EXCLUSIVE: CIA Assessment Details Israel's Race to Make the U.S.-Israel Alliance Irreversible

The intelligence assessment says Israeli officials are pursuing a long-term strategy to make the alliance harder for future administrations to scale back.

Aída Chávez

Jul 29, 2026

https://capitalandempire.com/p/exclusive-cia-assessment-israel-us-support

Israeli officials know they’re losing the American public. Panicked that America’s political consensus on Israel is collapsing, they’re pursuing a long-term strategy to permanently enmesh Israel within America’s military, intelligence, and defense establishment – in ways future administrations would struggle to unwind – according to a new confidential U.S. intelligence assessment.

Israeli officials believe the political fight over Israel in the United States is becoming harder to win, and that the era of indefinitely securing billions of dollars in annual military aid is coming to an end, according to the assessment, which was described to Capital & Empire by several U.S. officials. Instead of relying on direct U.S. military aid – an increasingly visible and politically contentious form of support – Israel is racing to embed itself more deeply in America's military, intelligence, and national security apparatus in ways designed to outlast future administrations.

The assessment, written primarily by the CIA and circulated this week, describes discussions about expanding intelligence cooperation and the possibility of hosting a permanent U.S. military base on Israeli territory. It also says Israeli officials have been cultivating prominent figures in the American technology sector to build long-term political and financial support for the strategy. The assessment does not identify those individuals by name.

Congress has already begun advancing elements of Israel’s strategy. Last week, the House quietly approved Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act, establishing a permanent U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative within the Pentagon. The House version establishes a Pentagon executive agent charged with coordinating bilateral defense research, development, industrial cooperation, and technology integration.

Six Democrats – Reps. Henry Cuellar, Don Davis, Jared Golden, Vicente Gonzalez, Adam Gray, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez – joined Republicans in voting to pass the defense authorization bill. The measure now heads to the Senate, which is expected to consider its own version of the NDAA before lawmakers from both chambers negotiate a final compromise bill for President Donald Trump’s signature.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who led an effort to strip Section 219 from the $1.15 trillion Pentagon budget, called the provision “a betrayal of our sovereignty.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., similarly described the proposal as “an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”

Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu floated phasing out direct U.S. military aid altogether. Most mainstream news coverage framed the proposed shift as a reflection of Israel’s growing economic and military strength, or self-sufficiency. But according to the assessment, the CIA views the strategy differently. The spy agency believes that Israel is seeking to insulate the U.S.-Israel alliance from America’s changing political landscape by replacing highly visible foreign aid with deeper, longer-lasting forms of military and industrial integration.

From Israel’s perspective, embedding the alliance more deeply within the U.S. national security apparatus would make it far more difficult for future administrations to pressure Israel by slowing or withholding arms transfers.

The strategy goes beyond intelligence sharing and military aid. Israeli officials also want Israeli technology, intelligence capabilities, and jointly developed weapons systems embedded in the U.S. military itself, making American defense increasingly reliant on Israeli systems. The assessment says Israeli officials have discussed positioning Israel in Washington as a uniquely indispensable technological and intelligence partner, pointing to language in the 2026 National Defense Strategy describing Israel as a “model ally” whose relationship with the United States is mutually beneficial.

Since the start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, American public opinion toward Israel has deteriorated sharply. About 60 percent of U.S. adults now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53 percent a year ago, according to an April Pew Research Center survey. Among both Democrats and Republicans under 50, majorities now view both Israel and Netanyahu negatively.

As Gaza has become a defining issue in Democratic politics, the Democratic Socialists of America has surged in membership and electoral success behind campaigns centered on opposition to Israel. A generation ago, public support for Palestine could end a career. Today, a Canary Mission profile may be a stepping stone to Congress. The CIA knows Israel is nervous.

Zelensky's dangerous gambit to merge the Iran and Ukraine Wars

Of course this would also appeal to Israel, prolonging the Middle East war and potentially drawing European governments into the theater, too.

Trita Parsi

Jul 28, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/zelensky-iran-war-trump/

As Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky arrives in Washington, much indicates that he is no longer merely trying to draw greater American support into its war against Russia. Increasingly, it appears to be pursuing something far more consequential: merging the Ukraine war with the U.S.-Iran conflict into a single strategic theater.

The distinction matters. If the two wars become one, Ukraine ceases to be merely a recipient of American military assistance and instead becomes a direct participant in Washington's war with Tehran. By the same token, the United States would no longer simply be Ukraine's principal arms supplier. It would become an active belligerent against Russia through a conflict that stretches from the Black Sea to the Caspian.

For Kyiv, this would represent the strategic breakthrough it has sought since Russia's invasion in 2022.

From the outset of the war, Ukrainian leaders consistently urged NATO to move beyond supplying weapons and intelligence. Zelensky repeatedly appealed for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, warning that anything less amounted to allowing Russia to bomb Ukrainian cities with impunity. He pressed Western governments to provide increasingly sophisticated weapons systems long before they were politically acceptable in Washington. And he argued that victory required the West to abandon what he viewed as self-imposed escalation timidity.

The Biden administration sympathized with Ukraine's predicament but consistently refused to cross several red lines. President Joe Biden rejected sending American ground troops, arguing that direct combat between U.S. and Russian forces risked a wider war between nuclear powers. He repeatedly ruled out establishing a no-fly zone because enforcing one would require U.S. pilots to shoot down Russian aircraft. His administration initially declined to provide F-16 fighter jets, long-range ATACMS missiles, and other advanced systems for fear of uncontrolled escalation, only relaxing some of those restrictions gradually after lengthy internal debate.

Throughout those decisions, Washington's guiding principle remained consistent: help Ukraine defend itself without allowing the United States to become a direct combatant against Russia, while also eschewing diplomacy that could have brought the fighting to an end.

Today, however, the strategic landscape has changed. The Trump administration's war with Iran has produced exactly the dilemma many critics predicted. Washington possesses overwhelming military superiority, yet it has suffered a strategic defeat at the hand of Tehran. Iran has demonstrated an ability to widen the battlefield horizontally, impose costs across multiple theaters, and force the United States to defend allies and assets far from the original front lines. Iran has escalation dominance; Trump has no good military option and he lacks the patience to pursue the diplomatic ones with discipline.

Trump’s vulnerability creates a historic opening for Kyiv. Instead of appearing as a country dependent on American assistance, Ukraine can now present itself as a strategic asset capable of helping Washington turn a military debacle into a splendid victory. Ukrainian drone warfare has evolved faster than almost any military innovation during the past three years. Its experience integrating inexpensive autonomous systems into conventional warfare has few equals.

Just as important, Ukraine could offer something Washington currently lacks: an opportunity to expand the conflict into an entirely new geographic theater. That is, turn Iran’s horizontal escalation against it.

The Caspian Sea represents such a possibility, in the Ukrainian argument. Opening pressure against Iran from the north would complicate Tehran's military planning, force it to redistribute scarce resources, and reduce its ability to dictate where the conflict is fought.

From Kyiv's perspective, offering that capability transforms Ukraine from America's benefactor to its savior.

But a greater strategic prize for Kyiv would be to fuse the two conflicts into one. Such a merger would fundamentally alter the political logic of both wars. American personnel, intelligence assets, logistics, and operational planning would become increasingly intertwined across the two theaters. Russian and Iranian military cooperation would likewise encourage Washington to treat them as components of a single conflict rather than separate crises.

Once that threshold is crossed, the distinction between supporting Ukraine and fighting Russia becomes progressively harder to sustain.

This dynamic would also appeal to Israel. First, it would give the Iran war another lease on life. Second, it would internationalize the conflict further by drawing European governments into the Iran theater through their deep commitments to Ukraine. And third, perhaps most significantly, it would transform the political narrative. Defeating Iran would no longer be presented as a necessity to defend Israel, but rather, to defend Ukraine.

Given the levels of elite and public support Ukraine enjoys — after all, it was the victim of an illegal invasion — such a framing is far more politically digestible than centering the war on Israel, given Israel’s plummeting standing in the West due to its genocide in Gaza and critical role in starting the illegal war with Iran.

None of this means that Ukraine’s gamble will succeed. But Trump may be susceptible to it given his self-inflicted predicament in the Strait of Hormuz. (However, judging by the decision not to hold a press conference today, this may mean Zelensky’s meeting with Trump earlier at the White House was less than successful.)

Though Biden’s Ukraine policy deserves much criticism, he is resisting this type of escalation because the risk of direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could lead to a much larger and more catastrophic war. Those concerns have not disappeared simply because the White House has changed hands or because Trump has trapped himself in a foolish war.

Attempts to solve one strategic problem by broadening the scope of a conflict have often made both problems harder to resolve. The greatest danger today may not be that Trump chooses to fight two wars simultaneously, but that seemingly small escalatory steps pave the way for a disaster both Biden and Trump have sought to avoid.

Is It Just About AIPAC’s Money, or Does the US-Israel Rot Run Far Deeper?

by Ramzy Baroud | Jul 29, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-baroud/2026/07/28/is-it-just-about-aipacs-money-or-does-the-us-israel-rot-run-far-deeper/

Two major stories regarding the United States and Israel in recent days represent profound watershed moments in the history of the relationship between both countries.

The first incident occurred on July 8 when US Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) and his delegation were detained by armed, illegal Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

“These hoodlums come in with machine guns – an M4, an American-made machine gun – and they detain us,” Khanna recounted in a stunning statement. “They block off the road. And then they call the IDF, and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans.”

Equally shocking to the congressman’s direct encounter with the raw, lawless reality of the occupation was the response of US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Rather than defending an elected American lawmaker, Huckabee dismissed Khanna’s harrowing experience as a mere “stunt.”

This defiance of old taboos, however, is not confined to progressive factions. In an even more unprecedented development on July 15, US Vice President JD Vance used an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience to deliver some of the sharpest criticism of Israel ever uttered by a sitting, top-tier US official.

Addressing a reported Israeli government-funded online influence campaign aimed at sabotaging the administration’s diplomatic efforts, a furious Vance accused “certain elements within the Israeli government” of actively trying to derail peace negotiations and manipulate American public opinion. He went so far as to target the operators behind the foreign-backed campaign, telling them directly to “go to hell.”

Yet, even as fierce criticism of Israel reaches the very apex of American politics, a profound, schizophrenic rupture divides Washington. While the American public, influential media personalities, and top-tier politicians are openly turning against Israel’s unbridled violence, the traditional power structures continue to toe the line.

This is explicitly evident in Congress, where establishment politicians remain busy acting as defense contractors for Tel Aviv. Lawmakers are quietly pushing forward with Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027. Far from distancing the US from the ongoing regional bloodbath, this legislation aims to permanently integrate and synchronize the US and Israeli militaries under a joint “Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.”

This institutional blind spot is why the entire alliance is beginning to look utterly ridiculous.

Traditional foreign policy theory views Israel as an American ‘vessel’ or ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’\ in the Middle East, policing the region on behalf of Western hegemony. Whether that was ever true is highly debatable. Today, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the relentless war on Iran, and the escalating aggressions against Lebanon and Syria have yielded zero strategic value to the American people. Instead, the United States has paid a massive financial and moral largesse to fund bloody regional wars that disrupt the global economy and make Washington a direct, complicit partner in the destruction of the Palestinian people.

Yet, the American administration continues to offer unquestioning support, with the exception of occasionally leaked, manufactured accounts of ‘tense’ phone calls between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. No matter the physical, economic, or reputational damage inflicted on the US, Washington continues to march blindly toward the precipice.

To believe this subservience is a recent phenomenon is to misunderstand history. For many, the physical detention of Congressman Khanna by Israeli forces evokes the memory of Rachel Corrie – the 23-year-old American peace activist who was brutally crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in Rafah on March 16, 2003, while peacefully shielding a Palestinian family home from demolition. In both cases, the message from Tel Aviv was clear: American status offers no protection.

Yet, this dependency runs deeper, rooted in the 1967 USS Liberty incident. During the Six-Day War, Israeli forces launched a relentless two-hour attack on an unarmed US intelligence ship, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171. Instead of demanding accountability, the Johnson administration accepted Israel’s excuse of a “mistake” and covered up the truth to protect its ally. This established a decades-long precedent: Washington would act as a political and military shield for Israeli actions, even at the cost of American lives.

It is often argued that Israel’s stranglehold on American policy stems entirely from the financial power of its lobby in Washington, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Conventional wisdom holds that AIPAC’s true dominance as the ultimate kingmaker began in 1981, when it waged a historic, ferocious battle to block President Ronald Reagan’s proposed sale of AWACS early-warning surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

But the USS Liberty incident occurred long before the lobby wielded such immense power. The truth is that the US government has simply lost control of the very creature it has nurtured and shielded for decades. Blaming this dependency solely on campaign contributions no longer suffices; the rot is far deeper. It is driven by a deep-seated fear and trepidation among American politicians who have spent their entire careers learning that political survival requires absolute obedience to Tel Aviv.

This is precisely why JD Vance’s recent remarks are so critical. It proves that the armor of absolute impunity is cracking, and the language of genuine, systemic criticism of Israel has officially been normalized in mainstream political discourse.

There must be a profound political awakening in America. If the American public and its leaders fail to reclaim their foreign policy from this destructive alliance, the only path forward will be one of perpetual conflict, economic ruin, and endless war.

No route around Hormuz: Why West Asia’s pipeline alternatives fall short

The rush to bypass Hormuz leads back to the same problem: Every alternative route remains hostage to war, rival chokepoints, or political disputes.

Hussein Askary

JUL 23, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/no-route-around-hormuz-why-west-asias-pipeline-alternatives-fall-short

“The only alternative to the Strait of Hormuz is the Strait of Hormuz.” 

This blunt assessment, offered by an Iraqi expert in a recent interview, captures the central weakness in the rush to revive old pipeline schemes and promote new ones across West Asia. Since Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz after Israel and the US launched their second war against it in February 2026, the region has been flooded with proposals for alternative oil-export routes. 

Washington has encouraged these plans, while several governments have presented dormant or unfinished pipelines as strategic solutions. Yet the closer one looks at geography, markets, costs, capacity, and security, the clearer it becomes that most of these projects cannot substitute for Hormuz. 

Even if oil bypasses the strait, it still faces the rival chokepoint of Bab al-Mandab, where the Ansarallah-aligned armed forces have declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia and attacked Saudi tankers. 

These expensive detours will remain exposed unless security in the Persian Gulf itself improves. Until the war on Iran ends and an inclusive regional security architecture is established, Iranian and Yemeni missiles and drones can reach the pipelines and loading terminals built to evade them.

Asia still runs through Hormuz

The first reason is straightforward. The Strait of Hormuz is the natural outlet of the Gulf energy system. In 2024, oil flows through the strait averaged about 20 million barrels per day (bpd), roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. The International Energy Agency (IEA) describes it as one of the world’s most important oil transit chokepoints. 

Most of this oil is not heading west. About 80 percent of the oil moving through Hormuz is destined for Asia, with China, India, Japan, South Korea, and other Asian economies as the principal buyers. The pattern is even clearer for liquefied natural gas (LNG). 

The US Energy Information Administration estimated that 83 percent of LNG moving through Hormuz in 2024 went from Persian Gulf exporters to Asian markets, especially China, India, and South Korea.

This market reality matters because many proposed alternatives send oil away from its main customers. Pipelines to the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, or the Levant may appear useful on a map, but they often move Gulf crude farther from Asia rather than closer to it. 

Commercially, building multibillion-dollar infrastructure to move oil westward, only to redirect it by sea toward Asian markets, is inefficient. If Hormuz is open, the direct route remains cheaper and faster. If it is closed by war, the underlying problem is not a lack of pipelines but the collapse of regional security.

Old routes, unresolved disputes

The older pipeline options illustrate the point. The Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline once carried Iraqi oil across Syria to the Mediterranean. Built in the early 1950s, it had genuine strategic value in its time but has been largely inactive since it was damaged during the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. Washington is now backing efforts to revive the route, with US companies expected to play a role. Yet the project still requires extensive reconstruction and years of work before it can provide meaningful export capacity. 

Estimates for a full restoration and expansion to around 700,000 bpd run as high as $8 billion. It cannot answer an immediate crisis in Hormuz, and if regional peace is restored before completion, the commercial case for reviving it weakens sharply.

The Iraq–Turkiye pipeline faces a different but equally serious problem: politics. The route through the Kurdistan region to Turkiye’s Mediterranean port of Ceyhan was repeatedly interrupted by disputes among Baghdad, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Ankara, and international oil companies. 

A 2023 arbitration ruling against Turkiye over unauthorized Kurdish exports led to a two-and-a-half-year shutdown. Flows resumed in September 2025, and exports have continued, but the route still depends on fragile agreements over contracts, payments, federal authority, and revenue sharing.

Its limited throughput and political vulnerability prevent it from becoming a structural replacement for a maritime passage that normally carries a vast share of the world’s seaborne oil.

The Iraqi pipeline in Saudi Arabia, known as IPSA, is another example of strategic nostalgia. Built in the 1980s during the Iran–Iraq war, it was designed to move Iraqi crude from the Basra region to the Red Sea. 

It stopped operating after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia expropriated it in 2001. Reopening the line would therefore require a Saudi–Iraqi political settlement over ownership and control, as well as a major technical assessment after decades of disuse. In other words, IPSA is not an available alternative; it is a diplomatic and engineering problem dressed up as a solution.

The proposed Basra–Aqaba pipeline is even more controversial. Its advertised purpose is to move Iraqi oil from southern Iraq to Jordan’s Red Sea port of Aqaba, bypassing Hormuz. Yet it has faced intense objections inside Iraq because of its projected cost, uncertain financing, and questionable strategic value. 

Since much of Iraq’s crude is sold to Asian customers, sending it westward to Aqaba would add distance and complexity rather than solve the basic market problem. The pipeline would also move Iraqi exports closer to another zone of instability, including the Israeli military sphere and the wider Red Sea security environment. 

A bypass route that merely exchanges one security risk for another is no solution. Iraq’s severe fiscal pressures also leave Baghdad poorly placed to finance such an expensive project, while international investors are unlikely to embrace it without strong political and security guarantees.

Bypasses within missile range

The existing Saudi and Emirati bypasses are more credible but still limited. Saudi Arabia’s East–West Pipeline, or Petroline, moves crude from the eastern oil region to Yanbu on the Red Sea. The UAE’s Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline carries oil from Habshan to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman. 

These systems reduce exposure to Hormuz for Saudi Arabia and the UAE and have become important national energy-security assets. But they cannot replace the strait for the region as a whole. They offer little to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iran, or most Iraqi exports, and they do not solve the LNG problem, especially Qatar’s dependence on Hormuz. 

The IEA estimates that only 3.5 to 5.5 million bpd of spare pipeline capacity is available to bypass the strait. Neither Yanbu nor Fujairah are immune from attack; regional conflict has already shown the vulnerability of ports, tankers, and energy infrastructure. 

The crisis pipelines cannot solve

This is why the alternative pipeline debate is misleading. It treats the closure of Hormuz as a logistical puzzle when it is primarily a political and security crisis. If the Persian Gulf remains militarized and unstable, no pipeline network can fully protect exports. 

Pipelines cross vulnerable territory, depend on political agreements, and terminate at ports that can also be threatened. If Gulf security improves, however, Hormuz will almost certainly reopen because this serves the interests of producers and Asian consumers alike. 

Once that happens, the commercial rationale for many alternative pipelines will fade. Why spend tens of billions of dollars duplicating a natural route with unmatched capacity and direct access to the main buyers? 

The more honest conclusion is that alternative pipelines may offer limited resilience for individual states, but they are no strategic replacement for Hormuz. They are costly, slow, politically fragile, geographically inefficient, and in some cases obsolete before construction begins. 

The answer to the crisis is a security arrangement that keeps the Persian Gulf open, prevents attacks on shipping, and restores normal trade through the strait. 

Under such an arrangement, oil and LNG would continue to flow mainly to Asia by the most direct and economical route. Hormuz will remain indispensable, while the grand pipeline alternatives amount to expensive insurance policies against a crisis that only diplomacy and regional peace can resolve. 

Netanyahu Says War Will End When Iranian Government ‘Toppled or Sufficiently Weakened’

by Kyle Anzalone | Jul 26, 2026

https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/netanyahu-says-war-will-end-when-iranian-government-toppled-or-sufficiently-weakened/

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he expects the war against Iran to continue until there is regime change in Iran or it is weakened to the point that Tehran must bend to US and Israeli demands. 

On Sunday, Netanyahu was asked by Maria Bartiromo when the conflict in the Middle East will end. “I think when this regime is either toppled or it’s sufficiently weakened that it knows it has to end its nuclear program and has to change its course.”

After the start of the war, Netanyahu and President Donald Trump listed regime change in Tehran along with other ambitious goals, including eliminating Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. 

During the opening strikes of the conflict, the US and Israel assassinated the Iranian supreme leader and several other top officials. However, rather than causing the government to fall, the strikes created a “rally around the flag effect,” and the intelligence community believes the current administration in Tehran retains a strong hold on power.  

Additionally, Iran has secured strategic victories, such as establishing control over the Strait of Hormuz, that have weakened Trump’s position for negotiations. 

On Sunday, The New York Times reported President Trump decided against further escalating the conflict after military officials warned that the Department of War lacked the interceptors to defend US troops in the region.

NETANYAHU TO ARRIVE IN WASHINGTON AGAIN TO GIVE ORDERS TO TRUMP

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will arrive in Washington this week to give orders to his subordinate, Donald Trump, regarding the war against Iran. He will also ensure that the United States keeps the West under control, now that the Israeli government is carrying out ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and is likely preparing new incursions into Lebanon, having achieved the complete subservience of the Lebanese puppet government to Israel's wishes.

Following his master Netanyahu's orders, Trump has been bombing Iran for 14 consecutive days (after discarding the Memorandum of Understanding agreed with Tehran), hoping to achieve the surrender of the Iranian theocratic regime, but without success.

Therefore, faced with growing American aversion to continuing a war initiated and provoked by Israel, Trump tried to convince his cabinet to increase the intensity and frequency of attacks on Iran. However, Vice President Vance and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Cain pointed out that the United States' stockpiles of munitions, missiles, and interceptors were rapidly depleting without achieving the objective of Iran's surrender.

This is why Netanyahu, the true head and commander of the United States armed forces, is going to the White House for the seventh time during Trump's second presidential term to "impose order" on those who refuse to continue the destruction of Iran, regardless of the enormous military, economic, political, and social costs this is incurring for the United States.

Netanyahu, the Zionist oligarchs who have bought off the Trump administration and the pathetic US political class, and international Zionism in general, couldn't care less about the price the United States and the world must pay for international Zionism to achieve its goals of complete domination of the Middle East, total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and the abject subordination of the West and most of the Global South to Israel and the Zionist oligarchs who manipulate the world at will.

The Israeli government has decided that this is the best time to defeat those it considers its enemies, and to this end, it is prepared to force its Western lackeys to spend whatever it takes, to jeopardize their economies, and to have their citizens risk their lives for the interests of Israel and international Zionism. And all indications are that the lackeys of the US government and its European stooges will carry out their orders.

Israeli crackdown in occupied West Bank intensifies, settlers cause mayhem

The surge in violence comes after four Palestinians and two soldiers were killed in a gunfight on Friday.

By Al Jazeera Staff and Reuters

Published On 26 Jul 2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/26/israeli-crackdown-in-occupied-west-bank-intensifies-settlers-cause-mayhem

The Israeli military has launched an aggressive crackdown in the occupied West Bank, storming several towns and villages and detaining hundreds of Palestinians, amid escalating attacks by Jewish settlers, in a furious reaction to a shootout in a village near Nablus in which four Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers were killed.

The “wide-scale military operation” across the West Bank ordered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the deaths of the soldiers intensified on Sunday, and settlers became bolder and more violent, marauding through villages, scrawling graffiti on buildings and attacking Palestinians.

Settlers tried to set two mosques ablaze. At one of those, the newly built Al-Rahma Mosque in the town of Qusra southeast of Nablus, settlers spray-painted slogans like “Jewish revenge” on the walls, said Abdel Azim Wadi, ⁠head of the village council in Qusra. Videos verified by Al Jazeera showed fire consuming the mosque.

The other mosque targeted in the arson attack was in the village of Kour, south of Tulkarem. Farid Jiyousi, a member of the village council, said three settlers tried to set the mosque ablaze at dawn, but worshippers put out the fire before it could reach the main area of the premises.

Reporting from Ramallah, Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh said Israeli forces raided Rafidia near Nablus.

“They were also spotted in Huwara, in the Nablus area, assaulting a paramedic and a man. There is video circulating from witnesses about that. The Palestine Red Crescent Society also reported an assault on one of its paramedics in Masafer Yatta, to the south of Hebron,” she said.

“So, all across the occupied West Bank there were overnight raids.”

Separately, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported that 30 people were arrested in the village of Tal, where the confrontation that led to the crackdown took place, as well as 14 in Ramallah, five in Jenin, eight in Hebron, three in Bethlehem and six in Tulkarem.

Wafa also reported that Israeli forces launched a large-scale raid across the city of Jenin and several towns and villages in the governorate of Jenin, including Zababdeh, Faqqua, Yabad, Burqin, Jalbun, Qabatiya, Jalqamus, Silat al-Harithiya, al-Yamoun, Kafr Dan, Deir Abu Daif and Zububa.

The national broadcaster Kan reported that Israeli forces imposed strict traffic restrictions and numerous security checkpoints on main roads and at the entrances to villages across the occupied West Bank.

The firefight that triggered the punitive and oppressive military response took place on Friday in Tal, southwest of Nablus. Each side disputes the other’s account of the events that led to the confrontation. However, video footage confirms the testimony of villagers who say a group of about 20 Israeli settlers, many of them wielding rifles, approached Tal with the intent of causing violence.

Villagers came out of their homes to confront the settlers, and as tensions rose, Israeli soldiers arrived. One of the villagers grabbed a gun from a settler, and a shootout erupted.

Lieutenant Colonel Ella Waweya, a spokesperson for the Israeli army, said on Sunday that Israeli forces were raiding houses in Tal belonging to villagers suspected of involvement in Friday’s violence. She said the homes “were raided in preparation for their temporary sealing, as a preliminary step preceding their demolition”.

Israel has a policy of demolishing the homes of Palestinians accused of carrying out lethal attacks, a practice rights groups condemn as collective punishment that violates international law.

Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said Israeli settlers are not being held accountable for their crimes. “We’re seeing an increase in direct war crimes,” she told Al Jazeera.

Bennis said Israel’s distinction between settlers and soldiers is false.

“Some of the settlers are themselves part of the Israeli military. They serve in the reserves. They are armed by the military. Many are trained by the military. They’re all using US-provided arms. So, this distinction is not a very important one. They are all supported by the Israeli state,” she said.

“And what we’re seeing here is a decision that they make to deliberately commit war crimes. So, we’re seeing collective punishment. We’re seeing attacks on hospitals.”

Israeli forces and settlers intensified their attacks in the occupied West Bank after October 7, 2023, when the genocidal war on Gaza began. Since then, they have killed at least 1,185 Palestinians, including more than 250 children. At least 12,652 Palestinians have been wounded and more than 24,000 have been detained.

As of July 1, 2026, 9,299 Palestinians remain in Israeli jails, of whom 3,244 are held without charge.

The United Nations and rights groups have criticised Israel for a lack of accountability, saying settlers are rarely prosecuted and Israeli soldiers are seldom convicted.

The latest violence also comes just three months before general elections in Israel.

Opinion polls suggest Netanyahu could lose power. Landgrabs and accelerating the establishment of new illegal settlements sit well with his right-wing support base.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has said Israel plans to build 763 new units in the illegal Eli settlement, south of Nablus.

Meanwhile, hundreds gathered in Tel Aviv on Saturday to protest the surge in settler violence and the military crackdown in the West Bank.

Israeli police arrested nine protesters, saying the demonstrations had gone ahead without authorisation and had begun to “disrupt public order and block the roadway”.