Middle East Press On: Sabra, Shatila, Gaza, Peace, Iran, Hamas: New Age Islam's Selection, 9 October 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
9 October 2025
From Sabra And Shatila To Gaza: The Vicious Cycle Of US-Israeli ‘Peace’ Ploys
Why Iran Matters: What Every American Needs to Know
Hamas Must Not Win The Peace With Israel
Israel-Hamas War: Teaching And Learning About The Conflict
You Can’t Outsource A Homeland: Gaza And The Limits Of Trump’s Vision
Why Iran Matters: What Every American Needs To Know
A History Of Deception: US-Israeli Pacts And The Gaza Proposal
------
From Sabra And Shatila To Gaza: The Vicious Cycle Of US-Israeli ‘Peace’ Ploys
by Dr Ramzy Baroud
October 8, 2025
The history of Zionism is fundamentally one of deception. This assertion is critically relevant today, as it contextualises the so-called ‘Trump Gaza proposal,’ which appears to be little more than a veiled strategy to defeat the Palestinians and facilitate the ethnic cleansing of a significant portion of Gaza’s population.
Since the start of the current conflict, the United States has been Israel’s staunchest ally, going as far as framing the outright slaughter of Palestinian civilians as Israel’s “right to defend itself.” This position is defined by the wholesale criminalisation of all Palestinians—civilians and combatants, women, children, and men alike.
Any naive hope that the Trump administration might restrain Israel proved unfounded. Both the Democratic administration of Joe Biden and the Republican administration of his successor have been enthusiastic partners in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s messianic mission. The difference has been primarily rhetorical. While Biden wraps his staunch support in liberal discourse, Trump is more direct, using the language of overt threats.
Both administrations pursued strategies to hand Netanyahu a victory, even when his war failed to achieve its strategic objectives. Biden used his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, as an emissary to broker a ceasefire fully tailored to Israeli priorities. Similarly, Trump utilised his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, to concoct a parallel ploy.
Netanyahu deftly exploited both administrations. The Trump era, however, saw the US lobby and Israel seemingly dictating American foreign policy. A clear sign of this dynamic was the famous scene last April, during Netanyahu’s White House visit, when the ‘America First’ President pulled out a chair for him. The summoning of Blair, who once headed the US-controlled Quartet for Peace, to the White House alongside Kushner in August, was another foreboding signal. It was evident that Israel and the US were planning a much larger scheme: one not only to crush Gaza but to prevent any attempt at resurrecting the Palestinian cause altogether.
While ten countries were declaring recognition of the state of Palestine to applause at the UN General Assembly between 21 and 23 September, the US and Israel were preparing to reveal their grand strategy, with critical contributions from Ron Dermer, then Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs.
The Trump Gaza proposal was announced on 29 September. Almost immediately, several countries, including strong supporters of Palestine, declared their backing. This support was given without realising that the latest iteration of the plan was substantially altered from what had been discussed between Trump and representatives of the Arab and Muslim world in New York on 24 September.
Trump announced that the proposal was accepted by Israel and threatened Hamas that, if it does not accept it within “three or four days”, then “ it’s going to be a very sad end.” Still, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who, along with the UN, has largely failed to hold Israel accountable, declared his support for the Trump proposal, stating that “it is now crucial that all parties commit to an agreement and its implementation.”
Netanyahu felt a newfound elation, believing the weight of international pressure was finally lifting, and the onus was shifting to the Palestinians. He reportedly said that “now the whole world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the conditions.” Comfortable that the pendulum had swung in his favor, he openly restated his objectives in Gaza on 30 September: “To release all our hostages, both the living and the deceased, while the IDF remains in most of the Strip.” Even when Arab and Muslim nations protested the amendments to the initial Trump plan, neither Netanyahu nor Trump relented, the former continuing the massacres, while the latter repeating his threats.
The implication is stark: regardless of the Palestinian position, Israel will continue to push for the ethnic cleansing of the Strip using both military and non-military means. The plan envisions Gaza and the West Bank being administered as two separate entities, with the Strip falling under the direct control of Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace”, thus effectively turning Blair and Kushner into the new colonial rulers of Palestine.
History is most critical here, particularly the history of Israeli deception. From its onset, Zionist colonialism justified its rule over Palestine based on a series of fabrications: that European settlers held essential historical links to the land; the erroneous claim that Palestine was a “land without a people”; the assertion that indigenous natives were intruders; and the stereotype that Arabs are inherently anti-Semitic. Consequently, the state of Israel, built on ethnically cleansed Palestinian land, was falsely marketed as a ‘beacon’ of peace and democracy.
This web of falsehoods deepened and became more accentuated after every massacre and war. When Israel faltered in managing its military efforts or its propaganda war, the United States invariably intervened. A prime example is the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where a ‘peace deal’ was imposed on the PLO under US pressure. Thanks to US envoy Philip Habib’s efforts, Palestinian fighters left Beirut for exile, on the understanding that this step would spare thousands of civilian lives. Tragically, the opposite occurred, directly paving the way for the Sabra and Shatila massacre and a prolonged Israeli occupation of Lebanon until 2000.
This historical pattern is repeating itself in Gaza today, though the options are now more stark. Palestinians face a choice between the guaranteed defeat of Gaza — accompanied by a non-guaranteed, temporary slowdown of the genocide — and the continuation of mass slaughter. Unlike the Israeli deception in Lebanon four decades ago, however, Netanyahu makes no effort to mask his vile intentions this time. Will the world allow him to get away with this deception and genocide?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251008-from-sabra-and-shatila-to-gaza-the-vicious-cycle-of-us-israeli-peace-ploys/
------
Why Iran Matters: What Every American Needs to Know
By Dr. M. Reza Behnam
October 8, 2025
Once upon a time, the Iranian government was under the thumb of and in service to the interests of the United States and its Middle East colonial outpost, Israel.
The 1979 Iranian Revolution—the most consequential of the 20th century—changed all that. The establishment of the Islamic Republic brought to a close the 37-year obsequious reign of America’s Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and to the centuries-old monarchical system.
It also put an end to the days when a US ambassador, on the orders of a US President, Jimmy Carter, could arrogantly issue ultimatums to the Iranian government, as Ambassador William Sullivan did on January 11, 1979, when he “advised” the besieged Shah to leave promptly.
Along with the restoration of national sovereignty, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic (October 24, 1979) documented the revolutionary government’s identification with the just struggle of the oppressed against the imperious United States and Israel.
Unquestionably, since the revolution, Iran has been the primary advocate of Palestine. As such, the Islamic Republic’s regional and foreign policy have come to be defined by its anti-imperialist ideology, culture of resistance and commitment to the Palestinian cause.
From then, until now, Washington and Tel Aviv have been engaged in all manner of treachery to foment the downfall of the government, and to re-impose, once again, a docile leadership in Tehran, willing to bend to their will.
What is at the heart of US-Israeli fears that has driven, for close to five decades, such hostile actions toward Iran? Their intense animus and anti-Iran policies can be attributed to the following:
Its defiance in defending against and blocking US-Zionist domination of the Middle East.
Its apprehension that Iran’s independence from and challenge to foreign powers may embolden other states in the region.
Its fear of the political and economic power of regional unity espoused in the ideology of the Revolution, and an example of political transformation through the collective unifying power of the ummah, the Muslim community.
It has forced the West to confront the antecedents of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust that led to the establishment of Israel and the dispossession of the Palestinians.
Its uncompromising support for the Palestinian cause and for national liberation movements that struggle against US-Zionist dominance.
Iran is often described by the United States and Israel as a threat to regional stability. What they are really saying, however, is that Tehran undermines their hegemonic vision of a “new Middle East,”, a power structure that has benefitted the United States, Israel, and compliant authoritarian Arab regimes.
On September 29, 2025, the US-Israeli vision of a “new Middle East,” bereft of Palestinians, was undisguised when President Donald Trump, flanked by the Israeli Prime Minister, rolled out his 20-point proposal to end Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. The so-called “peace” plan is essentially a list of Israeli demands, a colonial redux (Balfour 2.0), and an extension of the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe).
Not unlike the Iranian Revolution, the October 7, 2023 Palestinian rebellion was a landmark event that has reshaped and shifted the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East. It revived attention to the Palestinian cause that had been sidelined by US-led normalization deals (Abraham Accords) and by the growing preoccupation of Arab rulers with containing Iran.
Gaza has exposed the Israeli regime’s fundamental inhumanity. It has laid bare its decades-long expansionist objectives to control all of Palestine and to eliminate the last “roadblock” to complete domination of the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
What Gaza has not revealed, however, is the enormous debt the world owes Iran.
Iran’s principled stand against injustice has come at great sacrifice. For supporting Palestinian resistance forces, it has been subjected to unending hostilities: US-backed wars, assassinations, internal sabotage operations, cyber and terrorist attacks and draconian economic sanctions.
Consequently, the United States has made Iran one of the most sanctioned countries in the world.
Ironically, it is Iran, a non-Arab country, which has spearheaded the informal political and military alliance of state and non-state actors known as the “Axis of Resistance.”
While Arab autocrats have cut business deals with Tel Aviv and maintained security alliances with the United States, the “solidarity of the oppressed” has fought to end the US-backed Israeli genocide.
To appease and pacify their restive pro-Palestinian populations, Arab rulers publicly condemn Israel’s actions and portray Iran as the regional troublemaker.
In light of US-Israeli-inspired divisions, it is worthwhile to recall that Muslim unity was integral to the ideology of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic’s first Supreme Leader, who viewed Islam as a revolutionary and politically unifying faith.
As early as the 1960s, he warned in his sermons against the dangers of Israel and linked Palestinian liberation and resistance to the wider Muslim struggle against US-Israeli oppression.
Khomeini framed the liberation of Palestine as a religious and political obligation for all Muslims. In his oft-quoted “If the Muslims were united—a single fist—none can rise up against them,” he espoused the potential power of the faith’s two billion adherents, with 414 million Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa strong, if they chose to wield it.
It is precisely the call for political action through Muslim unity that intimidates Saudi Arabia and other Arab potentates, whose passive form of Islam runs contrary to Khomeini’s vision and to the striving championed in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. It is a unifying spirit that also evokes fear in Washington and Tel Aviv.
For eight decades, Israel has been using regional disunity to its strategic advantage. However, Arab rulers have begun to show signs of comprehending that the real terrorist threat emanates not from Tehran, but from Tel Aviv via Washington.
Israel’s cowardly airstrike on a residential compound in the heart of Doha on September 9, 2025, apparently with Washington’s consent, may have disabused Qatar of the mistaken idea that its country was exempt from Israeli aggression because of its non-NATO alliance with the United States.
The attack may have also finally awakened other Arab regimes to the realization that Israel is a danger to them all. The message seems to have been received by Egypt, which moved recently to improve ties with the Islamic Republic, despite long-standing conflicts between the two.
It is important to note, that Washington and Tel Aviv have been constructing a prejudicial narrative about Iran for decades. Their official storyline, riddled with deceptive language, has been fraught with Orwellian contradictions. For example, Israel has committed genocide and is rewarded with political cover and billions in military assistance. Whereas Iran, which has acted to prevent the crime of genocide, is sanctioned, its leaders were assassinated, and the country was bombed.
Another glaring illustration of misrepresentation concerns the failure of the world community to commend the people and leaders of Iran and Ansarallah (Houthis) in Yemen, who have taken action in defense of the Palestinians.
Currently, they are the only countries living up to the obligations of the 1948 Genocide Convention (Article I) that clearly states the duty of every nation to prevent and protect people from genocide and to punish the perpetrators and those complicit in the crime.
The “responsibility to act” was detailed in January 2024 when the Court ordered Israel to take six provisional measures to end the genocide in Gaza, and in March 2024 when it reaffirmed its previous measures and required additional actions.
In addition, the ICJ ruled (July 19, 2024)that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip is illegal under international law and that it must end.
In contrast, Washington, deeply complicit in genocide, continues to support the rogue state of Israel with lethal weapons and financial support to continue its brutalities in Gaza and the West Bank.
Another nurtured storyline is the US-Israeli portrayal of Iran as an expansionist state. It has become so entrenched that it is rarely, if ever, scrutinized or challenged.
Unlike Israel, the Islamic Republic has not bombed, seized, or annexed the territory of neighboring states, and has no nuclear weapons. Its strategy is primarily defensive, to deter attacks from the United States and Israel.
Washington remains mute as Tel Aviv executes its expansionist “greater Israel” objectives. Once generally unspoken, the regime’s determination to dominate the region is now brazenly proclaimed.
While Iran is labeled the aggressor, Israel has reoccupied Gaza, continued its colonization and annexation of the West Bank, pushed further into Lebanon and Syria, and conducted airstrikes across the region.
According to Washington, Iran is the only country that has no right to defend itself. In contrast, Washington has made sure that Israel and the Arab Gulf regimes are heavily armed and fortified with military bases. Currently, Iran is encircled by 30 of those bases.
There are numerous examples of Washington’s preferential treatment of its allies.
Leading the list: after two years of genocide and complete devastation of Gaza, the US Congress, save for a few, has remained absolutely silent. A large bipartisan majority of members have, instead, embraced and have completely supported the Israeli regime. They have yet to pass a single resolution condemning Israel’s actions.
In contrast, in April 1979, a month after the Islamic Republic was officially declared, the political establishment under the aegis of US Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) sponsored a resolution condemning the human rights abuses and executions carried out by the nascent Iranian government. It passed unanimously on a voice vote.
One of the most blatant examples of political nepotism involved the cover-up by the US government of the aftermath of the deliberate Israeli attack on the US intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967. During the brutal military assault, Israel killed 34 servicemen and wounded 171, and rendered the vessel immobile. No condemnation. No sanctions. No punishment.
More recent examples include official Washington’s indifference and disinterest over the killing by Israeli forces and Zionist squatters of Americans in occupied Palestine. Since October 7, 2023, 12 US citizens have been murdered. Israel has yet to face any condemnation or consequences.
Conversely, the death in September 2022 of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman, while in the custody of Iran’s guidance patrol, sparked months of outrage in the US Congress and in the mainstream media.
A classic example of distorted reality concerns the widely believed “nuclear threat” narrative drummed up by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For over 30 years, he has been falsely warning the world of an imminent threat, that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.
Against this background, the Islamic Republic agreed, in 2012, to multilateral negotiations. After roughly four years, the nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was finalized in 2015. To seek relief from economic sanctions, Iran agreed to curtail a nuclear weapons program that did not exist and to implement strict limits on its peaceful program.
Despite the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the pact in May 2018 and the imposition of even harsher sanctions, Iran continued implementation. It was only after the European signatories (UK, France, and Germany) reneged on their obligations that, one year later, Iran gradually reduced its commitments.
Despite numerous obstacles, especially after the June 2025 US-Israeli airstrikes on the country’s nuclear and military sites—attacks that killed more than 1,000 Iranians and injured thousands more—Iran attempted to honor and revive the JCPOA.
Since the 1979 Revolution and, under enormous pressure, Iran has stood as a barrier against the complete subjugation of the Middle East. Fundamentally, it has protected its Arab neighbors from essentially becoming tributary states (more so than they are today), completely absorbed into the US-Israeli imperium.
As the nation approaches a half-century since the Iranian people replaced monarchy with an Islamic republic, the question arises: What would Iran look like today if, from the outset, it had not been under unceasing pressure and assault, and forced to expend its resources on defending the country?
It is interesting to note that, in the throes of profound change and transition, Iranians created an entirely new government organized under a written constitution based on populist policies.
Following the Revolution, Iran was able to reduce poverty and make advances in social services. It has elevated its culture and continues to excel in the sciences and technology. Free of the imposition of foreign wars and challenges to its territorial and political integrity, Iran could have done more.
Iran matters because it has laid bare the naked deception and wickedness of the regimes in Washington and Tel Aviv. To the oppressed, Iran has imparted the idea that it is possible to stand up to oppressors and survive. For the besieged Palestinians, experiencing the brutish aggression of the US-backed Israeli war machine, a stalwart Iran is indispensable.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/why-iran-matters-what-every-american-needs-to-know/
------
A History of Deception: US-Israeli Pacts and the Gaza Proposal
By Ramzy Baroud
October 8, 2025
The history of Zionism is fundamentally one of deception. This assertion is critically relevant today, as it contextualizes the so-called ‘Trump Gaza proposal,’ which appears to be little more than a veiled strategy to defeat the Palestinians and facilitate the ethnic cleansing of a significant portion of Gaza’s population.
Since the start of the current conflict, the United States has been Israel’s staunchest ally, going as far as framing the outright slaughter of Palestinian civilians as Israel’s “right to defend itself.” This position is defined by the wholesale criminalization of all Palestinians—civilians and combatants, women, children, and men alike.
Any naive hope that the Trump administration might restrain Israel proved unfounded. Both the Democratic administration of Joe Biden and the Republican administration of his successor have been enthusiastic partners in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s messianic mission. The difference has been primarily rhetorical. While Biden wraps his staunch support in liberal discourse, Trump is more direct, using the language of overt threats.
Both administrations pursued strategies to hand Netanyahu a victory, even when his war failed to achieve its strategic objectives. Biden used his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, as an emissary to broker a ceasefire fully tailored to Israeli priorities. Similarly, Trump utilized his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, to concoct a parallel ploy.
Netanyahu deftly exploited both administrations. The Trump era, however, saw the US lobby and Israel seemingly dictating American foreign policy. A clear sign of this dynamic was the famous scene last April, during Netanyahu’s White House visit, when the ‘America First’ President pulled out a chair for him. The summoning of Blair, who once headed the US-controlled Quartet for Peace, to the White House alongside Kushner in August, was another foreboding signal. It was evident that Israel and the US were planning a much larger scheme: one not only to crush Gaza but to prevent any attempt at resurrecting the Palestinian cause altogether.
While ten countries were declaring recognition of the state of Palestine to applause at the UN General Assembly between September 21 and 23, the US and Israel were preparing to reveal their grand strategy, with critical contributions from Ron Dermer, then Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs.
The Trump Gaza proposal was announced on September 29. Almost immediately, several countries, including strong supporters of Palestine, declared their backing. This support was given without realizing that the latest iteration of the plan was substantially altered from what had been discussed between Trump and representatives of the Arab and Muslim world in New York on September 24.
Trump announced that the proposal was accepted by Israel and threatened Hamas that, if it does not accept it within “three or four days”, then “ it’s going to be a very sad end.” Still, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who, along with the UN, has largely failed to hold Israel accountable, declared his support for the Trump proposal, stating that “it is now crucial that all parties commit to an agreement and its implementation.”
Netanyahu felt a newfound elation, believing the weight of international pressure was finally lifting, and the onus was shifting to the Palestinians. He reportedly said that “now the whole world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the conditions.” Comfortable that the pendulum had swung in his favor, he openly restated his objectives in Gaza on September 30: “To release all our hostages, both the living and the deceased, while the IDF remains in most of the Strip.” Even when Arab and Muslim nations protested the amendments to the initial Trump plan, neither Netanyahu nor Trump relented, the former continuing the massacres, while the latter repeating his threats.
The implication is stark: regardless of the Palestinian position, Israel will continue to push for the ethnic cleansing of the Strip using both military and non-military means. The plan envisions Gaza and the West Bank being administered as two separate entities, with the Strip falling under the direct control of Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace”, thus effectively turning Blair and Kushner into the new colonial rulers of Palestine.
History is most critical here, particularly the history of Israeli deception. From its onset, Zionist colonialism justified its rule over Palestine based on a series of fabrications: that European settlers held essential historical links to the land; the erroneous claim that Palestine was a “land without a people”; the assertion that indigenous natives were intruders; and the stereotype that Arabs are inherently anti-Semitic. Consequently, the state of Israel, built on ethnically cleansed Palestinian land, was falsely marketed as a ‘beacon’ of peace and democracy.
This web of falsehoods deepened and became more accentuated after every massacre and war. When Israel faltered in managing its military efforts or its propaganda war, the United States invariably intervened. A prime example is the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where a ‘peace deal’ was imposed on the PLO under US pressure. Thanks to US envoy Philip Habib’s efforts, Palestinian fighters left Beirut for exile, on the understanding that this step would spare thousands of civilian lives. Tragically, the opposite occurred, directly paving the way for the Sabra and Shatila massacre and a prolonged Israeli occupation of Lebanon until 2000.
This historical pattern is repeating itself in Gaza today, though the options are now more stark. Palestinians face a choice between the guaranteed defeat of Gaza — accompanied by a non-guaranteed, temporary slowdown of the genocide — and the continuation of mass slaughter. Unlike the Israeli deception in Lebanon four decades ago, however, Netanyahu makes no effort to mask his vile intentions this time. Will the world allow him to get away with this deception and genocide?
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-history-of-deception-us-israeli-pacts-and-the-gaza-proposal/
------
Hamas Must Not Win The Peace With Israel
By Moshe Phillips
October 9, 2025
The year 1959 saw the release of a Peter Sellers movie called The Mouse That Roared, a satire in which a fictional microstate declares war on the United States – not to win, but to lose spectacularly and collect generous aid in defeat.
“There isn’t a more profitable undertaking,” the prime minister says, “than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated.”
Then, it was a punchline in a movie. In today’s Middle East, it’s a strategy, one that Hamas has employed with horrifying real-world results. And if the international community allows it to succeed, it will be result in a moral and strategic catastrophe.
Hamas led the October 7 terrorist invasion of Israel knowing full well it couldn’t defeat the Jewish state on the battlefield. That wasn’t the goal. The goal was to provoke a war, force Israel into a prolonged ground combat in Gaza, and then shift global attention from the massacre, rape, and kidnapping of innocent Israelis to the suffering of Palestinian Arabs – much of it caused by Hamas’s own use of human shields.
Right out of Marxist handbook
It was a plan right out of the Marxist terrorist insurgency handbook: Commit mass atrocities, draw retaliation, and win the peace by playing the victim.
Hamas’s leaders, responsible for the slaughter of some 1,200 people and the kidnapping of civilians, are reportedly seeking safe haven in exile, most likely within the borders of its longtime host Qatar. The unspoken premise is that Hamas will remain part of the Palestinian Arab future; that its leaders have some sort of right to flee Gaza and live to fight another day, even though they are mass murderers. We’ve witnessed this before.
In 1982, the IDF had Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership trapped in Beirut. After years of terrorism, hijackings, and open war, Israel was poised to end Arafat’s reign of terror once and for all. However, under intense pressure from the Reagan administration, it allowed Arafat and his senior commanders to leave Lebanon under international protection.
Beginning of tragedy
The world applauded what it saw as a “diplomatic solution.” In reality, it was the beginning of a long-term tragedy.
Arafat regrouped in Tunis, rebuilt his network, and rebranded himself from terrorist to “statesman.” Yet, the blood never stopped flowing. Under his leadership, terror continued – from suicide bombings in Israeli cafes to the glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian school textbooks to incitement in Palestinian Authority-controlled media.
The Oslo Accords, meant to offer hope, instead entrenched Arafat’s corrupt and authoritarian rule while doing nothing to dismantle the terrorism infrastructure. By sparing Arafat in 1982, the West traded short-term quiet for decades of terror and blood.
Such a mistake cannot happen again.
Hamas is a terrorist army
Hamas is not a political movement with a military wing. It is a terrorist army with a political wing.
The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews – not coexistence, not compromise. Its leadership isn’t interested in allowing a State of Israel of any size to exist. What interests Hamas is staying alive long enough to claim a moral victory, rebuild, and plan its next campaign of attacks on Israeli civilians.
Letting Hamas’s leaders escape into exile would be more than a tactical error. It would be a crime.
Allowing them to spin their survival as victory and rally the next generation around their so-called “resistance.” It would also send a disastrous message to terrorist groups worldwide: Mass murder leads to international negotiations, global attention, and eventually, attainment of goals.
Israel has the right – nay, the obligation – to finish what it started and dismantle Hamas completely, just as the United States hunted down Osama bin Laden and decimated the ISIS leadership. That means no retirement in Qatari hotels, no political rehabilitation, no foreign protection deals.
This is no movie. The price of letting Hamas win the peace will not be comedy; it will result in more innocent bloodshed.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-869772
------
Israel-Hamas War: Teaching And Learning About The Conflict
By Carl Schrag, Or Shemer
October 9, 2025
When did the conflict start? That is one of the first things we ask participants in The iCenter’s Conflicts of Interest (COI) certificate program. Though apparently a simple question, the wide range of responses underscores its complexity.
From the answers, we can learn how each one understands what has transpired since. Someone who dates the starting point at 1917 or even 1967, for example, will likely bring very different perspectives than someone else who dates it back to biblical times or focuses solely on the post-October 7 reality.
At The iCenter we use a range of teaching methods to help educators rethink how they engage their learners around the conflict. These pedagogies are designed to help them tailor their teaching, employing approaches to content that invite their learners to think deeply – and sometimes differently – and support them as confident, humble, critical thinkers.
When The iCenter launched COI in August 2023, it was predicated on the belief that good education challenges people to broaden their scope of vision, venture beyond their “silo,” and actively seek to engage with ideas that challenge, confound, or even upset them. The purpose is not to change anyone’s mind. We believe that applying critical thinking skills to topics that matter dearly can deepen our understanding of the complexity surrounding them.
Since COI’s inception, hundreds of Jewish educators from across North America have immersed themselves in a substantive, critical consideration of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Surveys of participants show that they graduate from the program with increased confidence in their abilities to guide learners through challenging, nuanced, and meaningful explorations. Their experiences in the program and takeaways from it, are relevant to anyone who cares about supporting educators in this increasingly challenging space.
A polarized, anxious world
Such work is not easy. In this program, we guide educators through tough discussions around the realities of ongoing war with a terror organization, hostages, displaced families, dead children, fallen soldiers, extremism, and polarization. The pedagogies used during the training, such as expanding our field of vision and exploring multiple perspectives, prove resilient and helpful in traversing tough territory that pushes each participant to go beyond their previous knowledge and perspectives.
We live in a polarized world that is filled with messages of who is right and who is wrong. Online information often advances narrow agendas, leaving us with a limited view. As educators, we have a responsibility to go beyond justifying policies or actions.
By including parts of the story often left out of social media snippets, we empower individuals to deepen their knowledge, explore nuanced perspectives, converse with each other, and craft their own informed approaches.
This transforms the learning environment from a space of one-way information transmission into a dynamic arena for critical thinking and genuine dialogue.
An ever-changing reality
Just as the “start date” ascribed by each person to the conflict impacts his or her perspective, so, too, do the headlines that resonate at any given moment.
Each of the 10 COI cohorts that have taken place was informed by the trending stories at the time of our gathering.
First, it was the intense debate over the Israeli government’s judicial reform plans. Then, it was the horror of the October 7 attacks, and a continual series of events that reads like a never-ending doomscroll of the past two years.
We’ve strived to balance the very natural need to live in the moment with the importance of stepping back and considering the historical context and multiple narratives that shape our understanding of the conflict.
When the most recent cohort convened, the headlines that dominated our news feeds and those of our participants presented new challenges. Reports of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza alongside disturbing images of hostages sparked difficult but necessary conversations among participants. While we were deep in our learning, the headlines shifted to the Israeli government’s plans to occupy Gaza City. We were experiencing the never-ending flow of the news cycle, literally in real time.
Instead of trying to debunk unsettling reports, our approach requires us to consider those reports and to confront hard truths that may challenge the narrative or beliefs embraced by participants and ourselves. We never tell people what to think; rather, we challenge them to think.
Education at its best does not provide answers. It builds the capacity to wrestle with hard questions and multiple truths. Our hope is that alumni bring the energy, drive, and commitment to help their own learners navigate these multiple truths, even in the most trying times.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-869796
-----
You Can’t Outsource A Homeland: Gaza And The Limits Of Trump’s Vision
by Tatiana Svorou
October 8, 2025
When the full text of President Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan was announced September 2025, it promised an end to the bloodshed and the release of hostages at once, and a rapid rebuilding under international management. While the plan was embraced by senior Israeli officials, Hamas has responded cautiously accepting humanitarian measures but reluctant to any scheme that would “predetermine Gaza’s political future under external authority.”
These answers were significant because the plan did more than mapping out a timetable: it reordered who would be ruling in Gaza and on what terms. Because of this, a chorus of UN experts and human-rights bodies warned that a peace built on external control and conditionality risks embedding structural domination rather than reinstating rights. Furthermore, thirty-six UN Special Rapporteurs and working-group members put bluntly that peace imposed through conditionality or external control, justice without and legal accountability, risks entrenching structural domination.
Two phases in particular make this risk tangible. The proposal demands a 72-hour implementation window for a complete cessation of hostilities, full release of hostages, and Israeli withdrawal to a pre-defined line – all within three days. The 72-hour timeline is designed to offer fast relief, but international humanitarian law warns against administratively set deadlines that do not secure voluntary and humane treatment for the victims of conflict: Common Article 3 guarantees humane treatment in non-international armed conflict and allows parties to agree on additional humanitarian arrangements to implement these protections. The Fourth Geneva Convention likewise protects civilians from coercive measures and conditions on which their safety depends.
Worse still, the plan conditions Israeli withdrawal on the return of hostages – a sequencing that treats hostage release as a bargaining chip rather than an obligation. Humanitarian law and established practice do not allow the protection of persons to be subordinated to political or military leverage; putting release and withdrawal in a strict quid pro quo risks coercion and undermines the neutrality that humanitarian protections require.
The plan’s fifth point demands the release of more than 1,900 Palestinians, including all women and child detainees, in exchange for Israeli hostages. Prisoner swaps can be lawful and lifesaving if they are voluntary and transparent. But the strategy also gestures toward broad amnesties – and here international law is clear: amnesties that eradicate criminal responsibility for grave violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide are impermissible unless paired with genuine accountability, truth-finding, and reparations. The UN’s Updated Set of Principles on Impunity and the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence in Barrios Altos v. Peru underscore that political deals cannot lawfully erase responsibility for serious violations. That legal constraint is reflected in the Fourth Geneva Convention’s penal provisions and in the non-derogable norms of the Convention against Torture.
Money and Power are at the plan’s focus. It proposes an International Transitional Authority – a representative-led “Board of Peace” that would reconstruct Gaza, manage funds, and supervise security until a restructured Palestinian Authority is declared capable of governance. Transitional administrations have precedents – from UNTAET in Timor-Leste to UNMIK in Kosovo – but their legitimacy rests on native consent, and a clear transfer of power to the governed. Absent those anchors, an externally run board can replicate colonial patterns of administration under a different name. International law requires respect for sovereignty and for the continuing legal status of occupied territories. The ICJ’s 2004 Wall Opinion reiterated that the Palestinian territories remain subject to occupation law and that occupying powers retain duties toward the protected population. An externally controlled board would not erase occupation; it could entrench it.
The plan’s reconstruction model amplifies that risk. It envisions a Special Economic Zone and aid channelled “without interference” through international agencies. Humanitarian norms insist that relief not be used to purchase political compliance. Conditioning aid on disarmament, governance metrics, or similar benchmarks risks indirect coercion and could conflict with Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN human-rights guidance. Economically, placing Gaza under an externally managed zone without genuine local control threatens Palestinian stewardship over resources and trade – a dimension of self-determination protected in CESCR guidance.
Security arrangements mirror the same pattern: Points 15-19 call for an international stabilization force and tie an Israeli withdrawal to external certification of “security”. Under the law of occupation (Hague Regulations and Geneva IV), an occupying power must preserve public order while respecting the territory’s legal integrity -not transform temporary security measures into indefinite authority. The ICJ Wall Opinion and UN Security Council Resolution 242 warn against arrangements that effectively consolidate territorial control acquired through force.
Accountability is the plan’s conspicuous omission. There is no independent investigative mechanism for alleged crimes committed during the conflict in the plan’s text. But international law requires prosecution or extradition for grave breaches, while the Rome Statute addresses war crimes such as deliberate attacks on civilians and forced displacement. A just and durable transition would include independent investigation – whether through a UN commission, a hybrid mechanism, or clear referral pathways to the ICC.
If the plan’s route to “credible self-determination” continues to be dependent on reconstruction, certification, or third-party-analysed reforms, it stands the chance of turning self-determination into a reward and not a right. The purposes and GA Resolution 1514 of the UN Charter position self-determination as inalienable, and human-rights institutions have consistently prioritized its importance to individual liberties. Any framework that subordinates Palestinian sovereignty to external certification fails that standard.
We should therefore, measure plans not in how fast their mechanics shift, but in whether they restore law, dignity, and democratic authority to the people whose lives have been most disrupted. The OHCHR experts’ warning is a simple test: peace that arrives without justice, accountability, and genuine self-rule will be fragile and unjust.
Ultimately, the promise of peace cannot rest on managed transitions or conditional sovereignty. True stability will not emerge from boards, benchmarks, or donor conferences, but from recognizing Palestinians as the rightful architects of their own political destiny. If the world wishes to end the cycle of destruction and dependency, it must abandon the language of “management” and return to the principles of law, consent, and equality. Gaza’s future cannot be outsourced because justice cannot be delegated – it must be realized through the restoration of agency, accountability, and rights to those who have been denied them for far too long. After decades of imposed blueprints, one truth remains: you can’t outsource a homeland.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251008-you-cant-outsource-a-homeland-gaza-and-the-limits-of-trumps-vision/
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/sabra-shatila-gaza-peace-iran-hamas/d/137157
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism