Just International

 Next Tuesday is the two year anniversary of October 7.

OCTOBER 7, 2025

By Jonathan Kuttab

Next Tuesday is the two year anniversary of October 7. For many people,
that day is a pivotal day in the history of Palestine/Israel, to the
point that it is often necessary to remind people that the crisis in the
Holy Land did not start on October 7, 2023. Also, so much false
information has been circulated as to what actually happened, that, even
though much of it has been categorically debunked (“40 beheaded
babies,” “babies burnt alive in front of their parents,” “mass
rapes,” etc…) , such myths continue to be used as justification for
the ongoing genocide and as an excuse to refrain from genuine
peacemaking.

One year ago, on the first anniversary of October 7, I wrote three
articles, titled October 6 [3], October 7 [4], and October 8 [5], which
I urge all readers to read again and disseminate. The first discussed
the situation on October 6, reminding readers of the context for October
7, showing that it was not an “unprovoked assault but one episode in a
long and protracted struggle between Palestinians and Israelis. Gaza was
already under siege and facing a blockade and siege that was suffocating
the people and making Gaza uninhabitable. The second article discussed
what actually happened on that fateful day, noting that many of the
activities of Hamas were aimed at military targets and included
breaching the wall surrounding Gaza in 30 places simultaneously and
overrunning two army bases. These included the Gaza Battalion
Headquarters, killing over 340 soldiers and capturing over 50 others to
be exchanged for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli
jails. Hamas also carried the battle into Israeli towns and kibbutzim,
and this included the attacks on innocent civilians, a music festival
and other civilian structures, as well as taking civilians as
hostages—all of which are actions prohibited under international law
and which were condemned universally. It must be noted that many of the
civilians killed that day were actually killed by Israeli forces in the
panic and confusion of those early hours, as well as victims of the
Hannibal Directive whereby the Israeli army preferred to kill its own
citizens and soldiers rather than risk their being captured. I say this
not to minimize the trauma and suffering of Israelis, both soldiers and
civilians, but to set the record straight since the events of October 7,
including the taking hostage and killing of Israelis, have been used as
a justification for the much greater and ongoing killing and suffering
inflicted upon Palestinian civilians, from October 8 until the present
day.

The position of FOSNA since that day has been clear and consistent:
Civilian hostages were to be released immediately and without
conditions; Food and medicine should be allowed freely into Gaza,
immediately and without conditions; and civilians and noncombatants
should not be targeted but protected by either party. Violence is not
the answer. A ceasefire should be implemented so that peaceful
negotiations could be carried out and a prisoner exchange for the
combatants be achieved.

Since that day, however, the events of October 7 have been a prelude to
a vicious and ongoing campaign of genocide, starvation and ethnic
cleansing aiming not only to avenge Israel’s losses on that day and
degrading Hamas’ military capabilities and ability to mount such an
attack again, but rather to utterly destroy Gaza and to expel, if
possible, its population to Egypt. There was also talk of pressuring
Jordan, so that Israel can expel a million Palestinians from the West
Bank to Jordan. Secretary of State Blinken actually tried to pressure
both Egypt and Jordan inthat direction. The issue is no longer what
happened or did not happen on October 7, or what the future is of Hamas
or even of Gaza. Israel has chosen the opportunity of October 7, along
with a weak Arab response and pliant US presidents, to break all the
rules, exercise its massive military, technological, and political power
to enact a Final Solution to the problem of Palestine. As Israel
recognized that it can get away with genocide and that the US and the
world community will not put a stop to it, right wing elements felt this
was a divine opportunity to finish the Palestinian question once and for
all. There is no more talk of a Palestinian state, no horizon for self
determination and no dignified coexistence. The 20 point plan that Trump
and Netanyahu have proposed calls for indefinite Israeli hegemony over
Gaza, with Arab and Muslim support or acquiescence. Palestinians are
offered a choice of subjugation, death or exile. Netanyahu’s ministers
have actually said as much.

In the face of such arrogance, the global grassroots response has been
invigorating. It rejects Netanyahu’s vision and calls for proper
implementation of international law principles. The Sumud Flotilla [6]
is being followed by additional mass protests throughout Europe, and
promises of more ships to try and break the siege. International and
national tribunals are gearing up to bring some hope of accountability,
and the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) is beginning
to gather steam. Against all odds, the Palestinian people continue to
exist and to resist.

We do not know what the future will hold. Hamas may agree to some
version of the plan if only to stem the flow of blood and destruction,
at least temporarily, and to bring much needed food and relief to the
exhausted masses. Yet we know this is not the end. The struggle will
continue as long as oppression and injustice remains. But, in the end,
justice will prevail. May this day come quickly and with less and less
suffering and destruction before it arrives.

          [7] Donate: Help FOSNA work towards justice and carry hope for a
better tomorrow [7]

————————-

Friends of Sabeel North America · PO Box 3192, Greenwood Village, CO
80155, United States

Read Online [8]

This email was sent to muzachandra@gmail.com · Unsubscribe [9]

Created with NationBuilder [10]. Build the Future.

Last Gaza Aid Flotilla Boat Intercepted and Seized by Israeli Commandos

By Quds News Network

The last remaining vessel of the Global Sumud Flotilla, carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, has been intercepted and seized by Israeli forces off the coast of the war-torn Palestinian enclave.

Livestream video showed Israeli forces forcing their way onboard the vessel Friday morning.

The Polish-flagged Marinette, which reportedly has a crew of six, was the last remaining operational vessel of the Global Sumud Flotilla – once a 44-strong fleet.

A live video feed of the yacht, active as of 04:00 GMT, shows the crew steering the ship as the sun rises behind them in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea.

A live geo tracker shows the ship located some 43 nautical miles (about 80km) from Gaza’s territorial waters.

[https://twitter.com/gbsumudflotilla/status/1974024941583454461]

On Wednesday and Thursday, Israel’s naval forces stopped dozens of boats carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza and abducted about 500 activists from more than 40 countries.

Israel’s navy has intercepted each boat and detained its crew before transferring them to Israel, from where they will be deported. Several high-profile figures – including activist Greta Thunberg, former Barcelona mayor Ada Colau, and Member of European Parliament Rima Hassan – are among those being held.

This marks the first time in history that dozens of vessels have sailed together toward Gaza. The coastal enclave, home to 2.2 million people, has been under an Israeli blockade for 18 years and is now under a two-year-long Israeli genocide that has killed more than 66,000 Palestinians since October 2023, alongside an Israeli-made famine.

Israel’s History of Intercepting Gaza-Bound Aid Flotillas Challenging the Blockade

Israel has a long history of intercepting and attacking flotillas bound for the Gaza Strip, particularly since it imposed a blockade on the enclave in 2007. These missions are often organized by international activists or pro-Palestinian groups seeking to deliver humanitarian aid or challenge Israel’s illegal blockade.

The most recent attempt, on October 1 and 2, was the Global Sumud Flotilla — the largest grassroots humanitarian fleet in history.

Below is a timeline of Israel’s interceptions and attacks on Gaza-bound aid flotillas:

Free Gaza Movement, August 2008:

Two small boats, Free Gaza and Liberty, organized by the Free Gaza Movement. Activists from about 17 countries sailed from Larnaca, Cyprus to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, bring attention to the blockade, and deliver aid.

The boats were tracked by Israeli naval vessels for much of the voyage. Their navigation or communication systems were also jammed.

They arrived safely in Gaza on 23 August 2008. They were greeted by many Palestinians and delivered hearing aids and medicine.

Mavi Marmara / Gaza Freedom Flotilla, May 31, 2010:

Part of a flotilla of six ships organized by the Free Gaza Movement and Turkish NGO Humanitarian Relief Foundation. The Mavi Marmara carried about 600 people. It aimed to break the naval blockade of Gaza, to deliver humanitarian goods directly, and to challenge the blockade.

Israeli naval commandos boarded the Mavi Marmara in international waters. The attack killed ten Turkish activists and injured several.

Freedom Flotilla II, 2011:

The flotilla involved more than 300 participants from around the world and was set to sail on 10 vessels as a follow-up to the 2010 mission.

However, intense diplomatic pressure from Israel, coupled with reported sabotage of ships and restrictions by host countries like Greece, prevented most boats from departing. Only one ship, Dignité al‑Karama, managed to sail.

The 17-passenger French vessel announced they were heading for Gaza. Israeli naval commandos intercepted the boat and towed it to Ashdod. The activists were abducted and later deported.

Freedom Flotilla III, 2015:

Freedom Flotilla III was launched as the third major attempt by international activists to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.

Organised by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC), the mission included several vessels, with the Swedish-flagged Marianne of Gothenburg leading the effort.

On June 29, 2015, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Marianne about 100 nautical miles off the Gaza coast, in international waters. Commandos boarded the ship and diverted it to Ashdod. The activists on board were abducted and later deported, with some crew members released after six days.

Women’s Boat to Gaza, 2016:

One vessel, Zaytouna‑Oliva. The sailing boat was carrying women representing 13 countries from 5 continents who were trying to break the Israeli blockade on Gaza. The women included three parliamentarians, an Olympic athlete, former US Diplomat and CODEPINK Activist Ann Wright, and Nobel Peace Laureate, Mairead Maguire.

On 5 October 2016, the Israeli Navy intercepted it about 35 nautical miles from Gaza’s coast (approximately 65 km). Israeli forces boarded the vessela dn directed it to Ashdod. The interception occurred as Israel was simultaneously bombarding Gaza.

All activists were abducted, then deported to their home countries.

The last message heard from Mairead Maguire stated “We are people of the world, we should be allowed to visit our brothers and sisters in Gaza and not be stopped. We will continue to support the people of Gaza and the people of Palestine until they have their human rights and their freedom.”

Just Future for Palestine / Freedom Flotilla, 2018:

The flotilla included main vessels Al Awda (“The Return”) and Freedom, supported by yachts Mairead and Falestine and organised by Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) to challenge the blockade again, in a symbolic protest to deliver aid.

On July 29 and August 3, 2018, those two main vessels Al Awda and Freedom were intercepted by the Israeli navy in international waters. Ships were seized; persons on board arrested, detained and later deported. Some activists reported being tasered, assaulted, or beaten.

Recent Flotilla Attempts, 2025:

Madleen — June 9:

Organizer: Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC)

What it carried: Humanitarian aid — including baby formula, food, medical supplies.

Who was on board: 12 activists; among them Greta Thunberg, MEP Rima Hassan

Location / interception: Intercepted by the Israeli navy in international waters, about 100 nautical miles (about 185 km) from Gaza.

What happened: The ship was boarded; communications (cameras / livestream) disabled before boarding; the ship was towed, crew abducted then deported. The aid was seized.

Handala — July 27:

Organizer: Also the Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

What it carried: Aid (baby formula, food, medicine), civilian supplies.
Who was on board: 19 activists + 2 journalists, from several countries (including French parliamentarians).

Location / interception: Intercepted about 40 nautical miles from Gaza in international waters, late at night (communications cut).

What happened: The ship was boarded after cutting off cameras/communication; passengers detained, brought to the port of Ashdod.

Global Sumud Flotilla — October 1‑2:

Organizer: Global Sumud Flotilla

What it carried: humanitarian aid

Who on board: Approximately 500 activists on about 44‑47 civilian boats; notable figures include Greta Thunberg, Mandla Mandela, Ada Colau (former mayor of Barcelona), others.

Location / interception: Boats were being intercepted about 70 nautical miles (about 130 km) off Gaza; some boats boarded; communication / livestream disrupted. The lead vessels intercepted include Alma, Sirius, Adara, among others.

What happened: Israeli forces boarded some of the boats, some boats reported water cannon use; some vessels had their devices and cameras disabled. Activists on intercepted vessels were abducted to be deported.

3 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

History: Israel’s Move to Destroy the Palestinian Authority Is a Calculated Plan, Long in the Making. Prof Tanya Reinhart

By Tanya Reinhart

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This incisive article by the late Professor Tanya Reinhart was first published on Global Research 24 years ago in December 2001.

Tanya Reinhart was a professor of linguistics at Tel Aviv University. She was a staunch critic of  the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel. Her legacy will live.

Emphasis Added

***

Already in October 2000, at the outset of the Palestinian uprising, military circles were ready with detailed operative plans to topple Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. This was before the Palestinian terror attacks started. (The first attack on Israeli civilians was on November 3, 2000, in a market in Jerusalem).

A document prepared by the security services, at the request of then PM Barak, stated on October 15, 2000 that

“Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence”. (Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.)

The operative plan, known as ‘Fields of Thorns’ had been prepared back in 1996, and was then updated during the Intifada. (Amir Oren, Ha’aretz, Nov. 23, 2001). The plan includes everything that Israel has been executing lately, and more.(1)

The political echelon for its part (Barak’s circles), worked on preparing public opinion to the toppling of Arafat. On November 20, 2000, Nahman Shai, then public-affairs coordinator of the Barak Government, released in a meeting with the press, a 60 page document titled “Palestinian Authority non-compliance… A record of bad faith and misconduct”,

The document, informally referred to as the “White Book”, was prepared by Barak’s aid, Danny Yatom.(2) According to the “White Book”, Arafat’s present crime – “orchestrating the Intifada”, is just the last in a long chain of proofs that he has never deserted the “option of violence and ‘struggle’”.

“As early as Arafat’s own speech on the White House lawn, on September 13, 1993, there were indications that for him, the D.O.P. [declaration of principles] did not necessarily signify an end to the conflict. He did not, at any point, relinquish his uniform, symbolic of his status as a revolutionary commander” (Section 2). This uniform, incidentally, is the only ‘indication’ that the report cites, of Arafat’s hidden intentions, on that occasion.

A large section of the document is devoted to establishing Arafat’s “ambivalence and compliance” regarding terror.

“In March 1997 there was once again more than a hint of a ‘Green Light’ from Arafat to the Hamas, prior to the bombing in Tel Aviv… This is implicit in the statement made by a Hamas-affiliated member of Arafat’s Cabinet, Imad Faluji, to an American paper (Miami Herald, April 5, 1997).”

No further hints are provided regarding how this links Arafat to that bombing, but this is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda – Arafat is still a terrorist and is personally responsible for the acts of all groups, from Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to Hizbollah.

The ‘Foreign Report’ (Jane’s information) of July 12, 2001 disclosed that the Israeli army (under Sharon’s government) has updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.

The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8. The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.

Many in Israel suspect that the assassination of the Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, just when the Hamas was respecting for two months its agreement with Arafat not to attack inside Israel, was designed to create the appropriate ‘bloodshed justification’, at the eve of Sharon’s visit to the US. (Alex Fishman – senior security correspondent of ‘Yediot’ – noted that “whoever decided upon the liquidation of Abu Hanoud knew in advance that would be the price.

The subject was extensively discussed both by Israel’s military echelon and its political one, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation” (Yediot Aharonot, Nov. 25, 2001)).

Israel’s moves to destroy the PA, thus, cannot be viewed as a spontaneous ‘act of retaliation’. It is a calculated plan, long in the making. The execution requires, first, weakening the resistance of the Palestinians, which Israel has been doing systematically since October 2000, through killing, bombarding of infrastructure, imprisoning people in their hometowns, and bringing them close to starvation. All this, while waiting for the international conditions to ‘ripen’ for the more ‘advanced’ steps of the plan.

Now the conditions seem to have ‘ripened’. In the power-drunk political atmosphere in the US, anything goes.

If at first it seemed that the US will try to keep the Arab world on its side by some tokens of persuasion, as it did during the Gulf war, it is now clear that they couldn’t care less. US policy is no longer based on building coalitions or investing in persuasion, but on sheer force.

The smashing ‘victory’ in Afghanistan has sent a clear message to the Third-World that nothing can stop the US from targeting any nation for annihilation.

They seem to believe that the most sophisticated weapons of the twenty-first century, combined with total absence of any considerations of moral principles, international law, or public opinion, can sustain them as the sole rulers of the world forever. From now on, fear should be the sufficient condition for obedience.

The US hawks, who push to expand the war to Iraq and further, view Israel as an asset – There are few regimes in the world like Israel, so eager to risk the life of their citizens for some new regional war.

As Prof. Alain Joxe, head of the French CIRPES (peace and strategic studies) has put it in Le Monde,

“the American leadership is presently shaped by dangerous right wing Southern extremists, who seek to use Israel as an offensive tool to destabilize the whole Middle East area” (December 17, 2001).

The same hawks are also talking about expanding the future war zone to targets on Israel’s agenda, like Hizbollah and Syria.

Under these circumstances, Sharon got his green light in Washington. As the Israeli media keeps raving, “Bush is fed up with this character [Arafat]”,

“Powell said that Arafat must stop with his lies” (Barnea and Schiffer, ‘Yediot’, December 7, 2001).

As Arafat hides in his Bunker, Israeli F-16 bombers plough the sky, and Israel’s brutality is generating, every day, new desperate human bombs, the US, accompanied for a while by the European union, keep urging Arafat to “act”.

Undo the Oslo Arrangements 

But what is the rationale behind Israel’s systematic drive to eliminate the Palestinian Authority and undo the Oslo arrangements? It certainly cannot be based on ‘disappointment’ with Arafat’s performance, as is commonly claimed. The fact of the matter is that from the perspective of Israel’s interests in maintaining the occupation, Arafat did fulfill Israel’s expectations all these last years.

As far as Israeli security goes, there is nothing further from the truth then the fake accusations in the “White Book”, or subsequent Israeli propaganda. To take just one example, in 1997 – the year mentioned in the “White Book” as an instance of Arafat’s “green light to terror” – a ‘security agreement’ was signed between Israel and the Palestinian authority, under the auspices of the head of the Tel Aviv station of the CIA, Stan Muskovitz.

The agreement commits the PA to take active care of the security of Israel – to fight:

“the terrorists, the terrorist base, and the environmental conditions leading to support of terror” in cooperation with Israel, including “mutual exchange of information, ideas, and military cooperation” (clause 1). [Translated from the Hebrew text, Ha’aretz December 12, 1997].

Arafat’s security services carried out this job faithfully, with assassinations of Hamas terrorists (disguised as ‘accidents’), and arrests of Hamas political leaders.(3)

Ample information was published in the Israeli media regarding these activities, and ‘security sources’ were full of praises for Arafat’s achievements. E.g. Ami Ayalon, then head of the Israeli secret service (Shab”ak), announced, in the government meeting on April 5, 1998 that “Arafat is doing his job – he is fighting terror and puts all his weight against the Hamas” (Ha’aretz, April 6, 1998). The rate of success of the Israeli security services in containing terror was never higher than that of Arafat; in fact, much lower.

In left and critical circles, one can hardly find compassion for Arafat’s personal fate (as opposed to the tragedy of the Palestinian people). As David Hirst writes in The Guardian, when Arafat returned to the occupied territories, in 1994,

“he came as collaborator as much as liberator. For the Israelis, security – theirs, not the Palestinians’ – was the be-all and end-all of Oslo. His job was to supply it on their behalf. But he could only sustain the collaborator’s role if he won the political quid pro quo which, through a series of ‘interim agreements’ leading to ‘final status’, was supposedly to come his way. He never could. . . [Along the road], he acquiesced in accumulating concessions that only widened the gulf between what he was actually achieving and what he assured his people he would achieve, by this method, in the end. He was Mr. Palestine still, with a charisma and historical legitimacy all his own. But he was proving to be grievously wanting in that other great and complementary task, building his state-in-the-making. Economic misery, corruption, abuse of human rights, the creation of a vast apparatus of repression – all these flowed, wholly or in part, from the Authority over which he presided.” (Hirst, “Arafat’s last stand?” The Guardian, December 14, 2001).

But from the perspective of the Israeli occupation, all this means that the Oslo plan was, essentially, successful. Arafat did manage, through harsh means of oppression, to contain the frustration of his people, and guarantee the safety of the settlers, as Israel continued undisturbed to build new settlements and appropriate more Palestinian land.

The oppressive machinery, the various security forces of Arafat, were formed and trained in collaboration with Israel. Much energy and resources were put into building this complex Oslo apparatus. It is often admitted that the Israeli security forces cannot manage to prevent terror any better than Arafat can. Why, then, was the military and political echelon so determined to destroy all this already in October 2000, even before the terror waves started? Answering this requires some look at the history.

The Israeli Political and Military History 

Right from the start of the ‘Oslo process’, in September 1993, two conceptions were competing in the Israeli political and military system. The one, led by Yosi Beilin, was striving to implement some version of the Alon plan, which the Labor party has been advocating for years. The original plan consisted of annexation of about 35% of the territories to Israel, and either Jordanian-rule, or some form of self-rule for the rest – the land on which the Palestinians actually live. In the eyes of its proponents, this plan represented a necessary compromise, compared to the alternatives of either giving up the territories altogether, or eternal blood-shed (as we witness today). It appeared that Rabin was willing to follow this line, at least at the start, and that in return for Arafat’s commitment to control the frustration of his people and guarantee the security of Israel, he would allow the PA to run the enclaves in which the Palestinians still reside, in some form of self-rule, which may even be called a Palestinian ‘state’.

But the other pole objected even to that much. This was mostly visible in military circles, whose most vocal spokesman in the early years of Oslo was then Chief of Staff, Ehud Barak. Another center of opposition was, of course, Sharon and the extreme right-wing, who were against the Oslo process from the start. This affinity between the military circles and Sharon is hardly surprising. Sharon – the last of the leaders of the ‘1948 generation’, was a legendary figure in the army, and many of the generals were his disciples, like Barak. As Amir Oren wrote,

“Barak’s deep and abiding admiration for Ariel Sharon’s military insights is another indication of his views; Barak and Sharon both belong to a line of political generals that started with Moshe Dayan” (Ha’aretz, January 8, 1999).

This breed of generals was raised on the myth of redemption of the land. A glimpse into this worldview is offered in Sharon’s interview with Ari Shavit (Ha’aretz, weekend supplement, April 13, 2001). Everything is entangled into one romantic framework: the fields, the blossom of the orchards, the plough and the wars.

The heart of this ideology is the sanctity of the land. In a 1976 interview, Moshe Dayan, who was the defense minister in 1967, explained what led, then, to the decision to attack Syria. In the collective Israeli consciousness of the period, Syria was conceived as a serious threat to the security of Israel, and a constant initiator of aggression towards the residents of northern Israel. But according to Dayan, this is “bull-shit” – Syria was not a threat to Israel before 67:

“Just drop it. . .I know how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We were sending a tractor to the demilitarized zone and we knew that the Syrians would shoot.” According to Dayan (who at a time of the interview confessed some regrets), what led Israel to provoke Syria this way was the greediness for the land – the idea that it is possible “to grab a piece of land and keep it, until the enemy will get tired and give it to us” (Yediot Aharonot, April 27 1997)

At the eve of Oslo, the majority of the Israeli society was tired of wars.

In their eyes, the fights over land and resources were over. Most Israelis believe that the 1948 Independence War, with its horrible consequences for the Palestinians, was necessary to establish a state for the Jews, haunted by the memory of the Holocaust.

But now that they have a state, they long to just live normally with whatever they have. However, the ideology of the redemption of land has never died out in the army, or in the circles of the ‘political generals’, who switched from the army to the government.

In their eyes, Sharon’s alternative of fighting the Palestinians to the bitter end and imposing new regional orders – as he tried in Lebanon in 1982 – may have failed because of the weakness of the spoiled Israeli society. But given the new war-philosophy established in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan, they believe that with the massive superiority of the Israeli air force, it may still be possible to win this battle in the future.

While Sharon’s party was in the opposition at the time of Oslo, Barak, as Chief of Staff, participated in the negotiations and played a crucial role in shaping the agreements, and Israel’s attitude to the Palestinian Authority.

I quote from an article I wrote in February 1994, because it reflects what anybody who read carefully the Israeli media could see at the time:

 “From the start, it has been possible to identify two conceptions that underlie the Oslo process. One is that this will enable to reduce the cost of the occupation, using a Palestinian patronage regime, with Arafat as the senior cop responsible for the security of Israel. The other is that the process should lead to the collapse of Arafat and the PLO. The humiliation of Arafat, and the amplification of his surrender, will gradually lead to loss of popular support. Consequently, the PLO will collapse, or enter power conflicts. Thus, the Palestinian society will lose its secular leadership and institutions. In the power driven mind of those eager to maintain the Israeli occupation, the collapse of the secular leadership is interpreted as an achievement, because it would take a long while for the Palestinian people to get organized again, and, in any case, it is easier to justify even the worst acts of oppression, when the enemy is a fanatic Muslim organization. Most likely, the conflict between the two competing conceptions is not settled yet, but at the moment, the second seems more dominant: In order to carry out the first, Arafat’s status should have been strengthened, with at least some achievements that could generate support of the Palestinians, rather then Israel’s policy of constant humiliation and breach of promises.”(4)

Nevertheless, the scenario of the collapse of the PA did not materialize.

The Palestinian society resorted once more to their marvelous strategy of ‘zumud’ – sticking to the land and sustaining the pressure. Right from the start, the Hamas political leadership, and others, were warning that Israel is trying to push the Palestinians into a civil war, in which the nation slaughters itself. All fragments of the society cooperated to prevent this danger, and calm conflicts as soon as they were deteriorating to arms. They also managed, despite the tyranny of Arafat’s rule, to build an impressive amount of institutions and infrastructure. The PA does not consist only of the corrupt rulers and the various security forces. The elected Palestinian council, which operates under endless restrictions, is still a representative political framework, some basis for democratic institutions in the future. For those whose goal is the destruction of the Palestinian identity and the eventual redemption of their land, Oslo was a failure.

In 1999, the army got back to power, through the ‘political generals’ – first Barak, and then Sharon. (They collaborated in the last elections to guarantee that no other, civil, candidate will be allowed to run.)

The road opened to correct what they view as the grave mistake of Oslo. In order to get there, it was first necessary to convince the spoiled Israeli society that the Palestinians are not willing to live in peace and are threatening our mere existence. Sharon alone could not have possibly achieved that, but Barak did succeed, with his ‘generous offer’ fraud. After a year of horrible terror attacks, combined with massive propaganda and lies, Sharon and the army feel that nothing can stop them from turning to full execution.

Why is it so urgent for them to topple Arafat?

Shabtai Shavit, former head of the Security Service (‘Mossad’), who is not bound by restraints posed on official sources, explains this openly:

“In the thirty something years that he [Arafat] leads, he managed to reach real achievements in the political and international sphere… He got the Nobel peace prize, and in a single phone call, he can obtain a meeting with every leader in the world. There is nobody in the Palestinian gallery that can enter his shoes in this context of international status. If they [the Palestinians] will lose this gain, for us, this is a huge achievement. The Palestinian issue will get off the international agenda.” (interview in Yediot’s Weekend Supplement, December 7, 2001).

Their immediate goal is to get the Palestinians off the international agenda, so slaughter, starvation, forced evacuation and ‘migration’ can continue undisturbed, leading, possibly, to the final realization of Sharon’s long standing vision, embodied in the military plans. The immediate goal of anybody concerned with the future of the world, ahould be to halt this process of evil unleashed. As Alain Joxe concluded his article in Le Monde:

“It is time for the Western public opinion to take over and to compel the governments to take a moral and political stand facing the foreseen disaster, namely a situation of permanent war against the Arab and Muslim people and states – the realization of the double phantasy of Bin Laden and Sharon.” (December 17, 2001).

*

Notes

(1) For the details of this operative plan, see Anthony Cordesman, “Peace and War: Israel versus the Palestinians A second Intifada?” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) December 2000, and it summary in Shraga Eilam, “Peace With Violence or Transfer”, ‘Between The Lines’, December 2000.

(2) The document can be found in:

(3) For a survey on some of the PA’s assassinations of Hamas terrorists, see my article “The A-Sherif affair”, ‘Yediot Aharonot’, April 14, 1998

4 October 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

Bibi has been Giving Money to Hamas. An Insidious Intelligence Operation

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Confirmed by Israeli media. “Not Fake News”. Bibi has been giving money to Hamas

“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (Times of Israel October 8, 2023, emphasis added)

According to Netanyahu:

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

Let us be clear. These deceitful money payments are NOT in support of Hamas as a Palestinian political entity involved in the Resistance Movement.  Quite the opposite.

What is at stake is an insidious intelligence op, in support of so-called “intelligence assets” within Hamas.

What is at stake is a carefully planned False Flag Agenda which from the outset on October 7, 2023, upholds Hamas as the alleged “Aggressor” against the people of Israel.

What is the truth, what is the lie?.  The Netanyahu government and its Ministry of Intelligence from the very outset have “blood on their hands”. They are responsible for Israeli deaths resulting from the False Flag agenda.

What is the relationship between Mossad and Hamas?  There is a long history.

Hamas (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) (Islamic Resistance Movement), was founded in 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin. It was supported at the outset by Israeli intelligence as a means to weaken the Palestinian Authority:

“Thanks to Mossad, (Israel’s “Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks”), Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat’s Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation.

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)”. (L’Humanité, translated from French)

 “How Israel helped to Spawn Hamas”. WSJ

“Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. WSJ January 24, 2009, emphasis added)

The Historic Statement of  Rep. Ron Paul 

“You know Hamas, if you look at the history, you’ll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat… (Rep. Ron Paul, 2011)

What this statement entails is that Hamas is and remains “an intelligence asset”, namely “an “asset” to Israel as well as US intelligence.

Video: Ron Paul. Israel Created Hamas

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27esxkQtfTc]

Newsmax reported on Ron Paul’s comments in 2011 when he ran for president:

The Texas congressman advanced the argument that Israel actually created Hamas, as well as blamed the CIA for radicalizing Muslims and the United States for supplying weapons and money that “kill Palestinians.

Israel “aided Hamas directly — the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),” said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. (Newsmax)

Israel’s support for Hamas “was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,” said a former senior CIA official. (See Global Research)

Concluding Remarks

The ongoing October 7, 2023 False Flag agenda is part of a longstanding historical process to destroy Palestine.

Flash Back to 2001:

A major False Flag operation was contemplated by Tel Aviv in 2001, predicated on the doctrine of “Justified Vengeance”. The strategic Blueprint was entitled:

“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”

It was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8, 2001.

Israeli Victims. Bloodshed As a Justification

“The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.

The subject was extensively discussed both by Israel’s military echelon and its political one, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation” (Yediot Aharonot, Nov. 25, 2001)).

According to the late Prof. Tanya Reinhart

“Israel’s moves to destroy the PA, thus, cannot be viewed as a spontaneous ‘act of retaliation’.  It is a calculated plan, long in the making.

The execution requires, first, weakening the resistance of the Palestinians, which Israel has been doing systematically since October 2000, “through killing, bombarding of infrastructure, imprisoning people in their hometowns, and bringing them close to starvation.”

All this, while waiting for the international conditions to ‘ripen’ for the more ‘advanced’ steps of the plan.” (Tanya Rheinart)

4 October 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

Remembering Dr. Jane Goodall (3 Apr 1934 – 1 Oct 2025)

By Jane Goodall Institute

Scientist. Conservationist. Humanitarian.

Jane Goodall, a remarkable example of courage and conviction, working tirelessly throughout her life to raise awareness about threats to wildlife, promote conservation, and inspire a more harmonious, sustainable relationship between people, animals, and the natural world, passed away on 1 Oct 2025 at the age of 91 of natural causes. RIP

Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute, UN Messenger of Peace and world-renowned ethologist, conservationist, and humanitarian, was known around the world for her 65-year study of wild chimpanzees in Gombe, Tanzania. However, in the latter part of her life she expanded her focus and became a global advocate for human rights, animal welfare, species and environmental protection, and many other crucial issues.

Jane was passionate about empowering young people to become involved in conservation and humanitarian projects and she led many educational initiatives focused on both wild and captive chimpanzees. She was always guided by her fascination with the mysteries of evolution, and her staunch belief in the fundamental need to respect all forms of life on Earth.

Born Valerie Jane Morris-Goodall, Jane was the eldest daughter of businessman and racing car driver Mortimer Herbert Morris-Goodall and writer Margaret Myfanwe Joseph.

Jane was passionate about wildlife from early childhood, and she read avidly about the natural world. Her dream was to travel to Africa, learn more about animals, and write books about them. Having worked as a waitress to save enough money for a sea passage to Kenya, Jane was advised to try to meet respected paleontologist Dr. Louis Leakey. Louis employed her as a secretary at the National Museum in Nairobi, and this led to her being offered the opportunity to spend time with Louis and Mary Leakey in at the Olduvai Gorge in search of fossils.

Having witnessed Jane’s patience and determination there, Louis asked her to travel to Tanzania, to study families of wild chimpanzees in the forest of Gombe. Looking back, Jane always said she’d have “studied any animal” but felt extremely lucky to have been given the chance to study man’s closest living relative in the wild.

On July 14th, 1960, Jane arrived in Gombe for the first time. It was here that she developed her unique understanding of chimpanzee behaviour and made the ground-breaking discovery that chimpanzees use tools. An observation that has been credited with “redefining what it means to be human.”

Knowing Jane’s work would only be taken seriously if she was academically qualified, and despite her having no degree, Louis arranged for Jane to study for a PhD in Ethology at Newnham College, Cambridge. Jane’s doctoral thesis, The Behaviour of Free-living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve, was completed in 1965. Her three-month study evolved into an extraordinary research program lasting decades and it is still ongoing today.

Jane was married twice. Her first husband, Hugo van Lawick, was a Dutch baron and wildlife photographer working for National Geographic when they met. Jane and Hugo divorced in 1974, and Jane later married Derek Bryceson, a member of Tanzania’s parliament and a former director of Tanzania’s National Parks. Derek died in 1980.

During her life Jane authored more than 27 books for adults and children, and featured in numerous documentaries and films, as well as two major IMAX productions. In 2019, National Geographic opened Becoming Jane, a travelling exhibit focused on her life’s work, which is still touring across the United States. Her latest publication, The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times, has been translated into more than 20 languages.

Her awards and accolades span the scale of human achievement. In 2002, she was named a United Nations Messenger of Peace. Two years later, she was made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) at Buckingham Palace. Jane was also awarded the United States Presidential Medial of Freedom, French Légion d’honneur, the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Life Science, Japan’s prestigious Kyoto Prize, the Ghandi-King Award for Nonviolence, The Medal of Tanzania, and the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement. In addition, she has been recognized by local governments, educational establishments, and charities around the world.

Jane founded the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) in 1977, initially to support the research at Gombe. There are now 25 JGI offices operating diverse programs around the world.

In 1991, Jane founded Roots & Shoots, her global humanitarian and environmental program for young people of all ages. The initiative began with just 12 high school students in Dar es Salaam. Today, Roots & Shoots is active in over 75 countries. Roots & Shoots members are empowered to become involved in hands-on programs to affect positive change for animals, the environment, and their local communities.

In 2017, Jane founded the Jane Goodall Legacy Foundation, to ensure the ongoing stability of the core programs she’d created – her life’s work.

Throughout her life and remarkable career, Jane inspired generations of scientists, brought hope to countless people from all walks of life, and urged us all to remember that “every single one of us makes a difference every day – it is up to us as to the kind of difference we make.” Her legacy continues with the ongoing research at Gombe, the community-led conservation program Tacare, the work of the sanctuaries Chimp Eden in South Africa and Tchimpounga in the Republic of the Congo, and Roots & Shoots empowering young people to become involved in hands on programs for the community, animals and the environment.

Though Jane travelled 300 days a year, her home was in Bournemouth, United Kingdom, in the house her grandmother and mother had lived in before her. Her sister Judy Waters and her family played a huge role in supporting Jane’s work over the decades, providing a warm welcome whenever she returned home. Jane is survived by her son Hugo Eric Louis van Lawick (affectionately known as Grub) and her three grandchildren, Merlin, Angel, and Nick.

6 October 2025

Source: transcend.org

Kidnapped Members of the Global Sumud Flotilla Begin Hunger Strike in Ketziot Prison

(Image by social nets)

By Claudia Aranda

4 Oct 2025 – Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir arrived at the port of Ashdod on October 2 as if staging a scene carefully designed for public humiliation. In front of cameras and microphones, he stood before dozens of international activists seated on the ground, exhausted after the long voyage and hours of interrogation, and shouted at them indiscriminately: “terrorists.” The gesture was not isolated: it was a display of power and contempt that evoked for much of the world the image of a Nazi officer receiving a trainload of prisoners arriving at Auschwitz. The difference is that here, in the twenty-first century, the perpetrators themselves chose to disseminate the scene, fully aware of its symbolic impact, confident in the impunity that shields them.

From that port began the transfer of more than four hundred activists kidnapped in international waters toward an equally infamous destination: Ketziot prison, in the heart of the Negev desert. This facility is not new to reports by international bodies. Thousands of Palestinian prisoners have been held there, and its name appears repeatedly in human rights organizations’ reports for inhumane conditions, overcrowding, psychological torture, and systematic medical neglect. Now, that same site holds doctors, journalists, parliamentarians, and human rights defenders from more than forty countries who took part in the flotilla.

Accounts circulating since the first day of their capture converge on a central point: interrogations lasted more than fifteen hours, without offering detainees water or food. It was punishment disguised as procedure, a way to break the resistance of those who dared to challenge the blockade and deliver humanitarian aid directly to Gaza. Nevertheless, several of the kidnapped —and that is the only accurate term, since their violent capture in international waters does not correspond to any legitimate legal procedure— are believed to have resisted, refusing to sign deportation documents that would amount to self-incrimination. Others, pressured by exhaustion and isolation, reportedly signed in exchange for the promise of a swift expulsion. Israel remains silent: it has not yet provided a complete list of those transferred to Ketziot, nor has it clarified under what legal status they are being held.

What has emerged, already reported by Arab and European media and solidarity organizations, is that inside the prison a group of the kidnapped have begun a hunger strike. The measure, desperate yet consistent with the flotilla’s spirit of resistance, recalls the historic fasts of political prisoners confronting a power intent on breaking them. The hunger strike echoes the voyage itself: a body willing to embrace extreme fragility in order to assert the dignity that is being stripped away.

Ketziot, like Auschwitz in the inevitable parallel it evokes, thus becomes both symbol and witness. There, among the dunes and the walls, the same eternal question repeats itself: what is the world doing while hundreds of human beings are humiliated, deprived of their most basic rights, and turned into political hostages? The answer, once again, seems to be complicit silence.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ADALAH UPDATE ON THE GSF PARTICIPANTS KIDNAPPED AND DETAINED

October 3, 2025

This statement was originally published on Adalah’s WhatsApp channel.

Over the past 24 hours, Adalah’s lawyers met with 331 participants of the Global Sumud Flotilla at the port of Ashdod, where they are facing hearings before Israeli immigration authorities. Several participants were processed without Adalah’s legal counsel, as access to our lawyers was initially denied. This process took place after the flotilla was forcibly towed following illegal interceptions in international waters, where dozens of boats were seized in their mission to break the illegal siege of Gaza amidst ongoing genocide, mass atrocities, and famine.

The flotilla participants are in relatively stable condition, and Adalah continues to closely monitor their situation.

After their abduction in international waters, the participants were forced to kneel with their hands bound with zip ties for at least five hours, after some of them chanted slogans in support of Palestine’s liberation. During the lawyers’ visits, Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, made an appearance in what was clearly an act of humiliation and intimidation. The flotilla participants were filmed and exploited in a degrading display of control. This demonstration of humiliation took place alongside the smear campaign by Israeli officials, who falsely labeled flotilla members as “terrorists” in an attempt to discredit their peaceful mission and legitimize the repressive tactics used against them.

The entire process is illegal from beginning to end. The interception itself violated international law, amounting to an abduction in international waters. Israel’s attempt to justify these actions through the enforcement of its blockade does not stand: the blockade itself is illegal, constitutes collective punishment, and serves as a central tool of the ongoing genocide, including the deliberate use of hunger as a method of war.

The rights of the participants were systematically violated throughout this process. In addition to being denied access to water, bathrooms, and medication, they were denied access to lawyers, which violated their fundamental rights to due process, an impartial trial, and legal representation. Yesterday, while the whereabouts of the flotilla volunteers remained unknown, the lawyers were forced to wait about nine hours outside the port of Ashdod and were not informed when Israeli immigration authorities began to process and hold hearings. They only learned of these illegal proceedings after the detainees themselves called them directly.

Despite repeated denials of entry by Israeli police, Adalah’s lawyers finally managed to access the port and provide legal assistance to the 331 participants. Several participants reported having been subjected to assaults, threats, and harassment, including being violently awakened every time they attempted to sleep.

Subsequently, the authorities transferred the participants from Ashdod to Ktzi’ot prison in the Negev and began judicial hearings without informing the legal team, proceeding with no legal representation whatsoever. Adalah’s lawyers are now present at these judicial hearings, where detention orders are being reviewed.

Adalah is taking legal measures to ensure that each and every participant is accounted for, while continuing to carry out prison visits. Adalah also demands their immediate release from illegal detention and the return of their personal belongings and humanitarian aid supplies.

6 October 2025

Source: transcend.org

Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan: A Rubber Stamp of Legitimacy on Israel’s Subjugation of Palestine

By Jeremy Scahill and Jawa Ahmad 

After his White House speech, Netanyahu said Israel will never withdraw from Gaza and promised to resume the genocide if Hamas does not disarm.

30 Sep 2025 – Three weeks after Israel attempted to assassinate Hamas’s lead negotiators in a series of airstrikes on the group’s offices in Doha, Qatar, President Donald Trump hailed the public announcement of his 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza as “potentially one of the great days ever in civilization.” The framework was drafted in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s top adviser, Ron Dermer, and spearheaded by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Several Arab and Muslim states also contributed. No Palestinian officials from Hamas or any other faction, including the internationally-recognized Palestinian Authority, were consulted in crafting the plan.

The proposal, which Netanyahu agreed to after meeting with Trump at the White House on Monday, links the delivery of food and other life essentials and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the demilitarization of Gaza and includes several loopholes that would permit Israel to resume the genocide. It also would impose a foreign-led authority on the demilitarized Gaza Strip, backed by Arab and international troops, and allow the Israeli army to indefinitely encircle the enclave by maintaining positions inside Gaza’s territory. The plan requires Hamas to release all Israeli captives held in Gaza before any Palestinians would be freed. While the proposal includes a series of apparent concessions to Arab and Muslim countries in return for their endorsement, it makes no mention of how Israel would be prevented from violating the agreement. The plan also includes a nebulous mention of possible future Palestinian “self-determination and statehood” after Gaza “re-development advances” and the Palestinian Authority is reformed.

“If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end,” the framework’s text, released on Monday, states. “Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.”

In his White House remarks, Netanyahu affirmed his acceptance of the framework, but made clear Israel stands poised to resume the genocide. “If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accept it and then basically do everything to counter it—then Israel will finish the job by itself,” he declared. “This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done. We prefer the easy way, but it has to be done.”

Trump also underscored this point. “Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas,” he said. “But I hope that we’re going to have a deal for peace, and if Hamas rejects the deal… Bibi you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do. Everyone understands that the ultimate result must be the elimination of any danger posed in the region. And the danger is caused by Hamas.”

On Tuesday, Trump reiterated this and said he would give Hamas “about three or four days” to respond. “We’re just waiting for Hamas, and Hamas is either going to be doing it or not, and if it’s not, it’s going to be a very sad end,” he said, adding that if Hamas rejects the deal, “I would let [Israel] go and do what they have to do.”

Hamas was not given any details on the proposal prior to Trump and Netanyahu unveiling it at the White House, a senior leader told Al Jazeera Mubasher. “Not a single Palestinian has reviewed this plan, and what was recounted … represents a tilt toward the Israeli vision—an approach close to what Netanyahu insisted on and pleaded for—to continue the war and the annihilation. Nothing more, nothing less,” said senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Mardawi immediately following the Trump–Netanyahu press conference. “To negotiate an end to this criminal war in exchange for ending the Palestinian people’s right to their state and their rights to their land, homeland, and holy sites—no Palestinian will accept that.”

Mardawi said that Hamas and other Palestinian factions would need to study the proposal, adding that, “the official position must be issued after reading the proposal and then stating our position and making amendments that conform with our right to self-determination.” The last time Hamas leaders gathered to discuss a U.S. proposal, on September 9, Israel attempted to assassinate its negotiators.

Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesman Majed Al-Ansari said Tuesday that Egypt and Qatar had delivered the plan to Hamas and, along with Turkish officials, would be holding a “consultative meeting.” Al-Ansari added, “We are optimistic that Trump’s plan is comprehensive, and the Hamas delegation is studying it responsibly, and we continue to consult with them.”

While Trump praised his own plan as a landmark opportunity for “eternal peace in the Middle East,” the exclusion of all Palestinians from the process is an extension of decades of Western colonial dominance of decision-making surrounding the future of Palestine. At the heart of Trump’s plan is a thinly-veiled ultimatum to Palestinians: bend the knee to Israel, renounce the right of armed resistance, and agree to indefinite subjugation by foreign actors.

“This plan is a malicious attempt to achieve through politics what the war of extermination could not achieve on the ground,” said Sami Al-Arian, a prominent Palestinian academic and activist and the director of the Center for Islam and Global Affairs at Istanbul Zaim University. “This includes ending the resistance, withdrawing weapons, releasing [Israeli] captives without a complete withdrawal, maintaining security, political, and economic control over Gaza, and imposing international tutelage.” He said the Trump framework is aimed at “perpetuating the Israeli narrative that the challenge is a security one related to Israeli security needs, not to ending a military occupation, Israeli genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and ongoing aggression.”

Al-Arian told Drop Site, “There is no negotiation here. There is an American plan. It was modified by some Israeli points and possibly some Arab points. And it’s given to the resistance as a ‘Take it or leave it’ thing.”

In the lead-up to the announcement, the Trump administration pushed a familiar narrative to friendly media outlets that he pressured a resistant Netanyahu into the agreement. In reality, Israeli officials were deeply involved with crafting the proposal right up to the moment the White House released the text.

In a video address in Hebrew following his event with Trump, Netanyahu portrayed the plan as a coup for Israel’s agenda, saying it effectively placed an Arab and international stamp of legitimacy on his genocidal plans. “This is a historic visit. Instead of Hamas isolating us, we turned the tables and isolated Hamas. Now the entire world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the terms we set together with President Trump: to release all our hostages, both living and deceased, while the IDF remains in most of the Strip,” Netanyahu declared. “Who would have believed this? After all, people constantly say, the IDF should withdraw… No way, that’s not happening.”

In previous “ceasefire” negotiations, when Hamas has sought to propose amendments or even to clarify phrasing in draft texts, Israel and the U.S. denounced Hamas, falsely accusing it of rejecting peace, and then Israel intensified the military assault on Gaza. Israel, meanwhile, has offered the public perception it agrees to draft deals, while at the same time securing “side letters” from Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden, authorizing Israel to resume the war if it determines the agreement is no longer in its interests.

“There is no negotiation here. There is an American plan. It was modified by some Israeli points and possibly some Arab points. And it’s given to the resistance as a ‘Take it or leave it’ thing.”

And after it signed the January 2025 ceasefire agreement, Israel repeatedly violated it, regularly striking Gaza and ultimately blowing up the agreement entirely after the first of what was supposed to be a three-phase deal. Netanyahu has made clear that he wants not only Hamas’s surrender, but the decimation of all Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

“What was announced at the press conference between Trump and Netanyahu is an American-Israeli agreement, an expression of Israel’s entire position, and a recipe for continued aggression against the Palestinian people,” said Ziyad al-Nakhalah, the secretary general of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the second largest armed resistance group in Gaza, in a statement. “Israel is trying to impose, through the United States, what it has been unable to achieve through war. Therefore, we consider the American-Israeli announcement a recipe for igniting the region.”

In crafting this plan, Trump deployed his son-in-law, Kushner, to shore up support from Arab nations ahead of the announcement. Kushner is often touted by Trump as the mastermind of the so-called Abraham Accord “normalization” agreements with Israel. Kushner has extensive business dealings in Gulf countries and his investment firm, Affinity Partners, is backed by billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

Trump boasted that he has the full backing of all major Arab nations. “The level of support that I’ve had from the nations in the Middle East and surrounding Israel and neighbors of Israel has been incredible. Incredible. Every single one of them,” Trump said, highlighting the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. “These are the people that we’ve been dealing with and who’ve been actually very much involved in this negotiation, giving us ideas, things they can live with, things they can’t live with.”

Embedded within the plan are several terms that Arab nations pushed for and which certainly were key to getting their buy-in. “The conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people,” the plan states. Arab and Muslim countries also certainly advocated for including a provision that Israel will cease its military assault and “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza.” No Palestinians, the outline states, “will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.”

An earlier leaked draft of Trump’s plan, as reported in Hebrew media, included a commitment that Israel would not annex the West Bank. That term does not exist in the text distributed Monday by the White House.

Nonetheless, the foreign ministers of Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt issued a statement saying they “welcome President Donald J Trump’s leadership and his sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza, and assert their confidence in his ability to find a path to peace.”

During his appearance on Al Jazeera after the plan was announced, Mardawi repeatedly emphasized the exclusion of Palestinians from the drafting of the Trump plan. “How can an Arab state refuse to allow the Palestinian people, with all their current political forces and over past decades, to participate?” he asked, rejecting the premise. “In everything put forward there is no affirmation of the Palestinian people’s rights.” He added that Hamas “will examine the proposal, discuss it with the factions, amend it, and consult the countries—all the countries that were willing and ready among those that met with Trump—and review their positions.”

Abu Ali Hassan, a member of the General Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine denounced the plan as giving diplomatic cover to a continuation of Israel’s broader agenda. “Trump gave the occupying state sufficient time to achieve its goals to no avail. The plan is a political intervention to achieve the military objectives of the war,” he told the Palestinian Sanad news agency. The plan, he said, “is an expression of a conspiracy involving international and Arab parties to undermine the rights of the Palestinian people and defeat their resistance.”

Privatizing and Colonizing Gaza

The Trump plan is riddled with ambiguities, loopholes, and proposals that leave a multitude of paths for Israel to resume its genocidal assault on Gaza.

Within 72 hours of an agreement, the plan says, Hamas must release all Israeli captives held in Gaza. There are believed to be 20 living Israelis and the bodies of 28 deceased remaining in the Strip. In return, Israel would subsequently release 250 Palestinians sentenced to life and 1,700 Palestinians from Gaza taken captive after October 7, 2023, including all women and children. The bodies of 15 Palestinians, according to the plan, would be returned for the remains of each deceased Israeli held in Gaza.

The plan states that deliveries of food and other life essentials to Gaza will resume in quantities consistent with the January 2025 ceasefire agreement that Israel unilaterally abandoned. “Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party,” it says, adding that this will include “rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.” The plan also pledges that the Rafah crossing along the border with Egypt—what was once Gaza’s only gateway to the world beyond Israeli control—would be opened in both directions under the rules established in the January ceasefire deal. But a map of the proposed Israeli withdrawals would allow Israeli forces to remain deployed across southern Gaza, including along the Philadelphi corridor that runs along the border with Egypt, until an international force met standards approved by Trump.

The maps for a proposed phased Israeli withdrawal are consistent with those proposed by Israel in July—and rejected by Hamas—with the added term that any Israeli troop withdrawals will be linked to the verified disarmament of Palestinian resistance groups. The plan says that Israeli forces would “progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies” to an international security force, but that Israeli troops would maintain “a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.”

“The resumption of the aid is extremely important in light of the fact that there is starvation and famine taking place,” said Al-Arian. “But I think the thorniest of issues would be the disarmament and the [Israeli] withdrawal. These could be the two issues that can make this whole deal unravel.”

The Trump framework also states that if Hamas “delays or rejects this proposal,” aid distribution will only proceed in areas under Israeli control or those handed over to the international force after disarmament of Palestinians in the area.

The plan also contains terms that Hamas has explicitly defined as “red lines,” namely a demand to strip Palestinians of their right to armed resistance against Israeli occupation. “All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt,” it states. “There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors.”

Mardawi, the Hamas official, said the U.S. and Israel were engaged in a propaganda campaign to rebrand the Palestinian right to self defense as a justification for Israel’s genocidal war. “To confiscate these weapons without a horizon, without a roadmap, without steps that lead to the establishment of the Palestinian state that the world recognizes is an attempt to bury the international consensus—except for America and the rogue Israel—on recognizing the Palestinian people’s right to establish their state,” he told Al Jazeera. “This international diplomatic and political momentum—especially from Europe, which used to support, back, and provide all forms of assistance to the state of the occupation—this recognition and this shift toward affirming the Palestinian people’s right to establish their state on their homeland is being undermined.”

The Trump plan says that the U.S. will work with Arab and international partners to create “a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza” to establish “control and stability.” In addition to providing security in Gaza, the plan says the ISF would also “work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces.” The concept outlined in the plan is that as the ISF takes control of areas occupied by Israel, Israeli forces would withdraw. But the entire plan is predicated on the disarmament of Palestinian factions in areas the Israeli military would agree to withdraw from. It states that Israeli withdrawal would be “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization… with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens.”

“I think there will be huge reservations from all Palestinian factions, that they will not surrender their weapons,” Al-Arian said. “People have the right to defend themselves, particularly when dealing with an enemy that does not respect any law, any international law, any humanitarian law whatsoever.”

At the White House on Monday, Trump claimed he had secured commitments from Arab and Muslim countries “to demilitarize Gaza, and that’s quickly. Decommission the military capabilities of Hamas and all other terror organizations. Do that immediately. We’re relying on the countries that I named and others to deal with Hamas.”

Al-Arian said he was skeptical Israel would actually agree to the deployment of a foreign force, particularly an Arab one. But even if it did happen, he said it would not be capable of achieving the stated aim of disarming Palestinian resistance factions. “They’re not going to bring Arab and international troops to go and fight the resistance. The resistance will not voluntarily give up its arms,” said Al-Arian. “Which makes the Israelis say, ‘If that doesn’t happen, we’re not withdrawing.’ So you end up with a frozen conflict that could actually unravel and return back to genocide. But this time the Americans will say, ‘We tried, we failed.’ And then the Israelis have a free hand to resume their genocide.”

Hamas has repeatedly said that it would relinquish governing authority in Gaza to an independent technocratic committee of Palestinians. On several occasions, Hamas proposed including the term in previous ceasefire proposals and the U.S., and Israel removed it. The Trump plan states, “Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form.” It does not clarify which factions this would include.

While the Trump plan states that “Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee,” it requires that it be overseen by another newly created entity that would be headed by Trump and reportedly managed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The document references the potential future involvement of the Palestinian Authority, but offers no timeline.

Hossam Badran, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, denounced the involvement of Blair, an unrepentant war monger who has spent his years since leaving office cashing in by peddling his influence to dictators and despots. “I could call him ‘the devil’s brother’—that’s Tony Blair. He has brought no good to the Palestinian cause, to the Arabs, or to the Muslims. His criminal and destructive role since the war on Iraq, in which he had a central role both theoretically and in practical participation, is well known,” Badran told Al Jazeera Mubasher on Sunday. “Tony Blair is not a welcome figure in the Palestinian cause, and therefore any plan associated with this person is an ill omen for the Palestinian people.” After resigning as British Prime Minister, Blair served as the official Middle East envoy for the Quartet—consisting of the U.S., the UN, the EU, and Russia—from 2007 to 2015 and was widely criticized for achieving little.

Al-Arian said that while Hamas has agreed that it would not be a part of an interim governing body for Gaza, Israel and Trump seem to be trying to preemptively strip Palestinians of the right to choose their leaders democratically. “Eventually there will have to be some sort of a democratic transition, democratic elections in which Gazans have the right to rule themselves,” he said. “I don’t think any Palestinian would agree to have a foreign power governing them. That imperialist, colonialist mentality is not acceptable to any Palestinian.”

The Trump plan calls for the establishment of an “economic development plan” that would be managed by a “panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East.” The language is consistent with the praise Trump heaped on the rulers of Gulf nations when he visited Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE in May. While Trump made no mention of his oft-repeated threat to turn Gaza into a U.S.-run “Middle East Riviera,” the plan indicates he sees massive private investment opportunities in the rubble of Gaza.

During the Monday press conference, Trump addressed Dermer—Netanyahu’s chief strategist—in the front row with a rambling digression referring to Gaza as the most beautiful real estate in the region and offered a staggeringly false history of Israel “giving it” to the Palestinians in 2005. “They [Israel] said, ‘You take it. This is our contribution to peace.’ But that didn’t work out. That didn’t work out. It was the opposite of peace,” Trump said. “They pulled away, they let them have it. And I never forgot that because I said, ‘That doesn’t sound like a good deal to me as a real estate person.’ They gave up the ocean, right? Ron, they gave up the ocean. They said, ‘Who would do this deal?’And it still didn’t work out. They were very generous, actually. And they gave up the most magnificent piece of land in many ways in the Middle East. And they said, ‘All we want to do now is have peace.’ That request was not honored.”

“Every move on Trump’s part, he gets someone in the back door, whether it’s his children, his son in law, or friends, to take a piece of the act,” said Al-Arian. “So he sees big dollar signs coming in and that’s why he got in Tony Blair, because that is the medium by which he’s going to be able to control the money and control what’s happening in Gaza.”

While Trump and Netanyahu can forge ahead with their attempt to impose this plan on Gaza, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad still hold nearly 50 Israeli captives, living and dead. Hamas knows this is the only leverage it holds in any negotiation. “The only thing that Hamas can reject really is the hand over the captives,” said Al-Arian. “Hamas doesn’t want to be stripped of this card and then end up with another war in which they have zero leverage after that.” Should Netanyahu and Trump attempt to entirely circumvent Hamas and recover the captives through military force, it is certain that many, if not all of them, would be killed. Hamas’s armed wing, Qassam Brigades, has issued several warnings to Israel against such plans.

The Trump plan states that, “Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.” This clause portrays Hamas as akin to a small group of foreign fighters, rather than a political movement that has won democratic elections, governed Gaza for two decades, and which still enjoys a sizable amount of support in public polls across Palestine.

While the Trump proposal contains some elements that the Palestinian resistance has long demanded, including the resumption of life essentials and humanitarian aid, the exchange of captives and a framework, albeit deeply skewed toward Israel, for withdrawal of occupation forces. But Al-Arian said these terms do not outweigh the traps embedded within the plan’s text.

“We may get the first phase of the plan. What happens to the rest of the plan is going to depend pretty much on other dynamics, but more importantly on the Trump administration, which is Zionist to the core. So I don’t have much hope that this is going to be carried out,” Al-Arian said. “And what comes after that is going to be a renewed effort to establish Greater Israel, which will also precipitate greater effort to resist this. That means that the whole region will stay unstable.”

Killing Negotiations

Some terms of the plan appear to be rooted in the terms of a 13-point U.S.-Israeli-drafted plan that Hamas agreed to on August 18. Israel never formally responded to Hamas’s acceptance of the so-called Witkoff framework, which the U.S. publicly characterized as the deal that would end the war. By that point, Israel was finalizing preparations for a sustained ground invasion of Gaza City aimed at expelling one million Palestinians. On August 20, two days after Hamas made major concessions and accepted the Witkoff plan, Israel forged ahead with its invasion of Gaza City.

As Israel intensified its air strikes and ground operations against Gaza, Trump bombastically announced on September 3 that he was making a final offer to Hamas. Ignoring the fact that Hamas had already conceded to what Trump had also called the last chance for a deal, the U.S. delivered to Hamas via Qatari mediators a 100-word document that called for the unconditional release of all Israeli captives, living and dead, in Gaza in return for a 60-day ceasefire and an opaque commitment to end the war. As the U.S. initiated backdoor communications with Hamas, claiming to want to make a deal, Israeli army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir publicly threatened to assassinate Hamas leaders outside of Gaza if the group did not surrender.

As Hamas officials convened in Doha on September 9 to discuss how to respond to the paragraph-long document from Trump and messages it received through intermediaries, Israel carried out what it called Operation Day of Judgement, bombing Hamas’s offices and the Qatar residence of its chief political leader and negotiator Khalil Al-Hayya. While the strike failed to kill any Hamas leaders, Israel’s missiles took the lives of Al-Hayya’s son and four Hamas administrative staff as well as a Qatari security guard. The attack also wounded Al-Hayya’s wife, daughter-in-law, and some of his grandchildren.

Qatar is the home of U.S. Central Command, the premiere American strategic military facility in the region. Israel was able to conduct its attacks without encountering any apparent resistance from the U.S.-provided air defense systems in Qatar, raising serious questions about the extent of U.S. involvement in the strike. While the Trump administration claimed it was only alerted by Israel soon before the Israeli air strikes and tried to warn Qatar’s leader, the contention defies common sense. No country in the world has a more extensive military and intelligence apparatus in the region than that operated by the U.S.

Whether by Israeli design or the product of a U.S.-Israeli plot, the series of events—most prominently the U.S.-enabled sabotage of yet another ceasefire agreement—paved the way for weeks of wanton killing, forced displacement and mass destruction in northern Gaza.

Arab leaders gathered in Doha for an emergency summit on September 15 to discuss Israel’s bombing of Qatar. In the end, they issued only a strongly worded statement and declined to engage in any military response to Israel’s attack. Trump claimed he was not happy with the Israeli bombing of Qatar and claimed it would not happen again. But two Arab diplomatic sources told Drop Site that on his recent visit to Qatar, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told officials in Doha that the U.S. could make no such guarantee as long as Hamas was allowed to operate in Qatar. A State Department spokesperson declined to confirm or deny what the sources told Drop Site.

During his meeting with Trump on Monday, Netanyahu offered an apology to the emir of Qatar on a phone call made from inside the White House and promised not to violate Qatari sovereignty again. But the apology was narrowly focused on the killing of the Qatari security guard and not for bombing the Hamas office in an effort to kill its negotiating team in the midst of negotiations which Qatar was mediating at the request of the U.S.

On Monday, Qatar’s foreign ministry released a statement acknowledging Netanyahu’s apology and stated that it would resume its mediation efforts in support of Trump’s plan. Since Israel’s attempt to assassinate Hamas’s external leadership, several of the group’s senior leaders have been held in safe houses in Qatar with limited access to communications. While this has created challenges for the group to maintain contact with commanders on the ground in Gaza, sources have told Drop Site they have developed alternative methods.

As Hamas and other Palestinian groups debate their response to the Trump plan, the final word will lie not with those in Doha, but inside Gaza.

“That proposal will come to the leaders in exile. They will look at it, they will make some decisions. These decisions would also be consulted with the people in the field in Gaza. They will have to be heard at the end. They are the ones who control the [Israeli] captives,” Al-Arian said. “It doesn’t even matter what the people say outside. It’s only going to be an opinion and they hope that that opinion would be accepted by the people inside [Gaza]. But the people who are leading in the field in Gaza will have to make that decision. But I believe, all in all, that Hamas and the resistance have shown that they have tremendous discipline, that they are capable of communicating and having a unified position.”

Jeremy Scahill – Journalist at Drop Site News, co-founder of The Intercept, author of the books Blackwater and Dirty Wars.

6 October 2025

Source: transcend.org

Open Letter to Israel Foreign Minister Sa’ar

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

The great threat to Israel’s survival is not the Arab nations, the Palestinians, or Iran, but the policies of Israel’s extremist government.

***********************************

H.E. Gideon Sa’ar, Foreign Minister, Government of Israel

August 9, 2025

Dear Mr. Minister,

I write to you following your speech at the United Nations Security Council on August 5. I attended the session but did not have the chance to speak with you following the session. I want to share my reflections on your speech.

In your speech your failed to recognize why almost the entire world, including many Jews such as myself, are aghast at your government’s behavior. In the view of most of the world, with which I concur, Israel is engaged in mass murder and starvation; you would not have known it from your speech. You failed to acknowledge that Israel has caused the deaths to date of some 18,500 Palestinian children, whose names were recently listed by The Washington Post. You blamed all the mass murder of civilians by Israeli forces on Hamas, even as the world watches video clips every day of Israeli forces killing starving civilians in cold blood as they approach food distribution points. You lamented the starvation of 20 hostages but failed to mention Israel’s starvation of 2 million Palestinians. You failed to mention that your own prime minister worked actively over the years to fund Hamas, as The Times of Israel has documented.

Whether your oversights are the result of obtuseness or prevarication, they would be a tragedy for Israel alone were it not for the fact that you attempted to rope me and millions of other Jews into your government’s crimes against humanity. You declared at the U.N. session that Israel is “The sovereign state of the Jewish people.” This is false. Israel is the sovereign state of its citizens. I am a Jew, and a citizen of the United States. Israel is not my state and never will be.

Your language about Jews in your speech betrayed the gulf between us. You referred to Judaism as a nationality. This is indeed the Zionist construct, but it runs counter to 2,000 years of Jewish belief and Jewish life. It is an idea that I and millions of other Jews reject. Judaism for me and for countless others outside of Israel is a life of ethics, culture, tradition, law, and belief that has nothing to do with nationality. For 2,000 years, Jews lived in all parts of the world in countless nations.

The great Rabbinic sages of the Babylonian Talmud in fact explicitly proscribed a mass return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, telling the Jewish people to live in their own homelands (Ketubot 111a). Sadly, the Zionists undertook massive campaigns including financial subsidies and scare tactics to induce Jewish communities to leave their own homelands, languages, local cultures, and relations with their fellow inhabitants to draw them to Israel. I have traveled throughout the world visiting nearly empty synagogues and vacated Jewish communities, with only a few elderly Jews remaining, and where these few remaining Jews insisted that their communities once lived in peace and harmony with the non-Jewish majorities. Zionism has weakened or put an end to countless vibrant communities of our co-religionists around the world.

It is an ironic fact that when Zionists convinced the British Government in 1917 to issue the Balfour Declaration, the one Jew in the Cabinet, Sir Edwin Montagu, strenuously objected, stating that he was a British citizen who happened to be Jewish, not the member of a Jewish nation: “I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion.”

In this context, it’s also worth recalling that the Balfour Declaration states clearly and unequivocally that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Zionism has failed that test.

Your government is committed to the permanent occupation of all of Palestine and stands in violent, unrelenting opposition to a sovereign State of Palestine. The founding platform of Likud in 1977 hides nothing in this regard, declaring openly that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” To accomplish this, Israel demonizes the Palestinian people and crushes them physically, through mass starvation, murder, ethnic cleansing, administrative detention, torture, land seizures, and other forms of brutal repression. You yourself shamefully declared that “all Palestinian factions” support terrorism.

Your counterpart at the U.N. Security Council session, Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour, declared just the opposite. He stated clearly: “The solution is ending this illegal occupation and ending this disastrous conflict; it is the realization of the independence and sovereignty of the Palestinian state, not its destruction; it is the fulfillment of our rights, not their continued denial; it is respect for international law, not its trampling; it is the implementation of the two-state solution, not a one state reality with Palestinians condemned to genocide, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid.”

Israel stands against almost the entire world in its endeavor to block the two-state solution. Already, 147 countries recognize the State of Palestine, and many more will soon do so. One-hundred and seventy U.N. member states recently voted in support of the right of the Palestinian people to political self-determination, with only six opposed (Argentina, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Paraguay, United States).

Your presentation utterly neglected the powerful “New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State solution,” issued by the world community at the High-Level International Conference on Implementing the Two-State Solution held on July 29, 2025, just one week before your own speech at the U.N. Security Council. Saudi Arabia and France co-chaired that high-level conference. Arab and Islamic nations all over the world called for peace and normalization of relations with Israel when Israel abides by international law and decency in line with the two-state solution. Your government rejects peace, because it aims for domination over all of Palestine instead.

Israel holds on to its extremist position by a slenderest of threads, backed (until now) by the United States but by no other major power. We also should acknowledge a major reason for the U,S. backing until now: Christian Evangelical Protestants who believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is the prelude to the annihilation of the Jews and the end of the world. Those are your government’s allies. As for overall American public opinion, disapproval of Israel’s actions now stands at 60%, with only 32% approving.

Mr. Minister, the global revulsion you cited is against the actions of your government, not against Jews. Israel is threatened from within by zealotry and extremism that in turn bring worldwide disapprobation of Israel by Jews and non-Jews alike. The great threat to Israel’s survival is not the Arab nations, the Palestinians, or Iran, but the policies of Israel’s extremist government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich, and Itamar Ben-Gvir.

The two-state solution is the path—and the only path—to Israel’s survival. You may believe that nuclear weapons and the U.S. government are your salvation, but brute power will be evanescent if Israel’s grave injustice toward the Palestinian people continues. The Jewish Prophets taught again and again that unjust states do not long survive.

Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey D. Sachs
New York City

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

6 October 2025

Source: transcend.org

Tony Blair to Rule over Gaza? What Fresh Hell is This?

By Craig Murray

26 Sep 2025 – Yesterday saw two announcements. Starmer is to introduce compulsory digital ID cards in the UK, and Tony Blair is put forward by the White House to be the colonial administrator of Gaza for five years.

The political economy of the world appears locked in a vertiginous downward spiral. You don’t have to scratch very hard to find that Tony Blair’s hand is also behind the compulsory ID plan. He has been pushing it for nearly thirty years, and now it comes with added links to Larry Ellison, Palantir and Israel.

The government will be able to garner and centralise knowledge of everything about you. Every detail of your financial transactions, your DNA, your family, your medical records, your education, employment and accommodation. It will be a very short time before the digital ID is linked to your social media accounts and your IP access to monitor your browsing.

There is already the intention to control us through our access to financial services. I have spoken with one of the women charged for protesting outside the Leonardo factory in Edinburgh. She has had her bank accounts cancelled – simply losing the money in them – and cannot open a new account. You may recall they tried to debank Nigel Farage. The campaign to defend Julian Assange suffered multiple banking cancellations.

The desire of the state to control people politically through their ability to carry out ordinary transactions is not in doubt. It is demonstrated. Once you have a compulsory digital ID linked to transactions – which will follow very swiftly, I am quite certain – they will be able to simply switch off your ability to pay for anything. Add this to a digital currency which tracks all of your expenditure – all the key elements of which are already installed – and total control will be in place.

Starmer is trying to dress up a digital ID as an immigration control – whether you support immigration control or not, the notion that it will make a significant difference is nonsense. Landlords, employers, banks and lawyers already have to check the ID and status of their clients. For those bent on evasion, one more piece of bureaucracy will make little difference. It is the law-abiding who will be enmeshed in the system of control.

Increases in state surveillance and restrictions on personal freedom are always falsely framed as protection against a terrible threat – paedophiles or fraudsters or immigrants or Russians. Yet despite an ever-shrinking area of personal freedom, none of these real or invented threats ever actually recedes.

Starmer is the most unpopular PM in history. Attempting to force through this deeply unpopular measure is going to cause him real difficulties in parliament. The calculation is that Reform will oppose the measure on libertarian grounds, and that this will allow Starmer to show himself as tougher on immigration than Reform. The breathtaking cynicism of this is typical of the Starmer government, which believes in nothing except their own power.

As for Blair being made effectively Governor of Gaza, this is so sickening as to be beyond belief. The man who killed a million Iraqis on the basis of lies about WMD, who has made hundreds of millions of pounds through PR services to dictators, whose Tony Blair Institute has drawn up “Gaza Riviera” plans for Trump, and who has been discussing with western oil companies the takeover of Gaza’s gas field, is touted to administer the mass grave which Gaza has become.

In any reasonable world this would be impossible. The degeneration of western society is profound. There are no ethics in play beyond the dominance of power, wealth and greed. Blair manages to embody these in one person.

Craig John Murray (born 17 Oct 1958) is a Scottish author, human rights campaigner, journalist, and former diplomat for the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

6 October 2025

Source: transcend.org

A Plea to TMS Readers for Peace Journalism-Peace by Peaceful Means

By Dr. Maung Zarni

TRANSCEND Media Service is having a fund drive to keep its valuable service – tailored to those of us who want in-depth and critical analyses – not sensationalist corporate media reportage with its shallow “Trumpish-All-sides” “balance”.

In most cases of realities that involve blood, invasion, genocides, war crimes, exploitation, systematic acts of state propaganda, “all sides” and “balance” in journalism, are not simply acts of moral cowardice, but the total absence of intellectual substance. Peace, nonviolence, social justice, are TMS ideologies rooted on basic human rights and needs, non negotiable principles.

Noam Chomsky, the author of Manufacturing Consent, would agree if I make an “outlandish statement” such as there are no ‘Gold Standards’ in journalism. The idea of Gold Standard is itself propaganda.  Ask James Bond’s real world employer – Military Intelligence Unit 5 or “MI5”, which has been vetting the BBC’s hiring since the “Master Class” Propaganda Industry’s inception when the broadcast technology was the cutting edge.

So, I’d rather throw TRANSCEND a lifeline than watch BBC and pay the license fee.  Who in their right mind would pay to be brainwashed by yet another military-industrial complex?

Think about it and Please Act making your financial contribution TODAY! Thank you.

Donate – Please Choose Your Option to Support TMS

A Buddhist humanist from Burma, Maung Zarni is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, former Visiting Lecturer with Harvard Medical School, specializing in racism and violence in Burma and Sri Lanka, and Non-resident Scholar in Genocide Studies with Documentation Center – Cambodia.

6 October 2025

Source: transcend.org