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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The topic on the table is Gaza.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer circles back, again, to October 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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