Tag: Israel

  • Knesset Pushes Through Law to Rein in Judiciary

    Knesset Pushes Through Law to Rein in Judiciary

    As tensions between Netanyahu’s government and Israel’s judiciary simmered, even before the ongoing war in Gaza, the scales now seem to tip decisively in the government’s favor. In a move that has provoked both outrage and concern, Israel’s parliament passed a law expanding the authority of elected officials to appoint judges—a step long pursued by Netanyahu despite years of vocal opposition to his proposed judicial reforms.

    Opposition parties argue that the law will further entrench political influence over the judiciary, undermining its independence. The law’s passage comes at a particularly fraught moment, as Netanyahu’s government remains locked in a contentious standoff with the Supreme Court, which has blocked his attempts to dismiss key figures, including Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and Ronen Bar, the head of the internal security agency.

    Law to “Restore Balance”

    Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who sponsored the bill, stated that the measure aims to restore balance between the legislative and judicial branches. Currently, judges in Israel, including Supreme Court justices, are selected by a nine-member committee consisting of judges and lawmakers, operating under the justice minister’s supervision.

    The new law, set to take effect at the start of the next legislative term, would increase political influence over judicial appointments. While the committee would still have nine members, its composition would change: three Supreme Court judges, the justice minister and another minister, one coalition lawmaker, one opposition lawmaker, and two public representatives—one appointed by the majority and the other by the opposition.

    Opposition parties, which have filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the vote, issued a joint statement condemning the legislation. They argued that the government is undermining the foundations of democracy and vowed to stand united against any attempt to turn Israel into a dictatorship.

    A Climax of a Long Fight

    In his closing remarks before the vote, Levin criticized the Supreme Court, accusing it of undermining the Knesset’s authority. He argued that the court had assumed the power to overturn both regular and fundamental laws, calling this an unprecedented move in any democracy. His comments underscored the ongoing conflict between the government and the judiciary. Netanyahu has made several attempts to curb the judiciary’s influence, and the current push for new laws is aimed at further solidifying his position.

    In 2023, Netanyahu’s proposed changes to the judiciary sparked one of the largest protest movements in Israel’s history. The passage of this new bill comes at a critical juncture. The Supreme Court has blocked Netanyahu’s attempts to dismiss Ronen Bar, head of the Shin Bet intelligence agency, who has been investigating Netanyahu’s associates for alleged national security violations, including leaking classified information to foreign media and accepting money from Qatar, which has provided significant financial aid to Hamas. Additionally, Netanyahu is seeking to remove Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who ruled that he could not dismiss Bar until her office had reviewed the justification for such a move.

    Netanyahu Wants More Power?

    Removing Ronen Bar, the head of the intelligence agency, may be viewed as a routine action by the government, particularly after his failure to prevent the Hamas terrorist attack. However, the move against the Attorney General has sparked growing concern. Critics argue that Netanyahu is positioning himself as a totalitarian leader, intent on silencing any opposition to his rule. In a historic decision on Sunday, Netanyahu’s cabinet passed a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, marking the latest in a series of efforts to oust officials deemed hostile to his government. As Netanyahu believes the Supreme Court is obstructing his actions, this may signal further moves against the judiciary.

    Following the announcement of the new bill, protests erupted once again in major cities. On  Wednesday, thousands took to the streets to oppose the bill before it was passed in parliament. Yet, these demonstrations have become almost routine, with Netanyahu seemingly undeterred by the growing opposition.

  • Is Gaza Finally Turning Against Hamas?

    Is Gaza Finally Turning Against Hamas?

    Should Gazans be seen as separate from Hamas? This question has loomed since Israel’s military response to the brutal October 7 attack, which Hamas launched on Israel, igniting the ongoing conflict. But what about the civilians caught in the crossfire?

    Reactions are divided. Some view Gaza’s suffering as the result of both Hamas and Israel’s relentless bombardment, while others argue that many in Gaza supported Hamas, celebrated the October 7 attack, and now face the consequences. Social media is rife with competing narratives—some vilifying all Gazans, others framing them only as victims.

    One thing is clear: Hamas has long used Gazans as pawns, embedding itself within civilian areas, manipulating global sympathies, and ensuring that ordinary people bear the brunt of the conflict. With Israel unlikely to relinquish control of Gaza anytime soon, a crucial question emerges—will Gazans finally reject Hamas?

    Some already are. In northern Gaza, hundreds have staged unprecedented protests, chanting anti-Hamas slogans and calling for an end to the war. This marks the largest public uprising against Hamas since October 7, potentially signaling the start of a deeper shift.

    People are fed up

    Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has continued for more than a year and a half, with no signs of mercy. For those already living in dire conditions or caught in the crossfire, life has become a nightmare—forced from their homes, stripped of their belongings, and trapped in constant danger. Many are fed up.

    Though some still endure their suffering as a test of faith, frustration is mounting. Protests against Hamas, the group at the center of their ordeal, have begun to emerge. Videos and photos circulating on social media late Tuesday showed hundreds of demonstrators in Beit Lahiya chanting against Hamas, calling for its removal and blaming it for their suffering. The protests, which erupted near the Indonesia Hospital in northern Gaza, came just days after Israel resumed its intense bombing campaign following nearly two months of truce. Some protesters carried banners demanding an end to the war and a chance to live in peace.

    Unlike previous demonstrations, these protests were not backed by any known organization. At least one call to join was spread through Telegram. Many protesters expressed their exhaustion with the ongoing war and the hardships they have endured. Some noted that Hamas security forces, dressed in civilian clothing, were seen breaking up the demonstration. Others questioned why Hamas refuses to relinquish power if doing so could prevent further suffering.

    Separate clips showed dozens of people in the Jabaliya refugee camps, in the western part of Gaza City, burning tires and demanding an end to the war. Some protesters expressed their desperation for food. Gaza residents suggested that the protests could spread to other parts of the war-ravaged territory, where people are exhausted and traumatized after a year and a half of conflict. Since Hamas launched its attacks on southern Israel on October 7, occasional small-scale protests have erupted in Gaza, with demonstrators calling for an end to the war, but none directly opposing Hamas.

    Who is behind the protests?

    Many of the slogans chanted on Tuesday echoed those of the Bidna N’eesh (“We Want to Live”) movement, which emerged during the 2019 economic protests in Gaza. Those demonstrations were violently suppressed by Hamas, which claimed they were orchestrated by its rival, Fatah.

    Fatah was once a dominant force in the region until Hamas rose to prominence, but its supporters remain active in Gaza. Additionally, other anti-Hamas Palestinian factions are there in the territory, and many believe they are behind the recent demonstrations. While some protests explicitly target Hamas, others simply call for an end to the war—possibly as a direct plea for peace and a cry for help from a suffering population.

    Meanwhile, Israel has repeatedly urged Gaza’s residents to rise against Hamas, which has ruled the territory since 2007. While there is no direct link between these protests and Israel’s calls, some demonstrators may be attempting to show they do not support terrorism. It is also evident that Israel and Western powers are seeking alternatives to Hamas’s rule, and they could potentially cultivate a new movement in Gaza to weaken Hamas’s grip.

    What happens next?

    Israel will continue its operations, driven by various factors, including the pursuit of retribution, domestic political pressures, Netanyahu’s desire to retain power, efforts to curb Iran’s regional influence, and broader geopolitical strategies. While Hamas’s offer to release more hostages could momentarily halt further bombardment, any peace achieved is expected to be fleeting.

    Meanwhile, Gaza is facing an increasingly dire humanitarian crisis, a situation set to worsen as international support dwindles. In light of this, severing ties with Hamas could be Gaza’s most pragmatic course of action. The rising number of anti-Hamas protests within Gaza could reshape international perceptions, challenging the narrative that Hamas still represents the people of Gaza and heightening pressure on Israel.

  • Israel Faces Deepening Political Crisis and Courtroom Fights

    Israel Faces Deepening Political Crisis and Courtroom Fights

    As the world remains divided over Israel and Palestine—evident in both online clashes and street demonstrations—Israel itself is split along internal political lines: pro-Netanyahu versus anti-Netanyahu. While these divisions predate the latest Gaza war and its fragile ceasefire, the resumption of hostilities has brought the country’s internal politics back into sharp focus.

    Israel fights on multiple fronts, yet its people continue to protest. The renewed military operation in Gaza has driven tens of thousands into the streets, accusing Netanyahu of prioritizing his government’s survival—now closely tied to the war—over the lives of hostages. As Netanyahu tightens his hold on power by removing top legal and security officials, experts warn that escalating legal battles and a deepening political crisis could soon follow.

    The Firing of Ronen Bar

    Last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed Ronen Bar, head of the Shin Bet internal security service, blaming the agency for failing to prevent Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks. While a newly released Shin Bet report on the attack indirectly criticized Netanyahu, stating that Israel’s long-standing strategy of maintaining “quiet” had allowed Hamas to significantly expand its military capabilities.

    Rather than accepting responsibility, Netanyahu shifted blame onto military and Shin Bet leaders, once again claiming that the “deep state” is working against him. Critics viewed Bar’s removal as an attempt to weaken Israel’s independent institutions and possibly retaliate against the agency for investigating Netanyahu’s office. Meanwhile, the Shin Bet is probing a possible foreign intelligence infiltration of Netanyahu’s office, while Netanyahu himself remains on trial for corruption—developments that could further destabilize his government.

    Bar stated that he had planned to resign after completing sensitive investigations, including one examining whether Qatar—a country with close ties to Hamas—had hired Netanyahu’s advisers to run an influence campaign in Israel. Netanyahu, with little evidence, has claimed the probe resulted from collusion between Bar and the attorney general to prevent him from ousting the security chief.

    At the same time, Netanyahu’s government has moved to remove Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, accusing her of obstructing its agenda. On Sunday, the government voted to begin the process, a move that could take weeks.

    Unfolding Legal Crisis

    In a country without a formal constitution and a single parliamentary chamber controlled by Netanyahu’s coalition, Israel’s Supreme Court has long acted as a crucial check on government power. In early 2023, Netanyahu’s government introduced a sweeping judicial overhaul that critics argued would erode Israel’s system of checks and balances by consolidating excessive power in his hands.

    Opponents also accused Netanyahu of pushing these changes while on trial for corruption, stressing that an independent judiciary is essential to preserving democracy. The Hamas attacks on October 7, which triggered the war in Gaza, temporarily halted the judicial overhaul but deepened divisions over accountability for Israel’s deadliest day.

    The Supreme Court has already intervened in Netanyahu’s dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, issuing an injunction that temporarily blocks the move pending further hearings. In the coming weeks, the court is expected to determine whether the dismissal was legally justified and whether a conflict of interest exists, given the ongoing investigation into Qatar’s alleged influence over Netanyahu’s office.

    If Netanyahu’s committee proceeds with removing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, the decision will almost certainly face a Supreme Court challenge. The court will once again be tasked with ruling on whether Netanyahu has a conflict of interest, considering that he seeks to oust the official overseeing his corruption prosecution.

    What remains uncertain is whether Netanyahu’s government will comply with an unfavorable ruling. The most volatile scenario would be outright defiance of the court’s decision, triggering a constitutional crisis over whether judicial or executive authority prevails, potentially plunging Israel into deep political turmoil.

    Political Crisis Ahead

    Breaking the ceasefire has helped Netanyahu’s government remain in power by facilitating the return of far-right politician Itamar Ben-Gvir to the coalition, bolstering Netanyahu’s position ahead of a crucial budget vote.

    However, political tensions have intensified since efforts to remove top officials began. Over the weekend, Aharon Barak, Israel’s foremost legal scholar, warned in a series of interviews that the country could be on the brink of civil war. He also joined nearly 20 former Supreme Court justices in signing a letter on Sunday, arguing that the attorney general’s dismissal threatens the rule of law.

    Opposition leader Yair Lapid has called for a tax revolt if the government ignores the court’s ruling, while the head of Israel’s largest labor union warned that defying a judicial decision would be a red line, raising the possibility of general strikes.

    The coming days will be pivotal for Netanyahu and his coalition. Defying the courts could trigger widespread civil disobedience—an outcome that may ultimately spell the downfall of his government.

  • The Truce Collapses: Hostage Crisis or Government in Crisis?

    The Truce Collapses: Hostage Crisis or Government in Crisis?

    Israel and the Arabs—entangled in a conflict waged in the name of God—now seem beyond the reach of diplomacy. Despite countless negotiations and high-profile interventions, a resolution remained elusive. Newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump made significant efforts to broker a ceasefire, and for a moment, it held. But doubts lingered: Would it last? Hostages and prisoners became bargaining chips in a grim exchange, where humiliation tainted every deal.

    Then, the inevitable happened. Israel shattered the truce, launching strikes across Gaza. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant made Israel’s stance clear: the offensive would persist until Hamas released all hostages and threats to southern Israel were eliminated. Yet, many see a deeper political calculation at play—an effort by Netanyahu to shore up his fragile coalition and stave off the prospect of immediate elections.

    The ceasefire is over. After a fleeting pause, the military action resumed.

    What’s happening in Gaza?

    Israel has launched one of its most intense assaults on Gaza in a single day, with an offensive that was both unexpected and devastating. The military has ordered evacuations in Beit Hanoun and several eastern communities, signaling the potential for imminent ground operations.

    The escalation follows a wave of Israeli airstrikes that killed more than 400 people, abruptly ending a fragile ceasefire that had held since mid-January. Palestinian health officials reported 404 deaths and over 600 injuries, while Israeli military sources claimed the strikes targeted Hamas commanders and political figures. Throughout the day and into the evening, airstrikes and artillery fire continued, leaving widespread destruction.

    Aid groups described a desperate situation, as hundreds—possibly thousands—fled in response to evacuation orders. Strikes were reported across northern Gaza and in the central cities of Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis. In Rafah, an airstrike wiped out 17 members of a single family, including five children and their parents. Another strike in Abasan al-Kabira, east of Khan Younis, killed 13 people.

    Israel needs all hostages back

    Israel justified breaking the ceasefire by citing Hamas’s delays in releasing hostages and its use of negotiations to prolong the crisis. During a visit to an airbase, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz stated that Hamas must recognize the rules of engagement had changed. He warned that if the remaining hostages were not freed, Israel would respond with overwhelming military force across air, sea, and land.

    Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, a military spokesperson, explained that Israel launched strikes after uncovering Hamas’s plans to conduct new raids aimed at capturing or killing Israeli civilians and soldiers. He also pointed to Hamas’s refusal to release more of the 59 hostages still held in Gaza, describing it as a violation of the ceasefire agreement established in January. According to Shoshani, Hamas had the option to release all the hostages but instead chose to continue its campaign of terror and warfare.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stated that Hamas had rejected proposals from Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, for an extension of the pause in hostilities. The statement emphasized that Israel would now escalate its military operations against Hamas with increasing force.

    The Politics behind Israel’s move

    While Israel frames the hostage crisis as justification for breaking the ceasefire, critics argue that Netanyahu is using the war to secure his political survival rather than prioritizing national security. He faces mounting pressure from far-right factions within his coalition, particularly Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who opposed the ceasefire from the beginning and repeatedly threatened to resign if military operations did not resume. Netanyahu must also navigate a crucial vote this month, as failure to pass the overdue 2025 budget by March 31 would automatically dissolve the government, forcing early elections.

    Netanyahu’s refusal to authorize a state commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7 has only heightened public anger. He decided to dismiss the head of the Shin Bet internal security service, who conducted the inquiry, sparking protests and accusations of authoritarianism. If elections take place, they may not secure his political future. Meanwhile, the renewed military action immediately benefited him. Within hours of the strikes, far-right leader Itamar Ben-Gvir, who resigned from the cabinet in January over the ceasefire, rejoined the government.

    Netanyahu has repeatedly dismissed accusations of political maneuvering, maintaining that military pressure is the only viable strategy to secure the hostages’ release. He insists that the complete destruction of Hamas is essential for Israel’s long-term security. His office squarely placed responsibility for the ceasefire’s breakdown on Hamas, citing its continued refusal to release hostages and its rejection of proposals from U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, leaving Israel with no alternative but to resume strikes.

    What happens next?

    Whether the objective is genuinely to secure hostages and protect national security or merely to sustain his government, one thing is undeniable—this conflict has no easy resolution. Israel seeks to assert control over Gaza, while Hamas leverages the situation to portray itself as a victim and galvanize global Muslim solidarity. As the war drags on, Netanyahu is poised to deepen his support among the right wing, using the conflict as a means to solidify his hold on power. For now, no resolution is in sight.

  • With Netanyahu’s Backing, Is Trump’s Plan Closer to Reality?

    With Netanyahu’s Backing, Is Trump’s Plan Closer to Reality?

    What began as an offhand suggestion from Jared Kushner—turning Gaza into a luxury enclave—has steadily evolved into a serious proposal, now fully endorsed by Donald Trump as a solution to what he calls Israel’s “Gaza problem.” Trump’s plan to place Gaza under U.S. control and transform its coastline into a high-end development has gained traction among Israeli leaders and the political establishment, who view Gaza as a persistent security threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly supported a post-war arrangement that aligns with Trump’s plan. He has been unequivocal: once the war ends, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will govern the enclave. Instead, he has embraced Trump’s vision of fundamentally reshaping Gaza, presenting it as the most viable solution to the region’s ongoing tensions.

    Many Arab states and European nations, including key U.S. allies, had expected Gaza to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, the internationally recognized governing body of the West Bank. Hamas, the terrorist organization that controlled Gaza, also signaled its willingness to cede power to its West Bank-based rival. However, these plans remain in limbo as Trump’s unexpected proposal for the U.S. to take control of Gaza and relocate its 2.3 million residents to countries such as Egypt and Jordan gains momentum in Israel.

    The second phase of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas is set to begin in early March and is expected to include the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, effectively ending the war. This would be followed by a third phase, which aims to address the exchange of bodies, a reconstruction plan for Gaza, and discussions on its future governance. However, significant uncertainty remains about whether the plan will proceed as intended.

    Israeli media reports that Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s far-right Religious Zionism party, which opposed the ceasefire, continues to threaten Netanyahu’s coalition, insisting that Israel must resume military operations once the initial truce expires. At the same time, Trump’s proposal for U.S. control over Gaza has gained traction within Netanyahu’s government, not only as a strategic alternative but also as a lifeline for Netanyahu’s political survival. Aware that the plan could help secure his political standing, Netanyahu has consistently supported Trump’s vision of turning Gaza’s coastline into a luxury enclave. During a Sunday visit by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he reiterated that his government is actively coordinating with Washington to advance the initiative. The next day, Defense Minister Israel Katz announced the creation of a new agency to oversee the mass relocation of Palestinians from Gaza, signaling Israel’s firm commitment to the plan.

    Yet, Trump’s plan for Gaza faces outright rejection from both Gazans and the broader Arab world, which is now scrambling to devise alternatives. Gaza carries immense symbolic weight in global Muslim solidarity, and any move to strip it from Palestinian governance would trigger significant backlash across the Muslim world and Europe. Still, Arab states remain unwilling to assume control, as ruling over a deeply hostile population under another nation’s authority is not only impractical but also politically untenable—particularly given the entrenched hostility toward Israel.

    This leaves the United States as the only feasible option. Trump, a seasoned negotiator, has the ability to refine and elaborate on his plan, outlining where Gazans would be resettled, what benefits the host countries would receive, and how Gaza itself would be governed under this new arrangement. As a result, his proposal, once dismissed as improbable, is now emerging as one of the more realistic options for Gaza’s future.

  • Is Everything Set for Trump’s Real Estate Project in Gaza?

    Is Everything Set for Trump’s Real Estate Project in Gaza?

    Donald Trump, the real estate mogul-turned-president, is pushing forward with a controversial plan backed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and championed by Israeli conservatives. First floated by his son-in-law Jared Kushner during Trump’s initial administration, the proposal calls for relocating Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring Arab countries and transforming the enclave into a luxury coastal destination.

    With its Mediterranean shoreline and strategic location, Gaza is being positioned for U.S. control, with American investment poised to turn the war-ravaged territory into a lucrative real estate asset. Israel’s sweeping military response to Hamas’s October 7 attack has left Gaza in ruins, paving the way for this vision. For Netanyahu’s government, U.S. control offers a crucial security buffer, preventing displaced Palestinians from returning and potentially reviving Hamas or other Islamist militant groups.

    Trump’s proposal has ignited a global backlash, drawing outrage from Gazans, the broader Islamic world, and European leaders alike. While some have floated the idea of resettlement with U.S. financial backing as a means to ease Gaza’s crushing humanitarian crisis, resistance remains formidable. For much of the Muslim world, Gaza is more than just territory—it is a symbol of Islamic solidarity, and its depopulation is viewed as an assault on both religious and political identity. In Europe, officials warn that Trump’s plan—particularly the forced relocation of Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan—could deal a final, irreparable blow to the already fragile prospects of a two-state solution.

    The idea of “cleaning out” Palestinians to turn a profit in real estate has long united Israel’s settler movement and certain figures in Donald Trump’s orbit of U.S. developers. For decades, state-backed settlers have laid claim to Palestinian land, using concrete and steel not just to build towns but to cement political realities, ensuring that Palestinians are permanently displaced.

    This approach resonated with key figures in Trump’s first administration—not only because it was stacked with apocalyptic evangelicals who see Jewish control of the Holy Land as a biblical prerequisite for the Second Coming, but also because it aligned with the real estate instincts of Trump’s inner circle. No one embodied this more than Jared Kushner, the driving force behind a 2020 Middle East “Peace” plan that never materialized but was strikingly focused on investment rather than sovereignty.

    Trump has now taken the idea to its most extreme conclusion, pushing for the U.S. to seize control of Gaza and forcibly remove its two million residents. His plan envisions development on land flattened by Israeli airstrikes. He has made clear that the U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and reshape it entirely, asserting full ownership. Last month, he dismissed concerns about Gaza’s population, describing the situation as a matter of clearing out more than a million and a half people.

    Israel has long proposed various economic plans for Gaza, all while maintaining a strict siege and insisting on ultimate control over the region. One such proposal, to build an artificial island off Gaza’s coast to host a seaport and airport, was revived last year by Israel’s former foreign minister in an effort to address the frustration of EU diplomats seeking a political resolution. Trump’s plan echoes this proposal, with the president envisioning Gaza as a new “Riviera of the Middle East.” Steven Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, has backed the idea of relocating Palestinians, asserting that a better life doesn’t have to be tied to the physical space in which one resides.

    Meanwhile, Israeli settler groups that were evacuated from Gaza under the 2005 disengagement plan are eager to return. In December, the real estate agency Harey Zahav, which caters to settlers, released an image of new buildings rising amid the rubble of Gaza, accompanied by the message that owning a house on the beach is a tangible dream. It remains unclear how these settler ambitions, or those of the Israeli government, will align with Trump’s takeover plan, though there is a history of collaboration between the two.

    The Trump administration’s plan for Gaza appears to be nearing fruition. With the territory now under Israeli control, a formal handover to the U.S. seems increasingly likely, offering Israel a way to rid itself of the blame tied to this contentious piece of land. However, such a move would effectively mark the end of Palestine, a prospect long advocated against by much of the international community. The West Bank, now nearly fully under Israeli control, shows no signs of returning to Palestinian hands. Losing Gaza to U.S. control, with an eventual handover to Israel, would be the final blow to the Palestinian cause. And it is none other than the calculating real estate magnate, Donald Trump, who has set this entire project in motion, orchestrating the threats, talks, and calls that have propelled it forward.

  • Trump, Gaza, and the Politics of Departure: A Policy or a Punchline?

    Trump, Gaza, and the Politics of Departure: A Policy or a Punchline?

    Donald Trump has again urged Palestinians to leave Gaza for Egypt or Jordan. To outsiders, this might seem like a practical solution—why endure relentless Israeli bombardment, militant rule, and a collapsing infrastructure when they could escape? But Gazans and many Muslims see Gaza as more than just land; it embodies global solidarity and a generational struggle against Israel. They view their suffering as a sacrifice that deepens their commitment to the cause. They refuse to leave, whether by personal conviction or pressure from their supporters. Meanwhile, Israel, seeking territorial expansion, particularly in the West Bank, finds a willing ally in the United States, whose leaders take pride in making “great deals.” Some believe a relocation plan could work. With strong Muslim allies in the region, Trump, in theory, could try to broker such an agreement.

    Trump’s comment on Gaza has dominated headlines amid growing uncertainty over the territory’s future. While involved parties insist that any resolution will be tied to a ceasefire agreement, one outcome is certain—Israel will never allow Hamas or any other Islamist group to govern Gaza, even if elected. European and Arab states are pressing for the Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank, to take over. Meanwhile, another plan, long favored by Israel’s right wing, is quietly resurfacing: annexing Gaza and relocating its population to neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan. Trump’s remarks have added momentum to this idea, and Netanyahu, backed by Israel’s right, might see it as a viable option. Yet for many Gazans, deeply connected to their land, religion, and Palestinian identity, forced relocation remains unthinkable. 

    Aboard Air Force One on Monday night, the U.S. president faced questions about his weekend remarks on “cleaning out” the Gaza Strip, whether temporarily or long-term. Trump reinforced his stance, saying he wanted Palestinians from Gaza to live in an area where they would not face constant disruption, revolution, and violence. He described Gaza as a place that had been in turmoil for many years, emphasizing that various civilizations had occupied the strip over thousands of years, always marked by violence. He suggested that people could be relocated to areas that were safer, possibly better, and more comfortable.

    Trump said he would visit Netanyahu and had spoken with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah on Sunday, insisting that both leaders would support the plan. On Monday, Abdullah also spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, though the State Department’s statement on the call did not mention the issue. Trump expressed confidence that Sisi would accept some Palestinians, emphasizing that the U.S. had provided substantial aid to Egypt and that he considered Sisi a friend. He acknowledged Egypt’s challenging geopolitical position but insisted that both Sisi and King Abdullah would cooperate.

    However, both Amman and Cairo have firmly rejected the idea, making it clear that Trump’s proposal is not an option. Yet, if Trump were to apply pressure through tariffs and tougher measures, and if he acted adamantly, Egypt and Jordan—perhaps even Saudi Arabia—might eventually follow his lead.

    Gaza’s dire conditions further bolster the case for relocation. Fifteen months of war have devastated 70% of its infrastructure, pushing 2.3 million residents into a deep humanitarian crisis. Before a ceasefire took effect earlier this month, more than 47,000 people had been killed, and nearly 90% of the population had been displaced—many multiple times—according to Palestinian support sources. Rebuilding remains an immense challenge, especially as aid organizations like UNRWA face scrutiny from Israel.Even before the war, Gaza relied heavily on aid, and the worsening conditions have led many to consider leaving. This option could become more feasible if the United States and Arab countries provide support.

    Mediators have begun preliminary work on the second phase of ceasefire negotiations, expected to take effect in early March. Under this phase, Israel is supposed to fully withdraw from Gaza, while Hamas is expected to disarm. However, the Israeli government will likely align with Trump’s plan and engage with neighboring Arab countries, potentially paving the way for a broader deal shaped by continued U.S. involvement.

  • Who Will Govern Gaza?

    Who Will Govern Gaza?

    Fifteen months after Hamas’s deadly assault on Israel and the subsequent military retaliation, a fragile ceasefire has paused the violence, leaving Gaza battered and broken. This narrow strip of land along the Mediterranean, once envisioned as a cornerstone of a Palestinian state, has again drawn global focus, fueling both solidarity across the Muslim world and a rise in antisemitic episodes. Since seizing control from the Palestinian Authority in 2007, Hamas has claimed to govern on behalf of Gaza’s population, despite the absence of electoral legitimacy. Its prolonged confrontation with Israel, however, has left its leadership fractured, its regional alliances shaken, and its infrastructure gutted. A rapid return to strength appears improbable, creating a perilous vacuum that has plunged Gaza’s residents into profound uncertainty. Yet history and geopolitics are unforgiving to ungoverned spaces. The question remains: Who will step in to lead Gaza, and by what mandate? 

    With Iran under severe strain and Russian influence in the Middle East waning, the key players left in the region’s shifting dynamics appear to be Israel, the United States, and the Gulf states. The U.S. alignment with Israel is unmistakable, exemplified by President Trump’s policies favoring Israel, such as recognizing Jerusalem as its capital. A similar approach is anticipated concerning Gaza, raising fears of undermining any prospects for Palestinian statehood—a significant concern for Muslim-majority nations. The absence of effective governance in Gaza exacerbates the crisis, further punishing the population and risking the resurgence of Islamic extremism. To avoid a dangerous political vacuum, Arab states are pressing Israel and the U.S. to enable the UN relief agency UNRWA to take the lead in stabilizing and rebuilding the territory.

    Discussions on Gaza’s future governance will begin 16 days after the ceasefire takes effect, as part of the second stage of negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has avoided addressing the issue since the war began, viewing any “day after” talks as a potential trigger for destabilizing political divisions within his already fragile coalition, which was strained by the ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, the Israeli government plans to terminate all cooperation with UNRWA by January 30, accusing the agency of aiding terrorists. This move raises significant doubts about how the anticipated post-ceasefire surge in aid will be distributed in Gaza.

    Concerns are rising that Israel will move forward with its plan to sever all cooperation with UNRWA, a decision backed by the Trump administration, especially as aid to Gaza is set to increase. In the U.S., allegations against UNRWA include claims that it has been infiltrated by Hamas sympathizers and has assumed an ideological role in advocating for Palestinian refugees. The Knesset has passed legislation aimed at ending UNRWA’s operations in Palestinian territories, following Israeli allegations that UNRWA staff in Gaza were involved in the October 7 Hamas attacks. The UN subsequently launched an investigation, resulting in the firing of nine UNRWA employees. Now, it seems unlikely that Trump, who also hates UNRWA will persuade Netanyahu to backtrack on this decision.

    Arab states, supported by most European powers, argue that no organization other than UNRWA has the scope and capacity to oversee the urgent distribution of food and supplies in Gaza. They also do not believe the Palestinian Authority (PA), which currently governs the West Bank. The PA is often accused of high levels of corruption and lacking effective administrative bodies. Arab diplomats maintain that while Hamas may be willing to step aside if the PA is granted authority over Gaza, it would reassert itself if it perceives the move as resembling colonial rule. Furthermore, they acknowledge that the PA remains deeply unpopular in the West Bank.

    The likelihood of a governance body being formed under the direction of the U.S. and Israel now seems the most probable outcome for Gaza. Israel, unwilling to relinquish valuable territory or risk another assault, is hesitant to jeopardize what it perceives as strategically vital. Netanyahu, evidently unwilling to risk his own political future, will not hand over Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. A systematic occupation, reinforced by the steady expansion of Jewish settlements under heavy security, would transform Gaza into a reflection of the West Bank, gradually erasing any vestige of a Palestinian state.

  • At Last, a Ceasefire—Will it Last?

    At Last, a Ceasefire—Will it Last?

    After much uncertainty, Israel and Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire, offering hope to the people of Gaza, the relatives of hostages taken by Hamas, advocates of peace and humanity, and the incoming U.S. President, Donald Trump. Weeks of rumors about efforts to broker a truce, primarily driven by Trump’s team, culminated in Qatar’s prime minister announcing on Thursday that the parties had reached an agreement. However, Israel’s delayed announcement caused confusion, raising fears of a breakdown reminiscent of past failures. Finally, Israel ratified the ceasefire deal to exchange dozens of hostages held by Hamas for Palestinians imprisoned in Israel and to pause the 15-month war in Gaza for an initial six weeks. Approved in a cabinet meeting early Saturday morning, the agreement specifies that the ceasefire will take effect on Sunday. Despite this progress, doubts persist about the durability of the ceasefire.

    Israel’s military actions in Gaza, following Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack, have claimed nearly 50,000 lives. This figure remains uncertain due to the absence of unbiased sources, but the devastating impact is clear. Hamas launched a brutal assault, and Israel responded with fierce retaliation that left Gaza in ruins. Now, the conflict appears to be nearing a pause. Israel’s security cabinet approved a ceasefire agreement despite an unexpected delay on Friday. Far-right members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government threatened to oppose the agreement or resign, risking months of efforts to halt the violence. After a six-hour cabinet meeting extending well past the start of the Jewish sabbath, the government announced the agreement’s approval just after 1 a.m. Jerusalem time on Saturday, underscoring the critical importance of this moment.

    In a separate meeting in Cairo, negotiators from Egypt, Qatar, the U.S., and Israel finalized all necessary arrangements to implement the Gaza truce deal, as reported by Egyptian state-linked media. However, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu’s hardline national security minister, who had earlier threatened to quit the government if it ratified the ceasefire deal—potentially collapsing the ruling coalition—issued a last-minute plea for other parliamentarians to vote against it. He claimed that the terrorists would inevitably try to harm and kill again. According to Israeli media, Ben-Gvir and far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich opposed the deal, while other ministers voted in favor. David Amsalem, a minister not part of the security cabinet’s voting plenary, also expressed opposition during the vote.

    Under the first phase of the agreement, which will last 42 days, Hamas will release 33 hostages, including children, women , and men over the age of 50, who were captured during their October 7th raid that killed around 1,200 Israelis. In exchange, Israel will release hundreds of Palestinians linked to Hamas currently held in Israeli jails. About 100 of the Palestinians scheduled for release are serving life sentences for violent attacks on Israelis, including a minor detained for a 2023 shooting attack in Jerusalem that injured an Israeli soldier. The agreement also includes an exchange of bodies of deceased hostages and Hamas members and outlines the launch of a reconstruction plan for Gaza.

    The future governance of Gaza remains an unsettled and fraught question. The Biden administration, along with much of the international community, has championed the idea of reinstating the Palestinian Authority—based in the semi-autonomous West Bank, and ousted from Gaza by Hamas during a brief civil war in 2007—as the governing entity for the strip. This proposal, however, faces staunch opposition from Israel, which has consistently dismissed the suggestion. The result is a murky outlook for Gaza’s political trajectory, emblematic of the broader challenges in untangling the region’s layered crises.

    As both parties frequently reach and break ceasefire agreements, the longevity of the current truce remains uncertain. It is evident that peaceful coexistence is unlikely, as Hamas, rooted in an ideology that considers the destruction of the Jewish state an Islamic duty, fuels hostility among the population in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli politics revolve around security concerns, making future ceasefire violations almost inevitable.

    Much of the situation depends on Netanyahu’s leadership. While the ceasefire may enhance his standing internationally and among the families of released hostages, it has left others deeply dissatisfied. This tension threatens to destabilize Netanyahu’s administration and pave the way for an even more hardline government, aligned with global trends toward the far right, which could adopt harsher measures in Gaza.

    Currently, neither Hamas nor its primary backer, Iran, can effectively escalate their campaigns against Israel. Both have been severely weakened by the ongoing conflict, and their former levels of international support, aside from some backing from staunch Islamist factions and liberal voices, have waned. As a result, any attacks for Palestine risk further marginalization in the global arena.

    The most significant hope for a lasting ceasefire may rest with Donald Trump, who has interests in the region and has previously succeeded in fostering alliances between Israel and several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. His efforts to strengthen ties with Gulf nations and apply greater pressure on Iran could potentially reshape the region’s dynamics, enhancing Israel’s security and providing relatively safer borders. Israel already maintains strong relationships with its neighboring countries—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. While Syria under Bashar al-Assad once posed challenges, the current Turkey-aligned government in charge appears less hostile toward Israel. Meanwhile, Lebanon now features a pro-Western president who aims to curtail Hezbollah’s influence. As a result, Israel’s primary security concern has been largely reduced to Gaza.

    Though its endurance remains uncertain, the agreement has briefly interrupted the persistent violence, providing a fleeting but hopeful prospect for lasting peace in a region long plagued by conflict. For now, Israel, Qatar, and the United States deserve credit for facilitating an accord that prevents further bloodshed in Gaza—though, as with all previous truces, its durability remains a matter of considerable doubt

  • With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    Lebanon, grappling with political, economic, and social unrest, seems to be shifting away from Iran’s influence by electing a new president who is supported by the West and advocates for a stronger Lebanon. The country’s parliament has chosen Army Commander Joseph Aoun as the new president, ending a two-year vacancy and raising hopes for the long-term stability of a ceasefire with Israel. Aoun received 99 out of 128 votes in the parliament’s 13th attempt to select a new head of state, succeeding former President Michel Aoun—who is unrelated to Joseph Aoun—after his departure in October 2022.

    Lebanon’s political system often undermines democratic principles, with a convoluted structure built around a confessionalist framework that allocates key political positions to religious communities through quotas. The system requires the president to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister to come from the Sunni branch of Islam, and the speaker of Parliament to be from the Shia branch of Islam—reflecting a fragile power-sharing arrangement. Political appointments, from the presidency to parliamentary seats, strictly follow sectarian divisions. The parliament elects the president for a single six-year term, and the president works with lawmakers to appoint the prime minister, adhering to the same quota system. Sectarian interests dominate political parties, complicating governance and eroding democratic values. This flawed structure has led to Lebanon’s mismanagement, resulting in one of the most severe economic and sociological crises in modern history. According to the United Nations, over 80%—or four out of five—of Lebanon’s population now lives in poverty.

    While the presidency in Lebanon holds limited authority, the election of Joseph Aoun hints at a significant shift in the country’s political trajectory. Aoun, who has built strong ties with international powers like Saudi Arabia, France, and the United States during his time as the head of Lebanon’s armed forces, reflects a broader trend of Lebanon leaning westward and distancing itself from Iran’s influence.

    Iran’s sway has been steadily diminishing, a process notably accelerated by the 2022 parliamentary elections. In those elections, the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement and its allies lost their majority in parliament, signaling a notable decline in Tehran’s grip on the country. At the same time, Hezbollah’s Christian ally, the Free Patriotic Movement of outgoing President Michel Aoun, was overtaken as the dominant Christian faction by the Lebanese Forces, a party led by Samir Geagea, who shares close ties with Saudi Arabia.

    The evolution in Lebanon’s politics mirrors the broader regional shifts, particularly Turkey’s efforts to limit Iran’s influence in Syria. Now, with Saudi Arabia—another U.S. ally—on the scene, it seems likely that the Kingdom will play a central role in weakening Iran’s hold over Lebanon, marking a strategic recalibration in the delicate balance of power.

    International leaders, particularly from the West, expressed optimism over the election of Lebanon’s new president, Joseph Aoun. A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the election as an important step toward resolving Lebanon’s long-standing political and institutional impasse, which had persisted for over two years due to the presidential vacancy. U.S. President Joe Biden praised Aoun as a suitable leader for the current challenges facing Lebanon.

    Aoun’s primary focus will be on strengthening the Lebanese army, especially in southern Lebanon, where its authority has been challenged since the late 1970s by groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hezbollah. His efforts are expected to be bolstered by assistance from Saudi Arabia, the United States, and France, and Israel is likely to view these developments positively as they improve security along its northern border. After his election, Aoun addressed parliament, emphasizing the state’s right to control the possession of weapons and highlighting the importance of the army in safeguarding Lebanon’s borders.

    The 2004 UN resolution required all armed groups in Lebanon to disarm, but Hezbollah has refused to comply, insisting it is the only force capable of defending Lebanon from Israel. However, he has an opportunity to act as Hezbollah grapples with mounting difficulties, including Iran’s waning regional influence and reduced support from Syria. During Lebanon’s prolonged leadership vacuum, Hezbollah exploited the instability to tighten its grip on southern Lebanon and engage in skirmishes with Israel. By reinforcing the army, Aoun can directly counter Hezbollah’s dominance in the region.

    Hope is on the rise in Lebanon with the election of a new, Western-backed president and the diminishing influence of both Hezbollah and Iran. Now, the country stands at a pivotal moment to rebuild and strengthen its institutions. However, this task will not be simple, as Lebanon’s deep-rooted divisions remain a significant obstacle. Yet, with strong leadership, support from global powers, and a weakened opposition, the Lebanese president is presented with a better opportunity. Though President Aoun faces limitations due to Lebanon’s unique constitution, his six-year term gives him a critical platform to shape the nation’s future. He will also play a vital role in the 2026 parliamentary elections—or potentially in a snap election—that could break the long-standing political deadlock. This moment marks a potential shift toward the West, signaling that Lebanon is indeed charting a new course in its international orientation.