From Sabra and Shatila to Gaza: The vicious cycle of US-Israeli ‘peace’ ploys
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 8, 2025
The history of Zionism is fundamentally one of deception. This assertion is critically relevant today, as it contextualises the so-called ‘Trump Gaza proposal,’ which appears to be little more than a veiled strategy to defeat the Palestinians and facilitate the ethnic cleansing of a significant portion of Gaza’s population.
Since the start of the current conflict, the United States has been Israel’s staunchest ally, going as far as framing the outright slaughter of Palestinian civilians as Israel’s “right to defend itself.” This position is defined by the wholesale criminalisation of all Palestinians—civilians and combatants, women, children, and men alike.
Any naive hope that the Trump administration might restrain Israel proved unfounded. Both the Democratic administration of Joe Biden and the Republican administration of his successor have been enthusiastic partners in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s messianic mission. The difference has been primarily rhetorical. While Biden wraps his staunch support in liberal discourse, Trump is more direct, using the language of overt threats.
Both administrations pursued strategies to hand Netanyahu a victory, even when his war failed to achieve its strategic objectives. Biden used his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, as an emissary to broker a ceasefire fully tailored to Israeli priorities. Similarly, Trump utilised his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, to concoct a parallel ploy.
Netanyahu deftly exploited both administrations. The Trump era, however, saw the US lobby and Israel seemingly dictating American foreign policy. A clear sign of this dynamic was the famous scene last April, during Netanyahu’s White House visit, when the ‘America First’ President pulled out a chair for him. The summoning of Blair, who once headed the US-controlled Quartet for Peace, to the White House alongside Kushner in August, was another foreboding signal. It was evident that Israel and the US were planning a much larger scheme: one not only to crush Gaza but to prevent any attempt at resurrecting the Palestinian cause altogether.
While ten countries were declaring recognition of the state of Palestine to applause at the UN General Assembly between 21 and 23 September, the US and Israel were preparing to reveal their grand strategy, with critical contributions from Ron Dermer, then Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs.
The Trump Gaza proposal was announced on 29 September. Almost immediately, several countries, including strong supporters of Palestine, declared their backing. This support was given without realising that the latest iteration of the plan was substantially altered from what had been discussed between Trump and representatives of the Arab and Muslim world in New York on 24 September.
Trump announced that the proposal was accepted by Israel and threatened Hamas that, if it does not accept it within “three or four days”, then “ it’s going to be a very sad end.” Still, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who, along with the UN, has largely failed to hold Israel accountable, declared his support for the Trump proposal, stating that “it is now crucial that all parties commit to an agreement and its implementation.”
Netanyahu felt a newfound elation, believing the weight of international pressure was finally lifting, and the onus was shifting to the Palestinians. He reportedly said that “now the whole world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the conditions.” Comfortable that the pendulum had swung in his favor, he openly restated his objectives in Gaza on 30 September: “To release all our hostages, both the living and the deceased, while the IDF remains in most of the Strip.” Even when Arab and Muslim nations protested the amendments to the initial Trump plan, neither Netanyahu nor Trump relented, the former continuing the massacres, while the latter repeating his threats.
The implication is stark: regardless of the Palestinian position, Israel will continue to push for the ethnic cleansing of the Strip using both military and non-military means. The plan envisions Gaza and the West Bank being administered as two separate entities, with the Strip falling under the direct control of Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace”, thus effectively turning Blair and Kushner into the new colonial rulers of Palestine.
History is most critical here, particularly the history of Israeli deception. From its onset, Zionist colonialism justified its rule over Palestine based on a series of fabrications: that European settlers held essential historical links to the land; the erroneous claim that Palestine was a “land without a people”; the assertion that indigenous natives were intruders; and the stereotype that Arabs are inherently anti-Semitic. Consequently, the state of Israel, built on ethnically cleansed Palestinian land, was falsely marketed as a ‘beacon’ of peace and democracy.
This web of falsehoods deepened and became more accentuated after every massacre and war. When Israel faltered in managing its military efforts or its propaganda war, the United States invariably intervened. A prime example is the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where a ‘peace deal’ was imposed on the PLO under US pressure. Thanks to US envoy Philip Habib’s efforts, Palestinian fighters left Beirut for exile, on the understanding that this step would spare thousands of civilian lives. Tragically, the opposite occurred, directly paving the way for the Sabra and Shatila massacre and a prolonged Israeli occupation of Lebanon until 2000.
This historical pattern is repeating itself in Gaza today, though the options are now more stark. Palestinians face a choice between the guaranteed defeat of Gaza — accompanied by a non-guaranteed, temporary slowdown of the genocide — and the continuation of mass slaughter. Unlike the Israeli deception in Lebanon four decades ago, however, Netanyahu makes no effort to mask his vile intentions this time. Will the world allow him to get away with this deception and genocide?
Graham’s Middle East vs. reality on the ground: Hezbollah, the undefeatable Resistance
By Sondoss Al Asaad | Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025
When US Senator Lindsey Graham declared that “there can be no normal Middle East as long as Hezbollah exists,” he was not merely a Republican congressman making a passing statement.
Rather, Graham was expressing, with complete candor, the profound understanding within the US-Israeli strategy of a reality on the ground and in politics: that Hezbollah is the greatest obstacle to the project of “comprehensive normalization” and the reshaping of the region to suit Tel Aviv and Washington.
Graham’s statement, despite its simplicity, carries connotations that go beyond traditional political rhetoric and deconstruct the “defeat” narrative that Western and Israeli media have been promoting for years.
If Hezbollah had truly been defeated, as they claim, Graham would not have been compelled to make its disarmament a condition for any “normal Middle East.”
This condition reveals that the party remains at the heart of the equation and that no regional project can outweigh its power.
Thus, the rhetoric of “defeat” becomes nothing more than a tool for producing counter-awareness, while American statements themselves acknowledge that the Resistance remains the most formidable force.
Field facts reinforce this conclusion: Between December 2023 and September 2025, American MQ-9 Reaper drones carried out dozens of sorties over Lebanon, some lasting for long hours, reaching up to 18 consecutive hours, with up to three drones participating simultaneously over the South, the Bekaa, and Greater Beirut.
According to the Union Center for Research and Development, these drones don’t just photograph; they also intercept communications, decrypt encryption, and have the capability to strike with Hellfire 3 missiles.
More seriously, these missions are carried out without any coordination with civil aviation authorities, which has led to several incidents that nearly turned into air disasters.
However, Washington sees no harm in this blatant violation of Lebanese sovereignty, instead framing it as a “security necessity” to protect Israel since the “Al-Aqsa Intifada” of 2023.
Fundamentally, this American behavior does not express “normalcy” as Graham desires, but rather the continuation of the abnormality imposed by Washington on Lebanon and the region by violating airspace and sovereignty and employing all intelligence tools to “Israel’s” advantage.
Thus, the paradox becomes clear: Graham is demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah under the pretext of restoring “normalcy”, while his country is practicing the most extreme forms of abnormality on the ground.
Nevertheless, what Washington does not realize is that the Lebanese street is moving in a different direction. The mass scenes that accompanied the funeral of Hezbollah Secretary-Generals, in February 2025, were a revealing moment.
Hundreds of thousands filled the streets in the south, the suburbs, and Beirut, in an unprecedented scene that expressed the depth of popular connection to the Resistance.
These crowds were not merely an emotional response; they were an eloquent political message: the Resistance is not merely an armed organization, but a socio-popular movement rooted in the people’s conscience.
This popular entrenchment was also reflected at the ballot box. The results of the recent municipal elections showed significant progress for the Resistance lists and their allies in the South and the Bekaa, reflecting that the public mood still favors this option and that attempts to promote a narrative of defeat have not affected the broad social base.
Faced with these realities, the Resistance’s domestic opponents, particularly forces linked to the US embassy in Beirut, have resorted to attempting to circumvent the situation through the political-legal process.
Amendments to the electoral law have been proposed, aiming to redistribute representation or introduce new mechanisms, particularly with regard to expatriate seats, in order to reduce the parliamentary weight of the Resistance forces and weaken them within the institutions.
These attempts fall within a single strategic context: if Hezbollah cannot be defeated militarily or popularly, then let us attempt to contain it through the law and the constitution.
However, these maneuvers also reveal the extent of the impasse facing the American camp in Lebanon. The more popular support for the resistance increases and transforms into a tangible electoral presence, the more the external insistence on engineering laws that satisfy the demand for normalization with “Israel” increases.
Indeed, Graham’s statement becomes clearer: He’s not just talking about weapons, but about eliminating the Resistance option from the equation as a whole, by dismantling its battlefield, political, and popular power.
But even this ambition clashes with reality. The popular scene in Lebanon—from the funerals of leaders to the results of the municipal elections—clearly indicates that the Resistance is not in a collapsed defensive position, but rather in a position of strength protected by the balance of deterrence with “Israel” and a renewed popular support.
More importantly, Graham’s rhetoric, which was supposed to be threatening, has turned into an implicit admission: “The Middle East will not be normal without the defeat of Hezbollah,” meaning that the party’s survival is what prevents US-Israeli normalization from becoming an inevitable fate.
The bottom line is that between the rhetoric of a “normal Middle East” and US violations, and between attempts to amend laws and the escalating popular scene, one equation becomes clear: Hezbollah has not been defeated and will not be defeated!
Hezbollah may face challenges, and military, political, or media wars may be waged against it, but its deep-rooted presence among the people and on the ground makes it a constant force in the equation.
Any rhetoric about a “normal Middle East without it” is nothing more than an admission that its power is what deprives the American-Israeli project of its alleged “normality”.
Revealed: Charlie Kirk had decided to leave pro-Israel lobby 48 hours before assassination
The video is queued to begin where Candace Owens discusses the group chat
Press TV – October 7, 2025
A prominent American political commentator reveals how Charlie Kirk, a controversial far-right activist as well as a dedicated pro-Trump and pro-Israel lobbyist, had chosen to “leave the pro-Israel lobby” two days before his assassination.
Candace Owens made the revelation in a livestreamed episode on her YouTube channel on Tuesday, citing the contents of a group chat involving nine people, including Kirk, which took place 48 hours before the assassination.
She shared a screenshot of the chat, in which Kirk had explicitly spoken of his decision to ditch the lobby after expressing frustration at it and its extensive grip and efforts to expand control on American politics, including his own political activities.
Joining the chat, Kirk had noted that an unidentified Zionist billionaire had withdrawn his support for him after he refused to “cancel” debating with Tucker Carlson, a political commentator, who had criticized the lobby and its wealthy Zionist supporters.
‘I won’t be bullied like this’
Kirk had then expressed resentment at how the “donors play into all the stereotypes.”
“I cannot and will not be bullied like this,” he had said, adding that the situation was “leaving me no choice, but to leave the pro-Israel cause.”
The revelation has sent shockwaves among netizens worldwide.
Social media frequenters have expressed alarm at the sheer contrast between Kirk’s previous staunch support for the Israeli regime and the powerful Zionist lobby in the United States versus his decision on the eve of the assassination.
They have noted how Kirk’s support for the regime had seen him go as far as denying the October 2023-present US-backed war of genocide that Tel Aviv has been waging on the Gaza Strip.
Comments have run the gamut of reactions, including expression of appreciation for Kirk’s unprecedented decision to turn against the lobby, despite the sheer predictable consequences that the move would have on his career and continued approval by President Donald Trump.
Commenting on the chat, Owens said the conversation was “irrefutable” evidence that Kirk had been “very clear” and “very explicit” about his frustration with the pro-Israel lobby and his subsequent decision towards a turnaround.
Elsewhere in the group chat, a participant tries to dissuade Kirk from inviting Owens, given her similar criticism of the lobby, which is known by its acronym as AIPAC.
Owens has previously suggested that AIPAC was responsible for the assassination of former US president John F. Kennedy. She also once pointed to the existence of a “cult” that engages in “pedophilia and incest,” saying there were “tens of thousands of pedophiles [who] hide from justice in Israel.”
“Please don’t invite Candace. That might feel good short term, but it is not good long term,” the participant had told Kirk.
Some netizens identified the Zionist billionaire, who had withdrawn support from Kirk, as “Robert J. Shillman,” who was irate at an apparent intention by Kirk to platform Tucker and Owens.
Kirk was assassinated on September 10, when a single shot targeted him as he was sitting under a tent during a campus debate at Utah Valley University in the city of Orem.
Armature footage showed him collapse after the bullet hit him in the neck, while the activist, who used to be known for his extreme right-wing leanings, was fielding questions about gun violence.
US sent $21.7 billion to Israel to back Gaza genocide: Study
Press TV – October 7, 2025
An academic study has revealed that the United States has funneled $21.7 billion in financial and military assistance to Israel since the onset of the Gaza genocide on October 7, 2023.
The report released on Tuesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs details how the US State Department and the newly renamed Department of War, under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, have collectively transferred at least $21.7 billion to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
According to the study, the United States supplied $17.9 billion to Israel in the first year of the genocide, during former US president Joe Biden’s tenure, and $3.8 billion in the second year.
A large portion of the assistance has already been delivered, while the remainder will be distributed in the coming years, the report added.
The study notes that Washington is expected to allocate tens of billions of dollars in future funding to Israel through various bilateral deals.
Another analysis, also published by the Costs of War Project, states that the United States has spent approximately $9.65 – $12.07 billion on military operations in West Asia over the past two years.
US spending in the region, such as strikes on Yemen in March and May 2025 and attacks on Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, estimates total costs between $9.65 billion and $12 billion since October 7, 2023, including $2 billion to $2.25 billion for operations against Iran.
Although both reports rely on open-source data, they present detailed assessments of US military support for Israel and estimates of the cost of direct American involvement in the region.
Meanwhile, the State Department has not commented on the amount of military assistance given to Israel since October 2023. The White House referred inquiries to the Pentagon, which oversees only a part of the aid that is given to the Zionist entity.
The studies argue that without US backing, the regime would have been unable to maintain its genocidal campaign in Gaza for two years.
The principal study was produced in collaboration with the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Pro-Israel groups have accused the institute of isolationism and anti-Israel bias, allegations the organization firmly denies.
Meanwhile, Israel’s war machine continues its campaign of destruction, claiming countless civilian lives across Gaza and the wider region.
Since October 7, 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on the besieged Gaza Strip, more than 76,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children and 12,500 women, have been killed or gone missing, while in its 12-day war with Iran last June, the regime killed at least 1,604 people.
Al-Azhar University levelled in Gaza amid intensified Israeli strikes
MEMO | October 6, 2025
Israeli airstrikes on Sunday levelled Al-Azhar University in Gaza City as part of a wave of attacks across the besieged enclave, according to Palestinian sources. The strikes left several civilians injured and caused extensive damage to homes and infrastructure.
The Palestinian News Agency, citing local sources, reported that Israeli aircraft also targeted tents sheltering displaced people near Asdaa city, north of Khan Yunis, wounding multiple civilians.
Elsewhere, Israeli artillery shelled crowds waiting for humanitarian aid east of Wadi Gaza, while air raids pounded the Al-Sabra, Al-Jalaa, and Al-Thalathini neighbourhoods around Tayaran Junction, striking residential buildings and damaging nearby homes.
In central Gaza, Israeli aircraft hit the Maghazi refugee camp, leaving injuries and further destruction to civilian property.
The bombing of Al-Azhar University marked the most significant strike of the day, with the landmark institution reduced to rubble. It comes amid a broader campaign targeting Gaza’s infrastructure and civilian facilities.
Hamas official welcomes Arab-Islamic support for movement’s response to Trump plan
MEMO | October 6, 2025
Izzat al-Rishq, a member of Hamas’s Political Bureau, on Monday welcomed a joint statement issued by the foreign ministers of several Arab and Islamic countries, describing it as “important support” for efforts to end Israeli military operations in Gaza and advance negotiations toward a ceasefire.
Speaking to Quds Press, al-Rishq said the ministers’ declaration reinforced the Palestinian position in ongoing talks and could help secure a permanent ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the entry of humanitarian aid, paving the way for reconstruction under a Palestinian administration backed by Arab and Islamic states.
“We look forward to further Arab and Islamic support to stop the aggression and genocide against our people in Gaza, to end the occupation, and to achieve the aspirations of our people for an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital,” he added.
In their joint statement, the foreign ministers of Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt welcomed Hamas’s steps in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposal. The plan calls for ending the war in Gaza, releasing detainees on both sides, and launching immediate negotiations on implementation mechanisms.
The ministers also praised Hamas’s announcement that it is ready to hand over the administration of Gaza to a transitional Palestinian committee of independent technocrats. They stressed the urgency of moving forward on all elements of the proposal to end the humanitarian and political crisis in the enclave.
Oracle execs: Love Israel or maybe this isn’t the job for you
Employees who disagreed were reportedly referred to company mental health services
By Eli Clifton | Responsible Statecraft | October 3, 2025
TikTok’s impending sale to a group of U.S. investors led by Oracle was supposed to alleviate concerns about foreign influence over the popular social media platform. But a series of statements in Israeli media outlets by company executives including Executive Vice Board Chair and former CEO Safra Catz, reveal the company’s commitment to Israel is “unequivocal” and is not shy about squelching criticism of Israel internally.
These statements raise questions about how Oracle might exercise its impending ownership role at TikTok, a platform popular with young adults who are often critical of U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza and Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians, which a U.N. commission recently characterized as a “genocide.”
In 2021, Catz visited Israel as her first trip outside the U.S. after the COVID-19 pandemic. Calcalist, an Israeli publication, reported on remarks by the Oracle CEO:
When asked about the protests against Israel organized by employees at Google and Apple, Catz said that “when you connect with Oracle you understand that we are committed to the U.S. and Israel. We are not flexible regarding our mission, and our commitment to Israel is second to none. This is a free world and I love my employees, and if they don’t agree with our mission to support the State of Israel then maybe we aren’t the right company for them. Larry (Ellison, co-founder of Oracle) and I are publicly committed to Israel and devote personal time to the country and no one should be surprised by that.”
In a 2024 interview with Calcalist, Catz emphasized that one of her first actions after the October 7th 2023 Hamas attack was to send the message to Oracle’s clients around the world – including, presumably, in many countries where Oracle holds government contracts – that the technology company prioritizes Israel. She said:
“So what we did was first sort of hug our employees, hug my Oracle employees by doing everything we could think of and put on our website ‘We stand with Israel’, not only on our Israeli website or even on our American website, but on our websites around the world in the local language. And as you know, we operate in a lot of countries. And it was very important for us to make sure we made a powerful message about how important Israel is and what the difference is between good and evil.”
Head of Oracle Israel Eran Feigenbaum reinforced the messages delivered by Catz in a 2023 interview with the Israeli publication Ynet. Feigenbaum said:
“I couldn’t fathom a global company offering more support to Israel than Oracle. It’s an incredible opportunity to lead the Israeli branch with the backing of a global powerhouse. Oracle’s leadership, including the fact that Larry himself has an Israeli origin, has consistently demonstrated unequivocal support for Israel. So much so, that employees not aligning with support for Israel may find Oracle isn’t the right fit.”
The message from higher ups at Oracle that anything less than total prioritization of Israeli interests is unwelcome behavior appears to be reinforced through the company’s human resources department. An anonymous Substack, Oracle For Palestine, written by a group of Oracle employees, claims that “our leadership’s unquestioning public support for Israel” has led to a failure of the company to address the one-sided political positions taken by top management and the discrimination faced by employees who don’t share the political views of management.
“In response to legitimate concerns, many of us have been referred to internal mental health resources rather than having those concerns addressed appropriately,” said the group in a post last year.
Catz’s comments as well as the anecdote about Oracle staff being referred to mental health resources were all celebrated in a Times of Israel blog post by Oracle employee Ivan Bassov.
“Oracle has been refreshingly clear and consistent under the leadership of our CEO, Safra Catz,” wrote Bassov. “She has repeatedly articulated both her personal commitment and Oracle’s commitment to Israel.”
Bassov appeared to corroborate the anonymous Substack’s claims and endorsed Oracle’s treatment of his “anti-Israel” colleagues, writing, “Well, if sending these ‘activists’ to therapy instead of resetting the company’s moral compass counts as ‘repression,’ then maybe the company’s judgment was sounder than they think.”
Earlier this week, Responsible Statecraft reported on a leaked email from the hacked email account of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. “We have all been horrified by the growth of the BDS movement in college campuses and have concluded that we have to fight this battle before the kids even get to college,” said an email appearing to originate from Catz to Barak in 2015. “We believe that we have to embed the love and respect for Israel in the American culture.”
Sources familiar with the matter “could not confirm the authenticity of the email” and Oracle declined to comment about Catz’s statements. However, review of Catz’s public statements, as well as those from another executive at Oracle, reveal similar biases in favor of Israel and even clearer expressions of Oracle’s prioritization of Israel over any other countries or corporate interests.The track record of Oracle executives demanding commitment to Israel from staff around the world raises a number of questions:
How does Oracle address situations in which U.S. interests, or the interests of any other country in which the company operates, are in conflict with Israel’s interests?
Will these statements of unequivocal support for Israel translate into restrictions on speech critical of Israel on TikTok under Oracle’s ownership?
An Oracle spokesperson did not respond to these questions.
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Trump, Hamas, and the future of Palestine
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 6, 2025
The unprecedented statement
It is October 4, 2025: a few days before the second anniversary of the new war for the liberation of Palestine occupied by the Zionist entity Israel, the Hamas leadership has released a decisive statement regarding U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan for peace in the region.
Here is the full text:
In order to stop the aggression and war of extermination to which our steadfast people in the Gaza Strip are subjected, and in accordance with national responsibility, and to preserve the principles, rights, and supreme interests of our people, the Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” has conducted in-depth consultations with its leadership institutions, extensive consultations with Palestinian forces and factions, and consultations with mediators and fraternal friends, in order to arrive at a responsible position in dealing with the plan of U.S. President Donald Trump.
After thorough study, the movement has made its decision and delivered its response to the mediators as follows:
- The Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas appreciates the Arab, Islamic, and international efforts, as well as those of U.S. President Donald Trump, calling for an end to the war on Gaza, the exchange of prisoners, the immediate entry of aid, the rejection of occupation, and the rejection of the displacement of our Palestinian people.
- In this context, and in order to achieve a ceasefire and complete withdrawal from Gaza, the movement announces its approval for the release of all Israeli prisoners, dead or alive, according to the exchange formula included in President Trump’s proposal, provided that conditions on the ground allow for the exchange process.
- In this context, the movement confirms its readiness to immediately enter into negotiations through mediators to discuss the details.
- The movement also renews its approval of the handover of the administration of Gaza to a Palestinian body of independents (technocrats) based on Palestinian national consensus and with Arab and Islamic support.
- As for the other issues mentioned in President Trump’s proposal relating to the future of Gaza and the inherent rights of the Palestinian people, these are linked to an overall national position based on relevant international laws and decisions. They will be discussed within an overall Palestinian national framework, of which Hamas will be a part and to which it will contribute responsibly.
These words have shaken all those who support the struggle for the liberation of Palestine and the Axis of Resistance, but what exactly do they mean?
Behind the words
Hamas’ statement is very cleverly worded. At first glance, it may seem that the organization accepts Trump’s plan, but in essence this is not the case.
First, we must note that the wording of Hamas’ statement was chosen very carefully, with every word weighed. Thanking Trump, accepting the release of prisoners, even of bodies, accepting an independent technocratic government in Gaza, all seem at first glance to be a retreat on the part of Hamas; but if we look deeper, we see that all this is bound and conditioned by “conditions on the ground,” meaning that until Israel is ready to withdraw completely, there will in fact be no exchange.
Secondly, accepting the administration of Gaza by a technocratic government also seems like a retreat by Hamas, but if we pay attention, Hamas is talking about a collective Palestinian administration and, considering the predominantly Islamic and religious community in Gaza, a government of technocrats will not make sense and cannot really exist.
Third, Hamas has said it is ready and willing to accept the agreement, but issues relating to the future of Gaza, Palestinian rights, and the national framework must be examined at the national level, which means that even if Trump wanted to impose his totalitarian project, Hamas would oppose it as it would go against the terms of the agreement and jurisdiction, as these issues require general consensus.
Fourth, Hamas has not said it will leave, so its presence in Gaza’s political future is confirmed, and there is no mention of disarmament.
In fact, Hamas has very cleverly reformulated all its previous conditions on the negotiating table but, to use Trump’s own words, has returned the ball to Trump and left it in the American camp without giving any grounds for accusing Hamas of sabotaging the ceasefire, either in the media or in public opinion in Gaza.
Hamas responded to Trump’s plan with a response that is actually a conditional consent to put everything back in the blood-stained hands of the American Potus.
Looking at Trump’s plan
To better understand, let’s look at Trump’s plan. The national plan was to transfer the population of Gaza and transform the territory into a tourist area, a proposal clearly supported by the Zionist regime. However, in the new 20-point plan, Trump backtracked and accepted some decisive issues, such as those concerning the rights of the Palestinian population, reconstruction, the formation of a transitional government, a plan that even the American and Israeli media criticized as “difficult to sustain” even for Bibi Netanyahu.
The most important flaw in this plan, however, was that it completely ignored the key role of Hamas. Trump was trying to launch a “simulated peace” to save Netanyahu with the support of the collective West and even some compromised Arab countries, under strong public pressure, but the Sumud Flotilla incident exposed his plan and once again placed the regime at the center of global hatred. Therefore, Hamas’ response is also of great importance in terms of timing, as it demonstrates its political and media intelligence.
It should be reiterated that the statement issued by Hamas contains some key points:
- Accepting the ceasefire to demonstrate its opposition to war;
- Postponing the details to negotiations, thus leaving the final decision to Trump, which also means responsibility before the whole world;
- The absolute refusal to disarm;
- The future role in the Palestinian state.
An action that is perhaps the pinnacle of Hamas’ intelligence.
Hamas’ reaction explained by Hamas
Some senior Hamas leaders explained the response to the peace plan.
Musa Abu Marzouk explained the movement’s position on the proposed plan to end the Gaza war in an interview with Al Jazeera Qatar and outlined Hamas’ priorities in these negotiations, the first of which is to stop the massacre, stating: “Our priority is to stop the war and the massacre, and from this perspective, we have approached the plan in question with a positive attitude. We have examined the points of Trump’s plan directly related to the Hamas movement with a positive approach,“ adding that ”The implementation of the plan’s provisions requires details and understanding, and this plan cannot be implemented without negotiations. We will begin negotiations on all issues related to the movement and weapons.”
Describing part of the proposed plan as unrealistic, Abu Marzouk said, “The issue of handing over prisoners and bodies within 72 hours is theoretical and unrealistic in the current circumstances. The United States of America should look optimistically to the future of the Palestinian people.” Regarding the national agreement for the administration of Gaza, he said, “We have reached a national agreement on handing over the administration of Gaza to independent individuals (technocrats), and the authority for this administration will be the Palestinian National Authority. Outlining the future of the Palestinian people is a national issue that Hamas cannot decide on its own. We have agreed to the regional and international plan presented by Egypt, which includes answers regarding peace and the future.“
Marzouk also strongly reiterated that Hamas is a national liberation movement and that the definition of ”terrorism” contained in this plan cannot be applied to this movement under any circumstances: “We have agreed in principle and in general with the main points of the plan, but its implementation requires negotiations.”
This also has to do with the future of the weapons of resistance. The Hamas official specified that “We will hand over the weapons to the future Palestinian government, and whoever governs Gaza will have the weapons in their hands.” This line is consistent with what the Movement has always maintained.
Osama Hamdan, another senior official, told Al Arabi Channel that the Hamas movement is ready to immediately begin talks on the prisoner exchange operation, stressing that Hamas will not accept under any circumstances that a party outside Palestine take over the management of the Gaza Strip. The official also noted that the situation and facts on the ground regarding Israeli prisoners (both living and dead) must be taken into account in future negotiations. Hamdan added that the prisoner exchange process will take more than 72 hours and that this issue can only be resolved by reaching an agreement between the parties, reiterating that the entry of any foreign administration or force into Gaza is unacceptable under any circumstances.
Taher al-Nunu, media advisor to the head of Hamas’ political office, emphasized the movement’s full readiness to start immediate negotiations: “We are ready for immediate negotiations on prisoner exchange, ceasefire, and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.”
These statements were made in the hours immediately following the official announcement.
This has nothing to do with “taking a step back” or, worse still, abandonment: we are witnessing a strategic move that forces the Zionist regime and the corrupt West to show their cards by making the first move.
Game. Set.
International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza chair responds to Israel defamation campaign
MEMO | October 4, 2025
Zahir Birawi, chair of the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza has today issued a press statement in response to an Israeli defamation campaign against international activists, solidarity organisations, and particularly those of us working to end the criminal siege of Gaza through the Freedom and Sumud flotillas.
Birawi says that his name has been cited in defamatory reports issued by Israeli ministries, notably on 30 September. “I state unequivocally: the allegations of terrorism levelled against me are false, fabricated, and politically motivated. They form part of a systematic strategy to criminalise peaceful solidarity work, intimidate international activists, and manufacture consent for Israel’s ongoing acts of piracy, including the kidnapping of hundreds of human rights defenders sailing to Gaza with humanitarian aid.”
The statement read: “Israel’s actions are not isolated but part of a state doctrine of defamation against those who challenge its apartheid and colonial rule. By branding activists as extremists, Israel attempts to neutralise opposition to its crimes, delegitimise solidarity networks, and shift attention away from its violations of international law.”
In light of the gravity of the allegations Birawi has asserted his right to pursue legal action against those responsible for the smear campaign. He wrote:
“I reserve my full right to pursue legal remedies against those who propagate these defamatory claims. This is not an empty threat. In 2021, I successfully sued World-Check, compelling the company to remove my name from its terrorism list and compensate me for the damage caused by its false classification. This legal precedent demonstrates both the falsity of these accusations and the accountability that can be demanded from those who spread them.”
Seyed M. Marandi: Peace Deal & Another War Against Iran
Glenn Diesen | October 5, 2025
I spoke with Seyed Mohammad Marandi in Sochi about the peace deal being imposed on Gaza, and the US/Israeli preparations for another war with Iran. Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team.
The pirates of Israeli supremacy: The West’s favorite rogue state has done it again
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | October 2, 2025
The long-expected if perfectly criminal has happened again: Israel’s navy has intercepted the Gaza-bound Sumud Flotilla by force, stopping almost 50 boats and, in effect, kidnapping hundreds of their crews and passengers.
In terms of law – which, of course, are never really applied in practice to Israel – everything is exceedingly clear: The Sumud Flotilla was a volunteer operation to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza which has been subjected to Israeli genocide for now almost two years. Israel had a clear obligation to let that aid pass.
But then what to expect from the world’s most aggressive rogue state that is not “only” committing genocide, but also waging regional wars of aggression and running terrorist assassination campaigns in the face of the global public? And Israel has a well-established track-record of this kind of piracy, of course, having stopped several attempts to bring aid by sea since 2010, sometimes with casualties among the humanitarian activists.
Stopping the Sumud Flotilla wasn’t merely criminal but criminal in every regard lawyers can imagine, a typical Israeli super-whopper of legal nihilism: Israel attacked the flotilla ships in international waters where it has no jurisdiction. Even if the ships had gotten closer to the Gaza coast, they would, by the way, still not have been inside any Israeli territorial waters because there are no such waters off Gaza, over which Israel has no sovereignty as clearly confirmed by the International Court of Justice last year. What you find off the coast of Gaza, as a matter of fact, are Palestinian territorial waters.
The blockade of Gaza, which has lasted not “merely” for the duration of the current high-intensity genocide-ethnic cleansing campaign but for close to two decades now, is illegal. Because the blockade has been in place for so long, Israel is simply lying – surprise, surprise – when arguing it is a short-term measure covered by the San Remo rules, which summarize “International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.” And even if those rules applied, under them as well Israel would have to let humanitarian aid through.
Finally, as Israel has attacked ships and citizens belonging to over 40 countries, Israel has committed aggression under international law against all of them and, less obvious but a fact, also crimes under each of these countries’ domestic laws, because they apply on those ships.
So far for the law, but then again, Israel is de facto outside and above the law. That much we have known for a long time. Indeed, Israel could not exist without constantly breaking international law and getting away with it. For Israel, lawlessness and impunity are not luxuries but vital necessities.
The reason why it has been able to exist in this manner is well-known, too: It is protected by the West and, in particular, the US. The latter is Israel’s single worst co-perpetrator, facilitating its crimes like no other state on Earth. Soon, for instance, the recent war of aggression waged by America and Israel together against Iran will probably be followed by a second, even worse assault.
In this regard, what has happened to the Sumud Flotilla has been a test: Clearly, recent moves by various Western governments, including the UK, France, and Australia to “recognize” – in an extremely dishonest manner – a Palestinian state and add some cautious rhetorical criticism of Israel make no difference to their absolute deference in practice to both Israel and its backers in the US.
What seemed like a glimmer of hope for a moment, the appearance of warships from various nations to apparently escort the humanitarian flotilla, has turned into just another humiliation: the escort abandoned their charges well in time to allow Israel a free hand.
The same Western leaders responsible for this cowardly retreat cannot stop waffling about the need not to “reward the aggressor,” when dialing up the war hysteria against Russia, as they have been doing mightily again recently, from mystery drones to declaring unconstitutional states of “not-peace” to chatter of states of emergency.
What about, for once, not rewarding the genocider for a change? But that’s hard, isn’t it? Once all Western governments are accomplices of Israel.
The Sumud Flotilla will not have been the last attempt to break both Israel’s genocidal blockade and its aura of impunity. There is hope, because even in NATO-EU Europe and the US ever more people understand what Israel really is and what it really does: a settler-colonial apartheid state that won’t stop committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Israel’s systematic campaigns of propaganda and information war are escalating in response, as the case of TikTok has just demonstrated. But even Israel and its American friends cannot reverse history and an experience that the whole world has made. The Gaza Genocide is a fact already. It will not be forgotten. The resistance to Israel will never end.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
