Here is the bottom line: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of leaving Gaza, either before Israel’s general elections—likely to be held in October—or after. Conceding an inch from the roughly 70 percent of the territory his army currently occupies in Gaza will be considered a weakness by the majority of Israeli voters and would result in an open revolt within his extremist coalition.
He has made his intentions clear time and again. Recent statements by Israel’s political leadership have only reinforced that reality, with officials insisting that Israel must maintain indefinite military dominance over the Strip and explicitly rejecting any framework that requires a full withdrawal of troops. To Netanyahu, the military footprint in Gaza is a permanent fixture, not a temporary bargaining chip.
Some may argue that Netanyahu’s statements are merely political fodder aimed at prolonging his career and avoiding the disastrous outcomes awaiting him—in terms of state investigations and court trials—should he be ejected from power. However, his extremist policies throughout his entire career at the helm of Israeli politics say otherwise.
There has never been a period in Netanyahu’s history in which he showed a genuine willingness to compromise or engage in an authentic political process with the Palestinians.
This reduces the point of the Washington-led Board of Peace and its subsequent administrative bodies to near irrelevance. These entities—including the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) and a multinational International Stabilization Force (ISF)—were supposedly assembled with the sole aim of managing a transitional phase, delivering humanitarian aid, and deploying a peacekeeping buffer to facilitate a gradual Israeli military withdrawal.
It seems that two separate, irreconcilable tracks are taking shape. One is the Israeli track of continued war, entrenched military occupation, and prolonged genocide. The other is an international track, controlled firmly by Washington, aimed largely at finding alternative ways to manage Gaza on behalf of Israel.
Yet even with its obvious limitations, the Gaza plan’s first phase theoretically promises a phased Israeli military repositioning, a sustainable ceasefire, a massive influx of reconstruction aid, and the gradual handover of civil administration to a non-factional Palestinian authority.
Little of that has actually been delivered. While the United States and international envoys claim the ceasefire hinges on disarmament, Israel has used the diplomatic deadlock to advance its troops further into the Strip rather than withdrawing them. Aid remains choked at the borders, and the promised reconstruction has not even begun.
Indirect talks are ongoing in Cairo, though it seems that only Palestinians are being held accountable or expected to carry out heavy concessions. Moreover, after 19 years of Hamas governing Gaza, the movement announced on 6th July that it has officially dissolved the Emergency Committee that has been administering the Strip. The movement declared its full readiness to transfer governance to the National Committee, intended to administer Gaza under the framework of the US-brokered plan.
On paper, this suggests that a political transition is finally underway. In reality, no such transition is taking place.
Israel is actively preventing this technocratic government from assuming any real duties. Rather than facilitating a civil handover, the Israeli political security cabinet has completely dismissed the transition.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar openly labeled the move a “trick,” arguing that a technocratic administration would merely be responsible for municipal tasks like garbage collection while allowing resistance networks to persist.
Instead, Israel’s military strategy continues to fuel conditions that undermine any possibility of stabilizing the devastated Strip. Its objective is not merely to reject an alternative Palestinian administration, but to ensure that no functioning Palestinian governing authority can emerge at all. By doing so, Tel Aviv wants to create a permanent governance vacuum, sowing further chaos and fragmentation.
If no alternative Palestinian political body is permitted to stabilize Gaza, the default collapse will inevitably force local factions to reassert control over daily survival, thus giving Israel yet more pretenses to exact more punishment on a helpless population.
Following the Hamas political move, Israel simply responded with its standard currency: immediate violence. This was starkly illustrated on 9th July, when Israeli forces carried out a targeted airstrike on a vehicle in Gaza City in a failed attempt to assassinate Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem. Though the assassination attempt failed, the strike sent a clear message that Israel has no intention of respecting political transformations or ceasefires.
While no houses are being built, no schools are being constructed, and no hospitals are being revived, the only numbers that keep growing are those of the dead and wounded.
The human cost has reached unfathomable proportions: the Palestinian death toll in Gaza has surpassed 73,000, with the number of wounded exceeding 173,200. Tragically, these numbers continue to climb daily: over 1,098 Palestinians have been killed since the so-called ceasefire framework was initially agreed upon, proving that the truce exists only in media rhetoric, not on the ground.
This leaves us with a single, inescapable conclusion: the political track aimed at reconstructing Gaza and ending the Israeli military presence has little bearing on the grim realities unfolding on the ground.
The only way out is a stronger, independent international will that wrestles the future of Gaza from the grip of Netanyahu, translating political agreements into immediate humanitarian outcomes and a definitive end to the Israeli occupation.
Until Israel is compelled to relinquish its military control over Gaza, every new committee, reconstruction mechanism, or diplomatic initiative risks becoming little more than political theatre.
July 15, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Comments Off on The not-so-secret Israeli strategy: This is the real Gaza plan
Hamas’ decision to dissolve its committee governing the Gaza Strip was not a trick or simple gesture; the movement has long sought to hand over control of the territory’s civil administration. While the Zionists have claimed that Hamas governing the territory has long been the key impediment to “peace”, nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite the Israeli-US refusal to implement the agreed-upon terms of the Gaza ceasefire, never entering into the second phase of the agreement and remaining in limbo instead, Hamas recently took a measure that aimed to show the international community that it was willing to take the initiative in good faith. Immediately, the Israelis and their defenders began to invent narratives arguing that Hamas had engaged in some kind of trick, while asserting that the Palestinian group needed to disarm for the second phase of the agreement to begin.
The United States and its so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP) have put little to no effort into the ceasefire, despite having been authorised to exist by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). When there have been any measures taken, they usually come in the form of guarding the Israelis from criticism, despite the fact that they have killed over 1,000 Palestinians since the ceasefire began and blocked many basic goods from crossing into the territory inhabited by the internally displaced.
As a measure to try and get the process jump-started once again, Hamas announced the dissolution of the temporary committee set up to govern the people after they had suffered an all-out genocide. The critics of this move claim that Hamas-affiliated individuals could be involved in the future technocratic body that the movement has just made way for, which is simply an excuse to prevent further progress.
Unfortunately, even if a technocratic Gaza governing body can be achieved, the Israelis are likely to point to its members as agents of Hamas. This could come in the form of pointing to these technocrats previously working for the civil administration in Gaza, which evidently has been run by Hamas. The same would be the case if you sought to dismantle the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s civil administration in the occupied West Bank; inevitably, the people most qualified to assume positions under a technocratic administration would likely have had some job role under the PA in the past and may even have Party affiliations to Fatah or the PFLP. This wouldn’t mean they are agents of those organisations, it just means that all the available jobs in their field require being employed with the PA.
Hamas did not simply seize control of the civil administration in Gaza as a power-hungry movement that was desperate for control. They were pressured into running in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative elections, which, to their own surprise, they won in a landslide. Immediately upon their election to power, the United States, their EU partners, and “Israel” sought to punish them for daring to engage in democracy.
The EU and US immediately placed sanctions upon the Gaza Strip, the Israelis imposed a blockade, and then the Bush Jr. administration covertly armed a coup plot that sought to violently overthrow Hamas. The coup plot was ultimately foiled by the Qassam Brigades (armed wing of Hamas) in 2007, which is when the Israelis tightened their blockade on Gaza.
Following this, the Palestinian civil war between Hamas and Fatah raged on. Despite countless attempts to mend ties, both Gaza and the West Bank were split from one another. This was a scenario brought about by US-Israel-EU interference, not the Palestinians alone.
After years of failed unity attempts, in 2014, there appeared to be a diplomatic breakthrough between Hamas and Fatah, which is when the Israelis found a convenient pretext to launch a massive assault on the Gaza Strip. Not only did the Zionist regime murder over 2,300 Palestinians, but their allies in Washington helped to ensure that the Palestinian Authority would back away from any unity agreement.
Again, in 2017, there was a unity agreement that was almost reached between Hamas and the PA. Hamas was on the verge of handing over control of the civil administration to the Palestinian Authority (PA). On November 1, Hamas dissolved its governing committee and handed over control of the Rafah border crossing to the PA, an event which was celebrated across the Gaza Strip. However, the US and Israel again intervened to pressure the PA to collapse the agreement.
Control over the civil administration in Gaza has never been the demonstrated or publicly stated goal of the Hamas movement. Time and time again, they have made strides towards relinquishing governance. The reason why the US, EU, and Israelis don’t allow it is for two reasons:
They don’t want the PA to govern both Gaza and the West Bank, because they fear this will give legitimacy to the idea of a Palestinian State.
Hamas and allied resistance movements refuse to disarm as a part of any such agreement.
The problem was never that Hamas was clinging to power; it was that the Israelis and their complicit Western partners sought to prevent the formation of a Palestinian State and to rob the people of Palestine of their ability to defend themselves.
July 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Hamas had no option but to govern Gaza and repeatedly tried to find solutions
A view of the destruction caused by Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 7, 2023, as seen from Israel on June 02, 2026. [Mostafa Alkharouf – Anadolu Agency]
Hamas’s decision to dissolve the Government Emergency Committee in the Gaza Strip and transfer civilian administration to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza marks a significant strategic shift. To interpret it as capitulation or defeat is to misunderstand the current stage of the Palestinian national liberation struggle.
The movement has reaffirmed its commitment to implementing the ceasefire agreement and fulfilling its responsibilities until Gaza’s civilian administration is fully transferred.
The decision should be understood as a tactical repositioning aimed at preserving three strategic objectives: Hamas’s political survival, the reconstruction of Palestinian national unity and the continuation of resistance.
The first is to preserve Hamas as a political, social and military force deeply rooted in Palestinian society.
For almost two decades, the movement has carried the dual burden of governing and resisting, administering a population subjected to blockade, repeated wars and the systematic destruction of the material conditions necessary for life.
After the most devastating war in contemporary Palestinian history, the occupation failed to achieve one of its principal declared objectives: eliminating Hamas.
Leaving Gaza’s day-to-day administration allows the movement to reduce its institutional exposure, reorganise its structures and concentrate on its historical reason for existence: the Palestinian national liberation struggle.
The second objective is to contribute to rebuilding Palestinian national unity.
The political and geographical fragmentation between Gaza and the West Bank, together with internal Palestinian divisions, has long constituted one of the occupation’s greatest strategic advantages.
By transferring civilian administration to a Palestinian national body, Hamas signals that governmental control over Gaza is subordinate to the broader objective of rebuilding national unity.
Gaza does not belong to Hamas. It belongs to the Palestinian people.
The new administration, however, cannot become an instrument of foreign tutelage or a mechanism for excluding political forces with genuine roots in Palestinian society.
The central challenge remains rebuilding a representative Palestinian leadership capable of speaking for Palestinians in the occupied territories, refugee camps and the diaspora.
The third objective is to preserve the continuity of resistance.
Governing and resisting are different political functions. A national liberation movement may participate in elections, administer territories, negotiate ceasefires and accept transitional governments. It may also withdraw from administrative structures when remaining within them threatens higher strategic objectives.
To confuse tactical flexibility with strategic abandonment is to misunderstand the history of anti-colonial struggles.
For years, “Israel” claimed that Hamas’s presence in government justified the blockade, military aggression and collective punishment imposed on Gaza.
Now that the movement has completed the procedures necessary to transfer civilian administration, the occupation is seeking to obstruct the implementation of the agreement, prevent the National Committee from assuming its responsibilities and create an administrative vacuum capable of prolonging Palestinian suffering.
The contradiction is revealing. The objective was never simply to remove Hamas from government, but to deprive the Palestinian people of their capacity to resist.
By demanding that mediators and guarantor states pressure “Israel” to comply with the agreement and allow the National Committee to begin its work, Hamas is also confronting these actors with their responsibilities.
The establishment of the new administration could restore essential public services, strengthen Palestinian resilience and begin confronting the humanitarian catastrophe produced by the war.
Hamas’s decision therefore puts the occupation’s own narrative to the test.
If the war was necessary because Hamas governed Gaza, then the movement’s departure from government should pave the way for the withdrawal of occupying forces, the opening of border crossings, reconstruction and an end to military aggression.
If new conditions continue to be imposed, the political reality will become impossible to conceal: the problem was never simply who governed Gaza, but the existence of a people who refuse submission, displacement and disappearance.
Hamas may leave ministries, dissolve committees and transfer civilian administration. But leaving government does not mean abandoning resistance.
Governing Gaza was a historical circumstance. The liberation of Palestine remains the strategic objective.
July 7, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestine |
Comments Off on Hamas is leaving government, not the resistance
The United States has reportedly delivered a document to ‘Israel’ outlining a framework to move forward with the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip even if Hamas does not surrender its weapons, according to Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation.
The report said Washington is seeking written approval from ‘Israel’ for the proposal, which reportedly reflects US pressure to advance President Donald Trump’s post-war Gaza plan while avoiding a renewed war in the enclave.
Neither the United States nor ‘Israel’ had officially commented on the reported document as of Tuesday.
According to the report, the framework would require ‘Israel’ to allow major infrastructure projects across the Gaza Strip, including work on water, electricity, and other essential services in areas that have yet to be specified.
The proposal also reportedly calls for relocating residents from areas “controlled by Hamas” to zones administered by the Peace Council by the end of 2026.
It further includes establishing the headquarters of a technocratic government, permitting the construction of bases for an international stabilization force, and rebuilding the European Hospital. The plan would also allow the entry of construction materials and medical equipment, along with the creation of an access corridor to the hospital through Hamas-controlled areas.
According to the reported document, ‘Israel’ would transfer Palestinian Authority tax revenues related to Gaza to the Peace Council while gradually recognizing the technocratic government as the governing authority in the territory.
The proposal would also grant the technocratic administration freedom of movement inside and outside the Gaza Strip for official purposes, allow digital payments, expand fuel distribution, and introduce fourth-generation (4G) mobile services, which are currently unavailable in Gaza.
The report said these measures are intended to “reduce Hamas’ ability to collect taxes and administrative fees.”
The framework also includes conditional amnesty for individuals who “surrender their weapons and commit to maintaining peace.”
The reported proposal envisions security being overseen by an international stabilization force supported by an unarmed Palestinian civil guard.
At the same time, it would preserve “Israeli right to take what it considers necessary security measures if Hamas does not comply with calls to disarm.”
According to the broadcaster, the overall message of the document suggests Washington no longer sees resuming the war in Gaza as a preferred option and instead wants to accelerate efforts to establish an alternative governing authority, even if Hamas refuses to relinquish its weapons.
June 30, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Gaza Reconstruction Plan Sent by US to ‘Israel’ Leaves Out Hamas Disarmament: Report
In the years of Pro-Palestine demonstrations I’ve attended since 7th October 2023, there is rarely a mention of the group at the core of the whole issue: Hamas. For people are fearful to talk about them. But whilst calling for support for Hamas may be illegal, seeking its de-proscription is not. The UK Government’s 2000 Terrorism act permits requesting the de-proscription of any “terrorist” group. You can’t be penalised for calling for de-proscription. Citizens have the right to appeal against proscription if you give a reason as to why its proscription affects you.
Following the events of 7th October 2023, I did exactly that and launched a petition to the Home Secretary. Initially I tried to get the petition before Parliament using the UK Government portal but was told it was beyond Parliament’s remit! So, I launched it online on Go-Petition, promoted it using 20,000 flyers – which I took to all the demonstrations around London and Scotland – and started getting signatures.
By January, the online petition had 45,000 views and 1,410 signatures which, though fearing arrest, I took to Downing Street. My two supporters and I had our photo taken outside No. 10 and were welcomed into the building by police carrying a big box with Hamas Petition written on it.
The mainstream media was completely absent, despite my mailing 270 journalists – not one of whom decided to cover it. Only Russia Today, Al Jazeera, The Canary and Middle East Monitor carried it.
I experienced no issue with the police despite threats of being arrested from two of the 650 MPs I had written to on the petition. Unhappily for these two public servants, I had broken no law.
To be clear, although I have previously been in touch with Hamas on a prior campaign to twin Edinburgh with Gaza, they did not request nor have any involvement with this one. Indeed, around this time, an organisation called Riverways Law were asked by Hamas to submit a de-proscription application.
Their submission was much more thorough than my 8-page submission to the Home Secretary. You can check it out in full on their website at https://hamascase.com. It had lots of witness statements, including from members of Hamas describing what they saw on 7th October as well as the impact de-proscription was having on people’s lives. It was a phenomenal amount of work. They asked for de-proscription on three grounds:
- They said the Home Secretary has a duty to prevent even a suspicion of genocide; the way that the rules are set out, it’s not that she needs to see someone committing genocide in order to stop them – if there is even a suspicion of genocide, it becomes incumbent upon her to act. But because she’s banned Hamas and Hamas is fighting genocide- proscription means she’s undermining that fight.
- The second issue of course was Freedom of Speech. The Qassam Brigades (the armed wing of Hamas) were banned in 2001 by Tony Blair, but the political part of Hamas was accepted by Britain as being legitimate – they were essentially the government of Gaza. It wasn’t until 2021 when Priti Patel went on holiday to Israel, met Netanyahu and banned Hamas on her return. No vote in Parliament was required. Yet as Hamas has never operated outside Palestine, there is no issue of protection within the UK. We in Britain should have a right to discuss Hamas and by banning it, the Home Secretary has taken away our freedom of speech, which is Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. So, it is the British Government who are breaking the law here.
- Finally, there is the lack of proportionality over banning. The Quartet (Russia, the US, UN and the EU) – set their preconditions after Hamas was democratically elected in 2006. Despite the fact that the UN has allowed the use of armed force against occupation since 1982, they said they would only engage with Hamas if they gave up arms, recognise Israel and accept all PLO/Israeli agreements that had been made in the Oslo Accords of 1993. Clearly, Hamas were never going to do that.
The Quartet later appointed Tony Blair because of his ability in Northern Ireland to get peace- which was an incredible achievement. But we got peace because we negotiated. We never asked Sinn Fein to recognise Britain’s authority over Ulster. We weren’t asking the same thing that he was then asking Hamas to do. Another example: Nelson Mandela, when he headed the armed wing of the ANC, wasn’t asked to renounce the ANC before discussing peace.
Also, Hamas is the Gaza administration- so proscription criminalises all public sector workers there. For example, Gaza City Council has 5,000 employees, just looking after the million people who lived in Gaza City. Technically, if you send money to one of those employees- you could be supporting Hamas. So its banning is simply unjust because it criminalises a vast swathe of people. It’s also pointless because they don’t have any influence over Britain.
The original charter was drafted when Hamas was established in 1987; there were some quite harsh things in there. It’s an Islamic resistance movement after all – but that wasn’t the full thoughts of Hamas, because it wasn’t written by all of them, it was written by one man. So, in 2017 they released a clarification – their Principles and Policies. In it, they even said they would settle for a “Hudna”, a truce, along the same lines as what the UN and UK demands – a return to the 1967 borders, Israel giving up the land it had taken then, giving up that occupation. Hamas also wanted the Palestinian prisoners to be released and the Palestinians who were driven out in 1948 to be given the right of return, as the UN had called for in resolution 194. But the Hamas offer of a truce was completely ignored; this proposal wasn’t covered in the West at all.
Each year Hamas calls for elections; but Fatah each year denies them. It’s true that Hamas would prefer Sharia law, but it has said it will go with the majority in a democratic Palestine. It seeks the end of Israel but would live alongside Jews who gave up Zionism. But none of this was or is talked about.
We get a very twisted view of Hamas. A brief look at its history: it all began with the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 in Egypt, which was then constituted in Palestine in 1946. The Brotherhood concentrated on philanthropic acts- setting up mosques, schools, universities and so on. Back then Russia and China supported the liberation movements all over the world and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) benefitted from this. As the Soviet Union fell, political Islam rose. In 1987 much of the Brotherhood realised it could not refuse to fight any longer and so with the first intifada in 1987, Hamas emerged. Initially, Israel discreetly supported them as a counter to the secular PLO. But in 1993 matters exploded after Israeli Baruch Goldstein killed 29 worshippers at a mosque in Hebron (Goldstein is a hero nowadays to people like Ben-Gvir); he committed mass murder and injured hundreds more. As a response, the Qasam brigades (the Hamas armed wing) declared they would retaliate, using two suicide bombs in buses against civilians in 1994. This resulted in Hamas’ proscription by the US and then the UK and EU.
Recall that in 1993, Israel and the PLO had signed the Oslo Accords- without most Palestinians knowing about it. The PLO was led by Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s party.
Hamas rejected these accords and wouldn’t get involved in the first elections but chose to give the new Palestine Authority (PA) a chance. The PA began then doing what Israel had said they should do in the agreement, which was to jail people who were resisting Israel’s rule. The PA started jailing Hamas supporters, doing Israel’s dirty work. Also, it was becoming quite corrupt.
Hamas was under attack on all fronts. From 1996 onwards, Israel began murdering Hamas leaders; in 2004 they assassinated Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, its founder. Fatah’s Arafat also died in 2004, following which Abbas stood for election. Hamas boycotted this, because any president of theirs would have had to negotiate with Israel, which they did not wish to do- so Fatah’s Abbas took power. But in 2006 Hamas decided they would stand for election because they fundamentally believe in democracy. They did stand, winning handsomely. But Israel and the US immediately set about undermining the Hamas Government, which Fatah had also rejected, because they didn’t want to give up power. Abbas had his own US-trained police force versus the Hamas Government police force; this was just a recipe for disaster. There were many killings of Hamas supporters, then revenge killings; eventually it became clear that Fatah was planning a coup, which led to Hamas seizing power in Gaza.
Thereafter, Israel refused to negotiate over Palestinian statehood. They employed a Catch-22; they said they wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas, because they were “terrorists”; and they wouldn’t negotiate with the PA because it didn’t reflect all Palestinians. There was no way to win because Israel had every excuse in the book for refusing the things that they had agreed to.
In the West Bank, as expected, the PA became responsible for arresting Hamas supporters, making them very unpopular. Then when Hamas took power in Gaza, Israel began its blockade; Hamas responded by firing rockets into Israel. Over 20 years from 2001 onwards, 44 Israelis were killed by rockets fired from Gaza; over the same period, Israel killed many, many thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.
Note that Hamas made repeated attempts over the years at peaceful protest, culminating in the 2018 Great March of Return. It was just so shocking; people were getting murdered by snipers just because they wanted to go home, back through the fence. Many of us became aware of the true nature of the Israeli regime at this time.
But Israel continued to allow Qatar to fund Hamas; suitcases full of dollar bills went into Gaza because Israel wanted to keep Hamas going, as then they would continue in conflict with Fatah (the PA), who were being funded by the EU and the US. The more they became polarised, the more the Israelis benefitted.
This carried on until Donald Trump set up the 2020 Abraham Accords in an attempt to “normalise” relations between the Arab states and Israel, seeking the former’s recognition and trade with Israel. Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates all signed and in 2023 it looked like Saudi Arabia was going to be next, even though up until then the Saudis had said they wouldn’t normalise unless Palestine attained statehood. But the more the Israelis promised the Saudis- their own nuclear power stations for example- the more the Saudis were tempted, which gave the strong impression that Palestine was being negotiated away. Hamas felt it had to put Palestine back in the public eye. Also, there was a lot of anger about Israeli actions at Al Aqsa Mosque in 2023, where IDF soldiers attacked people at worship during Ramadan.
Hamas launched their strike pre-emptively as they became aware that Israel was about to attack again and take the Hamas leaders. In this strike, their stated aim was to capture soldiers- as the going rate for one Israeli soldier was about one thousand Palestinians, as evidenced by the various previous prisoner exchanges that had taken place.
The plan therefore was to take captives. On 7th October Hamas launched an attack with the IDF falling back quickly, which Hamas didn’t expect. They then moved to settlements seeking more captives. Israel now employed the Hannibal directive, which is to stop Israelis falling into Palestinian hands. Clearly, the damage to cars at the scene could not have been done by guys on motorbikes with Kalashnikovs and were likely done by Hellfire missiles from IDF Apache helicopters. These cars were completely and utterly burned out. The cars had been taking Israelis back to Gaza as captives, but the IDF bombed them. Damage from IDF tank fire of kibbutz homes was also apparent. Whether there was a Palestinian in there and some Israelis, the IDF didn’t care, they just bombed the whole building because they knew that they could then blame Hamas. It’s believed as many as 800 Israelis were killed by the IDF. Furthermore, as more and more evidence has come to light following the attack, the claims of mass rape have by now been largely dismissed, despite the media frenzy. There were 19 breaches of the border fence, through which lots of people flooded out of Gaza, not just Hamas. The psychological state of these Gazans can be guessed at, after being starved and bombed for twenty years. They attacked the Nova festival that Hamas says they didn’t know was taking place.
The US and UK accepted Israel’s narrative. And now Israel uses the terrorist label to justify a genocide. And most Israelis have gone along with this because, they think “Oh no, they’re going to kill us all”. It’s got to that level of terror amongst your average Israeli – that they think “we can’t do anything but kill Palestinians, because otherwise we’re dead”. Which is exactly what Netanyahu and the Zionists want.
Even in this country, they brew up terror amongst Jewish people, because they know that just keeps the whole ball rolling that Jews everywhere are at risk– and nothing sells newspapers like antisemitism.
As long as Hamas represents the majority political view in Palestine, any negotiations would need to include Hamas, for any resulting deal to have any legitimacy within Palestine. Various UK Lords such as Lord Peter Hain and Lord Rickets have declared that wiping out Hamas is impossible. Even Tony Blair said it was a mistake to ban Hamas. Yet, these issues are shoved under the carpet and what we have is a very silent acceptance of proscription. But 80% of countries in the world do not label Hamas as terrorists. The UN does not define Hamas as terrorists. It’s actually the UK, the EU and the US that do so, which gives Israel all the cover it needs to continue killing Palestinians.
Pro-Palestine demonstrations are all very good but are not really getting at the root of what’s going on; Palestinians are fighting for their lives and land, and we should not ignore the fact that Hamas are fighting for them.
The tide is turning. A recent survey by the Higher Education Policy Institute indicated that more than a quarter of British undergraduates consider the Hamas attacks of 7th October to be “defensible”. Furthermore, Britain’s Muslim police body, the National Association of Muslim Police, recently defended Hamas and labelled the IDF as a “terrorist group”.
We must keep calling for de-proscription. If you agree, please sign the petition at www.tiny.cc/hamas – which also supports the Riverways Law bid. Although that was turned down, it is now being pursued through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. We can then start getting people to write to their MPs. If enough people bug their politicians, we may succeed, not tomorrow perhaps, but if we persist for as long as it takes, it may lead to the establishment of a new democratic state for the most persecuted and oppressed people on this planet.
June 17, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Hamas, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, UK, Zionism |
Comments Off on Call for Hamas de-proscription
GAZA – Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem said on Friday that the Israeli military’s movement of the so-called “yellow line” westward in Gaza City, accompanied by shelling and the displacement of Palestinians, represents a blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement.
In a statement, Qassem said the move reflects threats made by the Israeli prime minister to expand Israeli control over parts of the Gaza Strip. He also criticized the silence of the “Peace Council” and its head, Nickolay Miladinov, as well as the inability of mediating and guarantor countries to prevent what he called a new breach of the agreement.
Qassem noted that the developments come amid ongoing negotiations in Cairo and a positive approach by Palestinian factions toward the talks.
He said that the latest actions demonstrate Israel’s unwillingness to implement the ceasefire agreement, accusing it of attempting to derail negotiations, undermine diplomatic efforts, and continue escalation for political and electoral purposes.
June 12, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Comments Off on Hamas: Israeli shift of Gaza’s “Yellow Line” constitutes blatant ceasefire violation
Palestinian factions have submitted their official response to a revised ceasefire proposal presented by Egyptian, Qatari and Turkish mediators, with attention now turning to Israel’s position on the proposed amendments, Palestinian sources told Quds Press.
According to the sources, the response was delivered on Tuesday after several days of intensive consultations among factions participating in talks in Cairo.
The mediators have reportedly forwarded the Palestinian observations and proposed amendments to the Israeli side and are awaiting a formal response, particularly regarding clauses eight and nine of the proposal, which have emerged as key points of disagreement during the latest round of negotiations.
The sources said discussions remain complex despite continued mediation efforts aimed at bridging differences between the parties.
Negotiations, which began earlier this week in Cairo, have focused on reaching arrangements that could secure broader agreement on the implementation of a ceasefire and the future governance of Gaza.
According to the sources, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to insist on two central demands: the surrender of weapons held by Palestinian factions and the dismantling of military infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.
The sources said those demands have been rejected by Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Movement and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Palestinian factions informed the mediators that they oppose any agreement requiring the disarmament of resistance groups or the dismantling of their military structures, describing the issue as a fundamental national principle.
The sources said the factions maintained that the question of weapons cannot be separated from the broader issue of the Israeli occupation and should not be addressed independently of a comprehensive political settlement.
June 11, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Comments Off on Palestinian factions submit response to mediators, reject disarmament proposal
Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said the movement highly valued the Iranian and Yemeni responses to what he described as escalating Israeli aggression against the Lebanese people, saying the stance represented a genuine model of solidarity among the region’s nations in confronting Israeli attacks.
In a press statement on Monday, Qassem said Hamas viewed the position as “the true form of solidarity that should prevail among all components of the nation”. He called on regional forces to regard this level of support and backing as a duty at this stage in support of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples.
Qassem said Hamas had received repeated assurances from Iranian and Yemeni officials that they were seeking to end the war on all fronts, including the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip.
He added that Iran had provided the movement with political, military and financial support and continued to declare its backing for the Palestinian people and their right to resist, while also supporting efforts aimed at securing a ceasefire.
Qassem said Hamas hoped that the current state of solidarity and direct support would extend to Gaza and that the enclave would remain central to regional efforts linked to ending the war and halting the aggression.
June 9, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen |
Comments Off on Hamas: Iran seeking end to war on all fronts, including Gaza
Andi Olluri argues that the Gaza “peace process” serves as a propaganda framework that legitimizes Israeli occupation and Western policy objectives while presenting Palestinian surrender and disarmament as prerequisites for peace. Media and political elites, he contends, have systematically reframed ongoing violence, occupation, and collective punishment as diplomacy, while marginalizing Palestinian proposals for political settlement.
In Gaza, “Israel” has effectively been working toward the goal they have had since day one, namely “not fighting a terrorist organization but against the State of Gaza”, “not provide the other side with any capability that prolongs its life” and thus effectively fight against “not only Hamas fighters with weapons”, but “the entire Gaza population”, quoting Giora Eiland, former Israeli head of the National Security Council.
This has been the consistent goal ever since, stated over and over again by the top Israeli leadership. “We are deep inside Gaza and will never leave all of Gaza – that will not happen,” in the words of War Minister Israel Katz. In short, “full conquest of the Gaza Strip, to establish Israeli control over all the territory of the Strip”, as the government explained in April.
The stage for illegal “full conquest of the Gaza strip” was set last fall, when the international community approved of the US Board of Peace (BoP) – Orwell would have loved that one. This brilliant propaganda coup was achieved after we killed at least 200,000 Palestinians, according to Western intelligence estimates, and physically eradicated the country in a war with the specific purpose of ethnic cleansing, and with sadism that would have put Pol Pot to shame.
The background happens to be quite revealing, and is of course completely forgotten now – minimal reporting as there was to begin with. Western designs and plans to control Gaza were basically declared to be tantamount to lawless aggression. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the West is “under obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal” occupation and attack. The ICJ also ordered to immediately halt “financial, economic, military or technological aid to the State of Israel, and punish such violations” and that Western terror states must pay “full reparation” to the Palestinians.
Naturally, then, the West immediately sent tens of billions in military aid to “Israel” – and engaged directly in military operations and occupation administration, as Western intellectuals marched further with self-adulation of our service for international law and democracy. The story was, incidentally, similar to when the International Criminal Court (ICC) declared an arrest warrant for Western-supported Israeli terrorists and war criminals. In that case, the US, Britain, and the EU simply destroyed the court (once a darling, when it went after Russia) with crushing sanctions, outright threats, and carefully orchestrated smear campaigns.
Western leaders were refreshingly honest, and noted that their official stance here is that the court “is for Africa and thugs like Putin,” according to Senator Lindsey Graham. That is entirely correct: we must pretend to care about international law when condemning official enemies, and make sure to keep quiet when we conduct global gangsterism.
This entire episode was plainly too embarrassing to be remembered, and had to be censored into total historical oblivion – an easy task for the Western doctrinal system. On full display is the utter servility and cowardice of the media and intellectual classes, as they joined their state in its rampage against international law, and defenseless people withstanding Western aggression.
Well, after all of these triumphs, the BoP could be created. Its founding documents – as confirmed by the subsequent events, too – made clear that Gaza has no right to self-defense, and that Israeli-American occupation could continue and in fact expand. Thus, the very purpose of the BoP was to enable maintaining the situation created by “Israel’s” illegal attack, in defiance of the world court – and to the deafening praise and awe of the media.
Thus, Dennis Ross, senior US Middle East diplomat and apologist for Western atrocities, celebrated that the BoP “is reason for hope,” and that the “constellation of force” consisting of “a powerful United States” with its Israeli and Arab satellites “are also cause for optimism.” Not everything is so glitzy, however, and there is a problem: “Hamas … could try to violate the cease-fire’s various terms”. If “commitment from Hamas” can be ensured, then we will be able to enforce the “peace plan”, to quote the European Council on Foreign Relations, the leading European policy forum.
Slaughtering hundreds of thousands in an illegal war of extermination, starving the population, destroying the courts that came in our way is no issue of concern and merits not one phrase in the journals of opinion or the public debate. Only “hope” and admiration of our “force” is permissible after a successful genocide.
The fact that we can even talk of a “peace plan” organized by the attackers ethnically cleansing the victim is a logical impossibility in itself. It is comparable only to, say, the Nazi press being filled with “optimism” as the Führer implements his “peace plan” after he successfully conquered Norway. The plain absurdity of it all is too spectacular even to talk about, but cannot be perceived in a society as deeply indoctrinated as ours. Stating the simple truth is simply incomprehensible, comparable to speaking a foreign language or imagining a “round square”.
We read, without anyone raising even an eyebrow, that this is the “best chance .. in decades to create a Gaza controlled not by Hamas or Israel, but by its people” (a total lie, of course). “For the first time in a long while, there are some bright lights in Gaza”, and therefore “any sensible person should wish success for the Board of Peace”, as liberal Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it. If this can be achieved through crushing the indigenous resistance, Hamas, then “that would be a historic feat indeed” – to use the words of Cambridge’s Chair of International Law professor Marc Weller, illustrating his contempt for court orders and international law.
The “best chance” for a free Gaza, then, is not to stop the attack, occupation and then colonization, followed by reparations for this crime of this century. Or perhaps to follow the orders of the world court, which would in fact mandate all of these things. Rather, it is to carry out this “war of extermination: the indiscriminate, unrestrained, cruel, and criminal killing of civilians” as the top Israeli political echelon itself describes it, and then impose a capitulation ultimatum on the population that has not yet been killed and starved to death. Only then can we celebrate the “bright lights in Gaza”.
We witness with clarity the utter irrelevance and disregard for concepts such as illegal aggression, mass slaughter, and international law among Western intellectuals. This is required for anybody wishing to be regarded as a respected intellectual, be granted a nice law professorship at an elite university or gain access to the media; otherwise you cannot be part of the “debate”.
Well, fast forward to today. The dear Leader declared that “peace” had been achieved and that we ought to look away, and naturally loyal media dutifully followed order. Careful studies showed that Western media coverage of Gaza then immediately dropped, while daily Israeli massacres in Gaza (around 1,000 murdered and more than 2,500 wounded as of writing) continue since November 2025, virtually without a whisper of criticism.
The only issue of concern is whether Hamas will “agree” to disarm or not. Translating that from Newspeak to English: will our victim agree to give up all resistance to our invasion and occupation plans, thus alone sticking to our fraudulent version of the accords, as we violate their terms every day? That is the meaning of the entire “debate” about Hamas’ disarmament when you put the euphemisms aside.
In short: the whole purpose of the fraudulent “ceasefire” designed to lower Hamas’ guard is thus to force the Palestinians to be “implementers of the decisions of others,” leaving them “once again not at all the masters of their own fate” (UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths), and thus “prevent a Palestinian state,” according to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a terrorist culture such as this, in which a leading doctrine is that no one has the right to defend themselves from Western attack, it is natural that we are furious and concerned at the slightest sign that the Palestinians should try to defend themselves instead of capitulating. On this issue, near 100% consensus reigns throughout the entire political spectrum.
For example, former Middle East correspondent for AP, Dan Perry, berated that “Hamas is making a mockery of … Trump’s plan” – not the US and “Israel”, of course. The Palestinians, then, “are still trapped under the boot of a jihadist mafia that destroyed their lives” – again, not the Western genocide and war of extermination – and therefore “Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state as long as Hamas remains an armed militia with any prospect of again seizing control.”
Since everybody has already internalized the understanding that no one has the right to self-defense against Western attack, it is pointless to ask why Hamas and the Palestinians must accept the existence of a Western-armed proxy state occupying it and launching constant wars of aggression against the civilian population, deemed illegal by the world court. Or, why Palestinians must accept the attacker’s murderous “plan” that they have no right to dictate. Or, why “Israel” and the West, the aggressors, should not be held to the same standard as the occupied and attacked, and be forced to disarm as they launch multiple wars of aggression in the region. These suggestions are not denied; rather they cannot be thought in the minds of Western elites – a considerable achievement in the history of brainwashing.
Consider Dennis Ross and David Makovsky – leading foreign policy “experts” and senior Obama Middle East advisors. “The success” of the “peace plan” will “depend on the disarmament of Hamas,” they said, warning that “if Hamas chooses not to disarm and Gaza does not reunify, the future looks bleak.” Similarly, New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman was worried: “Do I think it [disarming Hamas] would be easy? Of course not. Do I think the Palestinians have an aged, corrupt leadership that needs replacing, energizing and reforming — and have plenty to answer for themselves for their own plight? I sure do.” Therefore, “disarmament” must be forced – perhaps without Netanyahu – so that the West may “consolidate any strategic gains.”
Similarly, Elliot Abrams and his colleagues were worried that the Palestinian Resistance “has largely refused to give up its weapons … As a result, the IDF cannot pull out of Gaza.” Furthermore, “there is no easy way to keep Hamas down” since “Hamas, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist groups come.”
Putting aside the factual falsifications, let’s consider this logic, which everyone regards as correct. By their own standard, then, Palestine – and a host of others being attacked by the West, such as Iran, Yemen, Lebanon – would have to invade “Israel”, kill (in proportion) 1 million Israelis, physically annihilate most of “Israel”, occupy it and demand that the population capitulates, as well as drop bombs on its financiers in Washington, Brussels, London and so on. “Israel, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist” states “come”, and it has “largely refused to give up its weapons” and stop its aggression in accordance with the ICJ orders, so as a result, Hamas cannot pull out of Tel Aviv.
But none of this can be discussed – surely not in any publication that can reach a general audience – since the level of fanaticism, distortion and genocidal frenzy is much too high among Western political and cultural circles.
In other words, only tactical debate over how we best crush our victim and ensure that they will not be able to fight back is permitted to be printed. It is far beyond conceivable that there would be any tactical debate anywhere over how the Palestinians – the party being attacked and ethnically cleansed – could best defeat “Israel” and its Western masters, and that we should send them military aid to do so.
Consider, for example, the leading Middle East “specialist” Julie Norman. She explained that it “was always likely to be difficult to move from the initial ceasefire to the second phase of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.” Reason? Primarily because “Hamas rejected a disarmament plan” by “the US-led ‘Board of Peace’.” Therefore, “there is no peace process on the horizon, nor is there a political pathway available to Hamas if the group lays down its arms.”
In short, “Gaza will also need to deradicalize” and have their weapons removed – only then can “sustainable peace” and the “peace process” be fulfilled (The Atlantic ).
The “peace process” is a funny word used in political discourse. It simply means whatever the West happens to be saying. If “Israel”, Washington, the EU have physically destroyed a country, killed a tenth of the population (almost all civilians), blocked the ICJ orders to stop the illegal occupation, vetoed all diplomatic resolutions at the UN Security Council (UNSC), and then demanded that those left alive in Gaza unconditionally surrender – then that is the “peace process” per definition.
Also, notice that everyone takes for granted as a matter of fact that Hamas has not been willing to accept a political resolution through diplomacy. That fairy tale – which is a total inversion of reality and nurtured in the media – is a remarkable propaganda coup when we look at the actual facts. Unfortunately, the actual historical record is almost uncorrectable thanks to the dishonesty of the Western media and intellectual classes, which have done an impressive job at distorting the plain facts, as they must.
In the real world, the US and “Israel”, with their enthusiastic European sponsors, have rejected all proposals from Hamas, the UNSC, the Arab League, and so on, all of them in fact absurdly accommodating to “Israel” and sometimes going beyond the maximalist and rejectionist claims made even by the Israelis. For the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to the history spanning one year prior to today, but this has been constant throughout the entire war of extermination in Gaza.
During the spring of 2025, Hamas agreed to the massive reconstruction plan offered by the Arab League, which stipulated that Hamas leave power and be replaced by a technocratic “committee” – which was immediately rejected by the US and “Israel” since it obstructed “ethnic cleansing” of Gazan Palestinians “under any pretext or justification.”
Hamas offered a separate proposal to “end the war in Gaza” with a five-year truce, as well as to “free all hostages at once.”
In September, Hamas repeated its “readiness for a comprehensive deal” releasing “all” captives and ceding all power over Gaza “immediately”, thus “ending war”, in exchange for an end to the Israeli occupation.
In December, Hamas offered “a guarantee that no weapon will be fired from Gaza against Israel, and it will do that by burying the weapons”, and a total truce “for seven to ten years between Gaza and Israel, and Hamas will not use the weapons.”
This month, May, the Palestinian factions, including Hamas, “called for negotiations over the disarmament of Hamas and other groups to be tied to the granting of political rights for the Palestinian people ‘within the national framework,’ as well as to commitments that the people of Gaza would no longer be killed.”
All of these proposals were flatly rejected by the West and “Israel” (thus automatically banning it from history and mainstream reporting too), offering in return only maximalistic demands that we know the Palestinians cannot accept. That is, disarmament and defenselessness before they are given any guarantees in return. They must trust in Washington and Tel Aviv to engage in good behavior and abide by treaties and agreements. Western propagandists cannot comprehend why the Palestinians do not happily agree to this sign of our generosity and humanism, having swallowed their own lofty and embarrassing rhetoric about “peace offers.” But victims have no difficulty in seeing right through the reality which it tries to mask, having witnessed previous “cease-fires” broken by Israel in Gaza, “diplomacy” in Iran, Lebanon and so on.
In fact, Hamas’ compliant stance in diplomatic negotiations is not only infinitely more forthcoming than “Israel’s”, but perhaps unique in modern history. Faced with a lawless aggressor and the world’s superpower waging a war with the intent of – and in practice carrying out – physical eradication of its country, Hamas is willing to guarantee its security, agree to have no means of self-defense against future attack and so on. They do not even demand that “Israel” give back the lands it illegally occupies, nor that it pays reparations, which is the minimum required action as determined by the ICJ court ruling. Most shockingly, Hamas does not even demand that the US and “Israel”, the aggressors that constantly disregard agreements and treaties and attack multiple countries in the region, disarm themselves. That would be the bare minimum any sane person observing the situation would require.
The situation is clear: Hamas’ readiness to accommodate in diplomatic negotiations is – as far as I know – unique in modern political history, agreeing to concessions more far-reaching than, say, the Versailles Treaty. And they cannot demand, and so they do not demand, even the minimal rights they would have in any honest negotiation with the US and “Israel”, since the Western states would never tolerate even the thought of it.
But these trivially obvious truths, and the vast documentation to illustrate them, cannot be mentioned in a cultural climate as ours, where the commitment to terror and lawlessness flourishes and where the population must remain carefully protected from the dangerous realm of fact.
In short, “Israel has effectively been given a licence to torture Palestinians” and continue their war of extermination, “because most of your governments, your ministers, have allowed it”, as UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese put it (the US sanctioned her).
It is through such propaganda techniques and distortions discussed here, that the media and intellectuals have presented the government’s necessary propaganda version of the “peace process.” They have thereby “allowed” for our governments to divert attention away from the basic reality of what is happening, as they exterminate Gaza under the thin facade of “diplomacy.”
June 2, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Hamas, Human rights, Israel, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda
The spider’s web theory lives on
Twenty-six years on from the liberation of South Lebanon, the message has become clear: as long as the Israeli regime remains, peace will never be possible. This year’s Liberation Day anniversary will be observed by a population that is now fighting another struggle against occupation, one that will have implications beyond the freeing of Lebanese lands alone.
On May 25, 2000, the Israeli occupation forces withdrew from most of the Lebanese lands they had occupied illegally in 1982; a move that came following nearly two decades of brutal oppression and was triggered as a result of the fierce resistance waged by the local population. For the Arab World, and specifically for the Palestinian cause for national liberation, that day became a signal that resistance does work.
A day later, former Hezbollah Secretary General, martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, delivered his famous ‘Spider’s Web’ speech from a small football stadium in Bint Jbeil, arguing that the Lebanese model of armed resistance is a blueprint for the Palestinian people. This address has haunted the Israeli senior leadership ever since.
What Sayyed Nasrallah laid out was the theory that the Zionist regime was frailer than a spider’s web, meaning that despite its exterior, internally it was weak and could easily be cut down. He paid particular attention, when stating this metaphor, to ensuring the public knew precisely what he meant, which was that the Israeli society was incapable of enduring the repercussions of the regime’s policies. Today, this speech could not be more relevant.
The Israeli military doctrine, since the entity’s founding, has been based on the concept of always fighting short wars and avoiding wars of attrition. David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, was the first to ensure that his settler project implemented this doctrine, arguing that because his military was more advanced, they could manage to inflict defeats on the enemies, but that the wars it fought had to be limited due to the overwhelming numerical advantages on the Arab side.
If you look back through Israeli military history, you will also notice a pattern of short wars, especially those in which the Zionist entity achieved significant gains. Their most successful war was the “6-Day War” for example. Even last year, their attack on Iran became the “12-Day War”.
The Israelis withdrew from South Lebanon because they understood that the fight they were facing was going to bog them down and drain them, especially as the Lebanese Resistance was gradually growing in strength. In the Gaza Strip, the same concept applied in 2005. They ran cost-benefit analyses and decided it was best to leave.
Over the years, having only fought short wars against militarily inferior opponents, the Israeli society was able to live in its own bubble world. The consequences of their actions were a small price to pay, especially if these consequences were only felt during shorter periods of time. Other than this, they maintained belligerent occupations, meaning that their army was transformed into more of a riot police force than a proper standing army.
During the Second Intifada, which began in 2000, only months after the liberation of South Lebanon, the Israelis then transitioned into a method of warfare that depended more heavily on “targeted assassinations” and special forces raids. They implemented this strategy, alongside their counterinsurgency approach to warfare, and specialized in occupying civilian populations.
In 2006, they encountered a new obstacle, sustained rocket fire on their settlements, managing to blast as deep into occupied Palestine as Haifa. Later on, the Palestinian Resistance would develop its own rockets and eventually reach Tel Aviv and beyond. However, due to Gaza’s resistance being significantly weaker than Hezbollah, they settled for limited wars of aggression where they would implement the infamous “Dahieh Doctrine” – targeting the civilian population as a means of achieving future “deterrence”.
Lebanese Hezbollah managed to deter the Israelis for 17 years, even managing to force the Zionists to accept an agreement demarcating Lebanese maritime borders. However, the October 7 Al-Aqsa Flood operation jolted the Israelis into a reactionary and accelerationist mindset; they were no longer willing to slowly achieve their goals; instead, they had to do things at a pace in their minds.
But they fell into a trap; they were dragged into a war of attrition. In Gaza, this was something they could survive because the rocket fire gradually dwindled, and their soldiers refused to actually fight the Palestinian Resistance head-on. Instead, they carried out a genocide from a distance, mainly, with their main goal being to destroy buildings.
Which brings us back to South Lebanon. As you read this, the second guerrilla war of liberation is being waged, aiming at achieving an even bigger goal than was achieved in 2000. Hezbollah is now facing a similar predicament to what occurred in 1982 when the Israelis declared a “security zone” in southern Lebanon, which they maintained until the formal occupation was declared in 1985.
The major difference is that the Lebanese Resistance was still in its infancy in the 1980s, and the Palestinian Resistance had left in 1982. This time, the Israelis have been drawn into a trap, one that they cannot easily get out of. It is the beginning of the spider’s web theory proving itself in real time.
Although the war is being fought at a somewhat lower intensity since the announcement of a temporary ceasefire, the invading Zionist militants are being dealt blows on an hourly basis in the south and northern occupied Palestine. You need only look at their media to realize that Israeli society is under pressure in the north already, and the war of attrition has just begun.
The people of Lebanon and Palestine, who form the backbone of their national liberation movements, have proven themselves hardy and capable of enduring the hardships of war, while standing behind their Resistance fighters who come from amongst them. In the case of the Zionists, their army is formed of their public, who are conscripted into it, meaning it is a settlers’ armed forces, but they are a fundamentally weak society.
For the Israelis, they are more interested in living a Western European style of life and aren’t willing to make the necessary sacrifices to win wars of attrition, despite the superiority of their military equipment and intelligence services. A few occasional rockets are enough for tens of thousands to flee their homes, while a Lebanese farmer will remain in his fields as the bombs drop on his village. Right after the so-called ceasefire of November 2024, the people of the South immediately returned home; the settlers did not.
The Israeli army is also suffering a manpower shortage, has drawn back its presence in South Lebanon already due to the FPV drone threat, and has to score fake symbolic victories, such as planting flags in Bint Jbeil, while failing to properly maintain control of the area where Hezbollah fighters continue to watch and target them.
While the initial period between 1982 and 1985 was simple for the Israelis in the way of securing their occupation of the South, this time they are already being battered and have not achieved one goal yet. Desperately, they cling to their targeted assassinations, believing this will transform the battlefield. Another mistake born out of arrogance.
South Lebanon’s liberation in May 2000 birthed the Spider’s Web Theory of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. In May 2026, that theory is being put to the test. So far, we see that the fighters on the ground are proving Sayyed Nasrallah correct.
May 25, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Comments Off on The journey to the second liberation of South Lebanon
Claims that President Donald Trump exempted “Israel” from commitments under a potential agreement with Iran appear to be baseless, Fars News Agency revealed, based on a review of the final draft text.
Fars reported that The New York Times had alleged “Israel” was granted an exemption from the obligations outlined in the emerging draft MoU with Tehran.
However, an examination of the explicit wording of the prospective agreement shows the opposite. According to the draft text, should the agreement be finalized, the United States and its allies would be bound not to launch any form of aggression against Iran or its allies.
In return, Iran has committed that neither it nor its allies would carry out preemptive military strikes against the United States and its allies.
Consequently, the media outlet’s claim that “Israel’s” regime is exempt from any commitments toward Iran directly contradicts the explicit provisions of the final agreement, rendering the assertion false and unfounded.
US and Iran reportedly near agreement
This closely follows a report by Axios citing a US official familiar with the talks, stating that the United States and Iran are nearing a draft agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ease pressure on global oil markets, and launch a new round of talks over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The proposed deal, which mediators and President Donald Trump have suggested could be announced as early as Sunday, would establish a 60-day ceasefire framework that could later be extended by mutual consent. However, officials cautioned that talks remain ongoing and the agreement could still collapse before being finalized.
According to the US official, both sides would sign a memorandum of understanding under which Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, remove naval mines deployed in the waterway, and allow unrestricted maritime traffic to resume. In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and issue sanctions waivers enabling Tehran to freely export oil.
The official acknowledged that the arrangement would provide a major boost to Iran’s economy, but argued that it would also stabilize global energy markets by restoring oil flows through one of the world’s most strategically important shipping lanes.
May 24, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Fars debunks NYT claims ‘Israel’ was exempted from US-Iran agreement
The Zionist Entity cannot fight real wars, instead it uses assassinations and terror bombing campaigns to avoid having to actually engage its opponents. Since October of 2023, it has been proven that this strategy is a liability, especially when it is attempting to expand its occupation.
On March 3, 2026, Lebanese Hezbollah debunked the Israeli illusion that it was nearing “total victory” in a 7-front war. Now the reality is setting in for everyone. The Israelis have carried out their most successful assassination strikes, Mossad operations, and implemented the most destructive air attacks that the world has ever witnessed against a defenseless civilian population in Gaza.
All of this, and they haven’t defeated a single opponent. So why then did almost everyone believe that the Israelis had managed to overcome the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance? The answer is quite simple: propaganda.
Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar Allah, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq and Iran’s IRGC are all still in existence today. In fact, the Israelis failed through committing a genocide in Gaza to fully defeat even one of the some dozen Palestinian Resistance factions that exist there. This is not to say that nothing has been achieved and no blows were suffered, evidently that would be delusional, but the fact of the matter is that the Zionist Entity has thrown everything they have at securing “total victory”.
Some would then come along and argue that Hezbollah did suffer significant blows, with the assassination of their senior leadership, the terrorist pager attacks, that Hamas and the other Palestinian factions have also lost much of their senior leadership, as has the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). All of this is true, but that isn’t what wins a war.
This is especially the case when it comes to the Israelis, who possess the most advanced military technology and are on paper supposed to be a complete mismatch when facing up against Hezbollah or Hamas.
Their biggest issue lies in their military doctrine, the overreliance on technology, and beyond this the ideological weakness that runs through their society. In the year 2000, former Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah issued perhaps his most well-known address, which would later be referred to as the “Spider’s Web Speech”.
26 years later, and the Israeli political and military leadership, along with their media, are still obsessed with the speech. The reason why is because it cuts deep into the Israeli psyche and their self-perception. Israeli society is a military society, one that is obsessed with its citizen army. “The IDF is the most moral army” is the settler mantra, a concept so ridiculous to the rest of the world, yet a concept that the settlers themselves cling to with every ounce of their being. This is because the entire occupying regime is centred around the armed forces and militarism.
A soldier’s death is infinitely more difficult for the Israelis to accept than that of a non-combatant, which is why they do their utmost to cover up soldier casualties. If their soldiers are being killed in enormous numbers, then this begins to rock the entire society to its core and impact their belief in themselves to uphold their settler colonial project. Hence Nasrallah’s Spider’s Web theory. The idea of the Zionist entity being a spider’s web, is that its society is weak, not its technology, not its ability to drop bombs and carry out complex intelligence operations.
The concept of fighting short wars is enshrined in Israeli military thinking; it is a concept that dates back to its first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. This is to say, fighting short and intense wars is safe, because the Israelis are militarily superior to their opponents, yet fighting long, drawn out conflicts of attrition is a danger due to the sheer size of their enemies.
The most successful Israeli war of aggression, the “6-Day War,” reinforced this view. Over the years, since the US has fully thrown its weight behind the occupying ethno-supremacist regime, the United States military has itself shifted to become risk adverse and implement a counter-insurgency doctrine.
In the Second Intifada, the Israelis then leaned into the use of “targeted assassinations”, special forces raids and counter-insurgency strategies, in a way that they hadn’t previously implemented at such a scale. Palestinian Resistance groups in the West Bank were indeed defeated as a result of it, but in Gaza, they managed to adapt and develop in strength.
After originally withdrawing from Lebanon, the Israelis realised that the threat of Hezbollah had grown to a level where it now posed a significant threat, but when they tried to defeat it in 2006, they failed. Therefore, they developed the Dahiyeh Doctrine, the concept of inflicting massive death and destruction against civilian populations.
The belief was that this achieved “deterrence”; in reality, it was Hezbollah that had deterred the Israelis, because Hezbollah was not the aggressor or attempting to implement a belligerent occupation. In order to deal with their defeat in Lebanon, the Israelis then implemented the Dahiyeh Doctrine in the Gaza Strip, where they were dealing with a weaker Resistance group under siege.
Over the years, the Dahiyeh Doctrine was repeatedly used against the Gaza Strip, alongside assassination campaigns, aimed at “mowing the lawn”, a twisted way of saying subduing the threat and achieving “deterrence”. Yet, this also backfired in Gaza, because eventually the Resistance would become so strong that they pulled off the largest military defeat of the Israelis that had ever been inflicted.
As a reaction to October 7, 2023, the Israelis went bad; they initiated a genocide in the Gaza Strip, before going on the offensive across the region. They relied on those same tactics that had failed them time and again, which led them to the Hamas-led surprise attack.
Assassination after assassination, terrorist tactics against civilian populations in order to try and force them into submission, economic warfare, using proxy groups, doing everything possible without having to actually make the sacrifices necessary to attain victory. The reason why they couldn’t simply fight on the ground and go after the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza, nor wage costly and bloody battles against Hezbollah, is because the Spider’s Web theory is true.
If the Israelis were to actually do what is necessary to truly defeat their opponents, they would have to accept losing tens of thousands of soldiers. This is a price that their citizens’ army is simply not willing to pay. The Palestinians, Lebanese, Yemeni and Iranians are willing to make that level of sacrifice, but the Israelis aren’t.
The Zionist regime seeks to achieve “Greater Israel”, but doesn’t want to make any real sacrifice in order to attain that project; they want to do it the easy way, but an easy way doesn’t exist. People are not simply going to bow down and accept enslavement, to live under the rule of an ethno-supremacist regime that treats them as animals, nor will they stop resisting because you slaughter their families.
Sneaky assassinations, surprise attacks and killing babies do not win wars against populations who are fighting for their ability to live freely in their lands. The Zionist entity had the opportunity to actually secure its existence, which was through accepting the so-called “Two-State solution”, but that would have defeated their entire purpose, despite it being the only route to securing their place in the region.
The “Two-State solution” was the Zionist solution that could have given them the ability to remain, but they chose to go down the path of no return. They couldn’t accept living as equals, because the Zionist project is one of ethno-supremacy, so now they are stuck. The illusion of victory over Lebanon is crumbling, as they fail to produce any solutions other than mass murder against civilian populations and ethnic cleansing across the region.
Especially when the Israelis are a weak society, they can’t succeed. This is why there is an obsession with achieving regime change in Iran and using the US to do it for them, because they are desperately betting on the idea that if they do succeed, the resistance against them will end.
May 10, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Comments Off on Why the Israeli assassination strategy is leading them to defeat
Aletho News
Aletho News 