Trump announces to takeover Gaza Strip

President Donald Trump said the United States would take over the war-ravaged Gaza Strip and develop it economically after Palestinians are resettled elsewhere. This announcement shattered decades of US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A question arises, how and under what authority the US can take over and occupy Gaza, a coastal strip 25 miles (45 km) long and at most 6 miles (10 km) wide, with a violent history. Successive US administrations, including Trump in his first term, had avoided deploying US troops there.

Trump unveiled his surprise plan, without providing specifics, at a joint press conference on Tuesday with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The announcement followed Trump's proposal earlier on Tuesday for the permanent resettlement of the more than two million Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries, calling the enclave - where the first phase of a fragile Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage release deal is in effect - a "demolition site."

Trump can expect allies and foes alike to strongly oppose any US takeover of Gaza, and his proposal raises questions whether Saudi Arabia would be willing to join a renewed US-brokered push for a historic normalization of relations with US ally Israel.

The US taking a direct stake in Gaza would run counter to longtime policy in Washington and for much of the international community, which has held that Gaza would be part of a future Palestinian state that includes the occupied West Bank.

"The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too," Trump told reporters. "We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site."

"We're going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it'll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of," Trump said. "I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East."

Asked who would live there, Trump said it could become a home to "the world's people." Trump touted the narrow strip, where Israel's military assault in response to Hamas' October 07, 2023, cross-border attack has leveled large swaths, as having the potential to be “The Riviera of the Middle East.”

A question arises, how and under what authority the US can take over and occupy Gaza, a coastal strip 25 miles (45 km) long and at most 6 miles (10 km) wide, with a violent history. Successive US administrations, including Trump in his first term, had avoided deploying US troops there.

Several Democratic lawmakers quickly condemned the Republican president's Gaza proposals.

Netanyahu, referred to a few times by Trump by his nickname, “Bibi,” would not be drawn into discussing the proposal in depth other than to praise Trump for trying a new approach.

The Israeli leader, whose military had engaged in more than a year of fierce fighting with Hamas militants in Gaza, said Trump was "thinking outside the box with fresh ideas" and was "showing willingness to puncture conventional thinking."

Netanyahu may have been relieved that Trump, who forged close ties with the Israeli leader during his first term in the White House, did not pressure him publicly to maintain the ceasefire. He faces threats from far-right members of his coalition to topple his government unless he restarts the fighting in Gaza to destroy Iran-backed Hamas.

Some experts have suggested Trump sometimes takes an extreme position internationally to set the parameters for future negotiations. In his first term, Trump at times issued what were seen as over-the-top foreign policy pronouncements, many of which he never implemented.

A UN damage assessment released in January showed that clearing over 50 million tons of rubble left in Gaza in the aftermath of Israel's bombardment could take 21 years and cost up to US$1.2 billion.

 

 

Saudi Arabia: Unwavering stance on Palestine

Saudi Arabia has reaffirmed its unwavering and non-negotiable stance on the establishment of a Palestinian state, emphasizing that its position remains steadfast and is not subject to political bargaining.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that the Kingdom's commitment to Palestinian statehood is deeply rooted and unshakable.

"This firm stance was explicitly affirmed by Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman during his address at the opening of the first year of the ninth session of the Shoura Council on September 18, 2024. In his speech, the Crown Prince made it clear that Saudi Arabia will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel unless an independent Palestinian state is established, with East Jerusalem as its capital."

The statement further highlighted that the Crown Prince reiterated this position at the Arab-Islamic Summit held in Riyadh on November 11, 2024. During the summit, he emphasized the urgent need to establish a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, end Israeli occupation, and mobilize the international community in support of Palestinian rights. He also called on more nations to recognize Palestine and underscored the significance of securing full United Nations membership for the Palestinian state, as reflected in UN General Assembly resolutions.

Saudi Arabia also firmly rejected any actions that undermine Palestinian rights, including Israeli settlement expansion, land annexation, and any attempts to forcibly displace Palestinians from their homeland.

The Kingdom called on the international community to take decisive action to alleviate the dire humanitarian conditions faced by the Palestinian people, who continue to stand resilient in defense of their land and rights.

The Kingdom reiterated that its stance is not open for negotiation or political bargaining. It stressed that a just and lasting peace cannot be achieved without ensuring the Palestinian people receive their full legitimate rights under international resolutions, a position Saudi Arabia has made clear to both the previous and current U.S. administrations.

 

Can Trump force Egypt and Jordan to accept Gazans?

US President has suggested to move Gazans to Egypt and Gaza. It depends on how serious Trump is about the idea and how far he is prepared to go. Let us explore the likely outcomes.

One of Trump’s favorite economic tools impositions of new tariffs or outright sanctions that could be devastating for Jordan and Egypt. The two countries receive billions of dollars in American aid each year, and Egypt is already mired in an economic crisis.

Allowing an influx of refugees could also be destabilizing. Egypt says it is currently hosting some 9 million migrants, including refugees from Sudan’s civil war. Jordan, with a population of less than 12 million, is hosting over 700,000 refugees, mainly from Syria.

US pressure would also risk alienating key allies in the region with whom Trump has had good relations — not only el-Sissi and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, but the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of whom support the Palestinian cause.

That would potentially complicate efforts to broker a historic agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize relations, something Trump tried to do during his previous term and expects to complete in his current one.

Trump’s suggestion that Egypt and Jordan take in Palestinians from the war-ravaged Gaza Strip is likely to be met with a hard “no” from the two US allies and the Palestinians themselves who fear Israel would never allow them to return.

 “I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations, and build housing in a different location, where they can maybe live in peace for a change,” Trump said.

The idea is likely to be welcomed by Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right governing partners have long advocated what they describe as the voluntary migration of large numbers of Palestinians and the reestablishment of Jewish settlements in Gaza.

Human rights groups have already accused Israel of ethnic cleansing, which United Nations experts have defined as a policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove the civilian population of another group from certain areas “by violent and terror-inspiring means.”

History of Displacement

Before and during the 1948 war surrounding Israel’s creation, some 700,000 Palestinians — a majority of the prewar population — fled or were driven from their homes in what is now Israel, an event they commemorate as the Nakba — Arabic for catastrophe.

Israel refused to allow them to return because it would have resulted in a Palestinian majority within its borders. The refugees and their descendants now number around 6 million, with large communities in Gaza, where they make up the majority of the population, as well as the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

In the 1967 Mideast war, when Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 300,000 more Palestinians fled, mostly into Jordan.

The decades-old refugee crisis has been a major driver of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and was one of the thorniest issues in peace talks that last broke down in 2009. The Palestinians claim a right of return, while Israel says they should be absorbed by surrounding Arab countries.

Many Palestinians view the latest war in Gaza, in which entire neighborhoods have been shelled to oblivion and 90% of the population of 2.3 million have been forced from their homes, as a new Nakba. They fear that if large numbers of Palestinians leave Gaza, then they too may never return.

Steadfastly remaining on one’s land is central to Palestinian culture, and was on vivid display in Gaza on Sunday, when thousands of people tried to return to the most heavily destroyed part of the territory.

Egypt and Jordan fiercely rejected the idea of accepting Gaza refugees early in the war, when it was floated by some Israeli officials.

Both countries have made peace with Israel but support the creation of a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. They fear that the permanent displacement of Gaza’s population could make that impossible.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi has also warned of the security implications of transferring large numbers of Palestinians to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, bordering Gaza.

Hamas and other militant groups are deeply rooted in Palestinian society and are likely to move with the refugees, which would mean that future wars would be fought on Egyptian soil, something that could unravel the historic Camp David peace treaty, a cornerstone of regional stability.

“The peace which we have achieved would vanish from our hands,” el-Sissi said in October 2023, after Hamas’ attack on southern Israel triggered the war. “All for the sake of the idea of eliminating the Palestinian cause.”

That’s what happened in Lebanon in the 1970s, when Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization, the leading militant group of its time, transformed the country’s south into a launchpad for attacks on Israel.

The refugee crisis and the PLO’s actions helped push Lebanon into a 15-year civil war in 1975. Israel invaded twice and occupied southern Lebanon from 1982 until 2000.

Jordan, which clashed with the PLO and expelled it under similar circumstances in 1970, already hosts more than 2 million Palestinian refugees, the majority of whom have been granted citizenship.

Israeli ultranationalists have long suggested that Jordan be considered a Palestinian state so that Israel can keep the West Bank, which they view as the biblical heartland of the Jewish people. Jordan’s monarchy has vehemently rejected that scenario.

Jimmy Carter a hawk or a dove

As Americans mourn the death of former president Jimmy Carter, the disastrous impacts of his legacy, particularly in the Middle East are thrust into the limelight. Carter died at the age of 100 on Sunday, forty-four years after he left the White House. His tenure as the 39th US president began with his inauguration on January 20, 1977, and ended on January 20, 1981.

Undoubtedly, the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza and its brutal crimes in the West Bank, Lebanon and beyond are rooted in the policies pursued by Carter. Carter played a key role in aiding and abetting the Israeli apartheid regime by brokering a seemingly peace deal between Egypt and Israel in 1978. 

Then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat signed Camp David Accords on September 17, 1978, that led in the following year to a peace treaty between the two sides.  The agreements became known as the Camp David Accords because the negotiations took place at the US presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland. 

The agreements were the first normalization deal between Israel and an Arab country. More than four decades on, it is crystal clear that the deals were a stab in the back of Palestinians and their cause. 

The Carter administration had painted a scenario to motivate Arab states to reduce their support for Palestine amid the Israeli occupation. He also wanted Arab leaders to consider their own interests separate from those of the Palestinians. So far, an overwhelming majority of the Arab public has not recognized Israel and remained opposed to normalizing ties with the regime.

Nonetheless, Carter’s political ploy led to the Abraham Accords. Despite rising sentiment against Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, Donald Trump oversaw the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain as well as Morocco. Sudan joined the US-brokered deal a year later. 

The normalization deals not only failed to improve the situation of Palestinians, but also strengthened Israel's resolve to intensify its apartheid practices. With no doubts, Israel’s recent brutal war on Lebanon and the war of genocide in Gaza are the results of US-brokered normalization deals that began in the Carter era.  

Proponents of Carter, who earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, characterize him as a champion of peace and democracy. However, the negative consequences of his policies on the Palestinian and Lebanese populations suggest that he may be more accurately remembered as a hawkish president rather than a dovish one. An examination of his statements regarding Iran further clarifies the debate over whether he should be classified as a hawk or a dove.

Carter served one term as president and lost his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan. His successes eclipsed at the polls by a stagnant economy and the 1979 US embassy takeover in Tehran.

In November 1979, a group of university students took over the US embassy in the Iranian capital. They believed Washington had turned its embassy into a center of espionage against the newly established Islamic Republic. Consequently, dozens of American diplomats were taken captive for 444 days.

Carter made futile attempts to secure the release of the Americans. 

On April 25, 1980, the US revealed it had attempted a military operation known as Operation Eagle Claw to rescue the release of the captives. But the operation failed and eight US servicemen were killed and several others were injured.

Carter explicitly demonstrated his enmity toward Iran in an interview 10 years ago.   

“I could have been re-elected if I had taken military action against Iran. It would have shown that I was strong and resolute and manly. ... I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had,” he said in a 2014 interview with CNBC.

In the interview, Carter acknowledged his aspiration to entirely obliterate Iran, yet he had found himself unable to achieve this dream either through military or political means.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

Critical Examination of Iranian Regional Policy

Despite continuous Israeli attacks targeting Iran's military doctrine in the wake of the regime’s brutal war in Gaza, the framework of that strategy remains largely intact and continues to operate across West Asia. However, in a recent article for Chatham House Bilal Y. Saab argues that the ceasefire in Lebanon has dealt a huge blow to Iran’s regional strategy. It may be said that the article fails to fully consider the current and delayed impacts of Israel’s unprecedented use of brute force on Tel Aviv. 

The military operations in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon have currently put huge burdens on the Israeli economy with long-term impacts expected to last for years. While unconditional US aid might temporarily alleviate investor concerns regarding Israel, the potential for renewed conflict poses a significant and lasting deterrent to investment.

The issue of settlers in northern occupied Palestine has not been yet solved and seems to be a problem in the foreseeable future for Israel. Also, the impacts of Israel’s action on Western public opinion cannot be undermined; this is being seen in some countries to put pressure on policymakers to take more progressive action against Israel. 

The author argues that Israel has achieved victory in its war with Hezbollah but the facts on the ground suggest differently. Tel Aviv since October 2023 has been targeting Hezbollah facilities and fighters across Lebanon but to no avail.

Hezbollah operations in northern occupied Palestine and even deeper in Haifa and Tel Aviv continued until the last moments before a ceasefire took effect last month. Israel’s limited, targeted operations in Southern Lebanon fell short of gaining significant territory and Hezbollah was successful in repelling those attacks. 

The Lebanon ceasefire, largely mirroring UN Resolution 1701, offers no significant changes. Hezbollah retains its weaponry and maintains the capacity to resume operations against Israel at any time. 

Bilal Y. Saab views the ceasefire as a setback for the Resistance Axis, arguing that it has left Hamas isolated. But this is not the case; factions in the Resistance Front have always contained autonomy in their decisions despite Western claims about Iran controlling it all. It is largely uncontested that Hamas started Operations Al-Aqsa Storm on its own without any prior notice to other groups and actors in the region yet, the whole front with a differentiating timetable joined Hamas in its fight against Israel.

For over a year, the conflict in Lebanon remained a relatively even exchange of attacks. Only after Israel significantly escalated its assaults, pursuing new objectives, none of which were achieved, did ceasefire talks commence. The ideology of creation of Hezbollah is based on confronting Israel and the current fragile ceasefire can be considered as a temporary tactical halt for the group in its fight against Tel Aviv. 

Furthermore, Saab prescribes renewed efforts for normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel for what he calls a lasting victory for Tel Aviv. Saudi Arabia is one of the main players in the region which is reportedly eager to normalize ties with Israel. 

The regional landscape has shifted dramatically since the early Trump administration and the Abraham Accords. The Israeli onslaughts in Gaza and Lebanon have fueled widespread regional opposition to normalization with Israel. Also, Saudi Arabia's rapprochement with Iran suggests a decreased likelihood of Arab confrontation with Tehran.

Despite the author’s claims that an expanded Abraham Accords would lead to a Palestinian state, Israel has intensified settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, particularly since the formation of the current far-right cabinet. All these factors point to one issue and that is the impossibility of a deal being in favor of Palestinians. 

Saab says “Iran also has to think twice about how Israel might react to even the attempt to resurrect its regional strategy.” However, Tehran’s response to Israeli provocations has been clear for over a year, any attack on Iran’s interests leads to retaliation. 

Contrary to Israeli actions, Iran's measured responses are not due to military concerns but rather reflect its defensive military doctrine—a fact often overlooked in Western assessments.

 Tehran does not seek regional war. Its doctrine which is based on two main pillars (inward and outward defense) has not wobbled despite being under constant attacks. Support for the Resistance Axis can be defined in outward defense and drone, missile advancements are in line with inward defense.

Should the regional status quo significantly change, Iran may employ alternative deterrent measures to counter threats to its national interests. This potential shift includes a reassessment of its nuclear doctrine, a subject of ongoing debate among Iranian scholars and policymakers.

 

Gaza War Dooms Biden’s Plan

According to David B. Ottaway, a year after the onset of the Israel-Hamas War, the Biden Administration’s plan for a new Middle East security architecture anchored in an alliance between the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia is dead for the foreseeable future.

Its death is another victim of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to allow an independent Palestinian state as a basis for a solution to the conflict that most countries, including the United States, are demanding.

Before the war started, US diplomats were making progress in nudging Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) toward establishing ties with the Jewish state. Both the crown prince and Biden were talking optimistically about Saudi recognition of, and open cooperation with, the Jewish state.

Two of Saudi Arabia’s closest allies, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain had already taken that step in the 2020 Abraham Accords.

Biden was enticing MBS with a formal US-Saudi defense treaty to protect the kingdom from its chief enemy, Iran. The Palestinian cause was fading, in the minds of Arab leaders, and Israel was on the verge of fulfilling its dream of winning recognition from the Middle East’s Arab powerhouse. 

The Gaza War halted all this momentum in its tracks, and there is no ceasefire in sight. The Israeli military has occupied all of Gaza and, in the process, killed nearly 42,000 Palestinian civilians and Hamas fighters, displaced most of its 2.2 million Palestinian population from their homes, and inflicted massive damage on its infrastructure.

This has caused even Arab leaders with no love for Hamas because of its Islamic roots, refusal to recognize the Jewish state, and ties to Iran to harden calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Nowhere is this shift in the attitude of Arab leaders better on display than in Saudi Arabia. In an interview with Fox News on September 20, just 17 days before the Hamas attack, MBS went out of his way to deny reports that US-led negotiations over Saudi normalization of relations with Israel were in trouble.

To the contrary, he said, “every day we get closer” toward what he called “the biggest historical deal since the end of the Cold War.” He made no demand for a Palestinian state as a precondition, just that Israel “ease the life of the Palestinians.”

On September 19, 2024 he delivered quite a starkly different message at the annual opening of his kingdom’s consultative Shoura Council.

The Palestinian cause was “at the forefront” of Saudi attention, and he was working tirelessly to see the establishment of a Palestinian state.

He warned, “We affirm that the kingdom will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without that.” He thanked the 143 countries that had already recognized a Palestinian state and urged others to follow suit.

If Saudi Arabia hews to this precondition, then the new Middle East the Biden administration has worked tirelessly to birth seems doomed, at least without a radical change in Israeli thinking and government.

Israel-Lebanon escalation to weigh on Kamala

Escalation of conflict between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah leading to higher oil prices and inflation could weigh on the popularity of US Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris, reports ZAWYA.

The resulting uncertainty in the region would lead to higher oil prices and inflation, which could make Kamala less popular, Yoel Sano, head of global, political and security risk, BMI, said.  

Republican candidate, Donald Trump is likely to be less critical of Israel and Saudi Arabia, while Kamala is, rhetorically at least, more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, experts said.

Should Trump return to the White House, Sano said a nuclear deal with Iran is ‘not impossible’ under his leadership.

But there is a matter of willingness on the Iranian side, and a Kamala presidency would be ‘more conducive’ to re-starting talks, Sano said, as well while Trump did not object to a nuclear deal in principle, he objected to a deal signed by President Barack Obama in 2015. 

“Iran is potentially undergoing a leadership transition. The supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is 85 and has been in office 35 years.

“In this context, his would-be successors are unlikely to want to be seen as soft towards the US by rushing towards a new nuclear deal with the US,” he said.

While the Israel-Hamas conflict is likely to take ‘many months’ to resolve, BMI would expect it to be over by the time the new Presidential term starts in January 2025, Sano said.

Both Kamala and Trump continue to favour the process of normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which has been delayed by the Israel-Hamas conflict, he said, adding that it is unclear when progress can be made.

While escalation of Israel and Hezbollah hostilities would weigh heavily, BMI last month put likelihood that escalation would happen at 30%, with both sides unlikely to want it due to factors including increased domestic tensions and economic costs.

Tension between the two sides flared at the weekend, but analysis from S&P Global Market Intelligence said the exchange of fire was unlikely to grow in scope.

BMI projections for the US election, which is due to take place in November, showed a tight 50–50 race between Trump and Kamala, with Kamala perceived as a "highly energizing candidate" compared to Biden, Iris Malone, BMI’s director, political science, data modelling, said.  

Prior to her entering the race, polling on Democrat party voter enthusiasm was 36% in April, but it has jumped to 85% for Kamala, she said.

 

Anti Israel sentiment sweeping Egypt

Public sentiments against Israel have been growing among Egyptian people since the Tel Aviv launched war on the Gaza Strip on October 07, 2023.

The recent deaths of two Egyptian soldiers at the hands of Israeli troops have fueled considerable resentment against the Zionist regime. 

Abdallah Ramadan was killed in an exchange of fire between Egyptian and Israeli forces near the Rafah Border Crossing in the southern Gaza Strip on Monday. Ibrahim Islam Abdelrazzaq, the other soldier, later succumbed to the injuries he sustained in the gun battle.

Their deaths also sparked anger on social media platforms, the only window for freedom of speech in the Arab country. Many social media users called the soldiers martyrs and heroes who have sacrificed their lives to defend the country. 

They blamed the Egyptian army for not organizing full military funerals for the slain soldiers.  

This came amid heightened tensions between Cairo and Tel Aviv after the Israeli army took control of the Gazan side of the Rafah Crossing on May 07 following a ground assault on the city. 

More than half of Gaza’s 2.3 population had been crammed into Rafah before Israel carried out an incursion into the city and took control of a buffer zone along the border between the strip and Egypt.

According to the UN, over one million people have fled Gaza since Israel’s assault on the city nearly a month ago. 

Egypt has already issued a stern warning to Israel over the Rafah offensive amid reports that the regime seeks to forcibly transfer Gaza’s population to the Sinai Peninsula. 

The recent gun battle incident has plunged relations between Egypt and Israel to a new low.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Egypt told Israel it will not hesitate to respond militarily if it feels its security has been threatened.

Egypt says the Israeli military presence in the Gaza buffer zone appears to violate the Camp David Accords of 1978, the US-brokered agreements that led to a peace treaty between Cairo and Tel Aviv a year later. 

Following Israel’s incursion into Rafah, reports suggested that Egypt had threatened to suspend the treaty if the Rafah offensive continued. 

Egypt has also announced it will formally join the case filed by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice, which accuses the regime of genocide in the Gaza Strip. 

Israel says its offensive in Rafah, which has sparked global condemnation, is in line with its efforts to achieve total victory over Hamas and destroy the resistance group. 

This dream has remained elusive in the face of growing support for the Palestinian resistance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also been accused of seeking to prolong the war for his political purposes.  

In the meantime, the gun battle between the Israeli and Egyptian forces clearly indicates that the Netanyahu regime does not scruple to violate the accords that Tel Aviv signed with Cairo 45 years ago, for its military and political goals. 

Israel has also signed normalization deals with some Arab states over the recent past years. Palestinians have called these agreements a stab in the back of the Palestinian people and their cause. 

People in Egypt and other Arab countries that have normalized ties with Israel regard Israel as their number one enemy. 

Such resentment and Israel’s warmongering attitude toward Egyptian forces should serve as a red flag for states seeking to build relationships with the regime. 

Israel is an apartheid regime that has butchered more than 36,000 Palestinians in the nearly eight-month-old war on Gaza. Normalization deals cannot change the savage nature of Israel. As the saying goes, a leopard cannot change its spots!

 

Iran calls on Islamic countries to sever ties with Israel

The Iranian Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, has urged the OIC members to cut ties with the Israeli regime and put severe embargos on the commercial and arms dealings with the regime in order to stop its genocidal crimes against Gaza.

Delivering a speech at the 15th edition of the Islamic Summit of Heads of State and Governments of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the Gambia on Saturday, he said that “beyond doubt, this time period will also pass by, despite all its hardships and adversities for the Palestinian nation.”

“However, the manner and quality of the role that is played by us, Muslim states, in the face of this crisis will go down in history,” the top diplomat added.

“Undoubtedly, severance of diplomatic and economic ties and imposition of practical arms and trade embargo on Israel serves as an important means of cessation of its genocide in Gaza and atrocities in the West Bank and the Noble al-Quds.”

Amir Abdollahian stressed that what the resistance did in the course of time proved that its elimination was nothing but an illusion.

“The Israeli regime is not a legitimate government. It is only an occupying apartheid power,” he said, adding, “Passage of time is not going to lend legitimacy to an occupying power.”

“There is no doubt that severing diplomatic and economic relations and practical arms and trade embargo is an important tool in stopping Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its crimes in the West Bank and Al-Quds Al-Sharif. We sincerely appreciate the Muslim and freedom-loving governments and countries that took action in this direction,” he continued. 

Iran’s top diplomat also noted that the realization of stable and just peace and security in the region is only feasible through the end of the occupation of Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and guaranteeing the reinstitution of their right to self-determination.

He pointed out that the public opinion of the world and especially the Islamic world strongly expects us to come up with important recommendations and measures as the result of this Summit.

The foreign minister then proposed the following measures:

1. Emphasizing the establishment of an immediate, complete, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in all areas of Gaza, including in Rafah and even the West Bank;

2. The complete lifting of the human blockade of Gaza;

3. Exchange of prisoners;

4. Obligating the Israeli regime to conduct an immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all military forces and their equipment from Gaza and securing an international guarantee for the safe return of the people to their areas and places;

5. Imposing an immediate arms and trade embargo against the Israeli regime;

6. Supporting the provisional binding order of the International Court of Justice and providing the ground for the trial and punishment of all the commanders and the perpetrators of Israeli crimes. To ensure peace and security in the region and the Islamic world, the rogue and occupying Israeli regime must be stopped, brought to justice and punished.

He highlighted that Tehran believes that in line with the efforts to materialize the motto of enhancing unity and solidarity through dialogue for sustainable development;

First, by focusing and investing in human resources, technology and infrastructure, Islamic nations may very well utilize their great capacity to achieve the goals of sustainable development of Muslim nations.

Second, in order to deepen the level of cooperation and spread sustainable and all-round development, the network of economic, technical, developmental, commercial and financial-monetary cooperation between Islamic countries should be further strengthened in the context of targeted and joint agreements and mechanisms.

Third, creating a dedicated platform within the framework of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to share knowledge, expertise and resources related to sustainable development is necessary for the realization of the development plans of Muslim nations.

Fourth, it is a necessity to promote the economic and commercial integration between the member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in order to achieve the goals of sustainable development, based on our values.

Fifth, making use of technological initiatives and innovations and the expansion of scientific research in order to advance the agenda of achieving sustainable development goals within the framework of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation requires the devising an appropriate mechanism.

 

Understanding Middle East grand bargain

The Biden administration and Saudi Arabia are finalizing an agreement for United States security guarantees and civilian nuclear assistance, even as an Israel-Saudi normalization deal envisioned as part of a Middle East “grand bargain” remains elusive, reports Reuters.

A working draft lays out principles and proposals aimed at putting back on track a US-led effort to reshape the volatile region that was derailed by Hamas’ October 07, 2023 attack on Israel and the outbreak of war in Gaza.

It appears to be a long-shot strategy that faces numerous obstacles, not least the uncertainty over how the Gaza conflict will unfold.

The US and Saudi negotiators have, for now, prioritized a bilateral security accord that would then be part of a wider package presented to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who would have to decide whether to make concessions to secure historic ties with Riyadh.

“We’re very close to reaching an agreement” on the US-Saudi portion of the package, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said on Thursday, predicting that details could be ironed out “in very short order.”

That part of the plan is likely to call for formal US guarantees to defend the kingdom as well as Saudi access to more advanced US weaponry in return for halting Chinese arms purchases and restricting Beijing’s investment in the country.

The US-Saudi security accord is also expected to involve sharing emerging technologies with Riyadh, including artificial intelligence.

The terms are expected to be finalized within weeks.

The conditions that Netanyahu will face to join a broader deal are expected to include winding down the war in Gaza and agreeing on a pathway to Palestinian statehood, both of which Netanyahu has steadfastly resisted.

US officials hope Netanyahu will not want to pass up the historic opportunity to open relations with Saudi Arabia, guardian of Islam’s holiest sites, but are mindful of the domestic political pressures he is under, including keeping Israel’s most right-wing government ever from collapsing.

A broader pact giving the world's biggest oil exporter US military protection together with normalization with Israel would unite two long-time foes and bind Riyadh to Washington at a time when China is making inroads in the region.

A normalization deal would also bolster Israel's defenses against arch-foe Iran and give US President Joe Biden a diplomatic victory ahead of the November 05, 2024 presidential election.

Overhanging these efforts is Netanyahu’s threat to launch a military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians are sheltering, despite US entreaties to refrain from an operation that could mean further heavy civilian casualties.

Could Arabs join anti-Iran alliance?

On April 13, Iran launched over 300 missiles and drones at Israel, prompting Jordan to assist in defense. Initial reports suggested broader Arab involvement, indicating a potential shift in regional dynamics. However, these claims were later refuted. Despite this, Israeli leaders and some in Washington saw it as a signal of potential Arab alignment against Iran.

Israel's restrained response to the attack led to speculation about its role as a regional coalition leader against Iran. Yet, this perspective overlooks the complex realities in the region. Arab-Israeli cooperation faces challenges, including frustrations over Israeli policies in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Arab states, often labeled as a "Sunni alliance," prioritize balancing relationships with Iran and Israel to avoid wider conflict and protect domestic legitimacy. While they provided assistance to Israel, it was driven by maintaining ties with the United States rather than aligning with Israel.

Efforts to counter Iran are driven by maintaining relations with the U.S. Gulf Arab states have engaged with Tehran to manage tensions, seeking diplomatic dialogue over retribution. Despite shared concerns about Iran's activities, Arab states prioritize normalization with Iran over direct confrontation.

Arab states are cautious about overtly supporting Israel due to domestic costs, especially concerning Palestinian statehood. They aim to balance multiple relationships and avoid alignment with anti-Iran blocs, preferring dialogue to prevent conflict escalation.

Arab states can play a crucial role in preventing escalation between Iran and Israel by facilitating communication and encouraging restraint. However, closer cooperation with Israel is hindered by ongoing conflicts, limiting political engagement and economic ties.

In the near term, efforts will focus on mediation and conflict prevention, with realistic expectations about Arab-Israeli cooperation. While technical collaboration on common concerns may continue, high-profile political engagement with Israel depends on resolving ongoing conflicts.

United States godfathering Israel

Lately, the United States blocked a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have recognized a Palestinian state. Twelve members of the Security Council had voted in favor of the resolution, while two countries – the UK and Switzerland – abstained. The United States vetoed it.

The Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, sharply criticized the US veto, saying in a statement that it was unfair, immoral, and unjustified, and defies the will of the international community, which strongly supports the State of Palestine obtaining full membership in the United Nations.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz praised the US for vetoing what he called a shameful proposal.

US State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel had announced earlier that the US would vote against the Security Council resolution, saying that the US has been very clear, consistently, that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people, referring to the headquarters of the United Nations.

He also noted there was no unanimity as to whether the Palestinians met the criteria for membership as a state in the UN, saying the US believes future statehood should be dependent on negotiations between Israel and representatives of the Palestinians.

“The most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal,” Patel said.

Palestinian attempts for recognition as a full member state began in 2011. They are currently a non-member observer state, a status that was granted in November 2012.

At the time, UN Ambassador of the Palestinian Territories Riyad Mansour called the step a historic moment, adding that he hoped the Security Council will elevate itself to implanting the global consensus on the two-state solution by admitting the state of Palestine for full membership.

Israel’s UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan condemned Friday’s move as consideration of a Palestinian terror state.

“This won’t be a regular state. It will be a Palestine-Nazi state, an entity that achieved statehood despite being committed to terror and Israel’s annihilation,” Erdan added.

The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed disappointment over the UN Security Council's failure to pass a draft resolution that would have granted full UN membership to the State of Palestine.

The ministry said this decision contributes to the ongoing challenges faced by the region, particularly by allowing the continuation of Israeli occupation forces' actions without repercussions.

The ministry emphasized that the obstruction of Palestine's full membership in the UN hinders peace efforts and allows violations of the international law to persist.

Saudi Arabia reiterated its call for the international community to take decisive actions to stop attacks on civilians in the Gaza Strip and to support the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood. This state, according to Saudi Arabia, should be established within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, aligning with the parameters set forth by the Arab Peace Initiative and other relevant international resolutions.

 

Indonesian entry in OECD linked to normalizing ties with Israel

According to Reuters, Indonesia is under pressure to normalize ties with Israel to become the 39th member of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

It’s a move that needs the consent of all OECD countries, including Israel, which has been a member state since 2010.

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz objected to Indonesia’s inclusion unless it made a gesture toward Israel, such as normalization. The OECD made normalization with Israel part of Indonesia’s requirements for OECD membership.

It’s a step that comes as Israel has become increasingly isolated on the international stage due to the Gaza war, and it had been presumed that it was not possible to expand its diplomatic ties until the end of that half-a-year conflict.

Israel and Indonesia have long had silent relations in trade and tourism but have otherwise been diplomatic foes on the international stage.

Indonesia had been expected to be one of the countries that would normalize ties under the Abraham Accords, with the former Trump administration promising them a billion dollars to do so.

Plans for the two countries to normalize ties had proceeded under the Biden administration but were scuttled as a result of the Israel-Hamas war, which began on October 07, 2023.

They were revived this winter through the OECD membership process. Among the signs of a shift in their relationship was Israel’s decision to allow Indonesia to participate in the airdrops of humanitarian aid into Gaza, a step it had denied Turkey, with whom it has diplomatic ties.

The OECD outlined its understanding of the role it would plan in the normalization process in a letter Mathias Cormann wrote to Israel, dated March 26.

“I am pleased to confirm that Council has formally agreed to a clear and explicit pre-condition that diplomatic relations must be established with all OECD Members before any decision to invite Indonesia to become a Member of the Organization,” Cormann wrote.

This means, he stated, that the final inanition to Indonesia to become an OECD Member will not be tabled for a decision by Council before diplomatic relations have been established with all OECD Members, he stressed.

“Moreover, I recall that in conformity with Article 16 of the OECD Convention, any future decision to invite Indonesia to become an OECD Member will require unanimity among all OECD Members, including Israel,” he wrote.

Katz, in a letter dated April 10 thanked the OECD. 

“I share your expectation that this process will be a transformative one for Indonesia. I am looking forward to a positive change in Indonesia’s policies in general and vis a vis Israel in particular, notably renouncing its discriminatory policies toward Israel and establishing bilateral diplomatic relations," said Katz.

US duplicity and Arab cowardice facilitating genocide in Gaza

President Biden, looking somber, keeps urging Israel to avoid civilian deaths and to use targeted strikes on Hamas. Yet he keeps supplying Israel with 2,000 pound bunker buster bombs that are designed to kill indiscriminately and over a wide area. 

He reels against nuclear proliferation and vows to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet the United States will not even acknowledge the fact that Israel possesses over 200 nukes, let alone endorse a longstanding Arab and Iranian proposal to declare the region a nuclear-free zone, simply to facilitate Israel to threaten its neighbors of risk of a nuclear war. 

The United State says it wants an end to hostilities and civilian deaths, largely those of women and children in the Gaza war that is not a war because what we have is an army of well-equipped soldiers massacring defenseless women and children. Yet at the United Nations Security Council, the US has exercised vetoed three resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire.

The world recognizes that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is illegal and the US says these settlements should not be expanded, yet it is overlooking proliferation of settlements.

Lately, at the International Court of Justice, the US rushed to Israel’s defense—urging the 15-judge panel not to call for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory. The American State Department lawyer in support of Israel argued that the solution was not an Israeli withdrawal but that a sovereign Palestinian state living safely and securely alongside Israel would bring about lasting peace, repeating longstanding US platitudes that Netanyahu and two of his cabinet ministers have said will never be allowed by Israel.

The US espouses these words in public in support of a Palestinian state, yet does nothing to make it a reality. 

The US officials say that they have limited power over Netanyahu and Israel. Why doesn’t Biden announce: 1) US will no longer support Israeli intransigence at the United Nations, 2) US will suspend all financial and military aid to Israel (amounting to around US$300 billion over the years), and US will no longer sell arms to Israel?

Netanyahu will do as he is told. If Netanyahu does not do as told by the US and if Israel then loses US backing, Israelis would feel so naked and vulnerable that they would demand a change of government, it is that simple.

Regrettably, no US president dares taking such a stand because of the power of the Jewish lobby. It’s time for the US citizens to wake up and demand their government treat Israel as an ally but not as the 51st state.

It will not be wrong to say that the US foreign policy toward the Middle East is in large part subservient to Israeli demands and the Jewish lobby.

Palestinians have also received little or no effective backing from their Arab and Muslim brethren. Most Arab and Muslim countries have supported South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and others have voiced their anger at Israel’s attack on Gaza, but there is much more that they could do if they had a little courage and compassion in the face of the massacre of innocent civilians, largely women and children. 

If Arabs and Muslims want to force a change in the US policies and create a Palestinian state forthwith, they should: 1) recall their ambassadors to Washington (and to Tel Aviv for those having relations), 2) expel all US military personnel (bases) from their territories, 3) follow up with both primary and secondary economic sanctions on Israel, and 4) bring cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli leaders and American and European heads of state for complicity in Israeli war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Cognizant of the fact that Israel and the US are not members of the ICC, enforcement of the court verdicts is difficult, still a conviction would be a black mark that no one would want.

Some Arab countries would be wise to consider these steps sooner rather than later as they may face growing domestic demands for action, while may lead to unrest.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

Most Palestinians Support Hamas

Joe Biden, President, United States, declared on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday, "The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not Hamas." He elaborated, "I won't mince words. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not Hamas. And Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people. They're also suffering as a result of Hamas' terrorism. We need to be clear-eyed about that reality."

The Jerusalem Post writes in its editorial, “President Biden, though most Palestinians aren’t Hamas, as you claimed, a vast majority of them agree with almost any question regarding their basic ideology after October 07”.

Suppose most Palestinians, as well as most Israelis, are against a Two State Solution. In that case, you should probably speak to your advisors and ask them to think of a more practical solution - since on the ground, here in the Middle East, a two-state solution isn’t realistic if even an option.

Throughout the conflict, there has been significant debate both within Israel and internationally regarding the extent to which Hamas represents Palestinians in Gaza, the level of support for Hamas among Gazans, and the proportion of the death toll in Gaza comprising Hamas operatives.

The discussion about Gazan support for, and involvement with, Hamas has intensified recently, particularly with the looming yet uncertain ground operation expected in Rafah.

Following the president's statement, various public figures disagreed on social media. Among them, former Miss Iraq, now a human rights advocate and ally to Israel, Sarah Idan, countered with, "Tell that to the Palestinians in my inbox telling me Hamas are heroes and are freedom fighters…"

Though not all Palestinians are members of Hamas or even support it, most of them agree with its basic ideology. Several surveys, as well as monitoring of social media, found that Biden’s remarks are off.

According to a November 14 survey by the Arab World for Research and Development, most Palestinians supported the killing and kidnapping of Israelis on October 07, and just a tiny percentage supported a two-state solution.

The survey posed the question, how much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 07?

The findings revealed substantial support among Palestinians for the attack.

In the West Bank, 83.1% expressed their support to varying degrees, while only 6.9% were strongly or somewhat opposed, and 8.4% remained neutral.

In the Gaza Strip, though support was slightly less unanimous, a majority of 63.6% still backed the attack, either strongly or to some extent. Another 14.4% were neutral, and opposition was slightly higher at 20.9%. Overall, 75% of respondents supported the October 07 attack in some capacity.

Regarding gender perspectives, the difference in support between Palestinian men and women was negligible, with 75.2% of men and 74.9% of women supporting the attack to some extent.

Only a minority, 0.9%, believed the attack aimed to halt the peace process, and 0.7% thought it was to prevent settlement. Additionally, 5.1% perceived the attack as benefiting Iran's interests.

When it came to the concept of a two-state solution, 74.7% favored a single Palestinian state "from the river to the sea," with higher support in the West Bank (77.7%) compared to Gaza (70.4%). Support for a two-state solution was 17.2%, with Gazans (22.7%) more favored than West Bank residents (13.3%). Only 5.4% backed a "one-state for two peoples" solution.

The perception of the conflict's nature varied, with only 18.6% viewing it as between Israel and Hamas. A majority, 63.6%, saw it as a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians at large, and 9.4% interpreted it as a conflict between the Western world and the Arab world.

Inquiries about the motive behind the October 07 operation revealed that 31.7% of West Bank respondents and 24.9% from Gaza identified "freeing Palestine" as the primary reason.

Additionally, 23.3% from the West Bank and 17.7% from Gaza pointed to "breaking the siege on the Gaza Strip" as the motive, while 35% overall cited "stopping the violations of Aqsa" as the reason, referring to issues surrounding the Al-Aqsa mosque's access.

 

Seems no end to tyranny faced by Gazans

Now is the time for the United States, and in its wake the international community, to make a decision. Will the endless cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians continue, or are we going to try to put a stop to it? Will the United States continue to arm Israel and then bemoan the excessive use of these armaments, or is it finally prepared to take real steps, for the first time in its history, to change reality? And above all, will the cruelest Israeli attack on Gaza become the most pointless of all, or will the opportunity that came in its aftermath not be missed, for a change?

A Palestinian state may no longer be a viable solution because of the hundreds of thousands of settlers who ruined the chances for establishing one. But a world determined to find a solution must pose a clear choice for Israel: sanctions, or an end to the occupation; territories or weapons; settlements or international support; a democratic state or a Jewish one; apartheid, or an end to Zionism. When the world stands firm, posing these options in such a manner, Israel will have to decide. Now is the time to force Israel to make the most fateful decision of its life.

There is no point in appealing to Israel. The current government, and the one that is likely to replace it, does not and never will have the intention, courage or ability to generate change. When the prime minister responds to American talks about establishing a Palestinian state with words indicating that he “objects to coerced moves,” or that “an agreement will only be reached through negotiations,” all one can do is both laugh and cry.

Laugh, because over the years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done all he can to foil negotiations; cry, because Israel is the one employing coercion – the nature of its policy toward the Palestinians is coercion carried out in one big unilateral, violent, aggressive and arrogant move. All of a sudden, Israel is against acts of coercion? Irony hides its head in shame.

It is pointless to expect the current Israeli government to change its character. To expect a government led by Benny Gantz, Gadi Eisenkot or Yair Lapid to do so is also painfully futile. None of them believe in the existence of a Palestinian state that is equal in its sovereign status and rights to Israel.

The three of them together and each one separately will at most, on a really good day, agree to the establishment of a Bantustan on part of the land. A genuine solution will not be found here. It’s best to leave Israel to wallow in its refusal.

But the world cannot afford to let this opportunity pass. This is the world that will soon have to reconstruct, with its funds, the ruins of the Gaza Strip, until the next time Israel demolishes it.

It is the world whose stability is undermined as long as the occupation persists, and is further undermined every time Israel embarks on another war.

This is the world that agrees that the occupation is bad for it, but has never lifted a finger to bring it to an end. Now, an opportunity to do so has cropped up. Israel’s weakness and dependence following this war must be exploited, for Israel’s benefit as well.

Enough with words, enough with the futile rounds of talks held by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the barbed words uttered by President Joe Biden, they lead nowhere.

The last Zionist president, perhaps the last one to care about what is happening in the world, must take action. One could, as a prelude, learn something from the amazingly simple and true words of European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, who said, “Well, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms to Israel.”

However, the issue is not just ending the war, but mainly, what will happen when it’s over. If it depended on Israel, under any government, we would return to the warm bosom of apartheid and to living by the sword.

The world cannot accept this any longer and cannot leave the choice to Israel. Israel has spoken: No. The time has come for a Dayton Accords-like solution. It was a forced and imperfect agreement reached in Bosnia-Herzegovina that put an end to one of the cruelest wars, and in contrast to all predictions, it has held for 29 years. The agreement was imposed by coercion.

 Courtesy: Information Clearing House

 

Israel recognition, most Arabs say never

The comprehensive poll, which gauged sentiments across 16 Arab countries, underscores a growing resistance against normalization with Israel in the wake of the Israeli war on Gaza.

A significant shift has been seen in Arab public opinion on the recognition of Israel, according to a new survey conducted by the Arab Center Washington DC (ACW), in collaboration with The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS).

The comprehensive poll, which gauged sentiments across 16 Arab countries, underscores a growing resistance against normalization with Israel in the wake of the Israeli war on Gaza.

A striking 89% of respondents from the Arab world expressed opposition to the recognition of Israel, marking a discernible increase from previous polls. This figure not only represents a nearly unanimous stance against normalization but also indicates a 5% rise in opposition compared to the results from the 2022 survey, where 84% were against recognition.

The survey detailed notable country-specific shifts in public opinion, highlighting a dramatic change in perspective among nations that have historically taken steps toward normalizing relations with Israel.

In Saudi Arabia, opposition surged from 38% in 2022 to a remarkable 68% in the latest poll. Morocco saw an increase from 67% to 78% and Sudan from 72% to 81%, showcasing a significant hardening of attitudes across diverse Arab societies

These findings signal a profound and growing sentiment within the Arab world, reflecting deep-seated frustrations and disillusionment with the peace process and the broader implications of normalization agreements.

The ACW's report emphasizes that, despite diplomatic efforts and political maneuvers, the grassroots opposition to recognizing Israel remains robust and is, in fact, intensifying.

The heightened opposition is especially pronounced in countries that have formal peace agreements with Israel, such as Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco, as well as those like Sudan, which have recently begun normalizing political relations.

Despite governmental moves towards diplomacy, there appears to be a near-consensus among the populations of these nations against the recognition of Israel, underscoring a significant disconnect between official policy and public sentiment.

The ACW survey sheds light on the complex and evolving dynamics of Arab-Israeli relations, capturing a moment of significant transition in the Arab public's stance towards Israel and the peace process.

As the region grapples with the aftermath of the Gaza war and its broader geopolitical implications, the overwhelming opposition to Israel's recognition among the Arab public stands as a testament to the enduring and shared solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

 

New Israeli mantra: Iran trying to distract world from its nuclear program

Speaking at The Jerusalem Post’s Israel Summit, leading US Evangelist Dr. Mike Evans said that the Hamas massacre on October 07, 2023 was a preemptive attack on the State of Israel by Iran, via Hamas, its proxy. Evans stated that Iran authorized the attack to divert attention from its dream of developing nuclear weapons.

“Iran is trying to exhaust Israel and distract Israel. They’re trying to exhaust the world and distract the world to keep their eyes off of Iran going atomic. Iran will be an atomic nuclear state by November of this year (2024), when the US presidential election takes place, and it wants a nuclear umbrella of Russian planes flying over Iranian airspace similar to what they do in Syria as a quid pro quo for its drones and missiles helping Russian’s war against Ukraine,” he said.

“If this happens, the Gulf States will begin a nuclear arms race and will be paving the way for Armageddon. Nineteen terrorists attacked America on September 11, 2001,” said Evans. “You can be certain that Iran has more than 190 Hezbollah sleeper cells waiting for the green light to come in through the Mexican border to America.”

Evans said that two years before the Abraham Accords, at the 2018 Jerusalem Post Summit, he had predicted that five to six Arab countries would be signing peace agreements with Israel.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu has built a bridge among these Muslim countries,” he stated, “and that alliance is not going to end because of the Gaza crisis you are in now. But the Gaza war is only the welcome mat to a Persian Pandora’s box.”

Evans provided a comprehensive list of the numerous ways in which the Friends of Zion Heritage Center in Jerusalem is helping the State of Israel during the war.

The organization has hosted evacuated families from the South in its apartment complex, organized free events for evacuees and their families, provided vouchers valued at thousands of shekels to evacuated families, and held special events for them twice a week at the FOZ Heritage Center.

Friends of Zion help wounded soldiers and tend to their needs, provides food and entertainment to Holocaust survivors, and renovated and repurposed a bomb shelter for the activities of Holocaust survivors.

“We are fighting a media war,” says Evans, “and it’s a real war that we’ve got to win together.”

In that spirit, Evans and Friends of Zion reported the events of October 07 from the field and hosted journalists and influencers who expressed their support for Israel.

FOZ is fighting a social network war with over 700 posts, many with over 4 million viewers, to win the hearts and minds of 40% of the globe that gets its misinformation on social networks.

 

United States needs war in Gaza

A summit by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) resulted in a blanket condemnation of Israel, but lacked substantive solutions. The summit was sabotaged by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, who recently normalized relations with Israel. These countries block significant actions due to extensive US influence and future geopolitical calculations, causing disappointment among the international Muslim community.

After all, the Arab street – even while repressed in their home nations – has pulsed with protests expressing ferocious rage against Israel’s wholesale massacre of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Arab leaders were forced to take some sort of action beyond suspending a few ambassadorships with Israel, and called for a special Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit to discuss the ongoing Israeli war against Palestinian children.

Representatives of 57 Muslim states convened in Riyadh on 11 November to deliver a serious, practical blow against genocidal practitioners and enablers. But in the end, nothing was offered, not even solace.

The OIC’s final statement will always be enshrined in the Gilded Palace of Cowardice. Highlights of the tawdry rhetorical show: we oppose Israel’s self-defense; we condemn the attack on Gaza; we ask (who?) not to sell weapons to Israel; we request the kangaroo ICC to investigate war crimes; we request a UN resolution condemning Israel.

For the record, that’s the best 57 Muslim-majority countries could drum up in response to this 21st-century genocide. History, even if written by victors, tends to be unforgiving towards cowards.

The Top Four Cowards, in this instance, are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco – the latter three having normalized relations with Israel under a heavy US hand in 2020. These are the ones that consistently blocked serious measures from being adopted at the OIC summit, such as the Algerian draft proposal for an oil ban on Israel, plus banning the use of Arab airspace to deliver weapons to the occupation state.

Egypt and Jordan – longtime Arab vassals – were also non-committal, as well as Sudan, which is in the middle of a civil war. Turkiye, under Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdogan, once again showed it is all talk and no action; a neo-Ottoman parody of the Texan “all hat, no cattle.”

Two-state solution for lasting peace in Middle East

Israel hasn’t expressed interest in following the advice of world leaders that it revives the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

In the past wars against Hamas, Israel moved quickly to invade Gaza, seeking to degrade the militant group’s ability to fire rockets into the country, now Tel Aviv’s stated aim is Hamas’s destruction.

In the three weeks since the group killed 1,400 people in Israel, it has staged several limited ground incursions into Gaza, the latest on Friday night.

The stakes are high for Israel, from the lives of some 200 hostages to worries about triggering a regional war.

While US President Joe Biden has expressed strong support for Israel’s professed goals, he also advised delay of any full-scale invasion as he seeks to win release of the hostages and insure the flow of much-needed humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

The Pentagon is also scrambling to put defensive measures in place for US assets that may come under attack (Iran has warned of such escalation, and skirmishes between the two are increasing).

At the same time, global outrage has been rising at the massive number of Palestinian casualties inflicted by Israel, with more than 7,000 dead—including thousands of children.

As the Israel Defense Forces lay waste to large swathes of the Gaza Strip, Biden has urged Israel to consider America’s mistakes after the 9/11 attacks–and to have a clear plan for the aftermath.

“Anything that could lower risks and collateral damage, while still attaining the goal of crippling Hamas, is worth consideration.” Marc Champion writes in Bloomberg Opinion.