Gazans Being Buried Under Broken Promises

At times, one gets a chilling feeling that Gazans have been buried alive under the rubbles—not only of their shattered homes, but of the world’s broken promises. The Trump-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was marketed as a bold diplomatic breakthrough, complete with plans for an interim administrative setup backed by a handful of states. But what followed was not diplomacy—it was a carefully choreographed deception.

The promised administrative structure, which was supposed to stabilize governance and allow humanitarian breathing space, has never moved beyond press statements and political theatrics. Nothing substantial has been established. No credible mechanism has been deployed. The so-called “international support” evaporated the moment cameras were switched off. The agreement now stands as an empty shell, useful only for speeches and selective justification.

Meanwhile, Israel has shown absolute contempt for the spirit and substance of the ceasefire. The killings have not stopped; on the contrary these have intensified. Entire blocks have been vaporized. Families have vanished under collapsed concrete. The word “ceasefire” has become a cruel joke—a hollow term used to mask a campaign that continues with alarming impunity.

Even more disturbing is Israel’s pursuit of an anti-Hamas armed group inside Gaza. Instead of honoring the agreement, Israel appears determined to reengineer Gaza’s internal dynamics through coercion and proxy militias. This is not conflict resolution; it is social engineering under the guise of security.

For Gazans—already trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison—the message is brutally clear: no agreement will protect them, no international promise will be honored, and no external actor will intervene before the next bombardment begins. The world watches, counts casualties, and moves on.

What remains today is not just rubble, but a moral collapse. A ceasefire that exists only on paper, an international community performing selective outrage, and a population slowly erased from global consciousness.

Gaza does not need more signatures. It needs protection. It needs enforcement. And above all, it needs a world willing to acknowledge that “ceasefire” cannot coexist with continued annihilation.

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.

 

Arab states support two-state solution for lasting peace

The participating nations, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Mauritania, and the United Comoros Republic, collectively condemned and rejected the targeting of civilians, all acts of violence and terrorism against them, and any violations or transgressions of international law, including international humanitarian law, by any party. This condemnation extends to the targeting of civilian infrastructure.

They stressed the importance of the international community, especially the Security Council, assuming its responsibilities to seek peace in the Middle East. This includes expeditious, genuine, and collective efforts to resolve the conflict and implement a two-state solution based on relevant UN resolutions, ensuring the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with contiguous territory, viable for life, along the lines of pre-June 4, 1967, borders with its capital in East Jerusalem.

The statement denounced forced individual or collective displacement and policies of collective punishment. It strongly opposed any attempts to settle the Palestinian issue at the expense of the Palestinian people and the peoples of the region. The forced displacement of the Palestinian people is deemed a grave violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime.

The signatories underscored the need to fully commit to ensuring the complete respect for the Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly concerning the responsibilities of the occupying force. They also stressed the importance of the immediate release of hostages and civilian detainees, ensuring safe, dignified, and humane treatment for them in accordance with the international law. The role of the International Committee of the Red Cross in this regard is highlighted.

The statement emphasized that the right to self-defense, as outlined in the UN Charter, does not justify flagrant violations of international law and humanitarian law, or the deliberate neglect of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination and an end to the decades-long occupation.

The signatories called on the UN Security Council to compel parties to the conflict to an immediate and sustainable ceasefire. They stressed that hesitation in characterizing blatant violations of international humanitarian law serves as a green light for the continuation of such practices and complicity in their commission.

Furthermore, the statement urged action to ensure and facilitate rapid and sustainable access for humanitarian aid to Gaza without obstacles, in accordance with relevant humanitarian principles. It called for the mobilization of additional resources in collaboration with the UN and its affiliated organizations, especially UNRWA.

Expressing deep concern over the possibility of the current confrontations expanding and the conflict spreading to other areas in the Middle East, the signatories appealed to all parties to exercise maximum restraint. They underscored that the expansion of this conflict would have severe consequences on the peoples of the region and international peace and security.

The statement also expressed profound concern about the escalating violence in the West Bank and called on the international community to support and enhance the Palestinian Authority. Financial assistance to the Palestinian people, including through Palestinian institutions, is deemed to be of utmost importance.

The signatories affirmed that the absence of a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict led to the recurrence of violence and suffering for both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples and the peoples of the region.