Statement by the DAAM Party

The war between the United States and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other, which has been underway since February 28, has shaken the Middle East and reverberated throughout the world. As missiles strike across the region and drones explode in the skies above its cities—while Israeli civilians repeatedly run to bomb shelters—a fierce debate has emerged in Israel and internationally regarding the nature of this war: what caused it, and what consequences it may bring.

The statement of the DAAM Party presented here seeks to clarify the sequence of developments that led to this war. It challenges several widely accepted assumptions that have become entrenched within liberal and progressive discourse and points toward the direction that the forces of peace and democratic progress in Israel must adopt in order to defeat the far-right government in the upcoming elections.

DAAM is a joint Jewish-Arab political movement whose members are citizens of Israel committed to Israeli-Palestinian peace based on equality and mutual recognition of rights. Founded in 1995 by Jewish and Palestinian activists, the party promotes social justice, and Jewish-Arab cooperation as the foundation for a democratic future. For peace to rise, mutual recognition is a fundamental principle.

From the early 1980s onward, the founders of DAAM were active participants in the struggle against the occupation, a struggle that reached its historic peak with the outbreak of the First Intifada in December 1987. The party’s position regarding Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, and the regional war that followed is grounded in the same principles that have guided its activity from the beginning: opposition to oppression and reactionary forces on all sides, defense of democratic values, and commitment to a political future based on equality between peoples.

The War Against Iran Is a Direct Continuation of October 7

The war that erupted on Saturday, February 28, 2026, began with a coordinated American-Israeli strike against Iran. This confrontation cannot be understood in isolation. It represents the direct continuation of the events set in motion by Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

For many years Iran systematically cultivated Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as key components of a broader regional network of militias and proxy organizations. Through these forces Tehran expanded its influence across the Middle East while avoiding direct military confrontation with Israel.

This network included Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Assad regime in Syria; Shiite militias in Iraq; the Houthi movement in Yemen; and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories. Together these forces formed what Iran calls the “Axis of Resistance.”

Through this system of proxies—most of them non-state actors—Iran sought to destabilize its rivals while steadily building strategic leverage across the region. The aim of this alliance was never aimed at reaching a long lasting peace in the Middle East.  Ultimately, Tehran aimed to ignite a broader confrontation that would destroy Israel from several fronts and establish the regime of the ayatollahs as the dominant power in the Middle East.

For years the Iranian regime succeeded in pursuing this strategy with relatively little resistance. Its regional standing grew considerably during the past two decades, particularly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, which had served as a major obstacle to Tehran’s expansionist ambitions.

The failure of the American project in Iraq left a deep trauma in U.S. public opinion. A broad political consensus gradually emerged in Washington that large-scale military confrontation in the Middle East should be avoided whenever possible. This approach was reflected most clearly in the Obama administration’s policy of containment toward Iran, culminating in the nuclear agreement signed in 2015.

Under the diplomatic cover provided by that agreement, the Iranian regime strengthened its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and encouraged a growing belief among its allies that a decisive confrontation was approaching—a final “day of judgment” aimed at destroying the State of Israel.

When Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched their coordinated assault on Israeli communities near Gaza on October 7, they were implementing a broader regional strategy whose objective extended far beyond the Palestinian arena.

The immediate participation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi movement in Yemen in attacks on Israel—what they described as a “war of support”—demonstrated that the assault was not an isolated operation but part of a wider strategic plan. The war that has unfolded since then, reshaping the lives of millions across the Middle East, is therefore the direct consequence of the murderous gamble undertaken by Hamas in the service of Tehran’s strategic ambitions.

The Iranian Regime Refused to Recognize the New Balance of Power

Over the following two years Israel worked to repel the assault launched by Hamas and Hezbollah, targeting the leadership of both organizations and destroying much of their military capacity.  Days after the agreement on a cease fire in Lebanon the Assad Regime in Syria collapsed like a card castle. A central pillar of the “Axis of Resistance” where Iran invested Billions was gone. 

A joint American-Israeli operation in June 2025 severely damaged Iran’s military capabilities and its nuclear program. Two and a half months later, in October 2025, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Gaza and all Israeli hostages were released. The war that had begun on October 7 appeared to have reached its conclusion.

The results of the war in Gaza were clear and decisive, and neither side had a clear interest in renewing the fighting. Yet the Iranian regime refused to acknowledge this reality. Since the June 2025 operation it promoted a narrative claiming that the “Axis of Resistance” had actually won the war and that Israel had been defeated—arguing that Israel itself had requested the ceasefire after suffering heavy damage to economic, medical, and military infrastructure in its major cities.

The leadership in Tehran refused to draw the strategic conclusions required by its defeat and the defeat of its proxies. It ignored the historic significance of the United States joining— for the first time—an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

At the end of December 2025 the regime’s weakness became dramatically visible when a massive popular uprising erupted in Iran. New social groups joined the protests, including merchants from the traditional bazaar.

Demonstrators chanted “Death to Khamenei” and demanded the overthrow of the regime that had ruled Iran through repression for nearly half a century and driven the country into poverty, hunger, and stagnation.

More than thirty thousand citizens were massacred by the repressive machine within a matter of days in a desperate attempt by the regime to crush the uprising.

Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump demanded that Iran enter negotiations, backing his demand with the deployment of significant military forces to the region. In February 2026 negotiations between representatives of the United States and Iran opened in the Sultanate of Oman, with the goal of reaching an agreement that might prevent a military confrontation. There was hope that such an agreement could also stabilize the situations in Gaza and Lebanon.

Many observers expected the Iranian regime to recognize the new balance of power and to abandon its megalomanic  strategic ambitions, including its nuclear project. Trump repeatedly stated that he preferred a negotiated settlement to military confrontation. Yet the leaders in Tehran chose to ignore what had become evident. The destructive arrogance that had characterized Hamas’s leadership and led Yahya Sinwar to launch the disastrous October 7 attack, also shaped the position of the Iranian regime. Its negotiators rejected American demands. The message quickly spread to Iran’s allies. Both Hamas and Hezbollah adopted similarly uncompromising positions.

Hezbollah declared that it would not surrender its weapons to the sovereign Lebanese government and would not allow the ceasefire with Israel to be implemented. Hamas rejected the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for its disarmament and continued to obstruct progress toward implementing the reconstruction plan for Gaza.

American Isolationism Allowed Iran to Grow Stronger

All available indications suggest that the Iranian leadership believed it could prevent an attack and secure a favorable agreement without making major concessions. Tehran’s calculation relied on widespread public opposition to war within the United States, including strong opposition from the Democratic Party as well as from segments of the isolationist wing of Trump’s MAGA supporters within the Republican Party.

Iran also assumed that the Gulf states—concerned that war could threaten their oil infrastructure—would exert pressure on Washington to avoid military confrontation. Tehran’s strategic gamble was that the United States would continue its traditional policy of containment, which had dominated American policy for more than a decade.

Indeed, for years Iran succeeded in maneuvering Western governments by exploiting Washington’s reluctance to enter into direct confrontation.

The nuclear agreement signed in 2015 lifted many of the sanctions imposed on Iran and opened economic opportunities that had previously been unavailable. But, under the international legitimacy granted by that agreement, the Iranian regime expanded its ballistic missile program, developed deadly drone technologies (aimed against Ukraine as well), and provided massive financial and military support to militant groups in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, and the Palestinian territories.

Even the October 7 attack did not prompt the Biden administration to abandon this flawed policy of containment. In April 2024, after Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel for the first time, the Biden administration sought to restrain Israel’s response, arguing that a regional war had to be avoided at all costs.

In reality, however, the regional war that Washington sought to prevent had already begun.

The aggression of Iran and its proxies against Israel—combined with the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of Iranian citizens during the recent uprising—cannot simply be ignored. Such passivity risks sending a dangerous signal to the world that the use of force is sufficient to deter the United States.

In February 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine and is threatening Europe. China is preparing for a possible invasion of Taiwan. Both are watching developments in the Middle East closely, waiting to see how the United States responds to Iranian aggression. Saudi Arabia’s behavior provides a clear example. In 2019 Iran attacked Saudi oil facilities in Ras Tanura during Trump’s first presidential term. The United States chose not to respond and offered little meaningful assistance to its ally.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states concluded that Washington might not defend them and began signing agreements with Iran and strengthening ties with China and Russia.

Even during the negotiations between Washington and Tehran in February 2026, the impression remained that the American administration was eager to reach an agreement and avoid military confrontation.

Yet Iran apparently believed that any concession regarding the foundations of the “Axis of Resistance” would undermine the regime itself. Consequently, Iranian negotiators arrived at the negotiating table in Muscat and Geneva with a rigid and defiant position.

Under those circumstances, Trump ultimately chose the military option.

The Objectives of the United States and Israel

As the war continues, an important question remains:
Will Israel and the United States succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime? Will the Iranian people take to the streets again?

Will Iran eventually become a democratic state capable of peaceful relations with its neighbors? At this stage of the war, any definitive answer would be premature.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliated networks function as a powerful military-economic structure dedicated to advancing Iran’s expansionist ambitions while enforcing domestic repression.

This organization possesses enormous economic interests inside and outside Iran and has little intention of relinquishing them. In many ways it operates as a violent, mafia-like structure—a state within a state.

These forces are currently driving the continuation of the war and refusing to acknowledge the emerging balance of power.

Although Israel and the United States have stated that they would welcome the fall of the regime, regime change was not among the official war aims. The declared objectives were more limited:
the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, severe damage to its ballistic missile and drone capabilities, and the neutralization of its regional proxies.

A fourth objective involves weakening the regime’s internal repression mechanisms—particularly the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.

If these goals are achieved, it may create conditions under which the Iranian people could again rise against the regime.

The American Public Struggles to Confront Global Changes

The attack launched on Saturday morning, February 28, came as a complete surprise to the American public. War with Iran had not been part of the national debate. In Israel, by contrast, the public had been preparing for such a possibility for months, as the government repeatedly warned about the growing likelihood of war.

When Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress on February 24—only four days before the attack—he devoted only a few minutes of a two-hour speech to Iran. It is therefore unsurprising that American public opinion was shocked and unprepared when the war began. Domestic concerns dominate American political life: economic challenges, rising costs of living, immigration issues, and political scandals.

Polls conducted after the attack revealed widespread skepticism about the war and deep concern about another prolonged American involvement in the Middle East. Many Americans do not view Iran’s efforts to destabilize the region as a direct threat to U.S. national security.

Yet from a geopolitical perspective it is difficult to deny that the United States—as the leading power of the democratic world—cannot remain indifferent to Iran’s attempt to impose a fundamentalist regional order and eliminate Israel, one of Washington’s closest allies.

The failure of the American administration to explain clearly to its own public the reasons and objectives of the war represents a serious leadership failure.

Israeli Public Opinion Supports the War but Will Not Forget October 7

Some small forces on the Israeli left—including the Communist Party, Hadash, Ahmad Tibi, and Balad—oppose the war and appear disconnected from the prevailing mood of Israeli society. Like segments of the left in Europe and the United States, they call for an immediate ceasefire and effectively align themselves with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

By contrast, the major opposition parties in Israel support the government’s military actions, recognizing that Iran represents an existential threat not only to Israel but to the entire region.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to transform the war into a political asset and to gain electoral points. He is presenting his close relationship with Trump as proof that he is the only Israeli leader capable of persuading the United States to cooperate militarily with Israel at such an unprecedented level.

The evidence of polls conducted after the attack on Iran was launched suggest that Bibi’s cards have not changed. Israeli political camps remain largely unchanged: Netanyahu’s supporters continue to support him, while his opponents remain firmly opposed. This is largely because a majority of Israelis strongly oppose Netanyahu’s domestic policies and his ongoing attacks on democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary and the free press.

Trump’s public attack on President Isaac Herzog and his call for Netanyahu to receive a pardon provoked widespread anger among Israelis, many of whom saw it as an attempt by Netanyahu to use the war and his relationship with Trump to escape his corruption trial.

Even if the war with Iran ends in a clear military victory, Israel’s political landscape is unlikely to change dramatically. Many Israelis fear that Netanyahu will attempt to use electoral success to further weaken democratic institutions while advancing the agenda of the far-right, the settler movement, and ultra-Orthodox parties.

The Political Task Ahead

The task facing supporters of peace and democracy in Israel after the war—regardless of its outcome—is to unite all opposition forces in order to replace the dangerous right-wing government led by Netanyahu.

The broad civic movement that filled Israel’s streets for nearly a year prior to  October 7 in defense of democracy continues today to oppose Netanyahu and his extremist partners. At the same time, the opposition camp still struggles to present a coherent political alternative.

It remains divided and lacks unified leadership as well as a clear policy toward both the Arab world and the unresolved Palestinian question.

Despite these difficulties, the democratic camp must unite and bring about the defeat of Netanyahu’s government.

Partnership with MK Mansour Abbas and the broad political forces he represents in the Arab community in Israel, is essential to securing a democratic majority and preventing Netanyahu from returning to power for another destructive term.

DAAM Party calls upon all its members and supporters to mobilize politically to end Netanyahu’s rule and bring about a political transformation in Israel.

Even if the government that replaces him does not fully adopt the peace program envisioned by DAAM, it would nevertheless represent a crucial change—one that safeguards Israeli democracy and creates the conditions for deeper processes that could eventually open the way to a just Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The post Iran’s Regime Is Now Paying the Price for Its Strategic Mistake in Backing Hamas’s October 7 Attack 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.

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.

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

The topic on the table is Gaza.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer circles back, again, to October 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.