Two Years of War in Gaza, Israel Gains Nothing

Two years of unrelenting war on Gaza, and Israel still stands where it began — trapped in a cycle of destruction, denial, and diplomatic decay. What was marketed as a mission to “eliminate Hamas” has turned into a grim display of state violence that has neither secured Israel nor silenced its critics. If anything, Israel has lost far more than it has gained — morally, politically, and strategically.

Israel’s military might has flattened Gaza, but not Hamas. The resistance remains alive, its ideology more entrenched than ever among Palestinians who have nothing left to lose. Israel’s massive bombardment of homes, hospitals, and schools has not eradicated militancy — it has multiplied it.

The claim of “self-defense” now rings hollow in a world that has seen unarmed civilians buried under rubble and children starved by blockades. The war has exposed not strength, but Israel’s insecurity and moral bankruptcy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, clinging to power through fear and militarism, has turned Israel into a pariah. Once viewed as a “democracy under threat,” Israel is now increasingly seen as an occupying force addicted to impunity.

Western governments still offer rhetorical support, but their streets tell a different story — millions protesting against Israel’s brutality and questioning their leaders’ complicity.

The regional fallout is equally severe. The Abraham Accords lie in political ruins, Arab regimes have distanced themselves, and Iran’s proxies have gained renewed legitimacy. Instead of isolating Hamas, Israel has isolated itself. The Arab world, once divided, now finds a common cause again — Palestine.

Economically, the war has drained Israel’s resources, scared away investors, and dented its global tech-driven image. The cost of perpetual war is beginning to show on Israel’s economy and psyche alike.

Two years on, Israel has neither peace nor security — only international condemnation and deep moral scars. Its military triumphs have yielded strategic emptiness.

Gaza lies in ruins, but Israel’s reputation lies beside it — shattered and unredeemable. In the long run, a state cannot bomb its way to legitimacy.

Israel’s real existential dilemma is not Hamas, but its own refusal to accept that lasting security can only be built on justice, not occupation.

 

Two Years of Israeli War on Gaza

Two years into Israeli war on Gaza, the region stands devastated — physically, morally, and strategically. What began as a campaign of “self-defense” has turned into a prolonged assault that has razed cities, erased families, and rewritten the moral code of modern warfare. Israel may claim tactical victories, but the strategic outcome is a quagmire that even its staunchest allies struggle to justify.

Gaza today is a graveyard of statistics — tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, and almost the entire population dependent on aid. The relentless bombardment has not uprooted Hamas; it has only deepened the political and emotional trench dividing Israelis and Palestinians. Far from eliminating militancy, Israeli campaign has turned Gaza into a permanent symbol of resistance and despair — a living wound in the conscience of the Middle East.

The Israeli leadership sells this war as a quest for security. Yet, two years on, Israel is less secure, not more. Its borders remain tense, international isolation grows, and domestic protests simmer under the surface of official triumphalism.

The myth of “precision warfare” has collapsed under the rubble of homes, schools, and hospitals. Even Washington, Israel’s diplomatic shield, is beginning to show fatigue — forced to defend the indefensible in every international forum.

Meanwhile, the Arab world’s silence has been deafening. Once vocal capitals have turned pragmatic, their outrage replaced by quiet normalization. The Palestinians, once betrayed by borders, are now betrayed by indifference.

Israel’s war on Gaza is no longer about eliminating Hamas — it is about maintaining an illusion that military dominance can substitute for political vision. But wars end; occupations linger; and history has a ruthless memory.

Two years later, Israel may have won battles, but it is losing the narrative — and with it, the moral ground that once set it apart from those it condemns.

Gaza’s ruins are not only a testament to Palestinian suffering but also to Israel’s strategic and moral decay. The war may still rage, but the victory, if ever claimed, will be hollow.

 

US double standards: Calling Hamas Terrorists, Negotiating Anyway

The United States loves to preach moral clarity - we do not negotiate with terrorists. Hamas, Washington insists, is a terrorist outfit responsible for bloodshed and chaos. Yet when the fighting in Gaza escalates and pressure mounts, the very same US administration finds itself scrambling for ceasefires—talking, directly or through intermediaries, to the very group it vilifies.

This is not strategy; it is double standards dressed up as pragmatism. US labels Hamas terrorists when it wants to project toughness at home, but when hostages are in danger, when civilian deaths spark global outrage, or when Arab allies threaten to break ranks, suddenly those “terrorists” become indispensable negotiating partners. The moral line evaporates the moment US interests are at stake.

The hypocrisy runs deep. The US slammed the Taliban for decades, only to sit across the table with them in Doha. It demonized Iraqi insurgents, then quietly cut deals to protect its own troops. It threatens “rogue states” like North Korea, then rushes into summits when the nuclear rhetoric escalates. With Hamas, the pattern is the same - condemnation in speeches, cooperation in practice.

This duplicity has consequences. By insisting Hamas is illegitimate yet negotiating with it whenever convenient, Washington undermines its own credibility. The message is clear: terrorism is a negotiable label, applied or ignored depending on political expediency. For people in the Middle East, this only confirms what they already suspect—that US policy is not about principles, but about protecting its own interests and Israel’s dominance.

If the US truly believes Hamas is a terrorist organization, then it should be consistent and refuse talks, no matter the cost. If, on the other hand, it recognizes that Hamas is an unavoidable political actor, then it should drop the pretense and admit it. Straddling both positions—condemnation in rhetoric, negotiation in reality—is not statesmanship. It is hypocrisy.

Flotilla Confrontation: Security Meets Humanitarian Defiance

The clash on the Mediterranean was more than a naval interception; it was the meeting point of two uncompromising mindsets. Israel, driven by security fears, saw the flotilla as a breach of sovereignty. The organizers, propelled by humanitarian urgency, saw it as a moral duty. The confrontation at sea exposed the deeper conflict on land—between a state that insists on safety at all costs and activists who believe silence in the face of suffering is complicity.

For Israel, the blockade of Gaza is not an option but a shield. In its worldview, Gaza is governed by Hamas, a militant force openly hostile to the Jewish state. Every unchecked shipment, Israel argues, risks smuggling in rockets or arms. From this vantage point, the blockade is an unfortunate but necessary firewall. The flotilla’s defiance, therefore, was not seen as a humanitarian act but as a provocation, a test of sovereignty. Intercepting the vessels was, in Israel’s eyes, enforcement of deterrence—not an act of aggression.

The flotilla organizers saw the situation through a very different lens. For them, Gaza is less about security threats and more about a humanitarian catastrophe. Years of blockade have left two million people trapped in an economic and social vise. The organizers framed their mission not simply as aid delivery but as civil disobedience at sea. Their ships carried food and medicine, but more importantly, they carried symbolism—an attempt to shine a spotlight on suffering and force the international community to reckon with policies they believe amount to collective punishment.

Both narratives have their logic, and both are uncompromising. Israel’s security calculus is rooted in bitter experience of rocket fire and attacks, leaving little room for risk-taking. The activists, meanwhile, operate on the conviction that moral duty overrides political boundaries. Neither side expected to concede; both expected to be challenged.

That is why confrontation was inevitable. The tragedy is that it deepened rather than bridged the divide. Israel reinforced its image as uncompromising, while the activists underscored their point that humanitarian access is blocked. In the end, the flotilla standoff revealed more than a naval skirmish—it laid bare the gulf between security fears and humanitarian imperatives, a gulf the world has yet to find the courage to close.

Global Sumud Flotilla approaching Gaza

According to media reports, an international aid flotilla is approaching the Gaza Strip in a bid to break an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian enclave.

“We are 570 kilometers (307.7 nautical miles) away from reaching Gaza,” the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza said on X.

Tony La Piccirella, an Italian activist from the Global Sumud Flotilla, said in a video statement that they will reach on Tuesday the point that Madleen and Handala aid ships had been intercepted by Israeli naval forces in previous attempts to lift the Israeli siege and deliver humanitarian aid.

On July 26, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Handala aid ship as it neared Gaza’s shores and escorted it to Ashdod Port. The vessel had reached about 70 nautical miles from Gaza, surpassing the distance covered by the Madleen, which made it 110 miles before it had been stopped.

A group of activists joined the Global Sumud Flotilla from the Mediterranean on Monday, and two more boats are joining from the Greek Cypriot Administration and Turkey. The biggest ship of the flotilla will set sail on Tuesday with 100 on board, the activist said.

La Piccirella said in addition to Italian and Spanish navy vessels that provide protection for the flotilla, three more countries are considering sending more military vessels, without revealing the names of these countries.

“So, it's getting bigger. And it's not about us, about the Global Sumud Flotilla. It's like a movement with hundreds of people at sea and millions of people on land, and it's not stoppable until the siege is broken,” he said.

The Global Sumud Flotilla, made up of about 50 ships, set sail earlier this month to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid, particularly medical supplies, to the war-ravaged enclave.

Since March 02, Israel has fully closed Gaza’s crossings, blocking food and aid convoys and deepening famine conditions in the enclave.

The Israeli army has killed over 66,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, in Gaza since October 2023. The relentless bombardment has rendered the enclave uninhabitable and led to starvation and the spread of diseases.

 

 

Protests and walkouts eclipse Netanyahu's UN appearance

The scene in New York — empty UN rows, diplomatic walkouts and sustained street protests, including large marches from Times Square to the UN and demonstrations outside Netanyahu’s Manhattan hotel — crystallized the political cost of the address.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday was an attempt at a carefully staged and combative defense of Israel’s aggressive campaign in Gaza and its wider military actions across the region. Yet the performance could not mask the widening gulf between his narrative and the findings of international institutions, public-health agencies, and human-rights organizations.

Netanyahu employed one prominent map, alongside visual aids and rhetorical flourishes critics deemed theatrical props, and he repeated the phrase “Israel must finish the job.”

The line landed amid visible diplomatic rebuke - dozens of delegations staged walkouts and large sections of the Assembly remained conspicuously empty, while thousands of demonstrators in New York took to the streets demanding a ceasefire and accountability.

Independent UN mechanisms and leading rights groups have drawn a far grimmer picture than the one Netanyahu offered. In a September report, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that the Israeli conduct in Gaza meets the legal threshold of genocide.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented patterns of indiscriminate bombardment, forced displacement, and the deliberate deprivation of essential services that they say amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Public-health agencies and UN partners, drawing on figures from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, estimate that more than 65,500 people have been killed since October 2023.

The war has forced the displacement of up to 90 percent of the population, while famine conditions have taken hold in several areas. The World Health Organization has confirmed hundreds of deaths from malnutrition, many of them children.

Beyond Gaza, Israel’s military actions have extended across the region, with deadly strikes in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, where more than 1,065 people were killed in the 12-Day War. Attacks have also targeted sites in Qatar and other parts of West Asia, widening the conflict’s footprint and drawing condemnation for what critics describe as a campaign of destabilization.

Netanyahu sought to rebut such charges by pointing to evacuation orders and intelligence claims, and by portraying Iran as the backbone of a regional “terror axis.”

Those assertions did not persuade critics who point out that warnings alone cannot absolve a belligerent of responsibility for operations that hit hospitals, shelters, and schools or that substantially hinder lifesaving aid.

The repeated refrain to “finish the job” in an enclave of nearly two million civilians risks being read not as a constrained military objective but as justification for actions with catastrophic humanitarian and legal consequences.

A particularly contentious decision during the UN appearance was the transmission of the speech into Gaza via loudspeakers on the border and, according to multiple reports, through mobile devices.

Framed by Tel Aviv as communication aimed at captives, the broadcasts were described by many humanitarian advocates and Palestinian journalists as coercive psychological pressure imposed on a population already under bombardment and facing starvation.

 

 

Tony Blair being tipped to run Gaza

According to the reports published in Haaretz and the Times of Israel the White House is backing a proposal to install former British prime minister Tony Blair at the head of a new “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA), which would serve as Gaza’s supreme political and legal authority for as long as five years.

The body, modeled on transitional administrations in Kosovo and Timor-Leste, would initially be based in Egypt and later enter Gaza with a supposedly UN-endorsed, largely Arab peacekeeping force.

According to the details, GITA would oversee a technocratic Palestinian Executive Authority tasked with delivering services, running ministries such as health and education, and supervising vetted civil police.

Hamas is explicitly excluded, while the Palestinian Authority (PA) is promised an eventual role — but with no firm timetable.

By contrast, the UN General Assembly recently backed the “New York Declaration,” a plan for a one-year interim administration that would then hand power to a reformed PA following elections.

Arab states have warned that their support for any peacekeeping force depends on a credible political horizon toward Palestinian statehood. Many fear that the Blair plan offers only a more palatable form of occupation, granting Israel reassurances while denying Palestinians genuine sovereignty.

Blair’s involvement is especially controversial. While he enjoys ties with Arab leaders from the Persian Gulf, Palestinians broadly resent his record as Middle East envoy and his role in the US-led invasion of Iraq. To many, his leadership would symbolize not liberation but a continuation of externally imposed control.

The plan comes against the backdrop of Washington’s earlier floated ideas — including transforming Gaza into a “Riviera” or even facilitating mass removal of Palestinians — rhetoric widely condemned as edging toward ethnic cleansing.

Though the details from the Blair proposal do not explicitly call for displacement, critics warn that without guarantees of rights, participation, and a binding timeline, Gaza risks foreign control and loss of sovereignty.

 

Yemeni drone attack injures more than 20 in Israeli city of Eilat

According to media reports, at least 22 people were injured, including two seriously, after a drone fired from Yemen hit the city of Eilat in southern Israel on the Red Sea coast on Wednesday.

Video and images from emergency responders and the Israeli military show the drone landed near stores and restaurants. The drone was fired during the final hours of the holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which marks the Jewish New Year.

Houthis have repeatedly launched drones and ballistic missiles at Eilat and other areas in southern Israel, but these launches are frequently intercepted. It’s unclear how Wednesday’s drone penetrated Israel’s air defenses.

“Interception attempts were made, and search and rescue teams are operating in the area where the report was received regarding the impact,” the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement.

Many of those who were injured in the attack suffered shrapnel from the explosion, according to Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s emergency response service.

A 60-year-old man who was seriously injured was struck by shrapnel in his limbs, while a seriously injured 26-year-old man suffered shrapnel wounds to his chest, MDA said. One other person suffered moderate injuries, MDA said.

The IDF said in a separate statement that its troops “are assisting in evacuating civilians from the area and providing initial medical care.”

“An IDF helicopter was dispatched and is currently assisting in evacuating injured individuals from the scene,” it added.

The Houthi militant group in Yemen later claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a “qualitative military operation.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed to revenge against Houthis following the attack on the city.

“The Houthi terrorists refuse to learn from Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza – and they will learn the hard way,” Katz said in a statement.

“Whoever harms Israel will be harmed sevenfold,” Katz added.

Earlier in September, a drone launched from Yemen by Houthi rebels hit the arrivals hall at Ramon Airport in southern Israel on Sunday, the Israeli military and the Israel Airports Authority said.

No sirens were sounded, the IDF said, since the drone was identified but not classified as hostile. An “extensive investigation” was expected.

Since Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza began in October 2023, the country has come under fire from missiles and drones from the Houthis in Yemen, who claim to strike Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Israel has carried out waves of strikes targeting Houthi military facilities and civilian infrastructure the IDF says is used by the Houthis. But the long-range exchange of fire has escalated recently.

In late August, Yemen’s Houthi rebels vowed to take revenge for the killing of their prime minister and other political leaders by Israeli airstrikes earlier that month.

 

Hamas is Freedom Fighter, Not Terrorist

The dominant Western discourse labels Hamas a “terrorist organization.” Yet this framing neglects both the context of Israel’s occupation and the legal principles that underpin the Palestinian right to resist. A critical reassessment reveals Hamas as part of a broader liberation struggle—comparable to anti-colonial movements across Africa, Asia, and Europe—that embodies the right of oppressed peoples to fight for self-determination.

Legal Basis of Resistance

International law recognizes the legitimacy of armed resistance against foreign occupation. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (1982) affirms the right of peoples “under colonial and foreign domination and alien occupation to struggle … by all available means, including armed struggle.”

The Palestinian case clearly falls within this framework. Israel’s continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem violates numerous UN resolutions, including UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which demand Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

Thus, the actions of Palestinian resistance groups—including Hamas—are not “terrorism” in the legal sense but a manifestation of the internationally recognized right to resist occupation.

Historical Parallels

Resistance movements throughout history were often branded “terrorist” by dominant powers. The French Resistance against Nazi Germany engaged in armed attacks and sabotage but is now revered as heroic.

Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) was on US and British terrorist watch lists until the 1990s.

Similarly, the FLN in Algeria and the Mau Mau in Kenya were vilified as terrorists during their anti-colonial wars.

Today, they are celebrated as freedom fighters who dismantled colonial rule. Hamas should be understood in this historical continuum rather than through selective moral judgments.

Political and Social Legitimacy

Hamas is not an isolated militant group. In the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, declared free and fair by international monitors, Hamas won a majority, underscoring its legitimacy among Palestinians.

Beyond its military dimension, it provides education, healthcare, and welfare services in Gaza, functioning as both a political and social actor.

This dual role strengthens its claim as a national liberation movement rather than a mere armed faction.

Double Standards

The Western narrative reveals glaring inconsistencies. When Ukraine resists Russian occupation, it is celebrated as self-defense. When Palestinians resist Israeli occupation, it is condemned as terrorism.

Such double standards highlight the politicization of the term “terrorism,” stripping it of objective meaning and weaponizing it to delegitimize legitimate struggles.

Palestinian Struggle

It is important to emphasize that Hamas does not exist in isolation but as part of a century-long Palestinian resistance to dispossession and occupation.

The 1948 Nakba displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and Israel’s subsequent expansion entrenched a system widely described by human rights organizations—including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—as apartheid. In this context, Hamas embodies continuity with the larger Palestinian liberation struggle.

Hamas is not merely a militant group but a resistance movement rooted in the Palestinian right to self-determination. International law, historical precedent, and moral logic place it firmly within the tradition of freedom fighters, not terrorists.

To criminalize Hamas is to criminalize the very notion of liberation. Just as yesterday’s “terrorists” became today’s national heroes, the Palestinian struggle—and Hamas as part of it—must be recognized as a fight for justice and freedom.

 

US and Israel must pay for Gaza reconstruction

Reports suggest that US President Donald Trump is set to convene leaders and officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan for a multilateral meeting on Gaza. The centerpiece of his proposal will be threefold: 1) release of captives, 2) a ceasefire, and 3) Israeli withdrawal. Yet behind these points lies Washington’s real demand — pressing Arab and Muslim countries to provide troops and bankroll Gaza’s reconstruction.

This approach is deeply flawed. After nearly two years of war, Gaza has been turned into rubble. Over 65,000 Palestinians are dead, the entire population displaced, and famine has taken hold. UN inquiries and global rights experts have already concluded that Israel’s campaign constitutes genocide.

Against such evidence, one must ask: why should Arab and Muslim states be asked to fund the rebuilding of a land destroyed by Israel with American weapons and American diplomatic cover?

Morally and legally, it is Israel and its principal sponsor — the United States — who must foot the bill, not the victims’ brothers and neighbors.

In fact, justice demands far more: compensation to the families of the dead, even a million dollars for each life taken, as a measure of accountability.

History underscores this logic. After World War II, defeated aggressors were made to pay. Germany’s factories and patents were seized, Japan delivered reparations to occupied nations, and Italy compensated countries it had invaded.

The Western Allies later softened the approach through the Marshall Plan, choosing reconstruction over humiliation. But the guiding principle remained the same: those who destroy must pay to rebuild.

Expecting Arab and Muslim nations to pay for Gaza’s reconstruction is not only unjust, it is an insult. It absolves Israel of responsibility while shifting the burden onto those who stood with the victims.

If Washington and Tel Aviv believe in peace, they must accept the hard truth: accountability is the foundation of stability. Gaza will not rise from the ashes if the arsonists walk free and the neighbors are forced to pick up the tab.

Britain, Australia and Canada recognize Palestinian state

Britain, Canada and Australia all recognized a Palestinian state on Sunday in a move borne out of frustration over the Gaza war and intended to promote a two-state solution but which is also bound to anger Israel and its main ally, the United States.

The three nations' decision aligned them with about 140 other countries which also back Palestinians' aspiration to forge an independent homeland from the Israeli-occupied territories.

Britain's decision carried particular symbolic weight given its major role in Israel's creation as a modern nation in the aftermath of World War Two.

"Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognizes the State of Palestine," Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on X.

Other nations, including France, are expected to follow suit this week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Israel's Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that Britain, Canada and Australia's decisions on Sunday were a reward for murderers. That assault killed 1,200 people and saw 251 others taken hostage, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel's ensuing campaign has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to Gazan health authorities, and has spread famine, demolished most buildings and displaced most of the population - in many cases multiple times.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Varsen Aghabekian Shahin welcomed countries recognizing a Palestinian state.

"It is a move bringing us closer to sovereignty and independence. It might not end the war tomorrow, but it's a move forward, which we need to build on and amplify," she said.

Western governments have been under pressure from many in their parties and populations angry at the ever-rising death toll in Gaza and images of starving children.

"Canada recognizes the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel," Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Sunday.

Israeli minister Ben-Gvir said he would propose at the next cabinet meeting to apply sovereignty in the West Bank - de facto annexation of land Israel seized in a 1967 war.

He also said the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank, should be dismantled.

 

 

Hamas at the Crossroads: Kill or Get Killed

In the brutal theatre of Gaza, Hamas finds itself at a historic crossroads — a reality starkly defined by the dictum kill or get killed. For Israel, the stated objective is clear ‑ the complete dismantling of Hamas as a governing and military force. For Hamas, survival has become both a military necessity and a political imperative.

Israel’s relentless strikes — from Gaza City to Doha — have made it clear that Hamas leaders are no longer safe even beyond their borders. The military offensive inside Gaza has decimated infrastructure, uprooted nearly the entire population, and left Hamas struggling to function as a governing body. Yet, paradoxically, the group continues to resist, proving its resilience through urban warfare, tunnel networks, and the strategic use of hostages in negotiations.

The problem is existential. Unlike traditional political movements that can retreat, regroup, and return, Hamas has been pushed into a corner where capitulation could mean extinction. Its leverage now rests on asymmetric warfare, regional mediation, and the hostage card. Without these, it risks becoming irrelevant — or annihilated.

This survivalist posture comes at a staggering cost. Gaza’s civilian population bears the brunt of the war, facing famine, displacement, and death. While Israel insists that Hamas hides behind civilians, Hamas’s very survival strategy ensures that Gaza remains both its shield and its Achilles’ heel. The humanitarian catastrophe threatens to erode what local legitimacy the group once enjoyed, even as international outrage grows against Israel’s disproportionate use of force.

The irony is bitter ‑ the more Israel tries to crush Hamas militarily, the more the group leans into its identity as an armed resistance movement rather than a governing authority. Each decapitation strike on its leadership risks splintering Hamas into more radical, less controllable factions. Far from erasing Hamas, this “kill or get killed” dynamic could entrench the cycle of violence for another generation.

The only path out of this trap lies not in military annihilation but in political imagination. Without a viable political horizon for Palestinians, attempts to eradicate Hamas will only create new versions of it. As things stand today, Hamas is not simply fighting a war — it is fighting for its very existence. And in that existential battle, Gaza’s civilians are paying the highest price.

 

Gaza being burnt by Israel

Over the last few days the western media has been propagating an Israeli headline, “Gaza is burning”. On the contrary it should have been, “Gaza being burnt by Israel”. The Israeli troops are moving deeper into the enclave's main city. The number of soldiers is rising with each passing day as IDF believe that up to 3,000 Hamas combatants are still in the city.

Please allow us to say that Gaza is not merely a battlefield; it is a society in flames. Over two years of intensive military operations, territorial encirclement, and an all-but-complete blockade have produced a cascade of death, displacement, and institutional collapse.

The question of agency — whether Gaza “is burning” as an accident of war or because a party intends and effects its devastation — is not rhetorical. Evidence from humanitarian agencies, human-rights groups, and UN investigators points clearly to a campaign of force and policy by Israel that has produced, and continues to produce, catastrophic civilian destruction and deprivation.

The multiple UN and humanitarian reports document mass casualties, widespread displacement and the conditions of famine and disease now ravaging Gaza. The UN’s humanitarian coordination office describes Gaza City — home to nearly a million people who have nowhere safe to go — as facing daily bombardment and “compromised access to means of survival.”

The WHO’s public-health analysis confirms the lethal public-health consequences: rising malnutrition and deaths from starvation and disease, with hundreds of children already dead from malnutrition and famine conditions confirmed in parts of Gaza.

These outcomes are not incidental side effects of a narrowly targeted counterterror operation. Human-rights organizations have documented patterns of attacks that repeatedly hit schools, hospitals, shelters, and entire neighborhoods — precisely the civilian infrastructure that normally offers protection in war.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have catalogued repeated strikes on schools and hospitals, extensive razing of towns, and the use of siege tactics that cut off food, fuel, and medical supplies — measures they say amount to unlawful collective punishment and, in Amnesty’s assessment, further evidence of genocidal intent.

An independent UN commission of inquiry has concluded that actions by Israeli authorities and forces meet the threshold of genocide, citing acts that include killing, causing severe bodily and mental harm, and imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.

That finding is explosive in normative terms because it reframes the humanitarian crisis as one driven not only by military necessity claims but by a pattern of conduct that international law treats as among the gravest crimes.

Three interlocking dynamics matter. First, operational doctrine: tactics emphasizing area bombardment, extensive use of heavy munitions in dense urban areas, and commands for mass civilian displacement dramatically increase civilian death and infrastructure destruction. Second, blockade and siege: restricting entry of food, fuel, water, and medicines turns even partial destruction into sustained catastrophe by preventing recovery and medical care. Third, accountability failures: continued supply of weapons and limited enforcement of international humanitarian law incentives have, critics argue, reduced the political and legal costs of tactics that imperil civilians.

The human consequences are immediate and wrenching. Schools that once sheltered displaced families are being struck; hospitals struggle to operate without fuel and supplies; entire neighborhoods have been razed to foundations; and children face not only the trauma of violence but death from malnutrition and preventable disease.

If civilian protection were the operational imperative, the combination of precise targeting, unfettered humanitarian corridors, and a halt to displacement orders would reduce civilian suffering. Instead, the combination of intense urban combat, orders pushing mass displacement within a sealed territory, and the impediment of essential supplies has produced conditions that human-rights experts interpret as deliberate or recklessly indifferent to civilian life. That is the core of the charge that Gaza is being “burnt” by Israeli policy and force.

Doha Summit: Strong Words No Action

Israel’s brazen airstrike on Doha on September 09 is not just an attack on Qatar—it is an assault on the dignity and sovereignty of the entire Arab and Muslim world. Targeting a Hamas delegation engaged in US-backed ceasefire talks, Israel killed five members and a Qatari officer, proving it is willing to bomb peace itself.

At the emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Doha, Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani condemned the strike as “blatant, treacherous, cowardly aggression.”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian called it “a blatant act of terrorism,” warning that no Arab or Muslim nation is safe from Israel’s ambitions.

Iraq’s Prime Minister urged a shift “from condemnation to coordinated action.”

Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim blasted the hollowness of repeated declarations.

Turkey’s Erdogan accused Israel of embodying “a terrorist mentality,” and Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned of unending expansionism.

Even the UN Security Council unanimously condemned the strike—an unprecedented rebuke.

Yet evidence suggests coordination between Israel and US Central Command, exposing Washington’s double game ‑ publicly criticizing Israel while enabling its wars across Gaza, Syria, Lebanon—and now Qatar.

This aggression also reflects Benjamin Netanyahu’s desperation. His failure to crush Hamas, coupled with corruption trials and political infighting, has made perpetual war his only survival strategy.

With over 65,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza—including 21,000 children—Israel measures success in death tolls, not strategic gains.

Striking Qatar, host to the largest US base in the region, signals Israel’s broader “Greater Israel” ambitions—regional dominance with American cover.

Five years after the Abraham Accords, it is clear normalization did not moderate Israel. It emboldened Tel Aviv to trample sovereignty with impunity.

By striking Qatar, Israel has crossed every red line, daring Arab states to move beyond words.

The time for statements is over. Arab and Muslim nations must cut ties, enforce boycotts, and present a unified front. Anything less will ensure Israel dictates the Middle East’s future in blood and fire—while the Arab world watches silently from the sidelines.

Israeli Strike on Qatar: A Wake-Up Call for Arab Monarchs

Israel’s brazen airstrike on Qatari soil has torn away the mask of “normalization” and exposed the contempt Tel Aviv holds for Arab sovereignty. The attack, which targeted a Hamas delegation attending US-brokered ceasefire talks, killed five members and a Qatari security officer. The leadership survived, but the message was clear: no Arab capital is beyond Israel’s reach.

This was not just an attack on Hamas. It was a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, a slap in the face to Washington — Qatar’s supposed ally — and a provocation to the entire Arab world. For decades Israel has bombed Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria. Now, by striking Qatar — a state known for mediation and humanitarian diplomacy — Israel has crossed a new line.

The strike also shatters illusions about normalization. The Abraham Accords were sold as pathways to peace. Instead, they emboldened Israel, eroded Arab leverage, and exposed the region to even greater danger.

Qatar, which refused to normalize, now stands vindicated. Its independent stance — grounded in mediation, relief, and dignity — contrasts starkly with the silence of others.

The global reaction revealed Israel’s growing isolation. In a rare consensus, the UN Security Council, including the US, condemned the strike. Yet reports suggest coordination between Israeli forces and US Central Command, underscoring Washington’s duplicity.

Far from intimidating Qatar, Israel has only amplified its role. Qatar is now preparing an emergency Arab-Islamic summit, with expectations of real measures — joint diplomatic pressure, trade and tech restrictions, and united action in global forums. The UAE’s ban on Israel from a defense expo and Iran’s confirmed participation point to a rising front of solidarity.

Israel intended to project dominance but instead exposed desperation. It is failing in Gaza, where over 64,000 Palestinians have been killed without breaking Hamas, and it stumbled in June’s 12-day war with Iran. The Qatar strike is less about strength than about masking repeated defeats.

For Arabs, this must be the breaking point. Silence has only invited more aggression. The attack on Qatar is not just another outrage — it is the wake-up call the Arab world can no longer afford to ignore.

Is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

With each passing day and the precision with which Israel attacked Qatar, Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries, a question is getting louder, is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

It is a very important and sensitive question. Based on the strategic relationships between United States and Israel the probability just can’t be ruled out.

Here are the reasons that support the perception:

Military Support:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of the US foreign military aid, running into billions of dollars annually. Much of Israel’s military technology, intelligence systems, and weapons are supplied by the US.

Operational Coordination:

While not every Israeli attack is directly supervised by the US, Washington is usually informed in advance of major military operations—especially those with regional consequences like strikes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or beyond.

Political Cover:

The US provides Israel with diplomatic protection, especially at the UN Security Council, often vetoing resolutions that condemn Israeli actions. This gives Israel confidence that it can continue operations without facing strong international consequences.

Shared Intelligence:

The CIA, Pentagon, and Israeli intelligence frequently share intelligence. In many cases, Israeli attacks—particularly on Iran linked targets—are planned with at least some level of US awareness, if not outright coordination.

Recent Pattern:

Analysts often describe Israeli military actions as being carried out with a “green light” from Washington, even if the US doesn’t control the tactical execution.

The US may not be giving step-by-step battlefield orders, Israel’s ongoing military actions—especially in Gaza—are effectively carried out under US strategic supervision and protection, both militarily and diplomatically.

Let us explore the incidents where US involvement was direct (like supplying bombs during Gaza wars, or joint planning against Iran), to show how this collaboration works.

Let us identify the situations where the US involvement was direct or so close that it’s hard to separate support from supervision:

1. Gaza Wars (2008–09, 2014, 2021, 2023–25)

Weapons Supply:

During heavy Israeli bombardments of Gaza, the US quickly replenished Israel’s stock of precision-guided bombs, artillery shells, and Iron Dome interceptors. For example, in 2014 and again in 2021, Washington quietly authorized emergency transfers of munitions while battles were still ongoing.

Political Cover:

At the UN, the US vetoed multiple ceasefire resolutions, allowing Israel to continue operations.

Supervision Aspect:

Without US weapons and diplomatic shields, Israel could not have sustained these long campaigns.

2. Lebanon and Hezbollah (2006 and beyond)

2006 War:

Israel’s month-long war with Hezbollah relied on US-supplied bunker-buster bombs and real-time intelligence from American surveillance assets.

Joint Planning:

US and Israeli militaries regularly war-game scenarios of a “multi-front” war with Hezbollah, meaning Israel’s current strategy is partly drawn up with Pentagon input.

3. Operations against Iran

Nuclear Program Attacks:

The famous Stuxnet cyberattack (2009–10) on Iran’s Natanz facility was a joint CIA-Mossad operation.

Targeted Killings:

Israel’s assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists were carried out with US intelligence support, according to multiple reports.

Air Strikes in Syria:

Israeli strikes on Iranian convoys and depots in Syria often used US intelligence and were coordinated to avoid clashing with US troops stationed nearby.

Present Gaza War

Direct Weapons Pipeline:

US cargo planes flew precision bombs, tank shells, and artillery rounds directly to Israel while civilian casualties mounted in Gaza.

White House Green Light:

Leaks from Pentagon officials revealed Israel was asked to pause or minimize strikes, but not ordered to stop.

Embedded Coordination:

US military officers reportedly worked inside Israeli command centers to coordinate targeting and logistics — an unusually deep level of involvement.

Ongoing Strategic Framework

US and Israel have joint operations rooms for real-time intelligence sharing.

Israel’s most advanced fighter jets (F-35s) are co-produced with US technology, and software updates pass through Pentagon systems — meaning the US can monitor their use.

Israel does not fight wars in isolation; every major military campaign has US fingerprints, whether in weapons, intelligence, or diplomatic protection.

Bottom line:

While Israel pulls the trigger, the US is the one who supplies the gun, reloads it, and shields Israel from the world’s outrage. That is why many analysts argue Israeli attacks are effectively conducted under US supervision.

Time for Muslims to take collective actions against Israel

For more than 700 days killing of Gazans has continued unabated, but the Muslim rulers have not gone beyond condemnation of Israeli attacks. Now, Israel has killed the political leaders of Hamas in the Qatari capital Doha on Tuesday and only condemnation in very soft words has come. Let us find why can't Muslim rulers go beyond condemnation of Israeli terrorism?

In our opinion, it is a pertinent and important question. The repeated condemnations without meaningful action by most Muslim-majority states in response to Israeli aggression—especially in Gaza—stem from a complex mix of geopolitical, economic, and internal factors. Some of the main reasons are:

Dependence on the West

Many Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, rely heavily on the United States and Europe for security, trade, investment, and military technology. They fear, taking decisive action against Israel risks sanctions, aid cuts, or political isolation.

Deep Split

The Muslim world is deeply fragmented—Sunni vs Shia, Arab vs non-Arab, monarchies vs republics. This has resulted in rivalries (Saudi Arabia vs Iran, Turkey vs Gulf monarchies) those prevent a unified front.

Normalization and Hidden Ties with Israel

Several Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) have normalized relations through the Abraham Accords, and many others maintain covert cooperation.

Economic Vulnerabilities

Oil-rich states depend on stable exports, foreign investment, and dollar-based trade. Poorer Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc.) face IMF pressure and debt traps, limiting foreign policy freedom.

Fear of Internal Unrest

Leaders worry that pushing too hard against Israel, in other words the United States could invite political or regime change attempts. Authoritarian governments fear that pro-Palestine activism could spill over into broader dissent.

Lack of Unanimity

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been reduced to a symbolic forum, issuing statements but lacking enforcement mechanisms or collective security structures.

Strategic Silence

Some leaders prefer Israel as a silent partner in intelligence, cyber, and defense, especially against Iran, Hezbollah, or Islamist movements that threaten their regimes.

Therefore, Muslim countries remain stuck between public outrage and private interests. Condemnation is the safest path—it appeases their populations without risking ties with Washington or destabilizing their regimes.

Enough is enough, now the time has come to take concrete steps. Here are some realistic and concrete steps Muslim countries could take—short of direct war—if they truly wanted to go beyond mere condemnation of Israeli aggression:

Economic Measures

Oil & Gas Leverage:

Gulf states could coordinate an oil embargo or selective supply restrictions targeting Israel’s allies, similar to the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

Boycott and Divestment:

Governments could ban trade with Israeli firms and pressure companies operating in Israel to disengage.

Sanctions on Israeli Goods: Restrict imports of Israeli agricultural, tech, or defense products.

Diplomatic Pressure

Expel Ambassadors:

Muslim countries with relations (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan) could downgrade or cut diplomatic ties.

Global Legal Action:

Refer Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) collectively, instead of leaving it to NGOs.

Block Normalization:

States like Saudi Arabia could halt normalization talks, signaling that Palestine remains a red line.

Political Unity

Revitalize the OIC:

Transform it from a talk shop into an action body: joint resolutions, emergency summits with binding decisions.

Joint Palestine Fund:

Pool resources into a sovereign fund for Gaza reconstruction and Palestinian self-sufficiency.

Collective Lobbying at UN:

Use numbers (57 Muslim countries) to push binding UN resolutions, even if the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council.

Strategic Non-Military Support

Humanitarian Corridors:

Use leverage with Egypt and Jordan to ensure permanent aid corridors into Gaza.

Technology and Cyber Support:

Provide Palestinians with communication tools, cybersecurity, and medical technology to resist siege conditions.

Intelligence Sharing:

Quietly pass on information that can protect Palestinian civilians from strikes.

Symbolic but High-Impact Moves

Suspend Flights to Tel Aviv:

Muslim-majority airlines could suspend services, disrupting Israel’s connectivity.

Cultural and Sports Boycotts:

Ban Israeli teams from participating in sporting events in Muslim countries.

Public Accountability:

Name and shame Muslim leaders who maintain cozy ties with Israel while condemning it publicly.

Israeli attempt to kill Hamas negotiating team in Doha a big dent to US credibility

Following Israeli assassination attempt to kill members of Hamas' negotiating team in Doha, Qatar on Tuesday, it appears that the Israeli military is now entering "full ethnic cleansing mode," in Gaza.

Israeli officials claimed responsibility and said it was aimed at assassinating the negotiators—but ultimately killed six people who were not involved with Hamas' team.

The Trump administration said Tuesday it had been aware of the attack before it was carried out and claimed it had warned Qatari officials—which Qatar denied.

Analysts suggested the lead-up to the bombing—with the US securing Hamas and Israeli support for a vague ceasefire proposal that was to be discussed in Doha—pointed to a scenario in which the US helped orchestrate the attack and aided "an attack on diplomacy itself," as Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss said.

Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders, warned the assassination attempt could cause long-lasting harm to the United States' reputation.

"This is an attack in the capital of a major non-NATO US ally in the midst of US-supported negotiations—against officials who were originally hosted there at the United States' request," said Duss.

"If it was conducted with the approval of the US, it's the latest nail in the coffin of President Donald Trump's claim to be a 'peacemaker.' This will have disastrous consequences for future peace efforts, and for US security."

The Trump administration's response to the attack was ambiguous, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the bombing did not "advance Israel or America's goals" but adding that "eliminating Hamas... is a worthy goal."

The attack, said Duss, makes clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to see Israel's accelerating campaign of ethnic cleansing in Gaza through to the end," and has no intention of reaching a ceasefire deal.

Gregg Carlstrom of The Economist said that as far as countries in the Gulf region are concerned, the question of whether Trump knew about the attack ahead of time "is somewhat irrelevant."

"If yes, he approved a strike on a country under an American security guarantee," said Carlstrom. "If no, he couldn't prevent said strike. Either way, the question for Gulf leaders is the same, what is the value of American security guarantees?"

Condemnation of the attacks poured in from global leaders including United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, who said Israel's actions were "a clear violation of Qatar's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and accused Israeli officials of "destroying" efforts for a permanent ceasefire.

Other countries including Algeria, Jordan, and Egypt also decried the attack on Qatar's "sovereignty" and accused Israel of undermining the talks.

The peace group CodePink asserted, "The US is fully aware of Israel's intentions and actively collaborates with it" to reach the "true objective" of "the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."

"This collaboration is evidenced by the blatant plan to lure ceasefire negotiators into a single location under the pretense of peace talks, only to attempt to assassinate them," said CodePink.

"This is a complete rejection of a diplomatic solution—something Israel has no intention of reaching. This attack on foreign soil also serves as a direct challenge to Qatar, proving that neither its borders, laws, nor financial influence can deter Israeli strikes."

The assassination attempt proves, said the group, "Peace negotiations are essentially antithetical to Israel and a trap for more assassinations and attacks on sovereign nations."

"It is time world leaders take a principled stand in defense of the people of Gaza," said the group. "The more the international community fails to hold Israel accountable, the more brazen it becomes in their war crimes."

Yemen carries out precision operations

Yemeni Armed Forces carried out five precision military operations targeting the Israeli military’s General Staff building in Tel Aviv, the Hadera power station, Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Ashdod Port, and the ship MSC ABY in the northern Red Sea. These attacks were conducted using a number of drones and a cruise missile.

Brigadier General Yahya Saree, spokesperson for the Yemeni Armed Forces, stated that the Air Force conducted four drone operations using Samad-4 drones. 

The first targeted the General Staff building in Tel Aviv, while the remaining three struck the Hadera power station, Ben Gurion Airport, and Ashdod Port. He confirmed that all targets were successfully hit.

In addition, the Air Force and Missile Unit carried out a joint operation against the ship “MSC ABY” vessel for violating the ban on entering ports in occupied Palestine and for its ties to the Israeli regime. The ship was struck directly using two drones and a cruise missile.

The Yemeni Armed Forces affirmed that these operations are part of their continued support for the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, aimed at ending the aggression and lifting the blockade. Officials emphasized that the attacks are a response to the “Zionist enemy’s acts of genocide and starvation against civilians”. 

Following the announcement from Sanaa, air raid sirens sounded again in Tel Aviv and its surrounding areas. The Israeli military said it has detected another missile launch from Yemen. Israeli media reported that the airspace over Ben Gurion Airport has been closed following the launch.

According to military experts, the Yemeni response to the assassination of the Prime Minister and ministers in Sanaa has not occurred yet. The calculations for the response to this operation are different and will most likely be carried out at a deterrent level.

On Monday, Yemeni forces announced they struck the Israeli oil tanker Scarlet Ray in the northern Red Sea with a ballistic missile.

Below is the latest statement in full issued by the Yemeni Armed Forces:

“In victory for the oppressed Palestinian people and their noble fighters, and in response to the crimes of genocide and starvation committed by the Zionist enemy against our brothers in the Gaza Strip.

 In line with our affirmation of the ongoing ban on the Zionist enemy’s maritime navigation in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, the Yemeni Air Force and the Missile Force executed a joint military operation targeting the ship (MSC ABY), which had violated the decision to ban entry into the ports of occupied Palestine and was linked to the Zionist enemy. The operation, carried out in the northern Red Sea with two drones and a cruise missile, directly struck the ship successfully, by the grace and support of God.”

Addressing the Palestinian people facing US-backed genocidal war in Gaza, the statement went on to say:

“We march upon your path, we follow your way, and we stand united in your cause. We do not retreat when others retreat, we do not abandon when others abandon, and we do not hesitate when others hesitate, deny, or turn back—thus becoming the losers.

“Our oppressed brothers in Gaza—upon whom the aggression has continued, the siege has tightened, their enemy has slaughtered and starved them, while the weak abandoned them and the traitors conspired against them. May the eyes of the cowards never sleep! We continue our support for them until the genocide is stopped and the siege lifted from them.”

 

Gaza likely to become another state of the US

With the passage of time it is becoming that initially United States, with the help of Israel, will take physical and administrative control of Gaza. Officially, it is being said that the US is not taking control of Gaza, most rich in fossil oil and gas. 

It is also being propagated that people are talking about a proposal circulating among Trump-aligned officials, not an actual policy in effect.

A Controversial Proposal Circulating

A plan called the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration, and Transformation (GREAT) Trust is being floated. It envisions the US administering Gaza under a 10-year trusteeship, temporarily relocating Gazans with financial incentives, and rebuilding the region into high-tech smart cities and resorts.

This proposal is not officially approved or implemented, it remains under discussion and highly controversial, especially regarding legality and humanitarian implications.

Trump’s Remarks on “Taking Over” Gaza

In February 2025, Donald Trump made headlines by stating that the US would “take over” Gaza and possibly deploy troops, framing it as redevelopment.

His comments triggered widespread international condemnation, with UN experts calling the proposal a violation of international law and likening it to ethnic cleansing.

Some analysts stress it is unlikely ever to be executed—constituting extreme rhetoric or a negotiating ploy rather than a concrete, actionable policy.

Current Ground Reality

At present, Gaza is under Israeli military control, not US administration. Israel controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, and the international community recognizes Gaza as part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

US involvement is limited to supporting Israel diplomatically and militarily—not on-the-ground governance or administration of Gaza.

 

 

While provocative plans and statements have surfaced suggesting US control over Gaza, no such control has been put into action. The status quo remains unchanged - Gaza is not under US administration, and these proposals are speculative and deeply contested.