to global policy networks.

Across Sweden and France, resignations and investigations followed. Joanna Rubinstein stepped down from her UN role, while French media began probing links involving senior political figures like Jack Lang.

The American Exception: Immunity Without Accountability

Perhaps the most striking contradiction lies in the United States itself. Despite multiple references to Donald Trump in the files including photographs and communication records he continues to wield power with near-total immunity. America’s famed checks and balances appear exhausted.

Others were not as fortunate. Former Harvard President Larry Summers resigned after emails revealed disturbing exchanges with Epstein. Meanwhile, figures such as Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky, Mark Zuckerberg, and Deepak Chopra issued apologies or clarifications often acknowledging contact but denying knowledge of Epstein’s criminal past.

Yet, Epstein had been a convicted sex offender since 2009, making such claims deeply questionable.

The India Connection: Silence as Strategy

India’s response stands out not for outrage, but for complete silence. Names linked to the files include businessman Anil Ambani, Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, author Deepak Chopra, and even references to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Documents suggest Ambani sought Epstein’s help to establish high-level political connections in the US ahead of Modi’s 2017 visit, including outreach to Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon. Emails indicate sustained communication, coordination, and favours—raising troubling questions about informal diplomacy and backdoor lobbying.

More disturbing are references to Epstein advising on Modi’s Israel visit—claims denied by the Indian government as the “ramblings of a convicted criminal.”

Hardeep Puri, Mahua Moitra, and the Political Storm

TMC MP Mahua Moitra brought fresh momentum to the issue by publicly sharing emails allegedly involving Minister Hardeep Singh Puri during his tenure as India’s Ambassador to the US. The dispute escalated when Moitra accused Puri of threats and intimidation—triggering a coordinated online attack against her.

Even BJP veteran Dr. Subramanian Swamy entered the fray, accusing Puri of acting as a conduit for powerful interests. Despite the seriousness of these allegations, the government has chosen inaction over inquiry.

Double Standards and Democratic Decay

The contrast is glaring. Minor dissenters face ED raids, arrests, and vilification, while ministers named in global scandals face no investigation. In Europe, resignations follow revelations. In India, silence prevails.

Opposition leaders argue that files referencing India were quietly redacted after the recent India–US trade deal—raising fears of international pressure and compromised sovereignty.

Conclusion: Power Without Shame

The Epstein Files expose a grim reality: a world where power protects itself, where morality bends before influence, and where accountability is selectively enforced. While courts may yet deliver verdicts, public trust has already been damaged.

In India, the issue may fade from headlines in days but the questions will linger. Who benefits from silence? Who fears transparency? And how much of our democracy is already compromised behind closed doors?

One thing is clear: the Epstein Files are not just about one man—they are about a system that enabled him.

Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer & editor based in Nagpur.

12 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

New York (QNN)- Investigative outlet The Ditch says it gained access to Jeffrey Epstein’s FedEx account, uncovering shipping records that show activity years after his death in 2019. The records also include an address book listing nearly 100 contacts, among them a former senior Israeli military officer now described as a “strategic consultant” on diplomatic matters.

The findings raise fresh questions about who controlled Epstein’s business infrastructure after his reported suicide and why shipments continued under his name.

Last month, the US Department of Justice released millions of files related to Epstein. According to The Ditch, one of the documents contained an unredacted password for Epstein’s FedEx account. The outlet said it used those login details to access the account before the record was deleted.

At the time of publication, the FedEx account remained live and accessible. The account listed Jeffrey E. Epstein as the holder and named his former accountant, Bella Klein, as administrator.

The Department of Justice did not comment on the findings.

Shipping invoices show that the account was used as recently as 2024, nearly five years after Epstein’s death.

On May 20, 2024, a package weighing just under half a kilogram was collected from Gulfstream product support in Savannah, Georgia. It was delivered to Plan D LLC in Kennesaw, Georgia. Plan D is the now-dissolved company Epstein incorporated to own and operate his private jet.

That same jet later drew public attention after Donald Trump used it during the 2024 US presidential election campaign.

In another shipment dated March 12, 2024, a 1.4-kilogram package traveled from the same Gulfstream address in Georgia to Empire Aviation in West Palm Beach, Florida.

The records do not clarify who authorized the shipments.

The FedEx account’s address book included contact details for several of Epstein’s known associates. Among them were Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a prison sentence for child sex trafficking, French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, and zionist billionaire Les Wexner.

The list also included Danny Grossman, a former lieutenant colonel in the Israeli Air Force who now works as a strategic consultant. Grossman previously served in the US Air Force before moving to Israel in 1979 and joining its air force.

Grossman describes himself as a diplomatic and strategic adviser. He has claimed that his reports appeared on the front page of The New York Times and has served as a director of the American Jewish Congress. He also lists attorney Alan Dershowitz among his clients.

12 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Rima Najjar

How Israel Processes Theft

My opening collage freezes a moment in the accelerating machinery of Israel’s annexation of the West Bank: a grotesque tableau where bogus religious sanctity, corrupt ministerial clout, and raw military brutality meld into a unified assault. The images, based on photographs published by AP’s Ohad Zwigenberg on January 19, 2026, is a perfect distillation of impunity. They show Israel’s finance minister stepping into a newly “legalized” settlement outpost as a rabbi fastens a mezuzah to its doorway — blessing the eternal plunder — while Israeli soldiers enforce armed control over land overlooking the Palestinian town of Beit Sahour. In this single frame, Israel “regulates” Palestinian dispossession through legal structures that brazenly defy international law, rendering the theft routine and legitimate for its own institutions, its settler vanguard, and its international enablers.

While the world’s attention remains riveted on the devastating humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, a quieter but equally transformative crisis is reaching its culmination in the West Bank. There, Israel is rapidly entrenching a permanent, unequal regime through accelerated de facto annexation, physically transforming the territory at an alarming speed. Recent government decisions in February 2026 formalize this acceleration: repealing decades-old Jordanian laws banning direct land sales to Jews, unsealing land registries for easier seizures, transferring building and enforcement authority (including in Hebron and parts of Areas A and B) from Palestinian bodies to Israeli control — measures the UN Secretary-General has condemned as unlawful and gravely erosive of a two-state path long foreclosed by Israel’s own actions and the facts on the ground. This stark disparity prompts a critical question: Can the international community, which has mustered unprecedented pressure over Gaza, summon comparable force to halt the West Bank’s annexation?

A legal watershed has provided the international community with its most potent tool to date. On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful, affirming the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza as a single territorial unit that must be preserved as one. Critically, it concluded that all states have a duty not to recognize the situation as lawful and to refrain from aiding or assisting it — transforming a protracted political dispute into a concrete, multilateral legal obligation under international law.

This foundation was powerfully reinforced in the ICJ’s subsequent Advisory Opinion of October 22, 2025. Responding to Israel’s obstruction of humanitarian relief — including prolonged aid blockages and restrictions on UNRWA — the Court unanimously reaffirmed that Israel’s obligations as an occupying power increase “commensurate with the degree of its effective control” — a control it found had “increased significantly” since October 2023 through retained authority over borders, airspace, taxation, and intensified military influence. It ruled that Israel must ensure the population is supplied with essentials, facilitate humanitarian relief without impediment, and cooperate fully with UN agencies. Applying a functional “effective control” test, the Opinion concluded that occupation law remains continuously applicable to Gaza, solidifying a crucial legal principle: Israel’s status as the occupying power — and the attendant duties of all other states — persists across the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Thus, the ray of hope is agonizingly narrow. It lies not in new law, but in a newly activated and specific enforcement mechanism for third states. The shift is not in what is forbidden — annexation has always been illegal — but in who is now formally obligated to act against it and what those actions must be. The ICJ has provided a “legal crowbar.”

This crowbar empowers action on three concrete fronts derived from the Court’s opinions and the UN’s follow-up resolutions:

• Legal & Diplomatic Isolation: The 2024 opinion compels states to review and sever dealings that recognize Israeli sovereignty in the occupied territories, including in trade agreements, diplomatic practice, and any measures that fail to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
• Economic & Corporate Pressure: The duty of non-assistance provides grounds for sanctions on settlement entities, mandatory differentiated labelling of settlement goods, and public guidance warning businesses of the legal and reputational risks of involvement in activities that sustain the unlawful situation.
• Accountability & Aid Enforcement: The 2025 opinion gives states a firm legal mandate to demand Israel allow unimpeded humanitarian access, facilitate relief without impediment (including via UN agencies like UNRWA), and hold it accountable for violations — supporting actions at the International Criminal Court and other tribunals.

This tool disrupts the cost-benefit calculus of third states. It empowers domestic parliaments, courts, and civil societies to increase this cost internally, making sustained complicity with annexation increasingly untenable. The question is no longer about the clarity of the law, but about the political will to use the powerful legal lever the world’s highest court has now placed in the international community’s hands.

A Fragmented Counter-Offensive: The Deliberate Incrementalism of Third-State Action

The ICJ’s ruling handed the world a crowbar, but the initial prying attempts have been cautious and fragmented. States are testing the tool’s strength through incremental legal and political challenges, seeking to signal compliance with international law while avoiding a full-scale diplomatic rupture with Israel and its primary protector, the United States.

• In Australia (February 2026), civil society coalitions — including Amnesty International Australia, the Jewish Council of Australia, and others — along with legislators, used ICJ language to challenge the government during President Herzog’s visit. They filed legal petitions and complaints framing standard diplomatic protocol as potential complicity in the unlawful occupation, forcing Foreign Minister Penny Wong into televised and public justifications that exposed the government’s legal vulnerability amid widespread protests.
• Within the European Union, sanctions under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime have expanded beyond violent settlers to entities supporting settlement infrastructure. More significantly, the proposed suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement — advanced by the European Commission in September 2025 — threatens preferential tariffs on billions of euros in trade, marking a qualitative escalation that remains under Council consideration.
• In national courts, lawsuits targeting corporations — like ongoing multi-jurisdictional actions against travel platforms Airbnb and Booking.com in France, the UK, Ireland, and elsewhere — seek to establish a critical legal precedent: that commercial activity in settlements constitutes actionable “aid or assistance,” opening a new front of corporate liability post-ICJ opinions.
• Through unilateral state measures, initiatives like Ireland’s progressing Occupied Territories Bill (revised 2025 to ban goods imports from settlements) and Norway’s sovereign investment exclusions (via its pension fund’s ethics-driven divestments) legally recast political support for a two-state solution into a mandatory duty to sever economic ties with settlement enterprises.

The Mechanism of Political Delay

Yet, this nascent pressure model is chaneled by powerful states through a cautious, strategically narrow and slow calculus. They direct the “non-assistance to Israel” duty into lawsuits against individual corporations and condemnations of specific crises — actions that manage reputational risk for states without threatening the underlying structure of the occupation or challenging the geopolitical shield that protects it. The unmet September 2025 deadline of the UN General Assembly’s resolution (ES-10/24), which endorsed the ICJ opinion and demanded Israel’s withdrawal from the unlawful presence, is the definitive emblem of this gap: a consensus on legal principle exists, but the collective political will to activate its most consequential enforcement mechanisms does not.

The most significant brake is the explicit political shield provided by the United States. As Israel’s primary military and political ally, the U.S. has rejected both the ICJ’s July 2024 opinion and its October 2025 Advisory Opinion as “not binding” and politicized — dismissing the latter as “baseless” and unfairly targeting Israel while defending restrictions on UNRWA. Washington has vowed to continue its policy of unconditional support of Israel, including the steady flow of $3.8 billion in annual military aid.

The US position neutralizes the most powerful tools of international law — such as a UN Security Council-mandated arms embargo or coordinated state-level sanctions — by making them politically unfeasible for other allies unwilling to contravene the provider of aid to them.

The delay, therefore, carries a crushing sense of déjà vu. It is a managed stall — a choice to use the crowbar of the ICJ’s ruling to chip at the edges of the settlement enterprise rather than to lever it from its foundation. The unmet UN deadline is its symbol; the unwavering flow of American military aid is its engine. This gap between legal principle and political enforcement is the space in which annexation advances and where activist efforts, though increasingly potent, are systematically outpaced by the accelerating facts of annexation on the ground.

The Race’s Final Lap

The final phase is a 21st century race between the Hare and the Tortoise. The Hare — Israel’s annexation — sprints with brutal speed, betting that material facts will outpace political will. It’s racing to lock in the plunder before the tortoise can catch up.

The transformation of the West Bank that began decades ago with outposts and land grabs is now turbocharged by the February 8, 2026 security cabinet decisions: repealing Jordanian era bans on direct Jewish land purchases, unsealing land registries for easier seizures, shifting building permits and enforcement powers (including in Hebron and over sensitive sites like the Tomb of the Patriarchs) from Palestinian authorities to Israeli control, and extending administrative reach into Areas A and B. Smotrich and Katz frame these as “security” and “Zionist interest,” but the hare’s sprint is about securing the occupation itself — deepening roots, burying Palestinian statehood, and rendering reversal impossible through irreversible facts on the ground. These are steps the UN Secretary-General has condemned as unlawful and gravely erosive of a two-state path that Israel has spent decades rendering impossible — and that the latest measures now bury for good.

The Tortoise — the pro Palestine international community — now moves with the ICJ’s “legal crowbar” in hand: a tool for slow, steady, cumulative pressure derived from the 2024 and 2025 opinions, obligating states to non-recognition, non-assistance, and active disruption of the settlement enterprise. These rulings expose the real dynamics of the struggle: Israeli annexation has long structured the West Bank, and the current acceleration simply sharpens its administrative edge; political hesitation by powerful states sustains the system they claim to oppose; and the legal burden now rests squarely on governments that present themselves as guardians of international law. The race unfolding is shaped by this tension — between a project racing toward permanence and a global legal framework that requires states to act before the window for meaningful enforcement closes.

The crowbar exists. The test is whether the Tortoise will use it with the relentless, strategic patience the moment demands — before the Hare’s self-justifying “security” dash reaches the finish line.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa.

11 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org