On Saturday, January 31, an unusual and significant demonstration took place in Tel Aviv’s Habima Square. Tens of thousands of Arabs and Jews marched together in a rare display of joint civic protest, united in opposition to a governments’ neglect to protect Arab citizens from violence. There was total agreement among the demonstrators that the current Government must be replaced as it is increasingly identified with racism and authoritarian tendencies.  

The demonstration was called by the Higher Committee of the Arab citizens, in response to the spiraling violence and murder within Arab communities in Israel and to the continued failure of the Netanyahu–Ben Gvir government to address it. But its significance extended far beyond a protest against crime. The gathering sent a powerful message: a large and growing public of both Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel is seeking a shared future based on equality, democracy, and mutual responsibility.

For anyone present in the square, it was clear that this was not a routine protest. Conversations with demonstrators revealed an unusual openness and emotional intensity. People were eager to speak, to explain why they had come, and to listen to one another. What brought them out in such numbers was not a political or ideological conviction, but existential anxiety—a sense that the ground beneath their feet is shifting, and that silence is no longer an option.

Not a routine demonstration

Participants arrived from Arab towns and villages across the Galilee, the Triangle region, and the Negev. There were old and young women and men, families who had never demonstrated in Tel Aviv and teenagers who are afraid to be the next target. It was clear to me that most of them never participated in a demonstrated at all. Marching shoulder to shoulder with Jewish protesters was, for many, a first. They carried photographs of victims of violence in Arab society and signs bearing a single word: “enough” (كفي).

The immediate catalyst for the protest was the horrific level of violence that has engulfed Arab communities in Israel. Organized crime, sweeping protectionism curtailing hundreds of businesses, widespread availability of illegal weapons, and years of police neglect have turned everyday life into a source of constant fear

In recent years, Arab society has lived with a pervasive sense of insecurity: Will the child who leaves for school return safely? Will a woman going shopping be hit by a stray bullet? Will a family outing end in tragedy simply because their car was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The numbers are stark. In 2025 alone, 252 Arab citizens of Israel were killed by this kind of internal violence (in comparison the number of people killed in 2010 was only 73, less than 30% of the number last year). Since the beginning of 2026, already 34 lives were lost. These are not abstract statistics; they are a daily reminder that any Arab citizen could be next.

The protest movement opened the gates of Habima square to the Arabs

Yet the demonstration was about more than violence itself. It reflected a deeper shift: the collapse of a long-held illusion that Arab citizens of Israel can insulate themselves from the state and its institutions, living parallel lives while disengaging from Israeli politics. As veteran Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea wrote after the demonstration, “The threat to life is so great, the government’s responsibility so clear and glaring, that it is impossible to continue with the politics of the past. Eyes that were once fixed on Ramallah are now fixed on Jerusalem. Everything is focused on one issue, one crisis.” (Yediot Ahronot, Feb.2^nd).

In my estimation, Arabs and Jews participated in roughly equal numbers. The strong turnout of Jewish demonstrators mattered deeply. For years, Arab citizens have protested this violence largely alone, often met with indifference or suspicion. This time, thousands of Jewish Israelis chose to stand with them. The atmosphere was respectful and supportive. It was clear that each side was seeking not only justice, but connection.

Several Arab and Jewish speakers gave voice to the emotional and political weight of the moment. Khitam Abu Fana (known as Umm Firas), whose eldest son was murdered while working in the family garage, addressed the crowd with heartbreaking clarity. She described the devastation of losing a son who had recently become a father himself and urged the public not to surrender to fear. She said “I didn’t come here to cry – I came here to scream!”

Prof. Barak Medina, a former Rector of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called on Jewish and Arab opposition parties to unite against what he described as a racist and failed government. Ali Zbeidat, a resident of Sakhnin whose personal protest helped ignite the mobilization, spoke alongside Jamal Zahalka, head of the Arab Follow-Up Committee, 3 mayors from Arab municipalities, and veteran actress and activist Rivka Michaeli.

New trends made the demonstration possible

Two important trends enabled this unprecedented demonstration: The first is unfolding within Arab society itself. For years, many Arab citizens avoided engagement with Israeli political life, fearing that cooperation, speaking Hebrew, or participation in state institutions would be labeled “Israelization” and seen as a betrayal of Palestinian national identity. This tendency, which intensified after the October 2000 events and even more so after October 7, has increasingly come under question. The realization is spreading that isolation does not protect lives—and that disengagement from Israeli society and politics had come at a terrible cost.

Two important trends enabled this unprecedented demonstration: The first relates to the feeling of many Arab citizens that avoiding engagement with Israeli political life, is a dead end that had come at a terrible cost. The second is visible within liberal Jewish activists who realize that to confront the Netanyahu government they need to join hands with Arab society

The second trend is visible within liberal Jewish society. Confronted with the Netanyahu government’s assault on democratic institutions, judicial independence, and minority rights, many Jewish Israelis now feel that the country is approaching a breaking point. There is growing recognition that the struggle against authoritarianism and racism cannot be won without genuine partnership with Arab citizens. There is also a plain fact: Israeli Jewish opposition alone does not reach the 61-parliament threshold to topple the Right wing in elections.

Habima Square itself symbolized this shift. For the past three years, it has been a central site of protests against Netanyahu’s government and its proposed “Judicial coup d’etat”. On January 31, this same square opened its gates to Arab citizens in a way not seen before. Long-standing criticism that the protest movement marginalizes Arab voices was addressed directly: more than half the speakers addressed the crowd in Arabic. The bilingual nature of the event felt natural, even obvious—an embodiment of a different vision of Israel as a shared civic space.

The need to translate the demonstration into Political force

The demonstration’s power raises an urgent question: how can this moral and civic energy be translated into political change? Protest alone, however massive, will not bring down a government entrenched in power. That requires a political alternative capable of winning elections. Here, the limits of the moment become apparent.

Among Arab political leaders, MK Mansour Abbas has been unusually explicit in calling for concrete political cooperation between Arab parties and Zionist opposition forces. For months, he has urged leaders such as Yair Lapid, Naftali Bennett, and Gadi Eizenkot to form a joint Jewish–Arab front to replace Netanyahu’s coalition. Abbas argues that the choice now is not between protest and politics, but between paralysis and responsibility.

Yet his call has been met with resistance on multiple fronts. Opposition leaders claim that Israeli society, especially after the trauma of October 7, is “not ready” for a government that relies on Arab parties. There is a grind of truth in the hesitancy to cooperate with Arab parties. In the last 25 month since Oct. 2023, the Communist Party led “Hadash Front” and the National Democratic Bloc “Tajamu’” did not convey a sense of solidarity with Israel when it faced an existential threat from Iran and its proxies i.e. Hamas and Hizballah. Yet, MK Abbas represents a sharply different approach and when Lapid and other opposition leader reject him they are actually rejecting the Arab society as whole and thus give Netanyahu and the racist right wing a huge concession.

 At the same time, Abbas faces fierce criticism within Arab society, where some view partnership with Zionist parties as capitulation or betrayal. The day after the demonstration, one Arab media outlet reported that “100,000 Arabs marched in Tel Aviv,” erasing Jewish participants entirely in order to preserve a nationalist narrative. That outlet also did not mention the Israeli-Jewish speakers.

This mutual rejection is deeply troubling. Refusing Abbas’s outstretched hand is not merely a tactical choice—it is a rejection of the tens of thousands of Arab citizens who filled Habima Square in the hope of partnership. It is also a rejection of the Jewish demonstrators who stood beside them, recognizing Arab society as a legitimate and essential ally.

The January 31 demonstration should therefore be understood as both a breakthrough and a test. It revealed a public readiness for shared struggle that political leadership has yet to match. It showed that fear can give way to solidarity—and that despair can be transformed into collective action.

For international observers, the message is clear: beneath the headlines of polarization and violence, new civic dynamics are emerging in Israel. They are fragile, contested, and far from guaranteed. But they point toward a future in which Jews and Arabs do not merely coexist, but act together to defend democracy, equality, and life itself.

Habima Square offered a glimpse of that future.  Whether it remains a moment—or becomes a movement—now depends on political courage.

The post The Jewish–Arab Demonstration in Tel Aviv Signaled a New Direction first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A great honor was bestowed upon Benjamin Netanyahu when, this past February, he became the first foreign leader to visit the White House after Donald Trump’s reelection. He returned home energized and invigorated. His bet on Trump had paid off — big time. The gift Trump offered Netanyahu? A fantastical plan to transfer two million Gazans out of the Strip and turn Gaza into a flourishing Riviera. And Netanyahu, true to form, didn’t hesitate to present this dangerous delusion as his long-awaited “day after” vision — a plan the army and the opposition had long demanded from him.

The warm ties with the White House gave Netanyahu the sense that he was on top of the world. After all, Trump had won the election despite a conviction for sexual assault, with more cases pending over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, won clearly by Joe Biden, and his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. If Trump could beat the system, why not Netanyahu? All he had to do to extricate himself from his ongoing corruption trial was to mimic Trump: launch an all-out assault on the judiciary, the police, the prosecution, and the media — and aggressively push forward with a judicial overhaul, just as Trump had undermined American democratic institutions.

But there’s a key difference between Trump and Netanyahu. Trump rode into the White House backed by a populist movement centered around the conspiracy theory of the “deep state”: a clandestine alliance of Democrats, state institutions, the Justice Department, and national security agencies that, according to the theory, colluded to distort the will of the people and steal the election. In fact, nearly half of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged, and that President Biden’s win was illegitimate.

Trump repeatedly declared that if reelected, he would dismantle the deep state. And indeed, upon his return to the White House, he surrounded himself with conspiracy theorists and shadowy operatives, appointing them to some of the most sensitive posts. The Attorney General, the FBI Director, the Deputy Director, and other senior officials worked tirelessly to delegitimize the very institutions that form the foundation of American democracy.

Netanyahu, as we know, has always believed that what’s good for America is good for Israel — and what’s good for Trump is definitely good for Bibi. In a speech to the Knesset, he even recounted whispering to Trump during his White House visit that “Israel has a deep state too.” Trump’s response was never disclosed — but surely, a con man knows a fellow con man when he sees one.

Not long after their meeting, in March 2025, Netanyahu posted on X (formerly Twitter) in Hebrew:

“In America and in Israel, when a strong right-wing leader wins elections, the deep state — serving the left — manipulates the justice system to thwart the will of the people. They will not win. Not in Israel, not in America. We stand strong together.”

Sara Netanyahu joined the chorus. In an interview with Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, on Fox News, she aired her grievances, describing Israel’s deep state as:

“Relatively small radical-left elites, funded by foreign governments, holding key positions of influence. They use other means — particularly abuse of the judicial system — to try and topple a democratically elected government.”
And with a nod to the host, she added:
“Look at what they did to President Trump and his family. They did the same to my husband, to our family, to our sons — bringing ridiculous, false charges.”

But here’s where the plot twists. It turns out that the Trump-Netanyahu alliance may not be helping either of them. Last week, Pandora’s box was opened, and the chaos inside is now spreading fast. Trump and Netanyahu, both self-styled victims of the deep state, are now at the center of a strange and stormy scandal consuming the U.S.: the Jeffrey Epstein files — the same ones that have been the foundation of Trump’s favorite conspiracy narrative on his road back to the presidency.

For those less familiar with the intricacies of American politics, Jeffrey Epstein was a businessman arrested for running a sex-trafficking ring of underage girls with Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of media tycoon Robert Maxwell (once the owner of Israel’s Maariv daily). Epstein died by suicide in jail in 2019 before his trial began. He was known to fly prominent figures to his private island in the Caribbean, where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves. His acquaintances included Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew, Israeli ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and many celebrities and business moguls. Trump and Melania were also photographed socializing with Epstein.

How did Netanyahu manage to drag Trump into what Trump’s base calls a reckless military adventure? Enter Epstein — again. The conspiracy theory now claims Epstein was a Mossad agent, evidenced by his ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her father’s alleged Mossad links. From there, it’s a short leap to accusing Israel of holding the Epstein files and using them to blackmail Trump and other officials. Because how else, the theory goes, could Israel have persuaded Trump to attack Iran against his will?

According to the conspiracy theory, Epstein held on to incriminating footage and client lists — mostly Democrats — to blackmail them. During his campaign, Trump promised to reveal everything. Once elected, he appointed Pam Bondi as Attorney General and Kash Patel to head the FBI, tasking them with following through. But despite their early declarations that the Epstein files were “on their desks,” they abruptly announced that no such files existed.

So where does Netanyahu fit into all this?

He has no direct link to Epstein — and yet, somehow, he may end up as the story’s main casualty. The rift between Trump and far-right media firebrands Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon blew wide open following Israel’s recent strike on Iran. Israel’s successful elimination of top Iranian military and nuclear officials, and its near-total control of Tehran’s airspace, put the Trump administration in a difficult spot.

Initially, Trump distanced himself from the attack, claiming he wasn’t in the loop. But once the military achievement became clear, he flipped and sought to bask in the glory. That decision sparked backlash from his own base. Bannon was spotted entering the White House just before the American strike. Carlson warned of U.S. entanglement — even the risk of triggering World War III. The far right began accusing Trump of being manipulated by Netanyahu, who was dragging him into another Middle East war — despite Trump’s campaign promises to avoid conflict and pursue a new nuclear deal with Iran.

Which begs the question: how did Netanyahu manage to drag Trump into what Trump’s base calls a reckless military adventure? Enter Epstein — again. The conspiracy theory now claims Epstein was a Mossad agent, evidenced by his ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and her father’s alleged Mossad links. From there, it’s a short leap to accusing Israel of holding the Epstein files and using them to blackmail Trump and other officials. Because how else, the theory goes, could Israel have persuaded Trump to attack Iran against his will?

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s public denial — that Epstein had no links to Mossad and that Israel possesses no such lists — didn’t help. The conspiratorial genie was already out of the bottle. Trump’s denials and his attempts to dismiss the scandal as a Democratic hoax were met with scorn and disbelief from right-wing influencers whose blogs boast millions of followers.

Now, the hard-right Freedom Caucus in Congress is jumping on the wave, demanding steep cuts to Israel’s defense aid. Their argument: Israelis enjoy high living standards and universal healthcare, while Americans suffer under crushing costs and a broken system. Why, they ask, should billions of taxpayer dollars continue to flow to Israel? America First, once directed at the rest of the world, has now been turned inward — at Israel.

In a final twist of irony, the very deep state narrative that carried Trump to power is now being turned against him. Millions who once believed his every lie now follow his far-right successors, who claim Trump himself is being blackmailed by Netanyahu — the same Netanyahu they say is stirring conflict in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and now Syria.

And they are not alone. The progressive left in the Democratic Party — and even parts of the center — have long soured on Netanyahu. Now it seems he and Israel are losing what little bipartisan support remained in Congress.

This shift is already influencing Trump’s foreign policy recalibrations, with increased emphasis on ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, even Turkey. Trump finds himself ensnared in his own web of falsehoods, while Netanyahu’s grand bet increasingly looks like a broken reed. The departure of ultra-Orthodox factions from the Israeli government, and threats of a far-right exit over ongoing hostage negotiations with Hamas, suggest Netanyahu’s ship of state is slowly sinking in the murky waters it created — and the rats are already looking for safer shores.

The post The Deep State Turns on Netanyahu 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.