Middle East Press On: Palestinian, ISIS, CIA, GHF, EU, ASEAN, GCC: New Age Islam's Selection, 31 May 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
31 May 2025
Macron's 'Recognition' Of A Palestinian State Is A Way To Punish Israel
Support For Palestinians May Prove Dangerous For Europe
A-G's Judicial Overreach Is Undermining Israel's Democracy
The Palestine Question At The ASEAN-GCC-China Summit
Key Features Of US Proposal To End Israel’s War On Gaza
Netanyahu’s High-Stakes Moves Between War And Trial
The EU And The Ethics Of Trading With Israel: What Has Changed?
ISIS, CIA And The GHF: Israel’s New Frontier Of Control Through Hunger
------
Macron's 'Recognition' Of A Palestinian State Is A Way To Punish Israel
By David M. Weinberg
May 30, 2025
French President Emmanuel Macron is currently threatening to unilaterally “recognize” Palestinian statehood, in order to punish Israel for its war of self-defense in Gaza and pressure it to withdraw from all “Palestinian territories.” In response, Israeli leaders have threatened to apply Israeli sovereignty to parts or all of Judea and Samaria.
Macron needs to be slapped down. (His wife can show us how.) Recognizing ersatz Palestinian “statehood” at this time is an unforgivable offense. But the Israeli counter-threat is a mistake for two reasons. It will not deter Macron and other hostile Western leaders from pursuing their nefarious agenda, and it is the wrong way to rightfully apply sovereignty.
Macron and others are convening a “High-Level Two-State Solution Conference” at the UN three weeks from now to “build consensus” around political recognition of a pseudo “State of Palestine.” “Irreversible and concrete measures are necessary to maintain the prospect of a Palestinian state,” the French president has imperiously declared.
The fact that previous such resolutions and proclamations have only bolstered Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist – and have been interpreted by Palestinians as an international green light for the use of terror to destroy Israel – does not frighten Macron.
Nor is he dissuaded by the fact that blabbering at this moment about Palestinian statehood is the very essence of victory for Hamas terrorism and incentivizes more acts of massacre. Merely discussing Palestinian statehood now gives Hamas more sway in Palestinian politics than it ever had, especially in Judea and Samaria (known as “the West Bank”).
Don’t confuse Paris with facts – like the support of three-quarters of Palestinians in the West Bank for the October 7 Hamas-led massacre, or the support of governors in the Palestinian Authority for terrorism and the active participation of its Fatah Party in the wave of terror attacks threatening central Israel.
INSTEAD OF pushback against the increasingly genocidal Palestinian national movement, we get more perilous pablum about the “urgency” of Palestinian statehood. Instead of action to retaliate and truly deter Hamas from ever raising a hand against a hostage again, we get diplomatic rewards for Palestinian intransigence and violence.
International wags should ask themselves: Is their effort to bolster Palestinians with “recognition” of faux statehood – and with more and more aid money – helping Palestinians mature? Or is it merely deepening Palestinian dependency, perpetuating Palestinian victim-refugee-martyrdom identity, prolonging the campaign to demonize Israel as a genocidal monster, and in the end, just plainly and unabashedly weakening Israel?
In fact, one suspects that the latter motivation, tinged with a smidgen of deep-seated antisemitism, is the main impulse.
The scent coming from Macron and his ilk is antipathy toward Israel. They simply cannot stomach a strong Israel. In their view, Israel is a global problem because it has grown too strong, too “hegemonic” in its ambitions, too “aggressive” in its military actions, too “dominant” in resetting the regional strategic situation; too successful in defending itself, and too effective in crushing the holy Palestinian campaign to force Israeli withdrawals.
And also, too threatening against Iran, which soon may sign another nuclear bamboozle with Washington that leaves Tehran in pole position towards an atomic bomb while claiming otherwise; a phony “achievement” that Macron will surely welcome.
Therefore, in the French president’s view, Israel must be restrained, constrained, hemmed-in, humbled. Brought to heel, under a responsible Western thumb. Compelled to accept a cancerous Palestinian “state” which, alas, will be an elevated platform for continuing the war against Israel.
HAVE ANY of Israel’s critics dared to ask themselves why Israelis today are overwhelmingly unwilling to even contemplate establishment of a Palestinian state, at least not for a generation or two or three? Have Israel’s critics any gumption for telling Palestinians: “No, there will be no Palestinian statehood ‘from the river to the sea,’” which means erasure of Israel? Have any of Israel’s critics dared to ask themselves what type of Palestinian state they are seeking to create?
And have Israel’s “friends” like Macron bothered to contemplate the bigger picture – the annihilationist, pernicious narrative against which Israel is contending? Have they thought about pushing back against the relentless equation of Israel and Zionism with the evils of current discourse – imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, white supremacy, and genocide?
Why are good people pretending Palestinian attacks on Israel are legitimate?
It is so exasperating that otherwise good people pretend that Palestinian assaults on Israel’s sovereignty and security have anything to do with legitimate demands for humanitarian aid or with a “two-state solution.” They profess to be concerned for Palestinian rights yet ignore the murderous intentions of Palestinians against Israel. They disregard Palestinian antisemitic discourse and the Fatah/Hamas record of dictatorship and human rights abuse.
Instead, they complain that Israel is restricting supply convoys into Gaza during the current fighting and worry aloud that Hamas will not get kid-gloves treatment after the fighting ends (including the provision of cement and steel to “rehabilitate” Gaza, which would also mean the rebuilding of military capacity against Israel).
And, instead, they tolerate Palestinian “Days of Rage,” “Nakba Day” riots, and missile barrage eruptions as expected behavior. As if the Palestinians cannot help themselves from throwing a tantrum. As if responsible and reasonable behavior – such as negotiation, democratic and peaceful discourse, and normative state-building – cannot be demanded of the Palestinians.
This is the soft bigotry of low expectations of the Palestinians, which is the counterpart of hard bigotry of unreasonable demands on Israel.
IT IS high time that Palestinian leadership be showered with the “tough love” that is usually, uniquely reserved for Israel – especially after October 7.
Why continue to fund a corrupt and Hamas-penetrated UN agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), with more than a billion dollars every year, feeding the Palestinian claim to a “right of return” to all of Israel: the delusion that Israel can be overwhelmed and wiped out?
Why not tell the Palestinians to grow up, and choose leaders who don’t endlessly run around the world peddling lies about Israeli war crimes?
For Macron and others to scurry about without pressing on the Palestinians the inevitability of compromise with Israel is mischievous; to be overly solicitous of the Palestinians especially now, and crushingly censorious of Israel especially now, is malicious. Dishing out some tough love and dialing down Palestinian expectations would be much more constructive.
In short, the Macron-ian campaign to unilaterally, “urgently,” and immediately recognize synthetic Palestinian “statehood” is destructive: an unforgivable offense.
AT THE same time, the counter-threat to apply Israeli sovereignty to parts or all of Judea and Samaria, issued by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and other Israeli ministers in response to Macron’s muckraking, is a mistake. Aside from the fact that it will not deter Macron, it is the wrong way for Israel to rightfully apply sovereignty.
Israel should unequivocally realize its historic and legal sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria. Its hesitancy to do so over the past 50 years only has strengthened Palestinian claims that the areas are “Palestinian territory,” helping to establish a fiction that has been willingly accepted within the international community.
But doing so should not be the function of a momentary need to slap Macron on the cheek, or in response to any particular act of Palestinian terror. It should come, soon, as an essential part of a well thought out, broader Israeli strategic plan to reassert this country’s rights and security needs and to restructure relations with regional and international partners.
Sovereignty assertion must be an up-front and forward-looking move, a central and proud plank in a major Israeli party platform, perhaps ratified in an election campaign. It should not be a backhanded rejoinder to the spasms of spent European politicians who are peddling hackneyed “solutions” and beating up on Israel because they know of nothing else to do.
There are other just, punitive measures that Israel can and should take against countries that diplomatically assault it in the way that Macron is planning, such as closing their consulates in Jerusalem that function as “embassies” to “Palestine.” And there are other forward-looking, Zionist moves that Israel can and should make in the immediate term, like strengthening Israeli cities and towns in Judea and Samaria – defiantly so.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-855982
------
Support For Palestinians May Prove Dangerous For Europe
By David Ben-Basat
May 30, 2025
In June 1980, the Venice Declaration was published – a political document that set a dangerous precedent in the European Union’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Though decades have passed, the declaration’s principles, affirming the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people” and calling for active European involvement, remain a cornerstone of EU policy. Over time, that policy has often shifted from diplomacy to near-automatic backing of the Palestinian side, even at the expense of truth and morality.
The European Union, established after the world wars to safeguard peace, has, in recent years, become a promoter of an anti-Israel narrative. Instead of bridging divides, it deepens them. Instead of mediating, it incites. Instead of addressing real threats, it embraces an imagined Palestinian political vision detached from reality.
Seeking to distance themselves from US policy, European countries gave the PLO legitimacy and centered the idea of a Palestinian state in international discourse. What began as a vague statement evolved into a firm position: support for a two-state solution, even as the so-called “Palestinian state” embraces terrorism and Israel defends its existence.
Since then, the stance has only hardened. The UK, followed by the EU, funds organizations that act against Israel. Before and after October 7, the UK allowed Hamas’s financial infrastructure to operate within its borders. In the European Parliament, calls are growing to boycott Israel and recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally, even as Hamas rules Gaza and as the Palestinian Authority continues paying stipends to terrorists’ families.
On Sunday, Spain hosted a summit of European and Arab countries in Madrid to promote the two-state solution and seek an end to the war in Gaza.
Spain, the summit host, issued a strong message: Immediately suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which underpins trade, scientific cooperation, and diplomatic ties. Spain also urged the EU to quickly recognize a Palestinian state and impose an international arms embargo on Israel unless Jerusalem halts its campaign in Gaza.
Twenty countries participated in the summit, which stemmed from a peace initiative by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez following the October 7 Hamas massacre. One of the EU’s most vocal critics of Israel, Sánchez had already called to “reassess” EU-Israel ties in late 2023. Though that initiative failed, a similar proposal from the Netherlands has since gained traction.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has been meeting with European counterparts in an effort to block the Dutch initiative. Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp has called for a review of EU-Israel trade relations and for suspension of the agreement under Article 2, which allows such a move if Israel is deemed to be violating human rights.
BUT THE issue goes beyond foreign policy; it reflects a broader social climate. Antisemitism in Europe is no longer subtle. Synagogues are attacked, Jewish schools require security, and Jewish communities live in daily fear. Most disturbing is the justification: “Criticism of Israel” has become a euphemism for antisemitic racism. When IDF soldiers act in Gaza, Jews are attacked in Berlin, Paris, and London.
The line between anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism is more blurred than ever, and many European officials don’t attempt to distinguish between the two. When a Palestinian attacks an Israeli civilian, it’s dismissed as “resistance to occupation.” When a Jew is assaulted, it’s explained as a “natural reaction to anger.”
Europe is undergoing significant social shifts
Meanwhile, Europe is undergoing significant social shifts. Over the past decade, and especially since the 2015 migration wave, Islam has grown not just demographically but ideologically. Entire neighborhoods in France, Sweden, and Germany have become “cultural enclaves,” where local laws are replaced by sharia.
More alarmingly, a political-religious ideology is gaining ground in mosques, schools, and political circles – one that rejects Western democratic values, women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, and aims to delegitimize Israel as a “colonial entity.”
Europe is importing an ideology that seeks to change it from within, and its response has been weak. Fear of being labeled racist, electoral opportunism, and cultural paralysis have allowed radical Islam to gradually infiltrate democratic institutions.
The numbers are revealing. Government reports in France and Germany show antisemitism among Muslim youth is significantly above average. Thousands of Muslim Europeans have joined jihadist groups. On university campuses, Jewish professors fear speaking up, students are harassed, and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement dominates student bodies.
Yet the EU continues to focus its political pressure solely on Israel. Hamas receives little criticism. Palestinian Authority incitement is ignored. Terrorism is met with understanding.
When Europe advances a Palestinian vision that lacks accountability, security, or a rejection of terror, it does not foster peace; it sustains conflict. When leaders call for boycotting Israel, they fan the flames of hatred in their own societies. When they legitimize a movement that denies Israel’s right to exist, they empower the ideological forces that see the West itself as an enemy.
To some Europeans, Israel has become a pariah. The postmodern European Left, in its ignorance, fails to grasp how Israel dares to protect its identity, people, and future.
The EU, created to prevent another catastrophe on the continent, is blindly heading toward a dark future of renewed antisemitism, cultural disintegration, and surrender to an ideology that threatens it more than any external adversary.
The Venice Declaration may have once aimed to promote peace, but over time, it has become a symbol of political and moral blindness.
As long as European nations continue to condemn Israel instead of defending it, they are playing into the hands of extremists who endanger not only Israel but their own survival.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-855990
-----
A-G's Judicial Overreach Is Undermining Israel's Democracy
By Yaakov Katz
May 30, 2025
The judicial reform that began in January 2023 and was derailed when Hamas terrorists blew up the border fence with Gaza on October 7 was not entirely wrong. In fact, much of it was right.
Reforming how Supreme Court justices are selected – currently, a process lacking transparency where judges largely choose themselves – or how the court can strike down Knesset legislation without providing an override mechanism are legitimate concerns. These are serious structural issues that deserve attention.
The problem back then was not the content of the reform but how it was managed. Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who has largely disappeared since October 7, refused to slow down or seek compromise. There were genuine public concerns, yet Levin and the rest of the government ignored them. They wanted the reform and were prepared to force it, regardless of the cost – the weakening of Israel, for which we are still paying the price today.
Two recent legal decisions highlight the deep and systemic challenges Israel faces. Whether we like their implications or not, we cannot ignore what they reflect about the current state of governance.
The first was a ruling by Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit a couple of weeks ago, requiring the government to adopt a new process for appointing the civil service commissioner. The commissioner is the official responsible for overseeing Israel’s civil service and sets the standards to ensure that capable people are placed in critical government roles.
Historically, governments have appointed a new commissioner without a public tender. Amit himself had previously authored a ruling upholding that practice. Now, however, he has reversed course, arguing that the government’s recent conduct has violated accepted norms and that new limits need to be imposed on it.
This about-face is troubling. Not only is Amit assuming authority that exceeds his mandate, but he is also contradicting his own past ruling. In addition, the decision was not unanimous. Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg issued a strong dissent, leaving serious doubt over the decision and whether it really was about enforcing good governance or something else.
THIS WAS bad enough, but then came the second decision, this time from Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, who on Monday night ruled that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a conflict of interest in appointing a new head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency). She declared his nomination of Maj.-Gen. David Zini “invalid and unlawful.”
Baharav-Miara’s decision stems from two ongoing investigations involving Netanyahu’s close advisers – one into alleged payments from Qatar (“Qatargate”) and the other into leaked intelligence documents – which are both being investigated by the Shin Bet. The attorney-general’s position is that after Netanyahu acted inappropriately by dismissing outgoing Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, he cannot now appoint Bar’s successor.
And while there are reasonable questions to ask about the manner in which Bar was fired and Zini was appointed, have we forgotten how democracy works?
Bar is a civil servant. He is appointed – and can be dismissed – by the government. His main responsibility was to keep the country safe, a task in which he failed catastrophically ahead of October 7. Like the IDF chief of staff and the former head of Military Intelligence, he should have resigned long ago.
'If Bar should resign, so should Netanyahu'
The frequent claim, “If Bar should resign, so should Netanyahu,” misses the mark. Yes, Netanyahu and his cabinet bear ultimate responsibility for the national failures that led to October 7. But Netanyahu is an elected leader; Bar is not. Civil servants are appointed by ministers. Ministers, in turn, are elected by the people.
Bar is accountable to the government. But a government? There’s a clear mechanism for replacing it; it’s called the ballot box.
Even if we grant that there may be a potential conflict of interest in Netanyahu’s appointment of Zini, Baharav-Miara’s response feels like an overreach. Netanyahu himself is not under investigation, nor are any members of his cabinet. The individuals involved are advisers who operated outside formal government channels.
That some of these advisers allegedly accepted money from Qatar, a country with which Israel maintains a complex relationship, does not, by itself, justify removing the prime minister’s authority to make appointments. Other prime ministers have relied on external advisers who simultaneously had work ties with foreign governments. If anything, this should spark a broader conversation about why such advisers are allowed to operate without formal conflict-of-interest vetting.
But even accepting that a concern exists over a potential conflict of interest, there are more reasonable solutions. Why not transfer the investigation to the police or ensure that the deputy head of the Shin Bet manages the inquiry, keeping the new director out of it?
And if the answer is that Itamar Ben-Gvir runs the police and that they, too, cannot be trusted, then this, too, is a problem since it means that, for some portion of Israel, no one in the elected government is to be trusted and only civil servants can be.
MORE FUNDAMENTALLY, Baharav-Miara’s ruling sidelines the role of the government entirely. While the prime minister nominates the Shin Bet chief, the appointment must be approved by the cabinet. That vote is not a rubber stamp; it is supposed to reflect collective responsibility, and ministers can decide to vote against the proposed candidate. For the attorney-general to dismiss that process is to insult the very structure of Israeli democracy.
Could Netanyahu delegate the nomination to another minister? Certainly. That would seem like a straightforward solution. But according to Baharav-Miara, even that wouldn’t suffice. She argues that because the process has been “tainted by severe flaws” and because a delegated minister might act as the “long arm of the prime minister,” the appointment must follow “strict guidelines” to prevent “ulterior motives.”
And what are those guidelines? The delegated minister must independently decide which candidates to interview, document each interview under legal supervision, provide a detailed rationale for the final nomination, and ensure the candidate’s qualifications are examined.
This isn’t a safeguard; it’s micromanagement that borders on judicial overreach. It implies that government ministers – elected officials – are little more than figureheads. Or, to borrow a term one of my children taught me, NPCs – non-playable characters with no independent thought. Just window dressing for a democracy run by unelected legal officials.
Is Zini the right person for the job? Maybe he is; maybe he’s not. But the truth is, we don’t know, just like we didn’t know whether Baharav-Miara herself was the right person to be attorney-general when she was appointed by the Bennett-Lapid government. What we did was trust the government that we elected, as happens every time there is a transition in elected leadership.
Consider the United States. When US President Donald Trump nominated Kash Patel to lead the FBI, critics objected to his lack of experience and claimed he would simply do Trump’s bidding.
Yet no one suggested the Senate was merely an extension of the president when approving the appointment. No one questioned the president’s right to appoint someone to the job. The systems are different, but the principle is the same: In a democracy, elected officials make executive decisions.
Netanyahu was elected to lead. That includes the authority to appoint a Shin Bet chief. To remove that power now, in this manner, looks far more political than legal.
This is the crux of the problem: In today’s Israel, almost nothing is straightforward. Everything is tainted by politics, even decisions by the court and the attorney-general. But one basic principle must remain sacred: In a democracy, the government must be allowed to govern.
Otherwise, what happens after the next election if Netanyahu wins again? Will the attorney-general declare that the people got it wrong?
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-856001
------
The Palestine Question At The ASEAN-GCC-China Summit
May 30, 2025
At the 2025 ASEAN-GCC-China Summit in Kuala Lumpur, leaders from Asia and the Arab world gathered under the glow of diplomatic language and cautious optimism. The joint statement from the summit acknowledged key developments — including the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion deeming Israel’s occupation unlawful, and praised efforts like Qatar’s ceasefire mediation and China’s facilitation of Palestinian national unity. But in the face of mounting atrocities and the collapse of the so-called peace process, the time for rhetorical solidarity has long passed.
What the world demands now from ASEAN, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and China is not more resolutions or symbolic affirmations. What’s needed is action — concrete, coordinated, and consequential — to finally bring Israel’s aggression to an end and to fundamentally reshape the path toward Palestinian liberation.
For over three decades, the international community has clung to the mirage of the two-state solution — a diplomatic fantasy that has become more illusory with each new Israeli settlement, each new demolished Palestinian home, and each fresh cycle of violence. Even as the Kuala Lumpur statement “supports efforts toward a two-state solution,” this language fails to reckon with the ground reality: the possibility of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel is not just dwindling — it is dead.
The world must admit what Palestinians have long known. The two-state solution is no longer a roadmap. It is a fig leaf, used to deflect pressure while maintaining a status quo that benefits Israel and shields its allies from accountability. It is time to move beyond this illusion and toward a serious reimagining of the future — one that guarantees equal rights, dignity, and self-determination for all who live between the river and the sea.
This is where ASEAN, the GCC, and China must move from passive affirmation to proactive leadership. For years, the Palestinian issue has been diplomatically dominated by Western powers — led by the United States — whose financial, military, and political support for Israel has ensured the perpetuation of occupation. But today, as the influence of the West wanes and a multipolar world emerges, a new axis of influence — stretching from Southeast Asia to the Gulf to Beijing — has a historic opportunity to lead where Washington has failed.
To do so, these nations must first confront their own contradictions. Several ASEAN and GCC countries, as well as China, maintain active trade, diplomatic, and in some cases military relations with Israel. These ties — masked by statements of solidarity — directly empower the very state that occupies and oppresses Palestine. You cannot simultaneously condemn the occupation and help sustain the occupier.
Ending these ties — whether they are economic partnerships, arms deals, or covert intelligence collaborations — is the most immediate, measurable, and moral step these countries can take. The message must be clear: there is a cost for apartheid and aggression. If Israel continues to defy international law and human decency, it must face real political and economic isolation — not just from Europe or North America, but from the rest of the world.
Beyond merely scaling back ties with Israel, ASEAN, the GCC, and China must take the lead in forging a new global coalition grounded in justice, legality, and accountability. This means actively supporting international legal proceedings — including South Africa’s landmark cases against Israel at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court — to ensure that violations of international law are met with consequences, not impunity. It also requires stepping in where the West has retreated: bolstering financial and political support for UNRWA, which continues to face deliberate defunding campaigns aimed at dismantling essential humanitarian aid. And crucially, it means granting full diplomatic recognition and sustained material support to the Palestinian state, not as a symbolic gesture, but as a concrete assertion of its political legitimacy and right to exist on equal footing in the international community.
Moreover, the upcoming international conference on Palestine, co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France, must be more than just another forum for recycled positions. It must set in motion a post-two-state framework: one that centers decolonization, addresses the right of return, and ensures democratic rights for all residents of the land — whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or within Israel’s 1948 borders.
The moral arc of history may bend toward justice, but only if people — and nations — push it. The leaders of ASEAN, the GCC, and China now stand at a moral juncture. They can continue issuing cautious statements and playing diplomatic double games, or they can recognize this moment for what it is: a chance to reshape global politics in the service of freedom.
It is no longer acceptable to be “neutral” while Israel bombs refugee camps, targets hospitals, and treats international law with impunity. It is no longer enough to wait for Washington to change course when it is Washington that wrote the map of occupation in the first place.
A world without US hegemony is not just inevitable — it is already in motion. The question is whether this new world will be one in which emerging powers perpetuate the same old injustices under new names, or whether they will finally act on the values they claim to uphold.
In Kuala Lumpur, the ASEAN-GCC-China Summit declared its concern. The world is watching to see if they now have the courage to act.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250530-the-palestine-question-at-the-asean-gcc-china-summit/
-----
Key Features Of Us Proposal To End Israel’s War On Gaza
May 30, 2025
As diplomatic efforts to end Israel’s war on Gaza continue, a new proposal by US envoy Steve Witkoff offers a framework aimed at halting the onslaught, facilitating humanitarian relief, and paving the way for a permanent ceasefire.
The 13-point plan outlines a 60-day truce, the release of Israeli and Palestinian captives, and structured talks on Gaza’s future, according to Israeli and American media and Palestinian sources close to the Hamas movement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday that he accepted Witkoff’s outline for a Gaza ceasefire and prisoner exchange.
Meanwhile, a senior Hamas official said yesterday that the movement is continuing to carefully study the new American proposal, noting that it does not meet many of its fundamental demands, foremost among them guaranteeing a complete end to the war in Gaza and providing clear commitments to Israeli withdrawal after the end of the initial 60-day period.
The proposal’s key points
1- Duration
A 60-day ceasefire is proposed with a guarantee from US President Donald Trump that Israel will uphold the truce throughout the period.
2- Captive release
Hamas will release ten living Israeli captives and the remains of 18 others over two stages; half on Day 1, half on Day 7.
3- Humanitarian aid
Aid will be sent to Gaza immediately after Hamas approves the ceasefire agreement.
Any agreement reached regarding aid to civilians will be respected throughout the agreement’s duration.
Aid will be distributed through channels coordinated with the UN and the Red Crescent.
4- Israeli military activities
All Israeli military activities in Gaza will cease once the agreement takes effect.
During the ceasefire period, there will be a 12-hour daily halt of aerial movement in the Gaza Strip, scheduled on the days of captives and prisoner exchange.
5- Redeployment of Israeli occupation forces
On Day 1, after the release of captives, redeployment will occur in northern Gaza and the Netzarim corridor.
On Day 7, after the release of captives, redeployment will occur in the southern part of the strip.
Technical teams will clarify the final redeployment boundaries during close-range negotiations.
6- Negotiations
On Day 1, negotiations will begin under the sponsorship of the guarantor mediators regarding arrangements necessary for a permanent ceasefire, including:
– Results and conditions for exchanging all remaining Israeli captives in return for an agreed number of Palestinian held in Israeli prisons.
– Issues related to the redeployment and withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces and long-term security arrangements inside the Gaza Strip.
– Arrangements related to the future of the Gaza Strip that either side may propose.
– The announcement of a permanent ceasefire.
7- Presidential support
President Trump to ensure that all parties adhere to the ceasefire agreement, emphasising that if negotiations in Gaza following the temporary ceasefire do not result in a mutual agreement, they must ultimately lead to a permanent resolution of the conflict.
8- Release of Palestinian prisoners
125 Palestinians who have been sentenced to life imprisonment and 1,111 detainees from Gaza arrested after 7 October, 2023, will be released.
180 bodies of Palestinians from Gaza will be handed over.
Execution will be in two phases: the first half on the first day and the other half on the seventh day.
9- Status of captives, prisoners
On Day 10, Hamas will provide full medical information about the remaining captives.
Israel will provide complete information about the Palestinian prisoners detained since 7 October, and the number of Palestinian bodies held in Israel, with Hamas committing to ensuring the captives’ safety during the ceasefire period.
10- Release of remaining captives
Upon reaching an agreement on a permanent ceasefire within 60 days, all remaining captives from the list of 58 will be released.
If no agreement is reached, the temporary ceasefire can be extended with agreed terms and duration as long as negotiations are in good faith.
11- Guarantors
The guarantors, the US, Egypt, Qatar, will guarantee the continuation of the ceasefire for 60 days and participate in negotiations regarding permanent arrangements.
12 – Envoy to oversee talks
US special envoy Steve Witkoff to oversee the negotiation process.
13 – Announcement by President Trump
President Trump will personally announce the ceasefire agreement.
The new terms come after Israel unilaterally violated the ceasefire deal which came into effect in January and returned to bombing Gaza in March. Its bombing campaign has since intensified with nearly 100 Palestinians being killed every day.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250530-key-features-of-us-proposal-to-end-israels-war-on-gaza/
------
Netanyahu’s High-Stakes Moves Between War And Trial
Hani Hazaimeh
May 30, 2025
As the Gaza conflict escalates into one of the most intense confrontations in recent memory, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands at a crucial crossroads. Facing international calls for a ceasefire, domestic political pressures and ongoing legal battles, Netanyahu’s refusal to halt military operations without significant concessions reveals a calculated strategy balancing survival, security and power.
US President Donald Trump is reportedly planning to call for an end to the hostilities, reflecting the growing global impatience with the ongoing violence. Western powers and international organizations, long weary of the repeated cycles of conflict, emphasize the urgent need for peace. Yet Netanyahu remains defiant, signalling that his calculations extend far beyond immediate diplomatic approval.
Israel’s traditional allies have become increasingly divided. While the US maintains support for Israel’s right to self-defence, its tone has softened to urge de-escalation. Other Western countries like the UK, France and Canada have voiced criticism and are contemplating sanctions in response to Israel’s continued military campaigns, while London has suspended trade talks. This shift highlights the global outrage over Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe — widespread civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction and critical shortages of food, water and medicine.
Despite international pressure, Netanyahu insists on two conditions for any ceasefire: the full disarmament of Hamas and the implementation of a controversial relocation plan for Gaza’s Palestinian population. This plan, widely condemned as forced displacement, raises serious ethical and legal questions. It echoes painful histories of displacement in the region and risks escalating tensions throughout the Middle East.
At home, Netanyahu’s political survival is deeply intertwined with the Gaza conflict. Facing charges of bribery and corruption, Netanyahu hopes a successful military campaign will strengthen his standing and divert attention from his legal troubles. Conversely, a premature ceasefire could weaken his position and embolden his opponents.
Israeli society remains divided. Many support Netanyahu’s hard-line approach as essential to security, while others criticize the human cost and warn of long-term damage to Israel’s moral character. Protests both supporting and opposing the government’s policies have erupted nationwide. The urgent demand to free Israeli hostages held by Hamas adds another layer of complexity, fuelling calls for continued military pressure.
The proposed relocation plan for Gaza’s nearly 2 million Palestinians is the most contentious element of Netanyahu’s strategy. Seen by many as a violation of international law, it recalls fears of ethnic cleansing and risks destabilizing Gaza and the broader region. Neighbouring countries with large Palestinian refugee populations, including Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, could see heightened tensions and security risks if displacement occurs.
For Netanyahu, this plan aims to permanently neutralize the Hamas threat and reshape Gaza’s political reality in Israel’s favor. But such a move risks isolating Israel diplomatically and provoking regional backlash.
The Middle East remains a volatile landscape of fragile alliances and rivalries. Prolonged conflict or forced displacement could further destabilize the region. The international community faces a dilemma — supporting Israel’s alleged right to self-defense while condemning the humanitarian consequences of its military operations.
Netanyahu’s challenge is to maintain political strength and security credibility at home while managing growing international pressure and Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Persisting with a hard-line stance risks diplomatic isolation and regional escalation. Conversely, conceding without substantial gains could undermine his authority and legal standing.
In the coming weeks, Netanyahu’s decisions will reverberate far beyond Israel’s borders, shaping regional stability and the fate of millions.
Amid this political and legal chess game, the civilians of Gaza remain the most vulnerable. The international community must intensify humanitarian aid and work toward a sustainable peace that addresses the conflict’s root causes, not just its symptoms.
Netanyahu’s defiance highlights a broader failure — global and regional leaders’ inability to forge a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Without such a solution, cycles of violence and suffering will persist, threatening any hope for lasting peace in one of the world’s most volatile regions.
The world watches and waits, hoping humanity does not become the ultimate casualty in this high-stakes game.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2602782
------
The EU And The Ethics Of Trading With Israel: What Has Changed?
May 30, 2025
It has taken many years, but May 20 was a red-letter day for human rights in Palestine. This was the day when the European Commission, which should have acted decades ago, finally agreed to review the EU-Israel cooperation agreement.
This arrangement, which is only available to countries that respect the values of the European Union, including Article 2 of the European Union-Israel trade agreement, which is now 24 years old, states that “relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.”
And it’s not just a condition for signing the agreement—continuity of the trading relationship is conditional on respect for these principles.
This is a big deal. The US pours money into Israel, but it is mostly in the form of military aid—which is used to kill Palestinian civilians and devastate neighboring countries like Lebanon.
It has a value to far-right Israeli hawks, but doesn’t put food on the plates of Israeli citizens. Not so the EU-Israel trade agreement. The EU is Israel’s biggest trade partner. The trading relationship is valued at more than €45 billion a year.
And now 17 of the bloc’s 27 foreign ministers want the human rights element in the trading agreement to be enforced, and are supporting the motion courageously tabled earlier this month by the Dutch foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp.
“It is clear from today’s discussions that there is a strong majority in favor of a review of Article 2 of our Association Agreement with Israel,” the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, told reporters in Brussels on May 20.
The reason why it has taken so long to get the review conducted comes down to one word: Germany. If ten countries voted against the review on Tuesday, it was really only Germany’s opposition “behind the scenes” that mattered. And evidently, behind the scenes, Germany has shifted.
The country’s center-right government was not willing to take too active a part in a 21st-century genocide. The day of the vote, after all, the newspaper headlines spoke of 93 percent of children in Gaza—that is nearly a million children—at risk of famine, as Israel—with US support—tightened its siege on the Strip.
The United Nations warned, not hyperbolically but as a matter of cold fact, that some 14,000 babies would die in the next 48 hours under the Israeli government’s policy.
And so, we might say, the dam broke. The EU Commission, dominated by Germany and France, gave way to the calls for a “review” of the treaty that has done much to provide Israel with means to crush Palestinians into the dust—with cash left over to cripple the economies of its neighbours.
But will this Germany-led Commission suspend the agreement? Or is this just a political manoeuvre, buying time? We’ll find out. But it all hinges on Germany’s abandonment of its disastrous domestic policy called Staatsräson—”reasons of state” in English.
Broadly, the policy aims to elevate the interests of Israel, defined as a Jewish state, over any other country or community. Recent polls show only about one third of Germans are in favour of the pro-Israeli Staatsräson while 43% are against it. But up to now, the ruling cliques have been terrified of the minority.
Staatsräson makes Israel’s security fundamental to Germany’s national interest—and judgments about Israel’s security have been shamelessly left to Israel, no matter the political shade of the government.
The result is that even as the Palestinian death toll has skyrocketed—and even as international human rights organizations have sounded the alarm and called for action to protect the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian victims—Germany has massively increased political and material support.
Defence export approvals to Israel have risen nearly tenfold from 2022, Berlin joined other countries in suspending funding to UNRWA, and the German government even pledged to intervene on Israel’s behalf essentially to strip the UN genocide convention of any meaning at the International Court of Justice.
All this is why, only a few weeks ago, Israel’s ambassador to Germany, Ron Prosor, called Berlin Israel’s biggest friend in Europe—thinking specifically of its blocking of EU’s attempts to impose sanctions on Tel Aviv.
However, something in Germany has changed. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Felix Klein, the German government’s commissioner for combating antisemitism, said: “We must do everything in our power to preserve the security of Israel and Jews worldwide. But we must also be clear that this is no justification for everything.”
“Starving the Palestinians and deliberately making the humanitarian situation dramatically worse has nothing to do with safeguarding Israel’s right to exist. And it cannot be the German reason of state either,” he added.
Klein’s shot across the bows has been followed by the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, decrying massive IDF airstrikes on Gaza and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul warning that Berlin would soon discuss what steps to take to deal with the “unbearable” situation.
When, as it surely must, the ICJ rules that Israel is conducting cruel and horrible crimes against the more-or-less defenceless civilians of Gaza—whether or not it deigns to call this actual genocide—Germany does not wish once again to be on the wrong side of history, complicit in this most heinous of crimes, genocide, whether it is called that or merely something very close to it.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-eu-and-the-ethics-of-trading-with-israel-what-has-changed/
-----
ISIS, CIA And The GHF: Israel’s New Frontier Of Control Through Hunger
May 30, 2025
The Israeli-backed Gaza aid distribution plan, now being implemented in the besieged coastal territory, is a sinister plot. It not only privatizes humanitarian assistance during a genocide, but the more that emerges about the shady Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the more horrifying its prospects appear.
What has been revealed as the brainchild of the Israeli military, which began developing following October 7, 2023, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) is a recipe for utter disaster.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office chose the private company, while a US official speaking to France 24 labelled the whole project “very much an Israeli idea”.
Not only has every major humanitarian organization, in addition to the United Nations’ various organs and experts, either refused to work with or openly condemned it, its Executive Director Jake Wood resigned from the project only a day before it began operating.
Wood, who is a former US Marine sniper and entrepreneur, explained his decision to jump ship at the last moment in an official statement:
Reading in between the lines here, it is very likely that Wood began to detect signs of the inevitable catastrophe that would befall his career if he was going to continue down the path he was headed. In addition to the blood that would be on his hands.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was first registered in Switzerland in February, by David Papazian, formerly with the Armenian National Interests Fund; Samuel Marcel Henderson; and David Kohler. None of them have experience in the humanitarian aid field.
Then the GHF was registered again in Delaware, by American lawyer, James Cundiff, who also registered the private military firm called Safe Reach Solutions. This military contractor firm is run by a former CIA paramilitary chief, Philip P. Reilly, who also has a past of working with Constellis; the rebranded version of Blackwater.
It was also reported that unnamed firms linked to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation have direct ties to Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer. Even worse for the project’s PR is the fact that Israeli Knesset member, Avigdor Lieberman, claimed that the dark money funding the GHF was coming from the Israeli government.
“The money for the humanitarian aid is coming from the Mossad and the Defense Ministry”, Lieberman asserted. While noting that he did not have conclusive proof, the Israeli opposition official claimed: “You have a foundation that appeared out of nowhere, and a company operating without a background or experience…It seems obvious”.
“Even if they’re US-registered, the entity that initiated and pushed for the operation is Israel or parties acting on its behalf”, Lieberman said. He also qualified his assertions by stating that “It’s being done in a blatant and clumsy way,” which Haaretz claims would cost a minimum of 140 million USD per month to finance.
The idea here is not only to establish a number of aid distribution points that will be managed by private military contractors, but to force the population of Gaza – through the weaponization of hunger – to relocate towards militarized concentration camps.
When they arrive at the distribution points, as we have repeatedly witnessed, they are herded like cattle and threatened by ex-American soldiers who carry automatic weapons and hand grenades.
Keeping all of this information in mind, former private military contractor (PMC) for the infamous firm Blackwater, Morgan Lerette, told the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft that “Aside from the danger, putting armed US civilians in an active battlefield to feed locals, is reminiscent of Somalia in 1993. We can only hope it doesn’t end in a similar fashion”.
Lerette was referencing the infamous ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident, which led to the mass slaughter of innocent civilians.
I would also personally posit that the situation we are seeing develop, assuming this continues along its current trajectory, will unleash another Nisour Square massacre situation.
The Nisour Square incident is one of the most notorious civilian slaughters carried out at the hands of Blackwater PMC’s, which came to represent the catastrophic failure of the US Iraq invasion and subsequent “nation building” project.
Back to Jake Wood, it is likely that he saw what was coming, given the evident logistical nightmare afoot and decided to save himself before everything started. As we saw on day one of the aid distribution in Rafah, starving civilians in Gaza began rushing towards the aid supplies, causing American military contractors to run in fear as Israeli forces opened fire on the crowds.
It is perfectly obvious that more serious horrors are lurking in the near distant future and that when a major incident occurs, the GHF will end up being the scapegoat. Blackwater, for all its horrors, was the convenient outlet for the US military to share the blame for their war crimes in Iraq to a private company.
This ended up taking its CEO Erik Prince, from the star-child right hand man of the US army and CIA, to a man that is still desperately trying to claw his way back to prominence with a highly tainted past, often driving away potential business partners. At least this was the predicament of Prince until the Trump administration returned to power.
Ethnic Cleansing and Israel’s ISIS-linked Militias
If you thought things couldn’t get worse, the plot again thickens. Israel is now backing ISIS-linked criminals, drug lords and murderers, who they have been working alongside in the southern Gaza “buffer-zone” after their invasion of the area on May 6, 2024.
These gangsters, many of whom had escaped from Hamas-run prisons after Israel bombed the entrances to Gaza’s jails, banded together in groups of hundreds and began looting aid. Led by ISIS-linked warlords like Yasser Abu Shabab and Shadi al-Sufi, hundreds of armed criminals – who formerly belonged to groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and/or were jailed for narcotics smuggling, murder and theft – exploited the suffering population of gaza.
These fanatical gangsters have worked in the “buffer zone” that is considered a “kill zone”, where no civilian can enter without being murdered by Israeli strikes and even aid/medical workers have been killed there. Their job is simple, under the watchful eye of Israeli drones, they demand a fee be paid by any aid organization transferring humanitarian goods into Gaza.
Even when humanitarian organizations have paid these fees, these gangsters still launch armed ambushes on aid convoys, hoarding goods and even taking aid workers hostage. Storing the aid in warehouses, positioned in some cases only hundreds of meters away from Israeli forces, they slowly drip feed the aid to sellers on the black-market.
This practice continued up until the Gaza ceasefire was declared on January 19. Even during the ceasefire, the gangs made trouble, but when Israel decided to violate the agreement with Hamas and return to bombarding the besieged territory and deprived it of all aid for 80 days, they began working again.
This prompted Hamas to form the Arrow Force, consisting of Gaza’s remaining police and security services, who were tasked with cracking down on black-market trade, violent crimes, assaults on security personnel and looting by these criminal elements.
Suddenly, as aid began entering Gaza in very small portions, these gangsters emerged again, but this time they were wearing brand new tactical vests, Palestinian flag patches and had badges reading “Anti-Terror Services”.
According to various sources, in addition to Israel’s own proposals from last year, these gangsters are being prepared as an opposition force that is being used to create “Hamas free zones”. They are even said to be preparing to work with the American private military contractors who lead the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
They have now undergone a makeover and claim to be victims of Hamas, alleging that they are the ones who are securing the aid. This fits into Israeli propaganda that blames Hamas for the looting. However, the UN, in addition to all the rights groups and humanitarian agencies who have commented on the issue, state that there are no recorded cases of Hamas looting and instead it is the gangs.
Inside Gaza, there is also a problem with collaborators who are helping to push an anti-Hamas narrative to the benefit of the gangs – which have clear links to ISIS in the Sinai – which occurred recently when civilians stormed a World Food Program warehouse. One man in the video made a statement against Hamas, making it seem like the Palestinian group was hoarding aid and the warehouse being stormed belonged to them. This was then shared on Israeli government pages across social media, as “proof” that Hamas is looting aid.
Evidently, the warehouse in Deir al-Balah had nothing to do with Hamas, but the Israelis are attempting to latch on to anything in order to push their narrative.
While most Palestinians in Gaza are aware of the gangsters and their agendas, they are now being heavily backed by Israel to carry out specific tasks. In addition to this, Israel is constantly bombing Palestinian security forces and police officers who are trying to tackle the gang problem, while also pushing anti-Hamas propaganda and even offering financial rewards to desperate civilians who are willing to help them.
The evidence is all there and the conclusion is obvious. Israel is trying to replace the Palestinian security apparatus that is under the current rule of Hamas, with an ISIS-linked movement of gangsters who they have given a makeover to and are presenting them as a legitimate opposition force. In other words, it is a civil war strategy.
If the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation plot succeeds at taking over all aid distribution, it would force the civilian population into concentrated areas where the US military contractors and gangsters, alongside the Israeli army, would maintain de facto control of their lives. Although this is unlikely to work the way they are planning, this is a clear agenda that is being hatched and all the evidence points towards this being the case.
Just to be clear, Hamas has spent nearly two decades fighting against Al-Qaeda linked groups, and ISIS, when it hatched its Gaza wing in 2015. Israel is empowering these individuals, along with common criminals. A strategy of forcing these gangsters upon the people of Gaza through the weaponization of mass starvation.
If all of the indications noted in this article end up leading to their natural conclusions, then it is safe to say that this GHF plot is one of the most sinister agendas in modern history. Unfortunately, almost none of these crucial issues have been addressed and there is no transparency with what is unfolding under the new Gaza aid distribution scheme. There is also an evident desire from at least a segment of the Israeli leadership that seeks to use this plot as a means to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip.
Again, this plan will likely fail. But the mere fact that there is an active effort to launch this initiative represents a whole new level of depravity. The worst part, this is all privatized, meaning that people are profiting off of the ongoing genocide.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/isis-cia-and-the-ghf-israels-new-frontier-of-control-through-hunger/
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/palestinian-isis-cia-ghf-eu-asean-gcc/d/135722
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