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”.
Israel’s Secret Social Media War On Iran
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | October 7, 2025
On October 3rd, Haaretz published an extraordinary investigation, exposing how for years, the Zionist entity has clandestinely conducted dedicated “online operations” to promote the “public image” of Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran’s eldest son and pretender to the country’s now non-existent throne, locally and internationally. The efforts were highly sophisticated and wide-ranging, harnessing artificial intelligence, social media manipulation of every sort, and other online warfare techniques intended to convince audiences Pahlavi was Tehran’s exiled rightful ruler-in-waiting.
Hundreds of bogus online personae, with AI-created profile photos and fraudulent biographies, calling for the restoration of the Islamic Republic’s monarchy and sharing photos and videos of Pahlavi, are run by a shadow battalion of Persian-speakers specifically recruited by Israeli intelligence for the project. Bot and troll networks amplify their output, with campaign messaging constantly updated based on audience analysis.
Another component of the online blitzkrieg is concerned with glorifying Gila Gamliel, a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and Tel Aviv’s “point person with Pahlavi.”

Zionist cyberwarriors hard at work
The network got busted by independent digital researchers as a result of Gamliel posting an AI-generated video on social media platforms, titled “Next Year in Free Tehran”. The fictional clip, published June 15th – three days into the Zionist entity’s botched 12 Day War, and coincidentally the same day Netanyahu forecast imminent regime change in Iran – “had massive exposure, most of which was likely inorganic.” It depicted Netanyahu, his wife, Gamliel, her partner, Pahlavi and his wife walking through Tehran’s streets.
“The video received many more views than most of the minister’s X posts, and these and other attempts to amplify it” helped researchers “locate” a network of bots and fake users artificially boosting Gamliel’s “frequent” calls for regime change in Iran and her ties to Pahlavi. “Many of these accounts were opened in 2022, at the height of the so-called hijab protests in Iran,” Haaretz records. Over 100 further “allied accounts” were launched during the 12 Day War to further boost the malignant network’s output.
Haaretz cryptically reveals, “this doesn’t appear to be the only campaign operating on this issue from Israel.” Still, the outlet’s bombshell disclosures confirm the Zionist entity – if not other hostile foreign powers, including the US – was covertly engaged in expansive psychological warfare initiatives to manufacture consent for Pahlavi’s installation as Iran’s ruler at two critical junctures in recent history, when regime change in Tehran was being openly promoted by Israeli officials, Western governments, and the mainstream media.
Those attempts floundered. While Pahlavi occasionally receives positive coverage by Western news outlets, he enjoys no support among Iran’s population at home, and even many diaspora detractors reject any suggestion of him taking power in the country. In fact, the would-be monarch’s reputation is so poisonous, his endorsement is a decisive kiss of death for any challenge to Tehran’s government. That vast resources were – and seemingly remain – invested by the Zionist entity in such a futile endeavour ranks as an embarrassing failure of epic proportions.
‘Monarchist Accounts’
Further detail on Israeli online dark arts pushing Pahlavi is provided by a July 2023 report from data analytics firm Social Forensics, on “state-sponsored platform manipulation” during the 2022 protests in Iran. The investigation concluded Tehran was the victim of wide-ranging cyberwarfare operations throughout this period. This included “disinformation, smears, and threats” emanating from a vast nexus of bots and trolls on Twitter. While the report did not make a definitive attribution for this malign activity, its findings point unambiguously in Tel Aviv’s direction.

Social Forensics identified several clear, separate “communities” of weaponised accounts targeting the Islamic Republic during this period, such as “progressives”. However, the most influential community were “monarchists”. All accounts in this category had significant followings, and their output generated sizeable engagement, both inauthentic and organic. Thousands of supposed users boasted crown emojis in their display names, denoting their monarchist allegiance. In all, over 95% of these accounts were found to be automated “sockpuppets” by Social Forensics:
“Most… are inauthentic and function to flood Twitter with monarchist, pro-Pahlavi imagery and content to make it seem like there is a larger base of monarchist supporters on Twitter than reality reflects.”
In March 2023, hundreds of pro-Pahlavi bots were suspended for violating Twitter/X rules, after engaging in platform manipulation. Despite many quickly resurfacing with almost identical usernames and continuing their wrecking activities, several prominent anti-Tehran figures condemned the mass ban of automated agitators. Among them was Alireza Nader, formerly a senior apparatchik at notorious, pro-Pahlavi Zionist lobby group the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and opaquely-funded exile organisation National Union for Democracy in Iran. Social Forensics found he followed and amplified several inauthentic monarchist accounts.
The analytics firm also discovered numerous official Israeli government accounts on the platform likewise followed the most influential pro-Pahlavi sockpuppets. Strikingly, one out of every eight accounts followed by @IsraelPersian, which targets Iranian audiences, were “inauthentic monarchist accounts”, advocating “for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and the return of exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi to the country as the leader of a constitutional monarchy.” But irresistible indications of Tel Aviv’s management of this belligerent bot network don’t end there.
An authentic user followed by @IsraelPersia, among other official Zionist entity accounts, is Emily Schrader, CEO of digital marketing agency Social Lite Creative. At the time of Social Forensics’ investigation, her company’s website openly boasted of working with “high level government organizations and NGOs in Israel, including the IDF.” The analytics firm’s probe concluded Schrader’s follower count “is inflated and her tweets are artificially amplified by the same inauthentic accounts” calling for insurrection in Iran, including monarchist bots.

Since amended entries on Social Lite Creative’s website
‘Peddling Distrust’
Schrader avowedly counting multiple Israeli state entities, including its genocidal military, as clients is sufficient grounds to postulate Tel Aviv was ultimately responsible for the pro-monarchist “platform manipulation” campaign. Just as suspiciously, the protests they accompanied were launched following the Pentagon waging a clandestine online war against Iran for years prior. These efforts were exposed by digital researchers after Twitter and Meta banned a vast network of US military-run accounts, which “used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives” in Central and West Asia.
Iran was a preponderant target, with Pentagon psyops specialists managing multiple anti-government media outlets publishing content in Farsi with accompanying social media channels, and a panoply of bot and troll accounts. These personae frequently posted non-political content, including Iranian poetry and photos of Persian food, in order to enhance their authenticity. They also engaged with real Iranians on Twitter, often joking about mundane topics such as internet memes. The sockpuppets spanned a wide ideological gamut, employing differing narrative techniques for varying audiences.
For example, some ‘Iranian’ Pentagon bots and trolls promoted “hardliner” views, criticising the Islamic Republic for being too liberal domestically, and inadequately aggressive in asserting its interests regionally. Others posed as left-wingers, secularists and other opposition elements. It was a full-spectrum digital assault from every angle. Eerily, many of these accounts promoted women’s rights, and protests against hijab-wearing. One Pentagon-circulated meme compared the treatment of women abroad with Iran, by contrasting photos of Western female astronauts and an alleged local victim of violent domestic abuse.

Hijab destruction was a core symbol of protests that subsequently erupted in Tehran, which elicited blanket foreign media coverage, and a chorus of calls for regime change in Iran. Quickly, Pahlavi and close allies such as Masih Alinejad, a veteran of US-funded propaganda efforts targeting the Islamic Republic, who has called for Zionist entity attacks on the country and assassination of its leaders, proclaimed themselves to be leading the demonstrators. However, their attempt to commandeer the protests resulted in the unrest’s instant termination locally.
A withering post-mortem of “why Iran’s ‘woman, life, freedom’ revolution failed” authored by Zionist lobby-connected Mariam Memarsadeghi, who similarly promotes regime change in Tehran, pinned the blame squarely on Pahlavi’s attempt to associate himself so intimately with the protests. She noted the fake king’s close associates push extreme “Iranian nationalism”, calling for “retributive violence [and] summary executions” of enemies, while “peddling distrust and attacking other opposition leaders on social media.” These activities gravely alienate Iranians within and without the country, leaving Pahlavi irreparably tarnished.
In April 2023, Pahlavi made a surprise appearance in Tel Aviv. Despite eliciting zero Western media interest, Israeli news outlets eagerly promoted his appearance as of earth-shattering significance. The Times Of Israel claimed the “historic” visit was a “healing process for many Iranian Jews,” leaving them with a “unique sense of joy, optimism, and a feeling of healing.” At a press conference, Pahlavi was asked about the response his trip there was receiving from average Iranians. He declared their vehement support was provably clear:
“Don’t take my word for it, search on social media… on Twitter, Instagram, any platform. If you do the research yourself, you don’t need to ask me the question. The answer is right before your eyes.”
Of course, that “answer” was provided by people who don’t exist, courtesy of “online operations” conducted by Israel, and likely other states seeking regime change in Iran. Evidently undeterred by the 2022 campaign’s faltering, Pahlavi was again fraudulently promoted by a Zionist-orchestrated social media effort during the 12 Day War, wholly counterproductively. A July report from Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies concluded monarchist backing for insurrection during that conflict only strengthened local support for the government, “rallying the public around the flag”:
“It is therefore advisable to avoid ties, when possible, with Iranian opposition groups (including some monarchist circles in the diaspora) who are perceived by large segments of the Iranian public as tainted and having betrayed Iran in its time of need. Although aligning with pro-Western and pro-Israel diaspora groups that push for revolutionary change may seem natural, such associations may, in fact, undermine the credibility of internal opposition and ultimately obstruct the desired outcome.”
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.
Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board: When War Architects Become Reconstruction Consultants
By Tamer Mansour – New Eastern Outlook – October 7, 2025
Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?
Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board
When Tony Blair was announced as co-chair of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza reconstruction, you might wonder whether this represents a genuine peace initiative or simply another iteration of a pattern that’s been refined over two decades across multiple Middle Eastern theaters.
It might sound paradoxical that the architect of the Iraq War, a conflict built on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that never materialized, would now be positioned as the overseer of Gaza’s future. But in reality, that’s how these appointments work in the Western establishment.
Previous failures seem to qualify rather than disqualify candidates for new ventures.
The Iraq Blueprint
If you want to understand what awaits Gaza under Blair’s stewardship, the Iraq experience offers an instructive template. The Chilcot Inquiry found that Blair “misrepresented intelligence” and “failed to exhaust all peaceful options” before launching the 2003 invasion.
What’s particularly revealing is that British intelligence agencies knew evidence used to justify the war came from individuals who had been tortured, yet the decision to proceed was made regardless.
Blair and his administration spent a decade denying British complicity in the CIA’s torture programs, only to eventually face uncovered evidence that proves the UK’s deep involvement in the rendition programs. Not to forget the major role the UK played in creating a war that killed over a million Iraqis, further destabilized an already inflammable region, emboldened the mutation of what they called “Al Qaeda” into multiple versions, most famously ISIS, and caused a refugee crisis that Europe complains about the most.
Yet Blair has never faced legal accountability. Instead, he has been rewarded with lucrative consultancy contracts and, incredibly, now oversees yet another Middle Eastern territory devastated by military operations.
No wonder some observers view this appointment with skepticism, is there?
A Consultant’s Portfolio
Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has built what might be called an “advisory empire,” serving various governments. His client list makes for interesting reading, doesn’t it?
In Kazakhstan, Blair advised former President Nursultan Nazarbayev following the December 2011 massacre of at least 17 protesting workers. Leaked emails revealed Nazarbayev paid an estimated £20 million for Blair’s counsel on how to “present a better face to the West.
Blair chose to provide no response on two different occasions to Human Rights Watch when they requested a detailed account of his “consultancy” work and the results it has achieved.
Moving on to Rwanda, where Blair has built a special relationship with Paul Kagame’s regime, which has lasted for decades, dismissing UN reports directly accusing Kagame of committing war crimes in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and during his infamous involvement in the Second Congo War, which lasted for almost 5 years and was called by some “Africa’s World War,” as it involved 8 African countries and 25 armed militias and caused the death of millions of Africans.
Blair’s response to such accusations directed at him and Kagame would put Niccolo Machiavelli to shame, as he said literally, “Our consultancy is not to tell the people of Rwanda what to do, but to help get done what the president wants.”
The Tony Blair Institute’s accounts show income reaching $121 million in a single year, with much of it from advising what reports described as “repressive”.
The pattern seems consistent: Blair provides Western legitimacy to governments willing to pay for it, while actual democratic reforms remain notably absent from the list of deliverables.
The same Western establishment that positioned itself as guardian of international law regarding various conflicts now promotes Blair for Gaza oversight. Yet Blair’s record demonstrates repeated bypassing of the UN Security Council when it suited Western objectives.
In Kosovo in 1999, Blair established his template: bypassing UN authorization, working with militias whose leaders now face war crimes charges, and claiming humanitarian motives afterward. The NATO bombing campaign never received Security Council approval and killed at least 488 Yugoslav civilians.
That intervention transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into an organization “prepared to initiate war beyond the UN.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov continues to reference NATO’s “illegal use of force” in Kosovo when responding to Western criticism.
The rendition operations tell their own story. Blair’s government was involved in the 2004 kidnapping of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj from Malaysia, delivering him to Gaddafi’s torture facilities. The UK government eventually paid £2.3 million in compensation to Sami al-Saadi, though characteristically, it never formally admitted wrongdoing or apologized.
The Gaza Plan: “Investment” or Control?
The leaked 21-page draft proposal outlines a “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA) with an organizational structure worth examining carefully. At the top sits “an international board of billionaires and businesspeople,” while “highly vetted ‘neutral’ Palestinian administrators” occupy the lower administrative positions.
The plan describes Gaza reconstruction as a “commercially driven authority, led by business professionals and tasked with generating investable projects with real financial returns”. Previous reporting linked Blair’s institute to proposals for transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” featuring resorts and manufacturing zones, with mentions of relocating up to 500,000 Palestinians.
Various analysts, both Arab and non-Arab, have expressed concern that the plan is designed to sideline any form of Palestinian governance, in favor of international bodies brought in to carry the load.
And with someone with Tony Blair’s record at the helm, one can understand these concerns only by reminding oneself of his previous tenure as the Middle East envoy of the “Quartet” between 2007 and 2015, a period during which he hardly did anything to stop the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and nothing that might remotely achieve anything for of statehood for Palestine.
The structure Blair proposes: wealthy foreign decision-makers controlling Palestinian land and resources while Palestinians serve in subordinate administrative roles. This bears a resemblance to governance models from a century ago.
Whether this represents “investment” or simply foreign control with better branding is a question worth considering.
Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?
If they accept the Blair plan, they get foreign control disguised as investment, with Palestinians in subordinate roles while “billionaires and businesspeople” make strategic decisions. If they reject it, they risk being portrayed as obstacles to peace and reconstruction, potentially losing access to funding and international support.
The Accountability Gap
Despite the Chilcot Inquiry findings about Britain’s role in the Iraq War, despite compensation paid to rendition victims, and despite documented intelligence manipulation, Blair has never faced legal consequences. Instead, he’s built a consulting empire worth hundreds of millions and has now been appointed to oversee Gaza’s future.
The British government has paid millions in compensation to torture victims without formally admitting responsibility. Blair himself has declined to comment on specifics regarding what he knew about torture programs and when.
This pattern raises questions about international accountability mechanisms. If the architect of the Iraq War faces no consequences, what message does that send about international law?
If involvement in rendition operations results in consultancy opportunities rather than prosecution, what does that suggest about deterrence?
The Accountability Question: The double standard regarding UN authority is worth examining.
The Destruction/Reconstruction Façade
But the pattern seems difficult to ignore. Now I think it’s logical to pose these questions, regardless of political affiliations or personal opinions about the various conflicts discussed here:
- What exactly is Blair bringing to Gaza that couldn’t be provided by someone without his particular history?
- Who benefits from his appointment to this role?
- Does the international community have mechanisms for accountability, or do Western leaders operate under different rules?
Gaza’s Palestinians deserve better than to have their future determined by someone whose previous interventions left trails of destruction across multiple continents. Whether they’ll get better is another question entirely. The pattern has been consistent: promise reform, deliver foreign control, profit from reconstruction contracts, and move on before accountability arrives, or do not respond to it at all.
There’s no particular reason to expect Gaza will be different, unless something fundamental changes about how the international system operates instead of it trying to convince anybody with such a destruction/reconstruction façade, or what one might comfortably call “investment imperialism,” that is being imposed by genocidal force on Gaza.
But for this change to happen, “We the People” worldwide need to wake up and realize who should be in control.
Tamer Mansour is an Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher.
Spain to file ICC complaint over Israel’s mistreatment of Sumud flotilla activists
Press TV – October 7, 2025
Spanish Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska has suggested that legal measures might be pursued at the International Criminal Court (ICC) following reports from Spanish citizens on board the Global Sumud Flotilla regarding mistreatment by Israeli guards during their custody.
“I am concerned as a minister, and I am concerned as a Spanish citizen, and simply as a person, about any violation of a fundamental right, evidently. But for that, there are also legal channels: the International Criminal Court and also the Spanish courts when it concerns national citizens,” Marlaska said in an interview with public television broadcaster TVE on Monday.
He reiterated that criminal liabilities regarding individuals who might have been victims will be assessed and dealt with through the relevant national and international legal frameworks.
Marlaska also emphasized that boarding ships in international waters is subject to an international criminal law classification, as defined by clear conventions and also recognized within the national legal system, because “this would be a deprivation of liberty, absolutely illegal, for the people who were victims of these acts.”
Marlaska noted that the foremost priority is for the final 28 members of the flotilla to return to Spain “safe and sound.”
He underscored that the Spanish government “is absolutely proactive” in this case, “appearing before the International Criminal Court to defend the fundamental rights and public freedoms of Spanish citizens and other citizens.”
“There will be time to respond from a legal perspective. The Spanish government has already stated this from the very beginning, as I mentioned, appearing before the International Criminal Court,” the senior Spanish official said.
He also said that the attorney general’s office has initiated investigative proceedings as well.
“I believe that, in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, no one can say that we have not been defending them from minute one,” he said.
The remarks come as the Gaza flotilla activists were deported from the Israeli-occupied territories amid numerous accounts of their mistreatment in Israeli detention centers.
According to the Spanish EFE news agency, they reported a lack of access to legal counsel and were also unable to contact their families.
The activists added that armed personnel entered the cells accompanied by dogs, directing them towards their heads.
They said they were deprived of sleep, moved between cells to prevent them from resting, and were treated “worse than animals.”
Approximately 450 individuals involved in the flotilla were detained from last Wednesday to Friday as Israeli forces intercepted the vessels, which aimed to breach a naval blockade of Gaza and provide aid to Palestinians in the besieged region.
Israel has maintained the blockade on Gaza, which is inhabited by nearly 2.4 million individuals, for nearly 18 years.
According to the health ministry of Gaza, Israeli attacks have claimed the lives of at least 67,160 Palestinians, predominantly women and children, in the besieged Gaza Strip since October 2023.
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.
