How did we get here? Why was Israel forced to hand over the keys to Gaza’s administration to the U.S. government — and more precisely, to Donald Trump? Since Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, a consensus took hold: Israel would not return to rule Gaza under any circumstances. Until October 7, Hamas filled that vacuum. Israel paid a devastating price for that consensus — a horrific massacre and a trauma that will haunt Israeli society for years.

There is no dispute that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for the failure, but his policy of bolstering Hamas was backed by the entire security establishment. Even now, the IDF refuses to govern Gaza, and most parties in the Knesset oppose doing so as well. Aside from the extreme messianic fringe, no Israeli political force is calling on the government to occupy Gaza, establish an alternative civil administration, and find an alternative entity to take control from the army. Into this political and administrative vacuum stepped Donald Trump and his close associates — Kushner, Witkoff, and Boehler.

From the outset, it was clear that Trump and his allies — all Jewish businessmen accustomed to the dirtiest corners of the commercial world — would stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Trump openly admires strongmen and bullies. He began his first term by groveling before Putin, then embraced Erdoğan; he praises Xi, and lauds Mohammed bin Salman and the Qatari emir. It was only natural that he would seek a “responsible adult” in Gaza with whom he could do business. That task fell to Adam Boehler, who opened a secret channel with Hamas.

The mass protests in Hostage Square in Tel Aviv left little doubt: Israel would pay any price to free the hostages . “All for all” became the rallying cry — a slogan that implicitly guaranteed Hamas’s continued rule. The problem was that this slogan contradicted the war’s primary objective: dismantling Hamas as Gaza’s governing power. Trump immediately understood that the contradiction was unsolvable — and therefore, direct talks with Hamas were inevitable. Boehler met Khalil al‑Hayya in March 2025 and secured the release of Idan Alexander. The meeting and the legitimacy it conferred on Hamas shocked Israel, and Boehler was briefly sidelined. But Trump and his circle were not deterred — they doubled down.

Although Europe refuses to crown Donald Trump as the world’s monarch, Netanyahu has no choice — he has fallen into the jaws of the bully. The prime minister who launched a war in the name of Western values and civilization against barbarism now finds himself aligned with the very barbarians, autocrats, and contemptuous enemies of the West.

Days before the Gaza ceasefire took effect, Witkoff and Kushner met al‑Hayya in Sharm el‑Sheikh and finalized the implementation of Trump’s 20‑point plan. By then, no one in Israel protested; direct engagement between the Trump administration and Hamas had become normalized. Hamas was now a recognized address, and the goal of eliminating it faded — even as the White House insisted that “Hamas will be disarmed.” Ironically, the Sharm el – Sheikh meeting occurred shortly after Israel’s failed attempt to assassinate al‑Hayya in Doha. In a “60 Minutes” interview, Witkoff recounted consoling al‑Hayya over his son’s death in the Israeli strike of Hamas headquarters in Doha and expressing empathy as a father who lost his own son to an opioid overdose. According to Witkoff, this heartfelt exchange paved the way for the breakthrough.

But the breakthrough that led to the hostage release did not stem from warm relations between two savvy dealmakers — it emerged from shared interests. Witkoff has no love for Hamas, but he is deeply invested in his business ties with the Qatari emir. Qatar and Turkey are Hamas’s patrons; yet Trump has never hidden his fondness for both. Netanyahu knew from the outset that once he surrendered himself to Trump, he would have to swallow every toad that came with this “beautiful friendship.”

The fantastical hostage deal — in which all living and dead hostages (except one) were returned to Israel — was part of a broader process that handed the U.S. administration full control over Gaza’s future. From that moment, Washington ran the show according to its own interests. With the ceasefire announcement, a U.S.-led civil‑military coordination center was established in the southern small city of Kiryat Gat. Trump declared the creation of a “Peace Council,” which he envisions as a replacement for the hostile UN, and appointed it to oversee Gaza’s administration — with Qatar and Turkey as members — under whose supervision a Palestinian technocratic government is meant to be formed.

Thus, the hostage deal transformed Hamas into a legitimate partner in determining Gaza’s fate. The presence of Turkey and Qatar on the governing council is designed to cement a new reality: Hamas will be part of any future solution. Hamas may eventually be forced to relinquish its weapons, but its political presence is guaranteed — by Washington and by its Turkish and Qatari patrons. The technocratic government is no deus ex machina; its members are all tied in one way or another to the Palestinian Authority, effectively serving as its civilian arm, even if funding is expected to come from donor states and international bodies.

Netanyahu promised that Turkey and Qatar — Hamas’s midwives, financiers, and global peddlers of antisemitic propaganda — would not participate in Gaza’s administration. Trump remains unimpressed. Netanyahu owes Trump for every favor: promoting him as Trump’s preferred candidate for Israel’s premiership, hailing him as the hero who saved Israel from annihilation, and working tirelessly to secure him a presidential pardon from Herzog. Netanyahu cannot say no. Unlike Biden, whom Netanyahu could publicly berate, Trump is a bully best avoided.

Yesterday, Netanyahu agreed to join Trump’s Peace Council. Europe refuses to crown Trump as global sovereign, but Netanyahu has no choice — he is trapped in the bully’s grip. The man who claimed to defend Western civilization now stands shoulder‑to‑shoulder with its enemies: from Trump to Putin, through Mohammed bin Salman and Erdoğan. As an indicted felon who will do anything to evade justice while dismantling democracy, Netanyahu fits naturally into this dubious club — and therefore must accept Washington’s dictates.

The problem is that Trump’s Peace Council is little more than a PR stunt. The supervisory council for Gaza remains more aspiration than reality, and the Palestinian technocratic government sits in Cairo waiting for Israel to open the Rafah crossing. Gaza will likely continue to live amid ruins; its residents will remain in tents without basic services; Hamas will maneuver to secure its place in whatever entity emerges; the UAE and Saudi Arabia will keep fighting over control of the Palestinian Authority; and Israel will remain stuck in Gaza for the foreseeable future.

As for Hamas — its fate will likely be determined in Tehran. If the Iranian regime is forced to accept the American dictate and Israel’s demand to abandon its nuclear program, Hamas will also be compelled to give up its “resistance” doctrine — and peace might descend upon our region.

The post The High Price of the Hostage Deal first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

In Israeli politics, Mansour Abbas’s name is on everyone’s lips. Abbas, the head of the United Arab List (Ra’am), also known as the “Islamic movement” with his almost sure 5 seats, poses a threat to Benjamin Netanyahu. He has the power to change the electoral balance and break the stalemate between the blocs. But he is no small headache for the opposition too. How can the opposition parties partner with an Arab party—especially the Islamic Movement—after the October 7 massacre? For his part, Abbas is doing everything he can to ease the opposition’s concerns and enable it to renew the partnership that led to the unfortunate short-lived (Naftaly) Bennett–(Yair) Lapid government (June 2021 – June 2022).

With forecasts about early elections taking place,  Abbas has been giving interviews to the Israeli media, announcing that his party, Ra’am, is severing ties with the Shura Council—the party’s spiritual authority—thereby transforming it from a religious party into a fully civic one.

To save what remains of Israeli democracy, defeating Netanyahu’s government in the next elections is an urgent historical necessity. Every democratic institution, without exception, is under attack by an extreme right wing, seeking to turn Israel into an illiberal democracy with strong theocratic tendencies. The Supreme Court has been cast as an enemy of the people; the opposition is portrayed as representing the old elites; and the media is accused of spreading lies and slander. There is little doubt that a right-wing victory would give Netanyahu a free hand to destroy what little remains of democracy—and absolve him entirely of responsibility for the disaster of October 7.

Replacing Netanyahu is a top-tier priority for Mansour Abbas too. He sees Netanyahu as responsible for the catastrophe afflicting Israel’s Arab population, as the spread of organized crime, protection, violence, and murder has turned Arab citizens’ lives into a living hell. Yet it turns out that reluctance to rely on the Arab vote is not limited to opposition parties; within the Arab parties themselves, there are those unwilling, under any circumstances, to join Zionist parties to form an alternative government.

In mid-December, at a conference organized by the Arab Center for Alternative Planning on re-establishing the Joint List, the heads of its components were present: Ahmad Tibi of Ta’al, Ayman Odeh of Hadash, Sami Abu Shehadeh of Tajamu, and Mansour Abbas of Ra’am. The Joint Arab List was formed in January 2015, as a way to by-pass the raising of the electoral threshold a year before.  Among the speakers of the conference, Abbas stood out—both for his candor and for the courage with which he stated the facts plainly, while in the process, slaughtering a few sacred cows.

The question facing Arab political leaders is simple: How do you bring about the replacement of Netanyahu’s government? The immediate answer is to rebuild the Joint List, win 15 seats, and thereby block Netanyahu from forming a government. But Mansour Abbas thinks differently:

“Yes, raising turnout is important, but the central question is: What kind of representation do we want in the Knesset? If we reach 20 seats but none of our Members of Knesset can influence a government—or bring it down and form another—what have we achieved? We will end up strengthening the growing trend in Arab society of (non-)participation in politics and push people toward boycotts and direct confrontation with the state.”

In other words, what Abbas is saying—correctly—is that blocking Netanyahu is not enough; one must work to form a better alternative government. Otherwise, we will again find ourselves in a situation where the Joint List wins 15 seats but fails to bring down the government. Abbas goes on to explain his position to his partners in the Arab parties: “All the injustices committed against us indeed invite unity among us, but the question is—what kind of unity, and along what political line? The line of active, influential political partnership—whether within a coalition or in government—is the heart of the debate, because it shapes our daily political discourse and practice.”

Unity, Abbas explains, is important, and so is the number of seats—but most important is how to give that unity substance so that it truly has impact and brings change. “I am leading a project of political partnership with the Jewish-Zionist public, and therefore I cannot speak in the same style as Sami Abu Shehadeh (from the nationalist Balad) or Ayman Odeh (from Hadash),” he clarifies. For Odeh and Abu Shehadeh, the “Jewish-Zionist public” is responsible for genocide, is racist, rejects any partnership with Arabs, and therefore must not be joined in a Zionist government or shared in responsibility for its actions.

This is a principled position, but it undermines the very political goal the Joint List now claims to pursue—toppling Netanyahu’s government. “Politics is not just slogans; it is the art of the possible,” Abbas replies, adding: “Every political project must be judged by its feasibility and applicability, not only by its moral nobility.” Abbas’s words reflect sound political logic: an electoral achievement has no meaning if it cannot be translated into political power.

Mansour Abbas’s position contains an important step toward breaking the wall which is separating Jewish and Arab societies in Israel. If the discourse truly changes, it would be a significant contribution not only to Israeli society, but to Arab society as well. Abbas recognizes that the experiment of the Joint List (2015), which won 15 seats, ended in failure, and that the isolationist, national rhetoric of the Arab leadership only contributed to the continued deterioration of Arab society itself.

Yet, the question remains: What is the nature of this political partnership with the “Jewish-Zionist” public? The Jewish public—at least the part currently in opposition—is not fighting today for narrowly “Zionist” values, but for universal ones: democracy, civil and gender equality, human rights, freedom of expression, and artistic freedom—values now facing an existential threat from the far right.

Is Mansour Abbas’ party, leaning on Islamic principles a genuine partner in defending democracy? Does the break from the Shura Council also entail a distancing from strict Islamic values? Asked about the army draft law of the Haredi population, tearing the Israeli society apart, Abbas responded elegantly that as a representative of a population that does not serve in the Army, he prefers not to take a position. Asked whether he supports a pardon for Netanyahu, he said he trusts the president’s judgment. Had he been asked about a state commission of inquiry concerning the disaster of the 7 of October, his answer would likely have been similar. This is a utilitarian partnership whose sole purpose—by Abbas’s own account—is to rescue Arab society from the dire state it has reached.

Yet while representatives of the Democratic Front (Hadash) and Balad voluntarily remove themselves from influencing the formation of the next government, it is far from certain that Mansour Abbas’ participation in a governing coalition would deliver the hoped-for outcome. Anyone unwilling to be a full partner in the struggle for liberal values will hardly work to instill them within Arab society. The values promoted by the Islamic Movement over the past forty years have fostered Arab society’s conservatism, isolating and deepening its gap with the Jewish society.

The Islamic Movement rests on clan structures and the preserving rigid family hierarchies, suppressing women, and denying artistic freedom. What is unfolding in Nazareth’s municipality today mirrors Arab society as a whole: crime families that have penetrated from the margins into the heart of weak, corrupt local government, turning society at large into a victim of violence and murder. There is not a single Arab citizen untouched by the anarchy and terror that have seeped into every corner. Budgets are essential for Arab society’s development, but without a change in values and a civic—rather than clan-based—outlook, there will never be genuine equality between Jews and Arabs. Arab society needs a social-moral revolution, and at present there is no leadership capable of leading such a change.

And yet, despite all of the above, Mansour Abbas’s position contains an important step toward breaking the wall which is separating Jewish and Arab societies in Israel. If the discourse truly changes, it would be a significant contribution not only to Israeli society, but to Arab society as well. Abbas recognizes that the experiment of the Joint List, which won 15 seats, ended in failure, and that the isolationist, national rhetoric of the Arab leadership only contributed to the continued deterioration of Arab society itself.

If Israeli society on the other hand values life, truly believes in democratic principles, and sees the defeat of the right-wing government as a national priority of the highest order, it must accept Mansour Abbas’s outstretched hand. Bringing Abbas into government carries significance beyond toppling a government: it would enable a civic-based dialogue between Jewish and Arab society—one that could bring profound change among both Jews and Arabs, to the benefit of all.

The post Mansour Abbas: A Lesson in Politics first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The UN Security Council resolution adopting Trump’s 20-point plan and authorizing a stabilization force in Gaza declares that once the Palestinian Authority enacts reforms and Gaza’s reconstruction moves forward, “conditions may be ripe for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” The very mention of a “Palestinian state” triggered political panic in Israel. Netanyahu, opening this week’s cabinet meeting, stated bluntly: “There will be no Palestinian state.” He then reassured his right-wing ministers that the “conditions” mentioned in the document are impossible to meet.

Hamas rejected the resolution as biased toward Israel, failing to meet the Palestinian people’s basic demands and imposing an international mandate on Gaza. Its refusal only reinforces the conclusion that no Palestinian state is actually being proposed, and that the plan is not meant to be implemented — it is political lip service. The Palestinian Authority, which calls itself the “State of Palestine,” welcomed the decision, claiming it “cements the ceasefire and guarantees the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent state.”

Despite his categorical rejection of Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu also issued an English-language statement praising the resolution and lauding Trump’s leadership. Indeed, the phrase “credible pathway to self-determination” has raised new expectations — on top of the hopes generated by the Oslo Accords in 1993, celebrated with endless speeches and ceremonies, culminating in a Nobel Peace Prize. Thirty years later, we received the massacre of October 7.

The resolution’s own wording exposes how bleak the situation is, and how detached its conditions are from reality. It leads to two obvious conclusions: first, the Palestinian people lack leadership capable of establishing or governing a state; second, the international community — including the 142 countries that recognized Palestine in the recent UN General Assembly vote — understands that making PA reform a condition stems from the fact that the Palestinian administration is rotten to the core. Corrupt, authoritarian, allergic to democracy, dependent on security agencies tied directly to Fatah — and totally devoid of public support.

Demanding reform from the Palestinian Authority is like demanding reform from the Iranian, Egyptian or Saudi regimes — it simply will not happen. These flawed, degrading traits are part of the political DNA of most Arab regimes. As for Gaza, it is one giant terror infrastructure, above and below ground. That is why its murderous rulers are expected to surrender their weapons and cede authority to a committee of Gazan technocrats who would begin reconstruction with Gulf funding.

This convoluted architecture — likely impossible to implement — stems directly from Israeli policy, or more precisely, from the absence of one. Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank are both products of long-term Israeli strategy. To separate the strip from the West Bank and prevent a unified Palestinian state, Hamas became a “strategic asset.” It grew stronger with Qatari funding and Israeli acquiescence, until October 7 turned that “asset” into a nightmare still convulsing Israeli society. The PA, sheltered by Israel’s Shin Bet, is likewise considered useful: it spares Israel from administrative and economic responsibility for Palestinian civilian life.

The longstanding policy of Israel’s political-security establishment — embraced by all parties in the Knesset — is to avoid responsibility for Palestinian welfare in Gaza and the West Bank. The Security Council resolution therefore tries to fill the vacuum that would emerge if Hamas were to relinquish control, relying on clumsy phrasing that includes a supposed “pathway” to statehood. Yet Hamas has already rejected the resolution, adding it to the long list of UN initiatives dumped in the trash since Resolution 242 in 1967.

And that’s not all. The resolution may not advance Palestinian statehood, but it does advance a strategic alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States. It reflects Riyadh’s interests, wrapped in Trump’s plan and blessed by Israel. Israel’s unwillingness to confront the consequences of the Gaza war — or take responsibility for reconstruction — forced it to accept the Saudi option.

Thus the only concrete outcome of the resolution is the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, turning it into a strategic U.S. ally alongside Israel. Not only Saudi Arabia — viewed in Israel as a “moderate Sunni state” — benefits, but also Qatar, a major sponsor of Hamas, now enjoys Trump’s protection. Mohammed bin Salman, who seeks the mantle of Arab world leader, must insist on the demand for a Palestinian state to fend off claims that Saudi Arabia is willing to normalize relations with Israel at the Palestinians’ expense, as happened with the Abraham Accords.

October 7 reshaped the region’s geopolitical map. Netanyahu boasts that he reshaped the Middle East by weakening the Iranian axis, but he has no plan to capitalize on that. For his government, recognizing a Palestinian state would be “a reward for terror” and a victory for Hamas.

Israel therefore claims that if normalization with Saudi Arabia requires establishing a Palestinian state, Israel will forgo normalization. Saudi Arabia’s position is the exact opposite: for Riyadh, the Gulf states’ neglect of the Palestinian cause in pursuit of peace with Israel is what opened the door to Iran and its allies, who accused them of betrayal and paved the way for the October 7 attack.

The Gaza war has not only isolated Israel internationally; it has also inflamed the Arab masses against their rulers, creating dangerous political instability. The Security Council resolution tries to square the circle — offering Saudis a supposed path to Palestinian statehood and offering Israelis a path to removing Hamas from Gaza.

So where does Trump stand in this regional chaos? Trump is, as always, Trump — concerned only with Trump. A Palestinian state interests him as much as last year’s snow. Nor is it clear what he wants for Gaza: months ago he said the strip should be emptied of its population; today he chairs a “Peace Council” for its reconstruction. What’s clear is that the vast wealth of the Gulf — the palaces and gold-plated toilets — attracts him more than anything else.

Trump is trying to “square the circle”: intervening in Israel’s judicial system to help his friend Netanyahu and seek him a pardon; refusing, however, to sacrifice his ties with Turkey’s Erdoğan or Qatar’s Emir Tamim. And he has even acquired a new friend — Syria’s president, once wanted by U.S. authorities as an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist leader. Even Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya received condolences from Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, after his son’s death in an Israeli strike in Doha.

With U.S. policy devoid of any moral, ideological or political principle, nothing meaningful can emerge from Trump’s 20-point plan. Selling advanced jets to Saudi Arabia, embracing Syria’s ruler, and courting Hamas backers like Erdoğan and Qatar’s emir — all of it produces chaos, not solutions. Israel’s extremist government is fully dependent on Trump. It has no regional or global allies, no diplomatic strategy, and fights fiercely against Israel’s own democratic institutions. Its sole aim is to survive and try to derail Netanyahu’s trial. But the situation is complex. The Security Council resolution will not create a Palestinian state — not now, not anytime soon — but the messianic fantasies of Israel’s far right have hit a dead end. Trump, their only hope, has ruled out outright the possibility of annexing the occupied territories to Israel. “Enough is enough,” he declared — and on that point he is right. People are sick of endless conflict, settler violence, attacks on democracy, and the racist, fascistic rhetoric.

It is time to remove this destructive government — and at the same time, start thinking seriously about our future and our relationship with the Palestinian people. The fact that a Palestinian state will not arise any time soon does not mean five million Palestinians can be denied basic rights indefinitely. The first step toward shaping the future is to change the present: the failed government of October 7 must go.

The post The Pathway to a Palestinian State Is Blocked first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

At the mass rally in Tel Aviv marking thirty years since Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, leaders of Israel’s liberal opposition—Yair Lapid, Gadi Eisenkot, and Yair Golan—took the stage. In a surprising turn, much of Lapid’s address focused on defining what Judaism is—and what it is not. “Itamar Ben Gvir’s racism is not Judaism,” he declared. “Yigal Amir (Rabin’s assassin) is not Judaism.” Responding to claims that “when Judaism and democracy collide, Judaism comes first.”

It seems that Israel’s liberal bloc—protesting for three years against Netanyahu’s government, first over the judicial overhaul and later the Gaza war—is now launching its election campaign with a new mission: to reclaim Judaism. Having already adopted the national flag as a symbol of democratic resistance, the movement now seeks to define its own version of Jewish identity.

If “Jewish” has become contested, “Israeli” once referred to all citizens of the state—even if Arab citizens rarely felt part of that identity. “Israeliness” was shaped by the ruling Mapai party, which settled the land, founded the state, and built its institutions. It deliberately distanced itself from exilic Judaism, turning Hebrew from an ancient sacred language into a national spoken one, while cutting ties with both European and Mizrahi Jewish pasts. For decades, no one questioned anyone’s Judaism; to say “Israeli” was to say “Jewish.” That held until 1977, when Menachem Begin’s rise brought not just political upset, but a social revolution.

The old elite—the kibbutzim, the Histadrut, the universities, the judiciary—all symbols of the “old Israel”—became the enemy. In the 1981 election, Begin branded these “bleeding hearts” as adversaries and tore open the ethnic divide when he replied to entertainer Dudu Topaz’s “Chachchachim” (riffraff) speech with: “Our Mizrahi brothers were brave warriors.” Thus, he drew a sharp line between the religious, right-leaning Mizrahim and the Ashkenazi “high minded” waving red flags.

More than forty years later, Israel’s liberal camp still struggles to shed its image of elitism, condescension, and detachment from Jewish tradition. Netanyahu has done everything possible to inflame those divides. In 1997, he was caught whispering to Shas’s Rabbi Kaduri: “The left has forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” In today’s political shorthand, “left” means Israeli, while “right” means Jewish. Those who see themselves as Jews vote right; those who see themselves as Israelis vote left.

Lapid is wrong to think the fight with the right is over who is “more Jewish.” The battle is existential—about democracy itself—just as the struggle against Iran or Hamas is existential.

To erase the stigma, the left has tried everything. In 2017, hoping to win over traditional Mizrahi voters, Labor chose Avi Gabbay—a Mizrahi politician—as leader. Soon after, Gabbay too, told young party members: “The left has forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” Two years later he quit, and lately Labor merged into a new bloc, The Democrats, led by former general Yair Golan.

The “Jewish camp’s” victory in the last elections paved the way for a genuine constitutional revolution: an effort to redefine Israel not as a democracy, but rather as a religious state with democratic trimmings. The first step came with the 2018 Nation-State Law, which enshrined the country’s Jewish character at the expense of its democratic one. The current government has since launched open war on the Supreme Court—the only real check on discriminatory laws in a state without a constitution.

In practice, every institution is under siege. The army is labeled liberal, prosecutors are accused of persecuting the right and ultra-Orthodox, the media branded “the enemy of the people,” universities deemed elitist, the arts subversive, and the Shin Bet part of a “deep state.” The government insists these pillars of democracy are biased and block its “governability.” Though the right has ruled for decades, it still claims it isn’t truly in power.

Under the “Jewish” worldview, every arm of the state must serve the sovereign—the people—embodied by the coalition and its eternal leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. The right’s immediate goal is to cement control by silencing all criticism—from courts, media, and within. Its ideology rests on three pillars: Jewish settlement across the West Bank, the supremacy of religious values, and the right of ultra-Orthodox Jews to study Torah without serving in the army—on the public dime.

This is the Israel that has rules over five million Palestinians for decades, dreaming of their eventual expulsion. It is an Israel where citizens can no longer live—nor wish to—because equality, democracy, and liberty are trampled daily. Against this rupture between two irreconcilable visions, one wonders why Lapid, of all topics, chose to focus in his speech on Judaism. A secular man known for his disdain for the ultra-Orthodox, contempt for settlers, and view of Ben Gvir as a racist, Lapid sees in Netanyahu a liar, manipulator, and the spiritual instigator of Rabin’s murder.

This government has brought upon Israel its gravest disaster since founding. Yet it continues to rule, deflecting blame for the October 7 massacre onto everyone else: Rabin and Oslo, the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the IDF, the Shin Bet, protest groups, the media—everyone but itself. Lapid is wrong to think the fight with the right is over who is “more Jewish.” The battle is existential—about democracy itself—just as the struggle against Iran or Hamas is existential.

Israel’s current government has turned the country into a global pariah. Netanyahu faces potential prosecution in The Hague; Smotrich and Ben Gvir have become synonymous with ethnic cleansing; and Israelis everywhere feel the sting of isolation. And this is when Lapid chooses to lecture on Judaism? History shows such debates always serve the right. Even if Lapid wore a kippah, wrapped in tefillin, and observed all 613 commandments, his Jewishness would still be doubted.

The coming elections are a historic test. Israel needs leaders who grasp the magnitude of this moment. The ceasefire with Hamas—opposed by Ben Gvir and Smotrich—has shattered the illusion of a “Greater Israel” and the dream of annexing the West Bank. October 7 has reignited the debate over ultra-Orthodox conscription: the public now demands democracy and equality and refuses to trade them for a coalition that has brought ruin.

A vast majority of Israelis now call for an official state inquiry to expose Netanyahu’s lies and his evasion of responsibility for the massacre. What matters to those who filled the streets to defend democracy is not who is “more Jewish,” but something simpler: will Israel live by democratic principles—or sink into an empty debate over Jewishness? The opposition to Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Netanyahu is not because they are Jews, but because they are fascists, racists, and corrupt.

The post Israeli, Jew, and What Lies Between first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

As always, Trump’s speech swung between solemnity — when he read from the teleprompter — and stand-up comedy when he improvised, blending anecdotes, attacks on rivals, and self-congratulation. It was at times confusing, but his message left no room for doubt: after two years of war that ended with the return of the hostages, the election campaign had begun — and Trump had already made his choice.

“Bibi, please stand up,” he said from the Knesset podium, as Netanyahu’s loyal cheering section erupted in applause. “I want to express my gratitude to a man of exceptional courage and patriotism, whose cooperation did so much to make this great day possible. And he’s not easy,” Trump added with a grin. “Let me tell you, he’s not the easiest guy to deal with. But that’s what makes him great. That’s what makes him great. Thank you very much, Bibi. Great job.”

To remove any doubt, Trump turned toward President Isaac Herzog near the end of his address and said: “Hey, I have an idea. Mr. President, why don’t you give him a pardon? Come on. By the way, that wasn’t in the speech, as you know. But I like the man sitting right here, and it just seems so logical. You know, whether we like it or not, this was one of the greatest wartime leaders ever. One of the greatest wartime leaders. And cigars and champagne—who the hell cares?”

At that moment, the opposition’s hopes evaporated. For Trump, there is only one candidate he wants to work with. True, he was pleased when the opposition and the hostages’ families credited him for the deal, but he was not confused. In his eyes, it was Bibi who “did so much to make this possible.” And Trump knows what he’s saying. Just ask Joe Biden, who steadfastly refused to invite Netanyahu to the White House, opposed an assault on Rafah and the assassination of Nasrallah, and did everything possible to prevent an attack on Iran out of fear of a regional war.

Trump himself was hardly enthusiastic about the strike on Iran. Shortly before it, he had practically begged Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to open direct talks, and on the first day of the war, he made sure that his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, clarified that Trump’s “hands were clean.” Then, suddenly, as Trump was praising Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, Netanyahu bombed Hamas headquarters in Doha, publicly taking full responsibility. Indeed, Bibi is not an easy man. To put it mildly — Trump didn’t like what happened.

Israel’s opposition accused Netanyahu of ordering the strike to sabotage the hostage deal, and yet, after the bombing in Doha, Qatar and Turkey blinked. Netanyahu apologized, and the hostage deal moved forward. When the opposition later claimed that “the same deal could have been reached a year earlier,” Trump once again came to his ally’s defense, declaring at the Knesset: “Suppose those B-2 bombers at the Fordow site had missed, and suppose Iran had large-scale nuclear weapons — we couldn’t be here today, even if we wanted to sign a deal. We couldn’t sign it, because many people wouldn’t want anything to do with it.”

In other words, it was Bibi who paved the way for the deal. As Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Avi Shilon wrote, “The credit for the agreement — which clearly favors Israel and brings about Hamas’s surrender, at least on paper — cannot go only to Trump but also to Netanyahu. Just as he, as prime minister, bears responsibility, though not necessarily blame, for the calamity of October 7, so he also bears responsibility for ending the war with Hamas’s fall and the hostages’ return.”

Given Trump’s speech and Netanyahu’s about-face, the question now is what the opposition has to offer. Continued praise for Trump as the sole architect of the hostage deal only plays into Netanyahu’s hands. Trump has made his choice, while the opposition remains visionless — abandoning its liberal worldview by embracing Trump. Netanyahu’s authoritarian leanings pale next to those of an American president who sends troops into U.S. cities under the pretext of a “war on crime” and puts his political opponents on trial.

To grasp the full significance of Trump’s visit, one must look back six months ago. In mid-May, Trump toured the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, while deliberately skipping Israel — a clear signal that the U.S. now views the Gulf, not Israel, as the hub of its Middle East presence. “Billions or trillions will fall on America like manna from heaven,” he boasted. Turkish President Erdoğan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman orchestrated a public meeting between Trump and Abu Muhammad al-Julani, the jihadist leader in Damascus — a gesture from the two patrons of Syria’s new Islamist regime. Riyadh then sponsored a UN conference on Palestinian statehood that explicitly excluded Israel, while Erdoğan compared Netanyahu to Hitler. It seemed that the “most pro-Israel president ever” had no qualms about aligning himself with Israel’s bitterest foes — so long as the business interests of the Trump, Kushner, and Witkoff families came first, even before the interests of Israel or the U.S.

As early as March, Steven Witkoff said in a candid interview with far-right, antisemitic host Tucker Carlson: “Hamas is not ideologically committed to suicide; therefore the conflict can be resolved through dialogue.” At the time, I wrote an article titled The Gospel of Witkoff [https://en.daam.org.il/?p=1543], stating: “Since Trump’s first term, the tables have turned. If the original Abraham Accords sought to prove that regional peace could be achieved without solving the Palestinian question, the second-term version asserts that regional peace must pass through it.”

Trump’s Knesset speech thus symbolizes a broader shift in U.S. Middle East policy. If October 7 represented Israel’s weakness and its inability to deter Iran’s coalition, two years later, after the blow dealt to the Iranian regime, the balance has reversed. Trump was forced to make a U-turn and inform his allies across the region that Israel could no longer be bypassed. Not by chance, he ended his Knesset address with these words: “The story of Israel’s determination and victory since October 7 should prove to the entire world that those who seek to destroy this nation are destined to fail. The State of Israel is strong, and it will live and prosper forever. Therefore, Israel will always remain a vital ally of the United States of America.”

While Trump was forced to reconsider, so too was Netanyahu — especially when Trump turned directly to him during the speech and reminded him that “the world is big and strong.” In other words: don’t try to defy the world — it’s bigger and stronger than you. By accepting Trump’s 20-point peace plan, Netanyahu finally abandoned his dream of “voluntary transfer of Palestinians from Gaza,” the annexation of the West Bank, and the illusion of “peace for peace.” In an interview with CBS, he said: “We agreed to give peace a chance.” In practice, that will likely mean parting ways with his far-right allies Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who voted against the deal.

Given Trump’s speech and Netanyahu’s about-face, the question now is what the opposition has to offer. Continued praise for Trump as the sole architect of the hostage deal only plays into Netanyahu’s hands. Trump has made his choice, while the opposition remains visionless — abandoning its liberal worldview by embracing Trump. Netanyahu’s authoritarian leanings pale next to those of an American president who sends troops into U.S. cities under the pretext of a “war on crime” and puts his political opponents on trial.

Netanyahu’s responsibility for Israel’s military victories over the Iranian coalition does not absolve him of his many failings: he fed Hamas, bears responsibility for October 7, weakened the judiciary, and drove the country toward constitutional crisis — and, above all, he still has no solution for the Palestinian question, Israel’s core strategic problem. But the opposition has no solution either.

I’ll end with a quote from Avi Shilon’s article, which captures the sentiment of many Israelis yearning for change:
“Israel is entering a new era, with enormous potential, ahead of elections that will determine its direction. It’s easy to complain about the political system’s flaws, but the fact that Israel’s main political players remain the same — and that no new, significant party or leader has emerged since October 7 — is also the responsibility of Israeli society. The time has come.”

The post Trump Has Already Chosen first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

On Friday, September 19, Defense Minister Israel Katz posted a tweet on X: “Abd al-Malik al-Houthi, your time will come; you will be sent to meet your cabinet and all the scoundrels of the axis of evil waiting in the depths of hell. The slogan ‘Death to Israel, curse on the Jews’ on the Houthi flag will be replaced by the blue-and-white Israeli flag flying over Yemen’s united capital.” The tweet reveals the deep anger and frustration within Israel’s political-security leadership.

Despite repeated airstrikes on Sanaa, the Houthi capital, the destruction of Hodeidah port—the country’s main import hub—and the declaration of an economic blockade, ballistic missiles and drones continue to be launched from Yemen, striking at Israel and causing real damage. Just yesterday, an explosive drone detonated at the entrance to a hotel in Eilat; miraculously, no one was injured. That same night, millions of Israelis were forced into shelters following a ballistic missile alert.

It seems nothing Israel does changes the Houthis’ behavior. Acting as if they have nothing to lose, they continue their attacks. Yemen is some two thousand kilometers from Israel, the two countries have never fought, and Israel has no claims against Yemen. Yet the Houthis persist in firing missiles, prepared to absorb heavy losses, including the deaths of their leaders, “for Gaza.”

This is a fractured country, mired in bloody civil wars, divided between north and south, with some of the world’s highest rates of poverty, hunger, and infant mortality. And yet, it declares war on a regional power like Israel, which has demonstrated its military capabilities in Beirut and Tehran and now wages all-out war in Gaza.

Where do these weapons come from? How does a country without an industrial base acquire advanced arms when its GDP per capita is just $800—compared to $54,000 in Israel? The answer is clear: Iran. The Houthi tribe, which seized Sanaa in a military coup, is a direct extension of Tehran’s Shiite regime.

How does a tribe representing less than 10% of Yemen’s population impose its rule over the majority, wage multiple wars, blockade Bab al-Mandab, disrupt international shipping, and even clash with wealthy neighbors like Saudi Arabia?

Had Israel defeated the Houthis, raised its flag in Sanaa, and unified Yemen, most Yemenis might have welcomed it—similar to how many Lebanese and Syrians reportedly appreciate Israel’s strikes on Hezbollah and the weakening of Assad’s regime. But between such statements and reality lies a vast gap far greater than the distance from Israel to Yemen.

In this context, Katz’s statement about replacing the Houthi flag with Israel’s blue-and-white in Sanaa sounds theoretically possible. A legitimate, UN-recognized Yemeni government exists in Aden, aiming to unify Yemen—not under the Israeli flag, but under the country’s official flag, replacing the Houthi banner.

Had Israel defeated the Houthis, raised its flag in Sanaa, and unified Yemen, most Yemenis might have welcomed it—similar to how many Lebanese and Syrians reportedly appreciate Israel’s strikes on Hezbollah and the weakening of Assad’s regime. But between such statements and reality lies a vast gap far greater than the distance from Israel to Yemen.

Why? First, Israeli security views Yemen not as a national problem but an international one. The Houthis threaten Gulf stability, primarily Saudi Arabia, disrupt Egypt’s economy by targeting shipping through the Suez Canal, and affect global trade—while the damage to Israel, despite the closure of Eilat port, is minimal.

The issue is that all countries affected by Houthi piracy and terror prefer silence. As expected, they rely on Israel to do what the German chancellor once called “the dirty work” against Iran’s nuclear program.

Second—and it’s no secret—Trump’s administration, especially friendly to Israel, reached a non-aggression deal with the Houthis. On May 6, 2025, the U.S. announced it would halt bombings in Yemen in exchange for a Houthi commitment to stop attacking ships in the Red Sea. In effect, Trump gave them free rein to continue striking Israel without Washington’s intervention. The Houthis vowed to continue attacks as long as Israel remains active in Gaza, removing the only international check on them.

What remains is the government of South Yemen, expected to realize Katz’s vision. In reality, it is a puppet administration struggling to control Aden, let alone the vast territory officially under its sovereignty.

Control in southern Yemen lies with Saudi Arabia, which appointed the prime minister and manages state affairs via its ambassador in Aden. The puppet government is divided: one faction loyal to Riyadh, another to the UAE, which controls security forces.

At the time of writing, a South Yemen delegation is in Riyadh after a UAE-backed coup attempt, prompting the Saudi-supported president to threaten resignation. Katz may desire Yemeni unification, but neither Trump nor Israel’s Abraham Accords partners—the UAE and Saudi Arabia—are eager to end Yemen’s tragedy.

Another question arises: why don’t Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, close allies, unite against the Houthis? The answer: Saudi Arabia seeks no resolution. In April, it signed yet another ceasefire with the Houthis to prevent attacks on its oil infrastructure.

This status quo suits Saudi Arabia: the Houthis focus on Israel, Saudi Arabia stays out of the conflict, and it benefits from Israeli strikes on Houthi infrastructure and leaders. At the same time, it emphasizes its distance from Israel—initiating a UN conference on Palestinian state recognition, condemning Israel in Gaza, hosting an Arab summit in Doha after an attempted Hamas leadership assassination, and even welcoming Iran’s foreign minister, patron of the Houthis, into the Arab front against “the Israeli threat destabilizing the region.”

What lesson does Yemen hold for Israel regarding Gaza’s “day after”? Can the so-called “moderate Sunni states” produce an Arab policing force to replace Hamas? How many factions will operate under Saudi and Emirati patronage? Will Mohammed Dahlan lead Gaza’s security under the UAE, and Hussein al-Sheikh the West Bank under Saudi auspices? And whom will Egypt, Turkey, or even Iran support?

What stability is possible in Gaza when competing factions rely on bribery for loyalty? How can radical Islamist forces be prevented from emerging when Palestinians suffer under Arab states that claim to care but exploit them?

Talk of an Arab force replacing Hamas is an illusion—just as Katz’s flag-raising in Sanaa is a distant dream. Yemen and Palestine are entwined: without independent democratic movements free from corrupt Arab states, neither society has a viable future.

The post The Israeli Flag Over Yemen’s United Capital first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The diplomatic tsunami has finally reached Israel’s shores. Newspaper headlines scream warnings to Israeli travelers abroad: stay away from danger, speak less Hebrew—and Jews in general are advised to conceal any outward signs of their identity. This comes in light of the images coming out of Gaza, which leave little room for doubt: Israel is starving the population.

From the first day of the war, humanitarian aid was turned into a legitimate weapon by Israel’s right-wing government, while the Israeli public remained preoccupied with its wounds, its pain, and its hostages. An entire nation is living in post-trauma—not only due to the October 7 massacre, but also in light of recent events, when Iranian half-ton missiles were aimed at Israeli cities and leveled entire neighborhoods.

The world did not settle for condemnation alone but took active political steps, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, who rushed to recognize a Palestinian state. Macron, along with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, responded to Saudi Arabia’s call and helped organize, under UN auspices, a conference with 125 participating countries that voiced support for the two-state solution. True, the UN had previously recognized a Palestinian state, and the head of the Palestinian Authority had already declared himself “president” and referred to his autonomy as a “state.” But this time, the recognition takes on a more serious tone—because it comes from so-called “Israel-friendly countries,” and that small detail makes a significant difference from the Israeli perspective.

Already in March 2011, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that “come September, we are facing a diplomatic tsunami most of the public is unaware of. There’s an international movement to recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. It’s a mistake not to acknowledge this tsunami. The delegitimization of Israel is on the horizon, even if the public can’t see it. This is extremely dangerous and demands action—a political initiative would reduce future risks.”

But the diplomatic tsunami never came. The nations of the world accepted the status quo. The Palestinian issue was pushed to the margins, overshadowed by the Arab Spring, which toppled regime after regime. Europe—the same Europe that has now awakened, perhaps too late—continued to indirectly finance the Israeli occupation, whether by supporting the Palestinian Authority or indirectly aiding Hamas via humanitarian aid organizations.

To remove any doubt: A Palestinian state will not be established — not only because the Israeli right opposes it, but because the Palestinians themselves have proven incapable of establishing and running a state. International recognition, like the one we saw at the UN, is nothing more than an empty declaration — and everyone knows it. Yet the absence of a state does not absolve Israel of responsibility: Between the Jordan River and the sea live two peoples whose destinies are intertwined. As long as there is no equality — political, civil, and economic — for both sides, no secure future can exist here.

Since 2007, when Hamas violently ousted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, two rival—if not outright hostile—entities emerged: Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) in control of the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza. Both cooperated with Netanyahu: Abbas received income tax revenues from the employment of Palestinian workers in Israel and security backing from the Shin Bet; Hamas received Qatari cash, Israeli shekels funneled to Gaza banks, and a flow of goods sold in the markets that generated extra revenue.

Thus, the Palestinian state vanished. Abbas proved incapable of managing even his meager autonomy, while Hamas traded with Israel even as it declared, loudly, “We will never recognize Israel,” and used the proceeds to dig tunnels.

In 2016, instead of a diplomatic tsunami, Trump entered the White House. Netanyahu and the Israeli right mocked Barak’s warnings, and the Israeli left was reduced to a useless rag. Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and in 2020 handed Israel an unimaginable gift: the Abraham Accords with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. The circle was complete: the Israeli right proved the Palestinian issue is not at the heart of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and that “peace for peace” is preferable to “land for peace.”

The Palestinian state thus became irrelevant. Right and left in Israel agreed that the conflict with the Palestinians is unsolvable and all that remains is to manage it. Toward the end of Biden’s term, relations with Saudi Arabia warmed to the point that normalization between the two states nearly materialized. Due to its strategic power in the region, Israel served as a security umbrella for the Gulf states against Iran. Mohammed bin Salman was even willing to drop his core condition for normalization: recognition of a Palestinian state.

Yet everyone remained blind to what was unfolding around them. Iran and its proxies decided to overturn the table. While Israel and its Gulf allies enjoyed the fruits of a false peace, Hamas carried out a massacre in Israeli border communities and abducted civilians indiscriminately. Hezbollah opened fire from Lebanon. Iran launched ballistic missiles from its arsenals. Peace turned overnight into a nightmare—a nightmare that still haunts not only the region but Israelis and Palestinians alike.

And now, a twist: after two years of war, as Israel flexes its military muscle, neutralizing threats from Lebanon, Syria, and even Tehran, and in Gaza eliminates Hamas’s leadership, kills 60,000 residents, and destroys 75% of homes, schools, and hospitals under which tunnels were dug—only now do 125 countries convene under UN auspices, led by Saudi Arabia and France, and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

In the conference’s concluding document, the states demand that Hamas lay down its arms and relinquish power, transferring control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. And to that one might say: the height of hypocrisy. Israel did for them what the German chancellor described as “the dirty work”: it carried out “genocide,” starved, destroyed, and eliminated—effectively removing Hamas from the equation.

Now Abu Mazen condemns Israel, along with Macron and Starmer, as do Saudi Arabia and its Gulf satellites. But that doesn’t stop them from trying to reap the fruits of war. Saudi Arabia is trying to deflect the rage of the Arab street, which views Arab regimes as collaborators with Israel—regimes that legitimized the occupation and did everything to erase the Palestinian issue. Now those same regimes condemn Israel and once again—who knows for the how-many- times—declare their support for a Palestinian state.

Let there be no doubt: a Palestinian state will not be established. Not only because the Israeli right opposes it, but because the Palestinians themselves have shown they are incapable of establishing or managing a state. In 1994, under the Oslo Accords, Arafat effectively gave up on statehood and settled for limited autonomy in Gaza and the West Bank. He left sovereignty, the economy, the currency, customs, and even the issuing of IDs and driver’s licenses—both in Gaza and the West Bank—in Israel’s hands.

The funds transferred to the Palestinian Authority by donor countries financed its corruption. The money in Gaza funded Hamas’s corruption and the tunnel industry—even though Hamas knew full well that war with Israel would bring Gaza’s destruction. The familiar slogans — “from the river to the sea,” “apartheid,” “the Zionist entity”—were meant only to entrench Palestinian leadership and suppress any possibility of criticism, democracy, freedom of speech, or civil organization.

The Palestinian state recognized at the UN does not exist in reality—and everyone knows it. These are formal declarations with no path to implementation. But the mere fact that no Palestinian state will arise does not absolve Israeli society of the responsibility to seek a solution. Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean live two peoples, whose fates are intertwined. October 7 was a day of colossal disaster for Israelis, but it also became a Nakba day for Palestinians.

There is only one way to prevent such appalling disasters from recurring—and it does not depend on military might. Israel managed to intercept Iranian missiles and fend off Hezbollah’s threats, but on the day of reckoning—when thousands of Palestinians breached the fence and slaughtered civilians—it failed.

It is still hard to say how the war will end, but one thing is clear: sooner or later, Israeli society will have to engage in soul-searching. The Palestinian issue is not a foreign one—not Lebanese, not Syrian, not Jordanian—but an internal one. By effectively giving up on establishing their own state, the Palestinians have become an Israeli problem.

Back in 1994, we asserted that the Oslo Accords buried the idea of a Palestinian state deep in the earth. For saying so we were dismissed by the left and liberals as fringe fanatics who oppose peace. Today, after supporting the war against Hamas and refusing to join the hypocrites that accuse Israel of committing  “genocide,” we reiterate: it will be impossible to live here unless we build a new society in which the Palestinians are granted equal rights—political, civil, and economic.

The post A Palestinian State in Name Only first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“Mr. President, give the order.”
That is the headline of an opinion piece by commentator and journalist Shimon Shiffer, published in Yedioth Ahronoth on June 18, 2025. Shiffer—who until recently directed much of his criticism at Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right government—now expresses a prevailing Israeli consensus, forged in the pain and aftermath of Iran’s backed attack on October 7. Every Israeli now understands: Iran, through its regional proxies—chief among them Hamas—has resolved to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel.

“Mr. President Trump, this is your moment to make history, to stand alongside Roosevelt. Order a strike on the Fordow nuclear facility and help us do the dirty work for the rest of the world. Now is the time to lead a coalition that will dismantle Iran’s nuclear project and force the ayatollahs into an agreement that prevents its reconstitution.”

The Trump administration’s reluctance to join the campaign to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions reflects a broader mood in America. Since 2008, the United States has lost its status as leader of the free world. Trump’s isolationism—backed by the fascist-leaning MAGA movement within the Republican Party—is a radical expression of an American consensus now shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. It’s a consensus born of the bitter failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, rejecting any further military interventions abroad involving “boots on the ground.”

Ironically, while key figures in the American administration now oppose Israel’s plans to strike Iran, it was the U.S. itself that empowered Iran and fostered a near-mystical belief in the military might and stability of the Ayatollah regime.

The original sin traces back to the Republican administration of George W. Bush. It was then that the lie took shape: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. This fabrication served as the pretext for invading Iraq under the banner of regime change. Worth remembering is the role of none other than Benjamin Netanyahu—then a private citizen temporarily out of politics—who testified under oath before a congressional oversight committee. With his trademark certainty, he declared: “The question isn’t whether to topple the Iraqi regime, but when.”

Judging by the consequences, Netanyahu’s contribution to the catastrophe that engulfed the Middle East—and enabled Iran’s ascendancy—demonstrates that despite his boastful claims to prophetic vision, he in fact dug Israel into a deep hole, from which it now bleeds to escape. As the proverb says: “A fool throws a stone into a well, and a thousand wise men cannot retrieve it.”

American administrations’ aversion to military involvement was also evident in the 2013 U.S.-Russia deal to remove Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. This deal came after the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people to suppress a popular uprising that threatened to unseat it. President Obama initially set a “red line,” warning that crossing it would trigger U.S. military intervention. But under pressure from his Democratic Party, he settled for a weak agreement with Putin. While it removed some of Syria’s chemical stockpile, it opened the door for direct Iranian and Hezbollah intervention, which saved the Assad regime and led to their complete takeover of Syria.

Assad, of course, ignored the American warning once he realized that Washington had no intention of deploying troops on Syrian soil. Moreover, Obama consistently refused to support the democratic opposition forces in Syria. And Netanyahu? He supported the Obama-Putin deal and ignored the existential threat posed by Iran’s total takeover of Syria and Lebanon.

Over time, Syria and Lebanon became strategic Iranian outposts. Israel, caught unprepared, was stunned by the “seven-front” assault of October 7. Once again, Netanyahu—self-proclaimed oracle of future threats—was caught with his pants down, lost control, and nearly lost the country.

Many U.S. Democrats and prominent Israeli commentators blame Netanyahu for pushing to cancel the Iran nuclear deal, attributing Iran’s sprint toward a nuclear bomb to Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement. It’s a difficult point to refute. Still, all those critics—including Netanyahu himself—entirely ignore the deal’s dark side. It gave Iran free rein to develop its ballistic missile program and enabled it to entrench itself throughout the Shiite Crescent via proxies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories through Hamas. Simultaneously, it allowed Iran to lay out its practical blueprint for Israel’s annihilation from multiple fronts.

It was precisely this danger that Netanyahu failed to warn the world about. Instead, he reveled in playing a game of “deterrence” against Iran’s proxies. He transformed the so-called “Campaign Between the Wars” (MABAM)—Israel’s ongoing military effort to curb Iranian entrenchment in Syria—into a kind of strategic genius endorsed by Military Intelligence. The IDF was so focused on MABAM that it missed Iran’s strategic surprise being orchestrated right under its nose by Hamas—a relatively weaker and poorly armed proxy, which in fact depended on Israeli financial and economic assistance to survive.

As the trauma of the October 7 massacre lingers, Netanyahu decided to target the “head of the octopus” and launched “the mother of all wars.” While some critics see this as “another attempt by Bibi to evade his trial,” the broader Israeli public—including most opposition parties—perceives this campaign as a just and existential battle: a fight for survival.

Yet, at this critical juncture, our “strategic ally” limits itself to tactical calculations. Like the Biden administration, the Trump administration hides behind the pretext of “regional war risk” to justify its appeasement of a weakened Iranian regime—deprived of its primary pillar, Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran made its intentions clear with two deadly missile attacks on Israel in April and October 2024. In both cases, Biden demanded Israeli restraint—first urging no response, then permitting only a symbolic one. Again, under the excuse of “regional escalation.”

But after October 7, time began to run out. The Trump administration has done everything to placate Iran while signaling clear disapproval of Netanyahu. Trump’s highly publicized visits to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf—deliberately skipping Israel—the separate deal he struck with the Houthis, his admiration for dictator Erdogan, direct negotiations with Hamas behind Israel’s back, and his initiation of talks with Iran all left little room for doubt: Trump is willing to throw Israel under the wheels of the Saudi bus in exchange for a handful of petrodollars and MAGA applause.

Israel’s strike on Friday morning, June 13—the elimination of Iran’s entire military leadership and nuclear scientists—not only exposed the regime’s vulnerability, thanks to Mossad’s deep intelligence penetration, but also forced the U.S. into a dramatic dilemma. Israel chose to go at it alone, placing its own civilian population on the front lines. The sirens night and day, the casualties, the ruined homes, and the response of Israeli society all bear witness: the people of Israel see this as a war of survival.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz spoke the truth: “Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us.”

As of this writing, it remains unclear whether Trump will join the campaign to finish the job. The path has already been paved. U.S. participation is not a favor to Israel—it is a moral obligation. After all, it was the U.S. that created Middle Eastern chaos with its misguided war to topple Saddam Hussein. The war against Iran could mark the beginning of a new era in the region—not for the sake of the corrupt Gulf princes, but for the sake of 100 million Iranians and 300 million Arabs who languish under authoritarian regimes that perpetuate backwardness, poverty, and repression of civil rights.

They were betrayed by the indifference of America and Europe in the face of the Arab Spring—the greatest democratic revolution the Arab world has ever seen. This too will be remembered as a historic strategic and moral failure.

As for Netanyahu, he will go down in history as a leader who failed to anticipate the future, made every possible mistake, and above all, committed the fatal error of ignoring the Palestinian question—thereby opening the front door for Iran’s entrance into the Arab world.

The post Iran – The Original Sin first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The interviewer is Tucker Carlson, the conservative firebrand who was ousted from Fox News and now hosts a freewheeling political show on X, Elon Musk’s social media platform. His guest: Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s special envoy for negotiations between Israel and Hamas, as well as between Ukraine and Russia. Witkoff serves as the eyes, ears, and mouth of the former president. Both men are among Trump’s most loyal allies.

The topic on the table is Gaza.

Carlson, ever the friendly host, gives Witkoff a full 90 minutes to lay out his worldview, uninterrupted. But the content of Witkoff’s remarks – which he repeatedly frames as nothing more than executing Trump’s vision – should send shockwaves through Israel’s political and security establishment.

In reality? Benjamin Netanyahu, the same man who had no qualms about publicly rebuking President Biden through short, defiant video clips, has now gone completely silent. And why wouldn’t he? Just a month and a half ago, Netanyahu was finally welcomed into the Oval Office with a warmth rarely extended – especially when compared to the cold shoulder received by President Zelensky under similar circumstances.

Netanyahu looked positively delighted hearing Trump’s vision for Gaza. A gift beyond his wildest dreams: the “relocation” of Gaza’s entire population. In less diplomatic terms: “voluntary expulsion.” And in the terminology-that-shall-not-be-named? Transfer. The fantasy of every Itamar Ben Gvir acolyte.

So, Netanyahu returned from his Trump encounter flush with hubris. In a recent cabinet meeting, he reportedly remarked, “Trump couldn’t believe how deep the deep state runs in Israel.”

Back home, Netanyahu took to the Knesset and, with the confidence of a man on a mission, unveiled the long-awaited Gaza postwar strategy – one Israel had supposedly been yearning for since the outbreak of war. Want a plan for the day after? Here it is: Empty Gaza of its residents with full permission.

He didn’t stop there. Netanyahu launched a direct assault on what he deems the “deep state,” and this week began executing what looks like a personal war against it. In one swift move, he announced the dismissal of the head of Shin Bet, the firing of Israel’s attorney general, a reshuffle of the Judicial Appointments Committee, and – for desert – reinstated Ben Gvir to the government.

But then, Tucker Carlson and Steve Witkoff sat down for an intimate conversation – and Netanyahu’s world was overturned.

Witkoff, taking it upon himself to clear the current fog, laid out a new order. His hostage mediation efforts are stuck. The ceasefire with Hamas has collapsed. Israeli tanks are rolling back into Gaza for what feels like the umpteenth time. So Witkoff offers a clarification: what, exactly, is the U.S. interest in the Middle East after the October 7th massacre?

First, and in direct contradiction to Israeli talking points, he asserts: Qatar is on the good side. A peace-seeking nation, he says, actively working to broker calm across the globe. Qatar, according to Witkoff, is also an excellent mediator.

So how does Netanyahu’s “political plan” align with Witkoff’s vision? It doesn’t. In fact, it’s fundamentally at odds with the American strategic interest as laid out bluntly by Trump’s envoy. And what is that interest? Regional stability—driven by the priorities of Washington’s two most critical Arab allies: Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are the economic heavyweights of the region, wielding broad political influence.

Apparently, Qatar no longer needs the PR services of Netanyahu’s aides, Yonatan Urich and Israel Einhorn (currently being suspected of working secretly for Qatar and whitewashing its problematic image). Witkoff is proving far more effective.

It’s not just Qatar earning unexpected positive points—Hamas is getting some too. Contrary to prevailing belief in Israel, Witkoff insists Hamas isn’t ideologically committed to martyrdom. “You can end the conflict through dialogue,” he says. Moreover, he argues that Gaza’s future isn’t “relocation” or exile—but quite the opposite. An end to the Israel-Hamas war, he claims, will usher in a new era of prosperity for Gaza, with tech hubs and innovation zones bringing hope to the Palestinian population. He even dared to utter the infamous concept: “two states.”

As for Hamas’s future? Witkoff suggests the group could remain “a little bit” in Gaza—so long as it agrees to disarm.

So how does Netanyahu’s “political plan” align with Witkoff’s vision? It doesn’t. In fact, it’s fundamentally at odds with the American strategic interest as laid out bluntly by Trump’s envoy. And what is that interest? Regional stability—driven by the priorities of Washington’s two most critical Arab allies: Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are the economic heavyweights of the region, wielding broad political influence.

What role is Israel expected to play in this new architecture of peace? The answer is simple: end the war in Gaza. Only through cessation of hostilities can normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia resume—and with it, a return to regional equilibrium. Egypt and Jordan are teetering under the pressure of the Gaza conflict, and Israel is now expected to help restore calm. Even Syria makes a surprise appearance in this tell-all interview. Abu Muhammad al-Julani, the Syrian strongman, is described in favorable terms: “He’s changed since his younger years.” The implication? Peace deals with Syria and Lebanon—now under Saudi and Qatari patronage—might soon be on the table.

In short, resolving the Gaza crisis could relaunch the Abraham Accords—but in reverse. In their original form, in Trump’s first term, the Accords were designed to serve Israel’s strategic interests, proving that peace with Arab states was possible without resolving the Palestinian issue. Now, following the October 7 debacle, in Trump’s second term, the tables have been turned. Israel is being asked to serve the interests of Saudi Arabia and Qatar—now Trump’s key Middle East allies according to Witkoff—while Israel finds itself increasingly sidelined.

This is the crux of the American demand: end the war, release the hostages, and accept some form of continued Hamas presence in Gaza.

How did this inversion happen—especially under the administration that’s been hailed as the most pro-Israel in modern U.S. history?

The answer circles back, again, to October 7.

The multi-front assault, orchestrated with Iranian backing, exposed Israel’s strategic vulnerability. It sent shockwaves across the Middle East. Mass protests erupted across Arab capitals, threatening the fragile stability of moderate regimes. Trump, in his new incarnation, doesn’t want to be the “sucker”—his words—who pours billions into Ukraine, NATO, or possibly even Israel. He prefers allies who pay their way—like the Gulf states—not those who drain U.S. coffers.

Moreover, the domestic political calculus has shifted. The U.S. saw a groundswell of anti-war protest, including pro-Hamas sentiment that fractured the Democratic Party. Trump benefited. Muslim voters in Dearborn, Michigan—a key swing state—helped tilt the scale in his favor. And perhaps most significantly, Saudi Arabia has come to see the original Abraham Accords as a bad deal.

Despite all the talk about Mohammed bin Salman’s hostility toward Hamas and covert cooperation with Israel, Witkoff’s interview—and Riyadh’s recent actions—leave little room for doubt. Palestinian demands must be addressed. A resolution to the conflict is now a prerequisite for regional normalization.

A year and a half of war has failed to deliver Israeli victory. The elusive slogan designed by Netanyahu – “total victory” seems further than ever. In desperation, Netanyahu embraced a delusionary “political” vision now crashing against the hard reality of Witkoff’s doctrine. Ironically, it’s Hamas that emerges with the upper hand. How can victory be declared when Gaza lies in ruins? The answer is that it was precisely the massive destruction and the mass killing of Gaza’s civilians that contributed to Hamas’s victory. Trump granted legitimacy to Hamas by turning it into a party to the conflict’s resolution.

The recent meeting in Doha between Trump’s hostage envoy, Adam Boehler, and Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya was no coincidence. It embodied the policy Witkoff articulated: engage Hamas. Talk to them.

Hamas’s real victory lies in this fact: October 7 achieved its goal. It reinserted the Palestinian issue into global discourse. It’s no wonder 70% of Palestinians now support the terror group. This is the issue Israeli society refuses to grapple with. Without presenting a vision for future Israeli-Palestinian relations, the only blueprint left is Qatar’s.

And Qatar’s vision promises a bleak future for both peoples.

The post The Gospel of Witkoff first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

It was a three-act play. The setting: the Oval Office. The lead actor: the ruler of an empire who calls himself “the King.” Surrounding him: a chorus of cheerleaders in suits, each vying to glorify and elevate him, competing to recite his falsehoods the loudest. This is a dystopian drama set in a virtual reality. The audience watches, bewildered, struggling to believe their eyes.

In the first act, “the King,” heavyset and imposing, sits with a leaner man, much younger, bearing the title “President.” He speaks English with a pronounced French accent, joking hesitantly with “the King,” sometimes timidly stroking his ego, fearful of exposing his lies. And when he does, he smiles apologetically, as if to say: “Don’t take me too seriously.” What brought “the President” to the Oval Office? He pleads, flatters, and tries to change “the King’s” mind about “the Actor” who is set to appear in the third act.

In the second act, for the same purpose, enters “the Prime Minister,” whose polished English impresses “the King.” In a conciliatory gesture, he hands over a royal invitation from the British monarch. “The American King” seems amused and at ease, and “the Actor’s” fate appears secure.

But in the third act, the plot twists. “The Actor” enters – clad in military fatigues, his English broken, laden with a thick Ukrainian accent. Compared to the Frenchman and the Englishman, he looks tense, fully aware that he is walking into a well-laid ambush. “The King” does not conceal his disdain. It seems that all the Frenchman’s and the Englishman’s efforts were in vain. “The King” repeats his accusations: “You have no cards to play. Without me, you are nothing.” He parrots, word for word, the arguments of his “Tsar” friend, who has recently seized vast swaths of “the Actor’s” homeland. In desperation, “the Actor” dares to do the unthinkable—he tries to point out “the King’s” mistake. But “the King’s” henchman immediately scolds him, and “the Actor” is unceremoniously expelled from the kingdom, left to face the eastern beast alone.

A few weeks earlier, in the same Oval Office, a very different kind of leader was hosted—an honored guest, the first to be invited to the kingdom. This guest was cut from the same cloth as “the King.” He came from the wounded, blood-soaked Jewish state, fresh from a war fought on seven fronts. He is wanted in Europe for war crimes; like “the King,” he is perpetually pursued by his nation’s deep state. For him, lying is the norm, and corruption is a way of life. His genius lies in his gamble—betting on “the King’s” return to power—and together, they weave fantasies detached from reality.

In this scene, “the American King” is at ease, while “the King of Israel” reclines comfortably, savoring the delusions spewing from his host. “The King of Israel” carries on his back the greatest failure to befall the Jewish people since the Holocaust: the ruthless massacre of his citizens—elderly, women, and children—and the abduction of hundreds taken as hostages by savages emerging from the sprawling refugee camp known as Gaza. While he indulges in a luxurious weekend, his people continue to march the streets in desperate protest: “Free our hostages, take responsibility for your actions, establish a state commission of inquiry, call for new elections, do something to heal the nation’s bleeding wounds.” But he remains unmoved, refusing to bear any responsibility. Like “the American King,” “the Russian Tsar,” and “the Turkish Sultan,” he believes God chose him to rule. And, like his American counterpart, he surrounds himself with a chorus of cheerleaders, faithfully reciting his lies.

As they sit comfortably in the Oval Office, “the American King” prattles on about his vision for peace in our conflict-ridden region, while “the King of Israel” chuckles in disbelief. “How did I get so lucky?” he wonders. “The American King” lays out his vision for “the day after”: “You just need to clear out all of Gaza’s residents, scatter them to the winds, and I—as a former contractor—will clear the rubble and build Mar-a-Gaza, the Mediterranean Riviera!” The words sound delightful to “the King of Israel.” Original! Genius! Truly thinking outside the box!

Imagine this: until now, “the King of Israel” has been tearing his hair out, caught between two opposing demands. On one side, most of his people demand, “Free the hostages, even at the cost of stopping the war!” On the other, his messianic partners warn: “Continue the war, or be deposed!” “The King of Israel” entered the Empire-beyond-the- sea tormented and left it elated. He returned home proclaiming, “Eureka! There’s a plan for ‘the day after’—transfer! This time, with approval and legitimacy.”

As they sit comfortably in the Oval Office, “the American King” prattles on about his vision for peace in our conflict-ridden region, while “the King of Israel” chuckles in disbelief. “How did I get so lucky?” he wonders. “The American King” lays out his vision for “the day after”: “You just need to clear out all of Gaza’s residents, scatter them to the winds, and I—as a former contractor—will clear the rubble and build Mar-a-Gaza, the Mediterranean Riviera!” The words sound delightful to “the King of Israel.” Original! Genius! Truly thinking outside the box!

Unbelievable. What was once an unmentionable messianic fantasy has overnight become an operational plan. “Transfer!” his loyalists cheer. And so, we have arrived at this moment. “The King of Israel” has declared that the hostage release-deal he recently signed with the monsters is null and void. There’s a “new King” beyond the sea, and everything agreed upon before him has expired.

And now what? After a year and a half of war, in which none of its objectives have been achieved, the army is once again ordered to prepare for battle. According to “the American King’s” vision, they must make life in Gaza a living hell. “But we’ve already made their lives hell,” cry the hostages’ families. “No,” answers the King of Israel, “this time, we will unleash a hell unlike any the world has ever seen. We will cut off food, water, and electricity. We will starve them and torment them until the monster gives in and returns our hostages without any concessions on our part. Today, everything is permitted.” Some ask: “Will this actually bring the hostages home?” But that question is irrelevant now. What matters is the fate of the King of Israel. And, following the example of the American King, in order to remain on the throne, everything is permitted.

After the humiliating expulsion of the Ukrainian Actor from the kingdom in the third act, the world was left gaping in shock, eagerly awaiting what would come next. Meanwhile, in our own small and tormented kingdom, some found encouragement in these developments. One of the admirers of the King of Israel, Naveh Drori, wrote in a respected daily newspaper about “the connection between Ukraine and Gaza” under the headline “There’s a New Boss,” stating: “For Israel, this could be a positive development.”

A nation that had just faced a multi-front attack, threatening its existence, now sees the sacrifice of another nation to a bloodthirsty Tsar as something “that could be a positive development.”

It seems the world has veered off its moral axis. Human existence is losing its meaning: Two million Gazans face annihilation, hostages are abandoned to their fate, soldiers are sent to fight phantoms and sacrifice their lives for the King of Israel, who has embraced the delusions of the American King. It turns out that this is what hell looks like: people being sent into the fire as an offering for a false king who has inscribed on his banner the saying, “There is none beside me.” This is how the prophet Isaiah described the spirit that ruled the Kingdom of Babylon—a kingdom that has long since vanished, leaving behind only a desolate and shattered land.

The post Everything is Permitted – A Three-Act Play first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.