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.

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.

In an unprecedented interview on Channel 11’s “It Will Be Good,” Brigadier General Amit Saar, former head of the Military Intelligence Research Division, offered a revealing confession. This man, whose task had been to warn of Hamas’s October 7th attack, not only acknowledges his failure but admits he never imagined Hamas would dare assault Israel the way it did. Following the announcement of the judicial reform, he had indeed warned the government several times about the danger of war erupting against Israel due to the internal fracture in Israeli society, but he had thought the threat would come from the north.

While watching the interview, I found little that truly surprised me, until one statement struck me like a hammer – a statement that explains Israel’s current situation on the eve of the hostage deal. While explaining his opposition to a proposal raised in the General Staff on October 11th to eliminate Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, he said: “The main reason was that in my view, we cannot conclude this event without extracting from Hamas an unimaginable price, one never before extracted from any enemy at any stage, and this cannot be achieved if we shift the spotlight to Lebanon.” Thus, the objective was to exact a price “beyond imagination.”

The instinctive response of this general, who had monitored Hamas and was supposed to warn of the danger, proves he was entirely blind to what was unfolding before his eyes. This, despite surveillance operators who repeatedly warned of Hamas’s intentions while monitoring its movements.

The reason for this is that Hamas’s October 7th attack was truly “beyond imagination.” There was nothing rational about this murderous assault, which included the kidnapping of civilians – among them teenagers, young women, infants, and elderly – as hostages, in addition to soldiers. The officer’s response seems to mirror Hamas’s behavior. Faced with a murderous action beyond imagination, he responded with a reaction that was equally so—and outside the realm of rationality.

From that moment on, nothing that happened in Gaza could be explained rationally. For over a year, the military, politicians, media figures, columnists, and commentators have been demanding that the government present a “day after” plan. However, as we approach the conclusion of the current phase of the war, the government has refused to present any political plan for the post-war period. It has limited itself to establishing three strategic objectives: first, eliminating Hamas’s military capabilities; second, dismantling Hamas’s governing capabilities; and third, returning the hostages.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is the undeclared motto of this war, which better serves the instinct for revenge than the conduct of a rational military campaign.

As the general outline of the hostage deal emerges, it becomes apparent that the third objective contradicts the first two. In fact, the government added the third objective of returning the hostages due to public pressure. But it turns out that securing the hostages’ return comes at the expense of achieving the two main strategic objectives. Hamas continues to maintain military capabilities, evident in the fighting in northern Gaza which is extracting a heavy toll from Israel, and it remains the exclusive governing authority in Gaza. “Absolute victory”—Netanyahu’s slogan—has not materialized. The opposition accused Netanyahu that his position amounted to opposing a hostage deal, and thus it has turned out: one cannot achieve both absolute victory and the release of hostages.

The second reason why the war’s objectives cannot be achieved stems from the government’s continued refusal to discuss “the day after.” In other words, the government has no alternative to Hamas’s rule in Gaza. The absence of an alternative was the main reason why Israel, with its army and acclaimed generals, was caught with its pants down on October 7th. This lack of an alternative had led successive governments and the entire security establishment to compensate by trying to tame the monster. The purpose of allowing suitcases of Qatari money into Gaza, and avoiding confrontation, was to bring Hamas to a point where war would not be worthwhile, since they would have too much to lose.

This conception was undoubtedly rational, but it failed because it encountered an organization whose rationale is not rational – one willing to sacrifice its people to achieve its messianic goal. Thus, we arrive at a situation where thousands of Israelis take to the streets demanding the return of hostages while Hamas documents the horrors of war in a transcontinental public relations campaign. In the same breath, Hamas declares its willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Gazans for its sacred cause while abjuring responsibility for their fate.

It appears that the hostage deal reveals who is the winning side and who is the losing side. In Israel, people are horrified by the idea that Hamas will remain in Gaza, by the release of hundreds of terrorists, and by the fact that the strong failed to defeat the weak.

In light of the emerging details about the deal, Yoav Zitun, military correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, allows himself to state explicitly today: “The dismantling of Hamas’s civil and military rule is not a war objective. It’s a lie fed to the public since the first week of the war. It’s a fabricated spin, as long as it lacks the crucial missing piece: who will govern instead of Hamas over 2 million Gazans, from among whom and under whose auspices Hamas developed into a terror army, and still survives and will survive for years to come.”

Here, another question arises: who is feeding the public these spins – the government or the military? The military says that it cannot achieve the war’s objectives because the government has not set a political goal. However, it was the military itself that vetoed replacing Hamas’s rule with Israeli military governance. To this end, it invented the method of repeated raids on territories it had previously conquered and withdrawn from. This method not only results in numerous military casualties, but it also causes enormous destruction in Gaza and unbearable harm to the civilian population.

Thus, the military too has no alternative to Hamas and no answer for the day after. Talk of Arab states coming to rescue Israel from Gaza was and remains a pipe dream. Before or after October 7th, the equation remained unchanged, leaving only two alternatives – either Hamas or Israel. Since Israel rejects both, what remains is interminable chaos.

Consequently, the government has failed to achieve its primary objectives. Hamas has been neither militarily nor administratively demolished, but it has indeed fulfilled the wish of the Israeli general who was responsible for intelligence warnings. Israel has indeed extracted a price “beyond imagination.” And to be clear, it is not just Hamas that has paid the price, but also, and above all, the civilians of Gaza. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is the undeclared motto of this war, which better serves the instinct for revenge than the conduct of a rational military campaign.

In light of this situation, it is very difficult to predict what the day after the return of the hostages and the start of a ceasefire will look like. Hamas will remain in Gaza as a governing force and will continue to impose itself on the population while relying on what remains of its military power. Yet Gaza has been completely destroyed. It has become Ground Zero, and the displaced have nowhere to return to. The situation is beyond imagination, and it’s unclear what Hamas’s “rule” can possibly mean. Therefore, it is so difficult to imagine what will happen in the future – who will provide for residents’ needs, who will rehabilitate the ruins, what will happen to an entire generation of children left without schools or homes in which to do their homework?

It turns out that not only does Israel have no idea what will happen the day after, Hamas has no idea either. Thus, the Israeli government and military have created a reality that is beyond imagination, and currently, there is no Israeli or Palestinian entity capable of offering a solution. The thesis that this conflict has no solution, and that nothing remains but to manage it, is what led us to the abyss. The only rational solution remains what it has always been: peace, equality, and democracy for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

The post A price beyond imagination first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria is good news for the Arab nations and for all freedom seekers around the globe. Since the 2011 outbreak of the Arab Spring in Syria, Da’am Party has unequivocally supported the popular struggle to overthrow Assad’s brutal regime. During that time, the party organized protests in front of the Russian embassy in Tel Aviv and during the visit of the Russian Prime Minister to Israel, demanding an end to the Syrian genocide.

In 2014, Da’am Party initiated the “Committee for Solidarity with the Syrian People,” which included over 50 Jewish and Arab figures. The committee held speaking panels and raised funds for Syrian refugee children, which were transferred to them through Save the Children.

The timing of Assad’s regime fall is no coincidence. After more than 13 years of oppression, which led to the displacement of 13 million Syrian citizens, the killing of half a million people, and the imprisonment and torture of hundreds of thousands, regime opponents managed to overthrow it almost without a fight. The final disintegration of the Syrian regime can be attributed to Hamas’s terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, which was orchestrated and supported by Iran—the patron of both Hamas and Assad’s regime.

The Da’am Party strongly condemned the barbaric attack of Hamas, which aligned itself with the Iranian axis and sought to extinguish the state of Israel, and expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself. Our stance against Iran and its proxies reflects our commitment to the freedom of Arab nations, above all the Palestinian people, who have long suffered from displacement and suffering. We argue that the struggle for progress, democracy, and human rights in the region requires Israel to end its political intransigence, but such progress will not be possible without the defeat of the Iranian axis, which seeks to establish an aggressive and extremist theocratic rule in the region that views Israel as its target for destruction.

Over recent decades, under the pretext of “liberating Jerusalem,” Iranian aggression has gained momentum. Iran has nurtured and armed its proxies —Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas—who have wreaked havoc and destroyed the lives of millions in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Iran also created a “ring of fire” around Israel and positioned itself as a regional power. Its objectives, however were entirely detached from the needs of the peoples who became hostages of the Iranian regime.

The collapse of Assad’s regime began with the confrontation between Iran and Israel on October 7, 2023. The decisive event in this process, which paved the way for the Syrian revolutionaries, was undoubtedly the assassination of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah a year later, on September 27, 2024. Israel’s decision to eliminate Nasrallah, who played a prominent role in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, sent a clear signal to the Lebanese and Syrians that the organizations tied to the Iranian axis, including Iran itself, are not invincible.

The joy expressed in videos from liberated areas of Syria following Israel’s killing of Nasrallah was striking. The Syrian people knew Hezbollah fighters and their revered leader Nasrallah as perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes against the residents of Syrian towns and cities such as Qusayr, Madaya, Zabadani, and many others. Hezbollah’s acts of oppression included murder, rape, systematic starvation, and torture. The celebrations in Syria over Nasrallah’s death reflected the Syrian people’s view of Hezbollah and Iran as their enemies and their approval of Israel’s fight against them.

In Lebanon, a broad front emerged in opposition to the “Support for Gaza War” launched unilaterally by Hezbollah on October 8, 2023, without any deliberation in parliament. The Lebanese people clearly understood that this war would bring devastation to Lebanon, hollow out the country’s institutions, and turn Lebanon into an Iranian proxy state serving as a base for endless future wars against Israel.

The success of the rebels in toppling the regime in Damascus can be attributed to several factors, including the weakening of Hezbollah and its defeat in the war against Israel; the failure of Hamas; the blows suffered by Iran; and Russia’s entanglement in its aggressive war against Ukraine. The U.S. and Western Europe maintained relations with Russia even after 2015. The tacit acceptance of Russia’s murderous airstrikes on Aleppo (the second city of importance in Syria) in 2015, aimed at saving Assad’s regime, was later interpreted by Putin as a green light to invade Ukraine, with little expectation of serious Western opposition.

However, a decade of Russian-Iranian occupation in Syria failed to stabilize Assad’s regime. The destruction of the economy, reliance on a Narco-economy, and rampant government corruption left extreme oppression as the regime’s sole guarantee for survival. Syria, like Lebanon, became a failed state, unable to protect its citizens or provide for their most fundamental needs.

Life for Syrians, including those from groups that once supported the regime, turned into a nightmare. In 2011, when the Syrian uprising began as part of the democratic Arab Spring, the regime portrayed itself as the sole bulwark against jihadist forces threatening secular life, garnering support from minorities and residents of major cities. This time, however, during the ten days leading up to the regime’s collapse, it became evident that this support base had completely eroded. As the rebel forces advanced toward Aleppo, Hama, Homs, and Damascus, they were greeted with cheers and celebrations by the local residents. Fifty-four years of the Assad dynasty rule in Syria had united the Syrian people against it.

The fall of the Syrian regime is a historic event that shakes the foundations of all authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East. These regimes had welcomed Assad back into their fold over the past year, normalizing relations with him. The United Arab Emirates, with the support of the U.S. administration, played a leading role in this normalization effort. For all of them, Bashar al-Assad’s downfall signifies that the Arab Spring has not yet had its final say.

For the Da’am Party, the revolutionary wave of the Arab Spring in 2011–2012 reflected a profound historical shift, embodying the Arab peoples’ aspirations for democracy. We rejected the views that claimed it was a mere fleeting event serving the interests of extremist Islamist forces. We interpreted the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and later in Lebanon and Iraq, as a new era in which the peoples of the region seek their place in the modern 21st-century world. After years of tyranny, they want to share in the achievements of progress and the social, economic, political, and cultural openness that other world nations enjoy. The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime marks a critical milestone in the collapse of the entire Iranian axis. It will have a particularly significant impact on Hezbollah, which will no longer be able to operate as an armed militia alongside the Lebanese state.

The regime’s fall also delivers a severe blow to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and to Iran’s broader project, which has leveraged hostility toward Israel and calls for its destruction as an effective tool for gaining popular support. This defeat will have direct consequences on the Iranian political arena. The damage to the prestige and status of the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s militant force, will inevitably strengthen the civil reformist movement.

If the Iranian regime wishes to survive following Syria’s collapse, it must abandon the idea of exporting the Shiite revolution and dominating Arab states under the pretext of “liberating Jerusalem.” Instead, it must redirect its efforts toward rebuilding the Iranian state, society, and economy.

As for Russia, that was “invited” to Syria by Assad, it has lost all its assets in Syria, from the Khmeimim airbase to the Tartus naval base. This situation will have far-reaching consequences for Russia’s prestige as a military power and for its actions in Ukraine.

Although Israel’s actions over the past 14 months did not reflect a coherent plan, they played a decisive role in the fall of Assad’s regime. Israel was caught off guard when Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” on October 7, 2023. Despite the bitter failure it experienced that day, Israel demonstrated its resilience to itself and to the world. This stands in stark contrast to Nasrallah’s claims that Israel’s power is illusory and comparable to a “spider web.” Backed by overwhelming support from its citizens, its economic, social, military, and technological capabilities, in addition to generous U.S. military and economic support, Israel managed to reverse the equation. Fighting on multiple fronts, Israel proved that the Iranian axis is the weaker force.

As the Syrian people embark on the long and arduous journey of internal reconstruction, it is vital for Israel to cease all interference in their affairs, allowing them to rebuild their political, social, and economic lives according to their own will.

This war, however, came at an unbearable cost, especially for the Palestinian people, who paid a devastating price: tens of thousands killed and injured, many of them women and children, widespread hunger, and the internal multi-time displacement of over two million Gaza residents. Also, the West Bank faced a severe crisis, exemplified by the closure of checkpoints, leaving 200,000 workers without a livelihood. The Lebanese people suffered immensely, with countless homes destroyed, civilians displaced, and many lives lost. It is important to remember that this tectonic upheaval was triggered by Hamas’ reckless and murderous actions, including mass killings, rapes, and the abduction of civilians—among them elderly people, women, and children—who remain hostages to this day. None of them ever saw a representative of the red cross.

All of this could have been avoided if Israel had acted differently. The Iranian axis could have been dismantled earlier had Israel chosen to support the democratic forces in Syria against the regime. When the Syrian people rose up in 2011, Israel chose to watch from the side-lines, preferring to maintain the status quo with the “familiar enemy,” Bashar al-Assad. Israel allowed the massive intervention of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in support of Assad. The result was the bolstering of Iranian power in Syria and the arming of Hezbollah, which grew into a formidable force and joined Hamas in the attacks of October 8, 2023.

However, the original sin of Israel, which led to the devastating war of October 2023, lies in its decades-long refusal to reach a just political solution to the Palestinian issue. Israel systematically undermined the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and sought to deepen internal Palestinian divisions by providing economic support to Hamas. Due to the blindness of its political and military establishment, Israel adopted an approach that viewed Hamas as a strong but deterred force—a sort of guarantee for maintaining the status quo, particularly in the absence of any significant global pressure for a political resolution. For years, Israel turned a blind eye as Hamas built its military strength, using the generous aid it received to boost its missile industry and construct a network of tunnels designed for future attacks.

The fall of the Syrian regime directly serves Israel’s security interests, as it cuts off Iran’s military supply routes to Hezbollah through Syria. Iran’s “ring of fire” around Israel has collapsed. At the same time, Israel watches the dramatic developments in Syria with suspicion and concern. The Israeli political and security leadership—spanning both the coalition and opposition—views these events through a purely military lens. Their actions focus on damage control, anticipating the potential emergence of rogue elements seeking to act against Israel during Syria’s transition period.

From the Syrian people’s perspective, Iran and Russia are their primary enemies—not Israel. The Syrian rebels understand their victory is partly owed to Israel’s military superiority in its campaign against Iran. Today, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq are fragile, fragmented states. Rebuilding these nations after the systematic destruction caused by Iranian occupation will take a long time.

As the Syrian people embark on the long and arduous journey of internal reconstruction, it is vital for Israel to cease all interference in their affairs, allowing them to rebuild their political, social, and economic lives according to their own will. The same principle applies to Lebanon’s rehabilitation. Neither Syria nor Lebanon currently poses a threat to Israel. All they seek is to heal the deep wounds inflicted by the Iranian regime and its allies—Assad’s regime and Hezbollah.

Within Israel, there is much to hold Prime Minister Netanyahu accountable for. The Lebanese journalist Fares Khashan was correct when he tweeted on Sunday, December 8, that “Bashar al-Assad is a far greater criminal than Netanyahu. Assad committed crimes against his own people, while Netanyahu acted against an external enemy that threatened to annihilate Israel.”

While Assad’s regime was worse, this does not absolve Netanyahu of being the most incompetent prime minister in Israel’s history. He supported and bolstered Hamas, systematically obstructing any political resolution with the Palestinians. His refusal to pursue a political solution gave Iran an opening to present itself as “the protector” of the Palestinian people. Netanyahu deepened the occupation and perpetuated an apartheid regime that denies 5 million Palestinians basic human and civil rights.

He failed to protect Israeli citizens from the horrific massacres perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, leaving defenceless Israelis vulnerable to unimaginable violence. Netanyahu also ushered openly racist parties into his government, focusing his efforts on undermining Israel’s democratic system and attempting a judicial coup to shield himself from the criminal charges he faces. Now that fighting has diminished, and a new phase in his trial begun, he is giving a new green light for the judicial coup to advance.  In recent years, Netanyahu has adopted a mantra akin to Assad’s: “It’s me or the state burns down.”

In the aftermath of the devastating war, all peoples of the region—particularly the Palestinian people—must reassess their approach to the conflict. Support for armed struggle, the “resistance axis,” and violence has led the region and the Palestinian people to ruin and disaster. A new path must be forged, one that prioritizes diplomacy, coexistence, and rebuilding trust.

Without a doubt, respecting individual freedoms and adopting democracy as a fundamental framework for societal development is a guarantee for the security of all nations. The Palestinians must change their misguided approach of boycotting everything Israeli, including the democratic forces within Israel, under the pretext of opposing “normalization.” Instead of this futile policy that leads to a dead end, a creative leadership is needed to present a plan for building Palestinian society in partnership with progressive elements in Israel.

This equation also requires an Israeli component. Liberal and democratic forces in Israel must reassess their positions and put an end to the notion that the conflict with the Palestinians can be “managed” and its resolution postponed to a distant future. Leaving the occupation and apartheid regime in the territories intact—even while taking steps to “reduce the conflict”—creates fertile ground for the growth of racist and fascist forces and fuels the flames of judicial overhaul and the dismantling of democracy. The result is the establishment of an anti-liberal, religious, messianic regime, with the Nation-State Law of 2018 serving as its wake-up call, leading to the judicial coup of Minister of Justice Yariv Levin in 2023.

The pro-democracy protest movement, which demonstrated for months against the far-right government, proved that there are resilient and influential democratic forces in Israel with widespread public support who are aware of the dangers. This movement must break free from conservative thinking and adopt radical solutions based on partnerships of peace and democracy with the peoples of the region. Peace and mutual recognition with the Palestinians are central components that will secure the future of all nations, as well as the stability and rebuilding of Israeli society itself.

The post Position Statement of the Da’am Party
Fall of the Assad Regime: The End of the Iranian-Russian Axis first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

At the recent opening of the Knesset’s winter session, Benjamin Netanyahu outlined his political beliefs, delivering a programmatic speech aimed at his critics in the Knesset and the media who claim he has neither a strategy nor a plan for the post-war period. A year into the war, just days after Israel struck substantial military facilities in Iran, a month after Hassan Nasrallah was bombed from the air, and ten days after the killing of Yahya Sinwar, Netanyahu was in a position to begin summarizing the war’s achievements and sketching out his political vision. He explained to those present the meaning of what he calls “absolute victory.”

According to Netanyahu, “absolute victory is a structured and consistent work plan” that involves the elimination of both Hamas and Hezbollah leadership, along with a serious blow to the Iranian regime. He describes this as part of a “strategic turning point,” highlighted by “extensive attacks on Iran—and on the proxies that were supposed to defend the Islamic Republic.” However, this strategic shift must ultimately lead to a political achievement that secures Israel’s peace and security for future generations, ensuring that the victory over the Iranian axis is indeed an absolute one.

He explained his vision for “the day after”: “Members of the Knesset, in the ‘day after,’ Hamas will no longer control Gaza, and Hezbollah will no longer be positioned on our northern border. We are currently working on plans to stabilize these two fronts. But the ‘day after’ also includes another crucial aspect: I aim to continue the process I led a few years ago with the signing of the historic Abraham Accords—to achieve peace with additional Arab countries. In the Abraham Accords, we secured four peace agreements—let me emphasize: peace for peace, peace born out of strength—with important countries in the Middle East. These countries, along with others, clearly see the blows we are delivering to those who attack us—the Iranian axis of evil. They are impressed by our determination and audacity. They aspire, like us, for a stable, secure, and prosperous Middle East.”

Ironically, the Abraham Accords acted as a catalyst for the October 7th attack. On one hand, they created the illusion that peace with Arab countries could be achieved based on “peace for peace.” On the other, they set the stage for Iran to adopt the Palestinian cause, after Arab states abandoned it in favor of a strategic alliance with Israel.

Netanyahu’s vision for a post-war peace serves as further evidence that the horrific tragedy of October 7 did not alter the flawed conception that was adopted by Netanyahu as well as by the political and security establishments and almost the entire society. The fundamental misconception leading to this erroneous conclusion is the complete erasure of the Palestinian question from public consciousness. The failure that manifested on October 7 was not merely an incorrect assessment of Hamas’s intentions or a belief that it could be deterred. This misconception emerged from the assumption that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is unsolvable, leading to the conclusion that it must simply be “managed.”

The decision to manage the conflict instead of resolving it has led to a policy of “feeding the monster (Hamas).” The Palestinian question is fundamentally not a security issue but a political one; thus, basing “absolute victory” on the elimination of Hamas leadership is nothing more than an illusion. While Hamas’s leadership has indeed been eliminated, it left behind tens of thousands of dead, 2 million people who are homeless and lack livelihoods, education, and healthcare.

Five million Palestinians, of them two million in Gaza and three million in the West Bank, represent a problem that is entirely Israel’s. This has been the case, and it will continue to be so. Palestinian citizens are completely at the mercy of the State of Israel, the sovereign power in the area. “Absolute victory” has effectively returned Gaza to Israel’s exclusive control, and there is no Arab or other state that can, wants, or is capable of replacing Israel in the unprecedented reconstruction needed after this disastrous war.

Ironically, the Abraham Accords acted as a catalyst for the October 7th attack. On one hand, they created the illusion that peace with Arab countries would be achieved based on “peace for peace.” On the other hand, they set the stage for Iran to adopt the Palestinian cause, after Arab states abandoned it in favor of a strategic alliance with Israel.

In his Knesset policy speech, Netanyahu repeated the same mistaken concept that transforms his vision into an illusion. True, this war creates a “strategic turning point.” Hamas brigades have nearly been destroyed, Hezbollah is losing its standing in Lebanon, and Israel has demonstrated its military superiority over Iran. These Israeli victories, however, will not erase the bitter and humiliating failure of October 7.

Indeed, Netanyahu refuses to take responsibility for the failure, opposes an independent commission of inquiry, and is fighting for his political survival. In contrast, Arab states—potential partners for future peace agreements—clearly understand that the key to closing the gap through which Iran has infiltrated, gaining public support across the Arab world and unsettling regimes in Jordan, Morocco, and on the international stage, is to address the Palestinian issue.

It is no coincidence that Saudi Arabia initiated the establishment of the “International Alliance for Implementing the Two-State Solution.” The Palestinian issue is fundamentally an Arab matter, not an Iranian one; it concerns the Sunni world, not the Shiite. The support Iran gained by adopting the Palestinian cause left the Arab world vulnerable to criticism of the Arab masses, who took to the streets in demonstrations supporting Hamas and opposing Israel.

How did we reach a point where Israel’s Prime Minister delivers a speech in the Knesset about peace without mentioning the Palestinians even once? And on the other hand, how is it possible that the opposition limits its’ criticism of the October 7 failure and the tragic fate of the remaining 101 hostages, without shaking the people from their illusion? Israel’s strategic problem is not Iran, located 1,800 kilometers away, but the Palestinians, who live just a few kilometers from us.

Israel will not gain legitimacy through its military and technological superiority but through a change in its approach to the Palestinian people. The entire world, including the Arab world, can no longer turn a blind eye to the occupation and the apartheid-like regime imposed on the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s struggle for existence cannot come at the expense of the Palestinian people’s existence. The fact that Israel’s political and security establishment, from right to left, ignores this fundamental truth lays the groundwork for the next disaster. It is possible to destroy all of Gaza, to eliminate Hamas leaders, but it is impossible to extinguish the natural desire of five million Palestinians for a life of dignity, equality, and freedom.

This political blindness poses a real danger to the survival of Israeli society. It not only creates conditions for ongoing bloodshed but also serves as fertile ground for the growth of fascist elements aiming to turn Israel into a messianic theocracy. The roots of the judicial coup are deeply entwined with the occupation, as fascist ideology categorizes people based on their ethnic and religious affiliations. In the eyes of the Israeli right, Palestinians are not considered equal human beings, and therefore anyone who supports liberal ideas and values of equality and democracy is also labeled a traitor and an enemy of the people. Netanyahu’s vision of “absolute victory” is primarily a false prophecy detached from reality. In this sense, Netanyahu has not changed; he has been consistent in his path all along.

The most troubling aspect is that today there is no party or leader capable of presenting a political alternative. It seems we have not learned the lesson of October 7; we have not understood that peace begins at home, and that to achieve peace, we must share our rights and economic resources to enable equality between Israelis and Palestinians. Without these fundamental conditions, Israeli society will have no future.

The post Victory? Perhaps. Absolute victory? No. first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The Iranian missile attack on Israel on October 1, ended with one fatality—a worker from Gaza who was in a Palestinian police base near Jericho. According to reports, he was hit by shrapnel from interceptors and missile fragments that fell in the area of the village of Nu’aymah, where workers from Gaza were staying after being stranded following the October 7 Hamas terror attack in Israel’s south. The worker killed, Sameh Khadr Hassan Al-Asali (38), was struck in the head and died on the spot. According to his ID, published on Palestinian social media, he was a resident of the Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza and had three sons—Adi, Amro, and Yazan.

The Iranian regime, claiming to lead what it calls the “axis of resistance” against the Israeli occupation, launched 180 ballistic missiles at Israel to express its commitment to the Palestinian liberation struggle and revenge the deaths of Ismail Haniye and Hassan Nassralah. Ironically, the only practical outcome of this grandiose act was yet another Palestinian victim. Not just any victim, but a Gazan worker. Along with several hundred of his peers, he was forced to seek refuge in the West Bank for a whole year after his path back to his family in Gaza was blocked since October 2023.

According to news agency reports, missile and interceptor fragments fell in several locations in Israel as well as in some Palestinian towns in the West Bank. By the end of this tense evening, there were a few light injuries and minor property damage in Israel and the territories.

The Iranian regime, as mentioned, has aspirations of leading the Arab region. To advance this goal, it has established a network of proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, funded and armed by Tehran. Iran was behind the Hamas terror attack on October 7. It also determined that Hezbollah would conduct a year-long war of attrition on Israel’s northern border, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Lebanese becoming refugees in their own countries.

The missile attack (second to the one launched in April) was intended to be the ultimate response to the severe blow Israel dealt to the prestige of the Tehran regime and its strategic standing. Instead of producing an image of victory that would demonstrate its strength to the entire world and reinforce the trust of the region’s residents in it, this attack became an embarrassing failure for a regime incapable of addressing the basic needs of its own 90 million inhabitants.

As usual, the failure was concealed.  Supreme Leader Khamenei mobilized thousands for victory parades in the streets of Tehran; media channels and social networks were filled with images of the “severe hits” supposedly dealt to strategic targets in Israel. The Israeli report that the attack was thwarted with American, British, and Jordanian assistance was dismissed as false propaganda of the “Zionist entity” and the corrupt West. The credibility of the Iranian version of this missile attack is no higher than that of Nasrallah’s previous boasts about striking Unit 8200’s base in Tel Aviv.

The communication channels of the “axis of resistance” do not mention, even in passing, the Gazan worker killed in Jericho. Hamas, which sold its soul for Iranian money and weapons, ignores Palestinian workers employed in Israel and the settlements. It views them as traitors for their willingness to work for Israeli employers.

Against the backdrop of the resounding military blows dealt to Hezbollah in recent weeks and the Iranian failing missile attack, a recognition is beginning to form in the region that Iran is a fragile reed.

More than 200,000 Palestinian workers from the West Bank, whose employment in Israel served as a lifeline for the ailing Palestinian economy before October 2023, have since been barred from entering Israel. These workers, along with many others, are direct victims of the war. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah also refuses to support them. Instead of standing up clearly against the false rhetoric of the “Axis of Resistance”, shunning Hamas, and presenting themselves as a worthy alternative, the PA leaders appear as an excess of Hamas. The Palestinian workers are not a factor in the equation – neither for Hamas nor for Abu Mazen’s PA.

Against the backdrop of the resounding military blows dealt to Hezbollah in recent weeks and the Iranian failing missile attack, a recognition is beginning to form in the region that Iran is a fragile reed. The false war waged by the Tehran clerical regime against Israel aims to create a scapegoat to divert public attention from its clerical authoritarian hold and corrupt nature and ensure its stability.

The Iranian people have understood the big lie for a long time. Since the Green Movement in 2009 against the rigged election in favor of Ahmadinejad, we have witnessed brave waves of protests and popular uprisings, culminating in the women’s uprising that began in September 2022 after Mahsa Amini’s murder for not putting her hair dress properly. This public protest faced murderous repression, executions of dissidents, and silencing of activists and artists. In October 2023, we saw the crowd at a football stadium in Tehran booing regime representatives who demanded a moment of silence in solidarity with Palestine. The Iranian people understand that the talk of the “Zionist enemy” and solidarity with Palestine is sheer hypocrisy and simply do not believe it. The results of the presidential elections held in June 2024 also reflect the deep criticism and distrust citizens feel toward the supreme leader’s rule.

It is important to mention that Israel under Netanyahu is not free of responsibility for the region’s descent into a destructive war. The notion that the resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians can be indefinitely postponed, thus leaving five million Palestinians without basic political, human and civil rights (a view also shared by the previous Left/Right Bennett-Lapid government), was the loop hole through which Tehran, Hamas, and Hezbollah managed to penetrate the Palestinian arena and exploit it for their own sectarian purposes.

As dangerous and difficult as the current crisis is, it also represents an opportunity to address the problem at its root. The blow suffered by the Iranian axis could strengthen the struggle for democracy in the region. This struggle threatens not only the religious leaders and Revolutionary Guards in Tehran, not only their front organizations, but also Netanyahu and his racist partners, who viewed Hamas as a strategic asset that exempted them from the need to advance a political settlement.

The democratic forces in Israel and Palestine, seeking a solution of peace and coexistence, must clearly and resolutely align themselves with the forces fighting for democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East, including Iran.

The key to democratic change in Israel lies primarily in recognizing the Palestinians’ right to live in security, dignity, and equality. Let us turn the memory of Sameh Al-Asali—the victim of the Iranian missile attack—into a symbol of a shared struggle against war, for workers’ rights, human rights, and freedom throughout the region, including Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

The post The Sole Fatality in Iran’s Missile Attack Was a Worker from Gaza first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Today (Thursday, September 26), I returned to Haifa. The siren on Monday evening startled me and my partner, and we fled to Tel Aviv to a secure shelter with our daughter. Yesterday, on Wednesday, the sirens followed us all the way to Tel Aviv. At 6:30 a.m., our nimble and well-drilled 10-year-old grandson was the first to reach the door to run down the stairs straight to the parking lot across the street, which serves as a shelter. In our house in Haifa, there is no shelter; the staircase is open, there’s no security room, not even a safe interior wall, and through the window facing north, we already witnessed missiles falling on Haifa Bay. This morning, with the first news of a possible ceasefire, we returned home.

For a moment, it seemed that Haifa had returned to itself, although the state of emergency remained in place. There is a reason why the state of emergency persists. While Netanyahu was flying to speak at the UN General Assembly in New York, a statement was issued from his office: “The news of a ceasefire is incorrect. It’s an American – French proposal that the Prime Minister hasn’t even responded to.” Wow, I asked myself, did we return too soon? Is Netanyahu playing games with us? Does he really want to continue the war?

When I examined the text of that American – French proposal, it was clear from the very first line that this proposal leads nowhere, regardless of Bibi’s intentions. The proposal essentially states that ‘the situation between Lebanon and Israel since October 8th, 2023, is intolerable and presents an unacceptable risk of a broader regional escalation. It is time to conclude a diplomatic settlement on the Israel-Lebanon border.’  In this statement, the word ‘Hezbollah’ is conspicuously absent; it does not mention what caused the exchanges of fire, and, most importantly, it does not specify who ‘the other party’, that is, with whom an arrangement must be made. It is worth noting: the exchanges of fire began on October 8 due to a proactive action by a terrorist organization that swore it would not cease fire until Israel agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza, claiming this was in aid of the Gaza Strip.

This is the moment to ask why the United States and France waited an entire year to issue a joint statement for a “diplomatic settlement on the Israel-Lebanon border”? The answer is simple. According to American doctrine, the exchanges of fire between Israel and Hezbollah, which have been ongoing for a year, are merely background noise for to the real issue—the war in Gaza. According to both Americans and many Israelis, the way to close the ‘Lebanon chapter’ and return Israel’s displaced northern residents home is to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. In fact, the U.S. has used the Lebanese border exchanges of fire as leverage on Netanyahu’s government to accept the Gaza ceasefire. This created a significant opportunity to accomplish three goals with one ceasefire: achieving quiet on the Lebanon border, securing the release of hostages, and, in the process, removing Netanyahu’s right-wing government.

These two partners for a so-called ceasefire, Hamas and Hezbollah, are classified in the U.S. as terrorist organizations. Their leaders have been indicted for serious crimes against humanity. Both advocate a radical religious ideology. These two organizations have taken control through a sort of military coup in both Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

A brief reminder: These two partners for achieving a ceasefire, Hamas and Hezbollah, are classified in the U.S. as terrorist organizations. Their leaders have been indicted for serious crimes against humanity. Both advocate a radical religious ideology. They have vowed to eliminate the Zionist entity, and for those who may have forgotten, Hezbollah has also engaged in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians, coming to the aid of the butcher of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad. These two organizations have taken control through a sort of military coup in both Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

Theoretically, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati represents Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas represents the Palestinian side. In practice, they represent no one. Hamas does not recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, and Mikati represents a state that has disintegrated and is non-functional due to Hezbollah’s total military control over Lebanon.

This has created a stalemate that cannot be resolved through diplomatic means. In spite of launching mass atrocities on October 7, Yahya Sinwar will not relinquish his ambition to continue his control of Gaza and force a complete withdrawal of Israel, as long as Hassan Nasrallah imposes a war of attrition on Israel and holds 80,000 displaced Israelis as hostages. The only way to reach a diplomatic solution in Lebanon is to disconnect Nasrallah from Sinwar. This is the goal of the operation that Israel initiated on Tuesday afternoon with the explosions of beepers in the pockets of Hezbollah operatives. At that moment, a new phase emerged both internationally and within Israel itself.

While there is a deep divide within Israeli society regarding Gaza—between the government and those advocating for a ceasefire at any cost in exchange for the return of hostages—there is a unanimous  consensus regarding Lebanon: the situation along the Lebanon border must change once and for all. The reason for this consensus is simple—Israel has no territorial or other claims in Lebanon, and the goal of the operation is not to eliminate Hezbollah or harm Lebanon, but to achieve an arrangement that will ensure the safety of residents in the north. Many also argue that disconnecting Nasrallah from Sinwar will help secure an agreement for the return of hostages. All this comes after a whole year of fruitless negotiations, whether because Sinwar doesn’t want to, Netanyahu doesn’t want to, or neither of them wants to—each can choose an answer based on their political preferences and respond to the million-dollar question of why there has been no deal to date.

In any case, the fate of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, and subsequently Gaza, is not in the hands of Sinwar or Nasrallah, but in the hands of their Iranian patron. The one orchestrating the symphony, which includes the Houthis in Yemen and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq – is Iran. Iran has enjoyed a whole year of watching Palestinians, Lebanese, and Israelis bleed, while engaging in high-level diplomacy with the U.S. to reach some agreement that would lift the crushing sanctions on the Iranian economy.

Thus, a situation has arisen where the whole world watches and pulls its hair out over the ‘genocide in Gaza’ and ‘intentional starvation.’ Israel has become the new villain. Its leaders are wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and the state is being judged before the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity.  This is happening while the Iranian regime cold-bloodedly murders every dissident and every woman who reveals even a part of her hair, in blatant violation of human and civil rights for 45 years. The real enemy of Iran is not the State of Israel, but the sons and daughters of the Iranian people who rise up time and again and pay for it with their lives.

But now the celebration is over. The Israeli attack in Lebanon threatens Iranian assets there. The ballistic missiles threatening Tel Aviv are not meant to defend Lebanon but to protect the Iranian regime, which fears an attack on its nuclear facilities. Thus, we have returned to square one. The one who gave the signal and the means to attack Israel on October 7, to kidnap, massacre, plunder, and rape—the one who greenlighted his mercenaries in Lebanon to assist the monster in Gaza—is the same one who is now working to stop the fire. Not out of concern for the Lebanese, and not out of worry for the Palestinians, but out of concern for the survival of his bloodthirsty regime.

Just as I do not know when the next siren will sound, I do not know when there will be a ceasefire. One thing I do know, and most of the public in Israel knows it too, is that all of this should not have happened. The uncompromising war against fundamentalist terror cannot erase the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu enabled this, and he is responsible for the nightmare unfolding around us. The words spoken by bereaved father Elhanan Danino to Benjamin Netanyahu, when he came to comfort him over the death of his son, who was murdered along with five other hostages while held in Hamas tunnels, echoed in every home in Israel: ‘Fifteen years you have been in power, and you have done nothing; you equipped them (Hamas) with tunnels and dollars.’ Netanyahu, along with Israel’s entire security and political establishment, opened the gates to Iran, allowing it to conquer the fortress without a fight.

The regional peace with the worst of the Gulf regimes has turned into a honey trap, creating the illusion that we have solved the puzzle. We managed to make peace with the Arabs without the Palestinians. This illusion shattered forcefully on October 7. Not only have we not achieved peace, but we have also entered the longest and bloody war since 1948. If there is a ceasefire, it will be worth nothing if we do not manage to seal the gate against extremist Islam. This is not only because the unresolved Palestinian issue allows terror to sow destruction and ruin, but because this is the just path to follow—a genuine solution to the Palestinian question based on equality, democracy, and mutual respect.

The post The Big Opportunity first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Netanyahu’s response had been consistent. After we defeat Hamas and remove its military capabilities, we will be free to discuss the day after. In contrast, the army’s position and that of numerous experts was the opposite: an Arab, Emirati force, or an improved Palestinian Authority, would take governmental responsibility for Gaza in place of Hamas.

The press conference, however, solved the riddle of how Netanyahu sees the day after. In Netanyahu’s estimation, the phase in which Hamas lost its military power ended with defeat of the final battalions in Rafah. According to him, “Until now, focus of the effort against Hamas has been military, but now the focus will be to abolish the terrorist organization’s governing capabilities. There will be a change in the distribution of food and humanitarian aid.”

In a lead article published by the Israeli economic newspaper Calcalist on September 4, Yuval Sade writes: “Although the Prime Minister did not explicitly say this, from between the lines it is possible to understand Israel’s new official position: full control over all Gaza Strip borders and a complete rejection of ending the war inside this area.” To substantiate his assessment, Yuval Sade adds: “Last week, a new position was born in the IDF, when the IDF spokesperson announced that Elad Goren will be appointed head of the Gaza Strip humanitarian-civilian effort as part of the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories Unit and will be promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel.”

The answer to the interesting question – why Netanyahu, who knows how to speak eloquently, does not explicitly spell things out – is simple. Apart from the messianic, extremist right, return of Israel’s direct occupation of Gaza and establishment of a military government is the nightmare of most Israeli society. On behalf of the army, Defense Minister Gallant strongly opposes Israel’s direct control of Gaza. Yuval Sade also writes about this: “In a public speech four months ago, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned of the reality of military rule in the Gaza Strip and called for establishment of a governmental alternative in the form of Palestinian control accompanied by international forces. According to Gallant, in the absence of a governmental alternative, only two bad options will remain – Hamas rule in Gaza or Israeli military rule.”

Gallant’s problem is that for four months and more, “a governmental alternative in the form of Palestinian control accompanied by international forces” has not been found and will not be found. This is for a simple reason – the Palestinian Authority lost control over the West Bank, was expelled from Gaza 17 years ago, and no Arab force wants to enter the quicksand that Israel itself created.

The strategic significance of the hostage deal is thus fully revealed. If remaining in the Philadelphi corridor means return of direct Israeli occupation and establishment of a military rule in Gaza to deprive Hamas of its governing capabilities, then the practical meaning of abandoning Philadelphi, according to Netanyahu is accepting Hamas as the ruling force in Gaza. This is also what prevents the hostage deal.

The answer to the interesting question – why Netanyahu, who knows how to speak eloquently, does not explicitly spell things out – is simple. Return of Israel’s direct occupation of Gaza and establishment of a military rule there is the nightmare of most Israeli society.

Hamas’ position is clear. It demands Israeli withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, relying on the sharp internal division within Israel between the army and government. Hamas’ starting point for the October 7th massacre was its understanding that Israel has no governmental alternative in Gaza, and that Israel thus contained the incessant rounds of war and missile shooting at Israeli cities, including at Tel Aviv. This is the essence of the failed concept preceding October 7 – since we have no alternative to Hamas, all that remains is to try and appease it with money. That’s why even when the female observer soldiers on the Gaza border saw with their own eyes and warned their commanders that “they are coming at us,” all those who cultivated the illusion that we had disengaged from Gaza and would never return to it, simply refused to believe. This includes all politicians and all military personnel.

This, however, does not prevent a large part of the Israeli public, and especially the army, from continuing to throw sand in our eyes, telling us and themselves about an imaginary multinational force that will enter Gaza in our stead and that we can always return to Philadelphi. That is, we will only leave for 40 days, release the hostages, and then return. This perception is based on the hope that Sinwar is an idiot, and that the Americans don’t really mean what they keep saying – this war must end, and that a ceasefire will lead to the war’s end.

Netanyahu starkly presented this choice: either Hamas or Israel. This requires all Israelis to look at reality with open eyes and stop looking for culprits. For 30 years, Israeli society as a whole told itself stories that only it believed: that in Oslo we made peace; that what happens in the West Bank and Gaza is none of our business; that Palestinians are irrelevant; that the conflict cannot be resolved; that regional peace with the Gulf states proves that peace without the Palestinians is possible; that economic peace is the solution, and that we know how to manage the conflict.

The October 7 massacre put an end to all these illusions. We and the Palestinians are paying a heavy and bloody price for having transferred responsibility for their fate to Fatah in the West Bank and to Hamas in Gaza. We have reached the moment of truth, and the choices are difficult: either Hamas rule as implied by the army’s position, or occupation for an indeterminate time as presented by Netanyahu.

There is a third choice that Israeli society refuses to discuss, and that is to reach a political agreement with the Palestinians. Not an arrangement built on a “subcontracted” occupation as proposed by Labor leader Yair Golan – Israeli security control and Palestinian civil control. This is the formula that brought us October 7th. The subcontracting solution is over.

How many times does one have to repeat that there is only one real solution, built on the foundations of mutual recognition, equality, democracy, and shared life, in whatever political way you choose – two states or one state. Netanyahu knows how to emphasize the importance of controlling the Philadelphi corridor, but stutters in explaining its meaning, while Gallant strongly opposes the holding of the Philadelphi corridor but is also unwilling to admit the meaning of withdrawing from it. Both choices are unpopular and appear a recipe for disaster.

We in the Da’am Party opposed the Oslo Accords because they were in fact a “contracted corrupt occupation,” which later gave way to the popularity of Hamas, and became a disaster for the Palestinian people, above all Gazans themselves. This arrangement thwarted any political solution. We also opposed the Abraham Accords warning that they served to justify the extreme right who claim there is no need to end the occupation. But we will not suffice with saying “We were right.” We present to every person who looks to the future and wants to ensure our existence in the tiny area between the sea and Jordan, the real choice.

To anyone who tells us that we don’t have a partner, we say – yes, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are fascist organizations that disdain democracy and oppress their people. But on the other side there were many peace-loving Israelis who self-righteously said and still say “we don’t have the right to decide for the Palestinians who will lead them,” as if the Palestinians ever possessed the option to freely decide their fate, while at the same time feeding the monster Hamas, which few in the left contented.

The democratic forces in Israel can make a public and clear call, denouncing Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, as authoritarian regimes, calling on the Palestinian people to rise up against them, in the name of democracy, national and civic freedoms, and enable the immergence of a new democratic leadership, which will join hands with Israeli liberal and democratic forces. This call is missing. But, alas, only in this way can we end the occupation and defeat the Netanyahu – Ben-Gvir – Smotrich government, which continue to wreak havoc on Israeli society.

The post Fate of the Philadelphi corridor will determine the fate of the day after first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.