Even as its forces prepared to launch a full-scale offensive into Gaza City, several long-standing supporters of Israel — including Australia, Canada, France and the UK — are threatening to recognize a Palestinian state, joining nearly 150 other nations. Israeli leaders have reacted furiously, taking steps to render any such entity unviable. While the former effort is unhelpful, the latter will be disastrous to Israel’s long-term security. The U.S. should help its ally see the difference.

Frustration over the swelling pressure campaign is understandable. Recognition is aimed both at persuading Israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza and keeping alive the possibility of a two-state solution. In fact, Western leaders are mostly appeasing domestic constituencies outraged by the suffering of ordinary Gazans. Israelis have a right to wonder why they aren’t putting equal effort into forcing Hamas to release its hostages and disarm, or leaning on the Palestinian Authority to reform.

Still, any recognition would be almost entirely symbolic. The same can’t be said for Israeli moves to expand settlements — including in an area known as E1 that would split Palestinian-held parts of the West Bank in two — and potentially annex swaths of the territory.

Fast-tracking construction of the new settlements last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed “there will never be a Palestinian state.” He argues that the Oct. 7 attacks prove Israel cannot live side by side with a Palestinian-run territory, which would inevitably become a “springboard for terror.” More than 70% of Jewish Israelis agree.

What proponents of a “one-state solution” rarely address is what happens to the 5 million Palestinians who would be included within it. If they aren’t granted full citizenship — something more outspoken Israeli officials have ruled out — Israel risks becoming the apartheid state critics allege it is already. Expelling the population would amount to ethnic cleansing. Even voluntary mass departures would destabilize neighbors Jordan and Egypt. Plans to ship Gazans to war-torn African countries are, at best, far-fetched.

Rather than quelling terrorist attacks, permanently suppressing Palestinian aspirations would likely fuel an endless insurgency. Most important, it would further isolate Israel and could intensify anti-Semitism globally. Outright annexation could lead to sanctions by the European Union and others in the West. Even in the U.S., support for Israel is plummeting among Democrats and younger Republicans. Under a future administration, unquestioned American backing can’t be assumed.

In the region, Israel would almost certainly forfeit any hope of expanding the Abraham Accords to Saudi Arabia and other neighbors, especially after its recent airstrike on Hamas leaders in Qatar. The United Arab Emirates has already declared that annexation is a “red line,” implying that the move could jeopardize its ties with the Jewish state. The Saudis have long made clear they won’t normalize relations absent some credible pathway to a two-state solution.

Having friends secures Israel’s place in the region and the world, as the remarkable coordinated response to Iranian missile barrages should’ve made clear. Rather than granting Israel a blank check, as some American officials would seem to prefer, the U.S. ought to remind its ally that keeping open the possibility of a Palestinian state is crucial to that wider acceptance. It should reaffirm its traditional opposition to new settlements or unilateral declarations of sovereignty over parts of the West Bank.

American officials could also usefully remind Western nations that no Palestinian state will be viable without Israeli buy-in. Rather than engaging in political stunts that will only harm the people they claim to be helping, they should work with Arab governments to force Hamas to disarm and surrender administration of Gaza, and to reform the Palestinian Authority: ushering in new, more accountable leadership; shrinking a bloated civil service; upgrading the security services; opening up the economy; and overhauling the education system. As should be painfully clear by now, there are no shortcuts to peace.

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board

This week marks the third anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death in police custody — an event that ignited one of the most powerful protest movements in Iran since 1979. “ Woman, Life, Freedom” became not just a slogan but a rallying cry that cut across gender, class and ethnic lines.

Three years on, Iran’s political system is in deeper crisis — economically bankrupt, politically fragile and increasingly alienated from its people.

In a recent meeting with the president and cabinet, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the posture of “neither war nor peace” as dangerous. He again framed Iran’s challenges as the work of an unnamed “enemy,” urging officials to create “a space for work, effort and hope.” Even couched in customary language, the statement amounted to an implicit acknowledgment of the country’s critical condition.

Months after a direct Iran-Israel flare-up that brought the region to the brink, Iran’s public mood remains inflamed. Officials suggest another confrontation is likely; some Israeli politicians hint at renewed conflict, leaving many Iranians feeling that the shadow of war still hangs overhead.

Iran’s economy is collapsing. Inflation remains around 40%, pushing the cost of basic goods beyond reach. Bread, rice and cooking oil have doubled in price. Families struggle to buy food, pay rent or secure medicine. Sanctions have strained the economy, but decades of mismanagement, corruption and the enrichment of regime loyalists have hollowed out the state. Subsidies have been cut while state-linked conglomerates thrive. Power outages now regularly close schools and offices.

The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement shook the system. Despite mass arrests, executions and heavy sentences, a visible shift followed: In many large cities, more women appear in public without a compulsory hijab, and confrontations persist. Yet, this cultural victory has not translated into sustained, organized protest. Today, many Iranians describe a widespread sense of depression and hopelessness about an uncertain future.

This raises fundamental questions. What is the state of a society that so recently mounted a powerful rights movement? Have popular demands for democracy met any reciprocal will from the regime? Where does public satisfaction stand?

Comparative research on democratization points to institutions that convert public demands into peaceful change. Two are pivotal: an independent judiciary and independent media.

In systems with the rule of law, no one stands above it. Citizens and lawyers can challenge officials who flout constitutions or abuse public office. In Iran, however, the judiciary has long lacked independence. Under the 1979 Constitution, Article 157, the head of the judiciary must be a cleric, appointed by the supreme leader for a renewable five-year term. For 46 years, chiefs of the judiciary have been clerics — often without conventional university legal training — and the appointment power has kept the institution politically tethered. Judges are selected and must be approved by the judiciary’s leadership, making true independence rare.

The pattern is stark: Judges known for issuing heavy death sentences to protesters often rise within the system, while a number of human rights lawyers themselves have been imprisoned.

Independent media are the other essential pillar. They deter abuse by exposing wrongdoing and providing a public forum for accountability. In Iran, the press has been subject to the state’s most sustained censorship since 1979. Periods of limited opening have been followed by closures and arrests.

Today, very few newspapers can publish freely; many journalists have left the country, and those abroad report threats against themselves and their families inside Iran. Broadcasting is exclusively state-run: Radio and television are controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, whose head is appointed by the supreme leader. There is no private broadcast news sector.

According to reports from the Hengaw Human Rights Organization, Iran saw a dramatic surge in executions in August. Executions rose by more than 70% compared with the same month last year, with at least 152 people put to death. Protesters connected to the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement continue to face harsh sentences, and the execution just days ago of Mehran Bahramian, a prisoner of the 2022 uprising, underscores the regime’s intent to use capital punishment as a tool of deterrence.

Meanwhile, assassinations of senior military figures and strikes on infrastructure have highlighted vulnerabilities. The perception among many Iranians is that the state looks weaker in protecting national and territorial interests than at any time in recent memory. After 36 years of Khamenei’s leadership, there is no evident force — political or institutional — capable of moving the country out of its present impasse.

Khamenei’s own framing — warning of a condition neither suited to peace nor to war — points to a leadership that lacks both the will and the tools to open the political space. By design, the system narrowed those tools: Mechanisms that might deliver public satisfaction or address economic breakdown have been sidelined in favor of ideological conformity and centralized control. The engine that once generated legitimacy — revolutionary zeal, redistributive promises, national pride — now sputters.

Three years after Amini’s death, Iran feels stuck in a hard stalemate. The shadow of war persists. The economy bleeds. Punishment is policy. Courts and media — the safety valves that turn anger into lawful change — are structurally constrained. In such conditions, many citizens have chosen caution over risk. Activists insist that civil demands endure, but leaders are jailed, in exile or under intense pressure, and organizational capacity is limited.

The paradox is dangerous. The absence of outlets does not erase grievances; it bottles them up. Today’s Iran may look static, but it is not stable. A society pressed this hard — by economic crisis, political exclusion and the fear of heavy punishment — can remain quiet for long stretches, until a small opening becomes a catalyst.

That is the story of the past three years: a regime that survived a historic challenge without solving the problems that produced it. The future may turn on whether Iran’s rulers can accept even modest institutional independence and accountability — or whether they continue to govern by force alone, hoping that fear will substitute for legitimacy. History suggests that strategy has an expiration date.

Pegah Banihashemi, a native of Iran, is a legal scholar and journalist in Chicago whose work focuses on human rights, constitutional and international law, and Middle East politics. She wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, questioning whether Americans understand the difference between a king and a president, told a New York Law School crowd Tuesday that improved civic education across the country would help people make better decisions.

Sotomayor, speaking at a panel discussion during a “Constitution and Citizenship Day Summit,” did not make comments that were overtly political and did not directly address any controversies of the moment. President Donald Trump was not mentioned.

At one point, though, she raised doubts about how much Americans are being taught about civics in schools.

“Do we understand what the difference is between a king and a president? And I think if people understood these things from the beginning, they would be more informed as to what would be important in a democracy in terms of what people can or shouldn’t do,” she said.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks at the New York Law School’s Constitution and Citizen Day Summit, flanked by Judge Joseph Blanco, left center, and Judge Anthony Cannataro, right center, in New York, Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

She decried the lack of education about civics and how democracy works, even giving her version of Ben Franklin’s famous anecdote at the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia when he was asked whether the nation would have a republic or a monarchy.

“We have a republic, madam, if we can keep it,” she recalled that Franklin said.

Sotomayor called social media “one of the largest causes of misinformation on the internet.”

Related Articles

Trump extends TikTok shutdown deadline for fourth time after reaching framework deal with China

Republicans unveil a bill to fund the government through Nov. 21. Democrats call it partisan

Senate Democrats raise concerns over Pentagon plan to use military lawyers as immigration judges

Parents of teens who died by suicide after AI chatbot interactions to testify to Congress

Private school for Native Hawaiians vows to defend admissions policy from conservative strategist

“If you are only hearing one side of the story, you are not making an informed decision,” Sotomayor said. “The world is a complex place and issues are always difficult.”

The Bronx-born justice said she became interested in civics in grammar school, where she began debating issues, and improved those skills when she learned to debate both sides of a single issue.

At the end of her remarks, she urged students who watched in a large auditorium or saw her on video screens in overflow rooms to think about everything in the world that is wrong and “everything that’s happening in the United States” and realize ”we adults have really messed this up.”

She said she’s counting on today’s students to find solutions.

One Atlantic Coast Conference official quit over how a review was handled in the Syracuse-Connecticut game two weeks ago, and the Gophers can add a gripe on how another ACC review was handled on a key play during Minnesota’s 27-14 loss to California on Saturday.

In the third quarter, Cal running back Brandon High was fighting for extra yards on a first-down rush when U safety Koi Perich and teammates started to tackle him. Perich brought High’s knee down onto Perich’s chest, while Minnesota linebacker Devon Williams punched the ball out.

Multiple Gophers defensive players reacted as if it was a loose ball, and after a scramble on the ground, Williams recovered it. But referee Nate Black immediately said High was down and signaled for second down.

One angle of the play showed the ball was out before High was down by contact.

Video: In #Gophers-Cal game, U linebacker Devon Williams forces a fumble on Bears’ Brandon High while High’s knee lands on Koi Perich’s chest. Williams recovers ball as U led 14-10.

But referee Nate Black said High was down and the ACC does not stop the game for further review. pic.twitter.com/5qQrSSCRS9

— Andy Greder (@andygreder) September 16, 2025

At the time, the Gophers held a 14-10 lead, and the turnover would have given Minnesota the ball at Cal’s 25-yard line. Instead, Cal kept possession, and on the drive, scored a touchdown and would not trail again.

An ACC spokesperson told the Pioneer Press on Tuesday that every play is reviewed, but it’s a question on whether the head referee is buzzed from the conference’s command center to take deeper look at a specific play. The spokesperson said she would attempt to respond to the Pioneer Press with further information on the process.

Coincidentally, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips attended the Cal-Minnesota game at Memorial Stadium in Berkeley, Calif.

Last week, longtime ACC official Gary Patterson quit his position in frustration over how a review was handled in the Sept. 6 game in New York, according to ESPN. There was a delay in a review of a Syracuse offensive play that came after another play had been run.

An ESPN source said Patterson, who had been with the ACC since 2002, was upset at the conference’s interference to force a replay despite a subsequent play taking place. That instigated his resignation.

Last September, the Gophers’ 27-14 loss to Michigan was marred by a Minnesota special teams player being flagged for offside on an onside kick that Minnesota recovered. After a flag, the Wolverines gained possession and won in Ann Arbor.

The Big Ten later said the play was “too tight to flag” and the conference charged is officiating mechanics on onside kicks to put “multiple officials in the best position to consistently make the correct judgement.”

The Gophers are off this week before opening Big Ten play against Rutgers at 11 a.m. Sept. 27 at Huntington Bank Stadium.

Related Articles

Gophers football: Koi Perich must ‘swallow the pill of adversity’

Miscues doom Gophers in 27-14 loss to California

Gophers tailback Darius Taylor ruled out for Cal game

Frederick: With a ‘perfect’ 10-2 season, Gophers can make college playoff

Gophers football has a fun 2025 road schedule. Could Ireland be next?