Media Review: Erdogan says agreement reached with Trump on Gaza ceasefire and "lasting peace"

Media Review: Erdogan says agreement reached with Trump on Gaza ceasefire and "lasting peace"

    Friday, September 26, 2025   No comments

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he had reached an understanding with US President Donald Trump on steps to secure a ceasefire and "lasting peace" in Gaza and Palestine following their talks at the White House on Thursday.

"Our meeting was very important in terms of putting forth the will to end the massacres in Gaza. Mr. Trump stated during the meeting the need to end fighting in Gaza and reach lasting peace," Erdogan told reporters, according to a transcript released by his office on Friday.

"We explained how a ceasefire can be achieved in Gaza and the whole of Palestine, and lasting peace afterwards. An understanding was reached there," he added. "We said that the two-state solution was the formula for lasting peace in the region, that the current situation cannot continue."

Trump: “I’m not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank”

US President Donald Trump on Thursday said that he will not allow Israel to annex the occupied West Bank.

Trump’s response came after he was asked whether he had promised Arab leaders during a meeting at the United Nations this week that he would prevent any annexation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed not to allow a Palestinian state, and far-right members of his cabinet have threatened to annex the West Bank in response to the recent recognition of a Palestinian state by several Western countries. He was met by boos and walk out at the UN on Friday.

Netanyahu at the UNGA: "We'll never accept a Palestinian state. I say to the European and Western leaders; you cannot shove this Palestinian state down our throats, just because you don't have the guts to stand up against the antisemitic media... Unfortunately, the Western media is pro-Khamas"

Humanitarian Flotilla attacked, Italy Spain Sent military ships to help

Video footage taken by journalists aboard the lead ship of the Global Sumud Flotilla shows an Italian navy ship near the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.

Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said on Thursday that a second naval frigate will be deployed to support the Flotilla after it came under at least 13 drone attacks since the late hours of Tuesday.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Wednesday that Spain would also be sending a navy ship to assist the flotilla.

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

    Wednesday, August 13, 2025   No comments

 

1. Netanyahu’s Overt Call: “Iran for Iranians”

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a striking video address aimed directly at the Iranian people. He urged them to “take to the streets”, “demand justice”, and resist “ruling fanatics” in Tehran. Leveraging Iran’s current water crisis—one described as the worst drought in a century—he promised that “Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city,” offering cutting-edge recycling and desalination technologies once “your country is free.” Netanyahu framed this not merely as political pressure but as a humanitarian overture, rhetorically intertwining water scarcity with political liberation.
His language tugged at historical symbols—the “descendants of Cyrus the Great”—and invoked Zionist forebears: “as our founding father, Theodor Herzl, said... ‘if you will it, a free Iran is not a dream.’” Critics across the region condemned the message as a blatant interference in Iran’s sovereignty and a call for regime change.

2. Expansionist Imagery and the “Greater Israel” Vision

Simultaneously, in an i24 News interview, Netanyahu responded affirmatively when asked if he felt a connection to the concept of “Greater Israel”—a historical extremist vision stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, enveloping Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He stated flatly: "Very much." (Note: the Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage confirmed condemnation by Jordan’s foreign ministry of these remarks, calling them “dangerous provocative escalation” and a violation of sovereignty and international law).  Jordan officially denounced these statements as “absurd illusions” that undermine Arab states and Palestinian rights, and called for international accountability.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Nationalist Narratives

These developments crystallize a deeper pattern of mutual antagonism: just as many in the Arab and Muslim worlds chant “Death to Israel” (often interpreted as opposition to the Zionist regime, not genocide), Israeli leaders—including Netanyahu—express parallel desires for overthrowing nationalist or Islamist regimes, from Iraq and Syria to Iran and potentially Turkey. Israel’s historical role in the fall of Arab nationalist regimes—the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, Nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya—sets precedent for its current posture toward Iran, adding layers of distrust and ideological competition.

4. Media Narratives vs. Unspoken Realities

Mainstream coverage often frames Israel’s messaging as defensive—justified by existential threats or humanitarian concern. Yet the explicit linkage between Israel’s offer of technology and regime change reveals a more assertive posture: Israel positioning itself not only as a regional power but as a potential kingmaker.

This dynamic echoes past episodes: British and U.S. support for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, often under the banner of liberation, but frequently yielding destabilization. Indeed, analysts warn that regime elimination without a constructive transition plan can exacerbate chaos and strengthen hardliners—concerns now surging around Iran.

5. Broader Implications: Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Regional Instability

The mutual calls for regime change are not isolated acts of political posturing — they are rooted in competing nationalist visions that draw their legitimacy from deeply embedded historical, ethnic, and religious narratives. This clash produces a dangerous self-reinforcing cycle that shapes nearly every major crisis in the Middle East.

Israel’s vision:

Israeli statecraft, particularly under Netanyahu, increasingly draws on biblical and historicist narratives to justify a posture of permanent expansion and dominance. This is not merely about securing existing borders; it’s about positioning Israel as the central civilizational power in the region. The appeal to “Greater Israel” ties modern foreign policy directly to ancient territorial claims, allowing nationalist leaders to frame strategic moves as fulfilling a sacred mission rather than a negotiable political agenda. In this worldview, offering water technology to Iranians is not only a humanitarian gesture but also a demonstration of how Israel imagines itself — as a benevolent hegemon to “liberated” peoples, once they accept the dismantling of regimes seen as hostile.

Resistance’s response:

Arab nationalist and Islamist movements see this Israeli narrative as an existential threat — not only to Palestinian sovereignty but to the very idea of Arab or Islamic self-determination. From their perspective, the vision of “Greater Israel” confirms suspicions that Israel’s security discourse masks territorial ambitions stretching across multiple states. This perception reinforces a siege mentality, where even minor concessions to Israel are framed as steps toward regional capitulation. Consequently, slogans like “Death to Israel” — while often clarified by their authors as a rejection of the Zionist regime rather than the Jewish people — are received by Israelis as genocidal, deepening the emotional and political chasm.

Mutual demonization:

Each side interprets the other’s rhetoric in its most maximalist and threatening form. Israeli leaders often portray their regional adversaries as irredeemable aggressors whose regimes must be toppled for peace to be possible. Conversely, Arab and Islamist nationalists cast Israeli policy as inherently expansionist, immune to compromise, and bent on cultural erasure. This mutual framing leaves no space for recognizing reformist or moderate currents on either side. Internal dissent within Iran, for example, is subsumed under the binary of “pro-regime” or “agent of foreign powers,” while dissent within Israel against expansionism is marginalized as naïve or disloyal.

Media as a force multiplier:

Regional and global media ecosystems amplify these narratives by privileging official statements and the most provocative soundbites. Nuanced or dissenting voices rarely receive the same coverage. This selective amplification means that both publics primarily hear confirmation of their worst fears. Israeli audiences see chants and missile parades without context; Arab audiences see maps of an expanded Israel without the debates inside Israel over their feasibility or morality. In effect, media serves as a mirror that reflects back the most polarizing version of reality, hardening nationalist sentiment and making diplomatic de-escalation politically costly for any leader.

The result is a feedback loop: nationalist rhetoric begets reciprocal hostility, which then justifies the next round of escalation. Over time, this pattern entrenches zero-sum thinking, where any gain for one side is assumed to be an irreversible loss for the other.

6. What Comes Next?

With Israel openly signaling support for regime change, and invoking ideological justifications, the region edges closer to escalatory brinkmanship. If Iran responds—either through intensified repression or reprisals—the potential for conflict could spiral. Global actors—especially the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers—must urgently clarify whether they support such overt regime-change diplomacy or seek de-escalation through dialogue and multilateral engagement.

The events of August 12, 2025—Netanyahu’s video appeal and the embrace of “Greater Israel”—are not isolated flashes of rhetoric but crystallize long-standing ideological and geopolitical fault lines. The language of liberation and water aid interwoven with conquest and regime overthrow exemplifies the complex, dangerous entanglement of ethno-religious nationalism, realpolitik, and regional power plays. As each side frames itself as the rightful architect of the region’s future, the real victims may be stability, human rights, and any hope for equitable governance.

Israel’s prime minister’s call for Iranians to overthrow their government mirrors Iran’s rejection of the “Zionist regime,” underscoring two points: first, the deep incompatibility between race-based or religion-based nationalism and genuinely pluralistic societies; second, the role of supremacist ideologies as a driving force behind such nationalist regimes. Zionism—with both its religious dimension (membership in the Jewish faith) and its ethnic dimension (Jewish identity as race or ethnicity)—and Arab or Persian ethnic nationalism, alongside Islamism as a religious form, are locked in a clash that cannot be resolved by one prevailing over the others, but perhaps only by the eventual failure of them all.

  

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

    Monday, August 04, 2025   No comments

In a powerful and scathing op-ed published by Haaretz, Israeli writer Iris Leal delivers a searing critique of her country’s actions in the Gaza Strip, warning that the atrocities being committed there are not only devastating to Palestinians but are also dragging Israel into a profound moral, political, and diplomatic abyss. Leal’s article, titled "As Israel Kills and Starves Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself in the Process", lays bare the human cost of the war and the devastating implications for Israel’s future.

A Nation’s Self-Destruction

Leal argues that Israel is systematically isolating itself from the global community. The bridges that once connected it to the democratic world are being “torn down one by one.” She emphasizes that anyone associated with the decision-making apparatus of the war—be it political leaders, military commanders, or intelligence heads—is now becoming increasingly aware that international travel may pose legal and personal risks due to accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At the center of her warning is the staggering humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. According to credible international reports cited by Leal, including data from UNICEF and The Washington Post, over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them at least 18,500 children. Many of these children were killed in their sleep, while playing, or even before they learned to walk. The death toll reflects not incidental wartime casualties but a consistent pattern of destruction that Leal unequivocally describes as a "war of extermination."

Starvation as a Weapon

One of the most damning parts of Leal’s argument is Israel’s alleged use of starvation as a weapon of war. She writes that the Netanyahu government knowingly allowed infants to face starvation by failing to ensure the delivery of infant formula and basic humanitarian aid. Hospitals—already bombed or rendered dysfunctional—are unable to operate, and medical personnel themselves are suffering from hunger and exhaustion.

Even worse, Leal suggests that these outcomes were not unintended side effects, but foreseen and tolerated, under the assumption that the international community would remain silent or impotent in the face of such horrors. The Israeli leadership, in her view, has wagered that the deliberate starvation and killing of children would not result in meaningful diplomatic consequences—a gamble that, she implies, is both immoral and catastrophically shortsighted.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

Leal’s article ends by posing a deeply uncomfortable question to the Israeli public and the global community: Are the people leading Israel today—its ministers, generals, intelligence chiefs—morally and legally fit to make decisions on behalf of the nation? Given the scale of the violence and its apparent intentionality, she contends that these individuals are likely complicit in war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and potentially genocide.

The underlying message is clear: Israel is not just committing atrocities—it is losing its moral compass and destroying the very foundations of its legitimacy in the eyes of the world and its own citizens.

A Global Atrocity in Real Time

Leal’s voice is a rare and courageous one within a landscape that often suppresses internal dissent. Her article should serve as a wake-up call, not only to Israelis but to anyone who believes in the principles of human rights and international law. The reality in Gaza today—of mass death, child starvation, and humanitarian collapse—is not abstract. It is a documented and unfolding catastrophe that demands accountability.

What makes this atrocity even more chilling is the premeditation behind it. When a state with one of the most advanced militaries in the world deliberately withholds aid, targets civilian infrastructure, and tolerates the mass death of children, it cannot be brushed off as a tragic byproduct of war. This is systematic, intentional policy—and it represents the moral failure of a nation’s leadership. 

Meanwhile, the international community’s response remains fragmented, weak, and in some cases complicit. Leal rightly questions whether Israel’s leaders will face consequences, but the more urgent question is: Will the world act before even more lives are lost?

Silence, in this context, is not neutrality—it is complicity. As Leal poignantly concludes, Israel may believe it is winning a war, but in reality, it is tearing itself apart, sacrificing not just the lives of its enemies, but its own soul and standing in the world.

---

Sources: Haaretz, UNICEF, The Washington Post.
Link to original article: Haaretz Opinion - Aug 4, 2025

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

    Wednesday, July 30, 2025   No comments

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

    Tuesday, July 01, 2025   No comments

 At the Edge of Accountability 

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump, who himself has faced 88 criminal and civil indictments and was nonetheless elected to a second term, issued a public demand that Israel’s judicial system drop all charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump called the trial a “travesty of justice,” labeling the Israeli legal proceedings a “witch hunt,” and implied that U.S. aid to Israel might be contingent on ending Netanyahu’s prosecution. This unprecedented intervention—an indicted American leader defending an indicted Israeli leader, who is also facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court—raises a profound question: How does democracy, if it is to be taken seriously as a system of values and not merely of process, guard against corruption and the rise of authoritarian figures cloaked in democratic legitimacy? This moment is not just politically volatile; it exposes uncomfortable contradictions within how democracies perceive themselves and others.

The indictment of elected leaders in democracies such as Israel and the United States raises difficult and urgent questions about the integrity of democratic systems. When prime ministers or presidents face criminal charges—whether for corruption, abuse of power, or other serious offenses—it is natural to wonder whether democracy has failed to produce ethical and responsible leadership. But while such developments highlight vulnerabilities in democratic practice, they also reveal certain institutional strengths. Democracy does not guarantee virtuous leadership; it guarantees the opportunity for accountability. Whether that opportunity is seized—or manipulated—depends on the strength of institutions and the moral commitment of both leaders and citizens.

One of the core principles of a functioning democracy is that no one, however powerful, is above the law. The fact that legal institutions in places like the United States or Israel can bring charges against sitting or former leaders speaks to the resilience of the rule of law. In authoritarian systems, leaders often operate with impunity; in democracies, they may still face scrutiny and legal consequences. In this respect, the indictment of a head of state can be viewed not as a failure of democracy, but as evidence that democratic institutions are, at least in part, doing their job.

However, this view becomes more complicated when we consider how democracies respond to similar situations in different parts of the world. When elections in the Global South produce leaders with questionable records or populist agendas, Western democracies are quick to dismiss those outcomes as the result of “sham elections” or “corrupt processes.” Yet when similarly compromised figures rise to power within the West—figures under indictment, or credibly accused of serious misconduct—those same governments often insist that the outcome must be respected as the will of the people. They demand deference to the democratic process at home, while undermining or delegitimizing it abroad. This double standard reveals a deeper truth: in many cases, democracy is treated less as a value system than as a political instrument—embraced when convenient, disregarded when not.

Such inconsistencies are damaging not only to international credibility, but to democracy itself. If democratic legitimacy is defined not by values—such as accountability, justice, and equal representation—but by outcomes that serve particular interests, then democracy becomes hollow. The insistence that democracy must be respected when it produces indicted or corrupt leaders in Western nations, while being denied that legitimacy elsewhere, exposes the erosion of democratic ethics. It becomes clear that the principle of democracy is sometimes wielded more as a shield for power than as a reflection of shared values.

Moreover, in deeply polarized societies, even the mechanisms of accountability begin to fracture. Voters may see legal indictments not as a signal of wrongdoing, but as a partisan attack. In such an environment, democratic institutions remain formally intact, but their moral authority is weakened. Leaders who are under investigation—or even convicted—may be rewarded with public support rather than rejection. Far from being disqualified, their defiance becomes a badge of honor. This speaks not only to the failings of political elites, but to a broader cultural crisis in democratic societies: the erosion of civic norms, the rise of partisan loyalty over public ethics, and the loss of a shared commitment to the common good.

While the indictment of elected leaders does not necessarily prove that democracy is broken, it does serve as a warning. It reveals the tension between democratic form and democratic substance—between holding elections and cultivating a culture of accountability and ethical governance. The fact that such tensions are more readily condemned in the Global South than confronted at home suggests that democracy, in the hands of powerful nations, is often invoked more as a geopolitical tool than as a universal standard.

Ultimately, the health of democracy cannot be judged solely by whether elections occur, or whether leaders are indicted. It must be measured by the integrity of institutions, the honesty of public discourse, and the degree to which citizens demand responsibility and justice from those who govern them. Democracy may still provide the tools to hold leaders accountable, but those tools are only effective if people are willing to use them—not selectively, not cynically, but consistently, and in defense of the values democracy is supposed to serve.

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

    Wednesday, April 09, 2025   No comments

Recent developments in the Middle East have raised significant concerns about Israel's national security, particularly in light of the shifting dynamics following the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria. This article explores how Israel's previous strategies may backfire, especially with Turkey's increasing involvement representing a new challenge for Israeli policy.

For years, Israel has maintained a complex relationship with Syria, often justifying its military actions by citing the Iranian presence in the region. The narrative framed Iran as a significant threat, allowing Israel to conduct operations with a degree of international acquiescence. However, the fall of the Assad regime, which Israel purportedly supported and even took credit for, may turn out to be a strategic miscalculation.

The vacuum left by the fall of Assad regime has not led to a straightforward advantage for Israel. Instead, it has opened the door for a more assertive Turkey, a NATO member, to expand its influence in Syria. This shift complicates Israel's security calculus, as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently stated that while Turkey does not seek confrontations with Israel in Syria, Israel's actions could pave the way for future instability in the region.

Then, sitting next to Israel's prime minister, US president Trump said that Erdogan is a "winner". President Trump's comments about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reveal a startling acknowledgment of Turkey's growing role in Syria. Trump congratulated Erdoğan for effectively asserting control over Syrian territories through proxies.

Turkey's potential establishment of military bases in Syria poses a direct challenge to Israel's strategic interests. While Fidan noted that any agreements the new Syrian administration might pursue with Israel are its own business, the tension remains palpable. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed concerns about Turkish military presence, indicating that Israel does not want Turkey using Syrian territory as a base against it.

Iran's Enhanced Position: A Trojan Horse

Contrary to Israel's previous assertions, Iran's capacity to operate in Syria is potentially more secure due to Turkey's involvement. The collaboration between Turkey and Iran could facilitate logistics and support in ways that were previously less feasible. This partnership undermines Israel's long-standing narrative of Iranian isolation, presenting a more unified front against Israeli interests.

Moreover, Turkey's criticisms of Israeli military actions—labeling them as genocidal and a violation of regional stability—highlight the precariousness of Israel's position. Turkish officials have condemned Israeli airstrikes on Syria, which they perceive as an infringement on Syrian sovereignty. This rhetoric 

Israel's national security strategy has relied heavily on maintaining a powerless Syria. A fragmented state is easier to control and less likely to pose a direct threat. However, with Turkey's burgeoning role in the region, Israel finds itself in a precarious position. Erdoğan's ambitions could lead to the establishment of Turkish military bases in Syria, effectively transforming the landscape into a more complex battleground for Israel.

The current events in the Middle East illustrate the intricacies of regional politics and the potential repercussions of Israel’s earlier strategic choices. The fall of the Assad regime, rather than serving as a victory for Israeli security, might lead to a more complicated and threatening environment.

Trump’s Perspective on Erdogan as a "Winner"

Trump's admiration for Erdogan can be traced to Turkey's significant role in the ongoing conflict in Syria. By supporting the Islamist-led coalition that ousted Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan has effectively increased Turkey's influence in a region historically dominated by various power struggles. Trump’s comments, such as congratulating Erdogan for "taking over Syria," highlight a recognition of Turkey's strategic gains. This acknowledgment reflects Trump's broader narrative of strength and success, often favoring leaders who exhibit assertive control over their territories and dominating weaker nations.

Moreover, Trump’s personal rapport with Erdogan is notable. By describing Erdogan as "very smart" and emphasizing their strong relationship, Trump positions himself as a potential mediator in the fraught dynamics between Turkey and Israel. This personal connection may enhance Trump's ability to navigate the delicate political waters of the Middle East, where alliances shift rapidly.

Erdogan’s achievements in Syria are significant. By backing opposition forces and securing a foothold in the region, Turkey has not only expanded its influence but also positioned itself as a key player in any future resolution of the Syrian crisis. However, the devastation wrought by over 11 years of war has left Syria in ruins, requiring an estimated $300 billion for reconstruction. This staggering cost presents a challenge for Turkey, as Erdogan does not have the financial resources to undertake such an extensive rebuilding effort.

Moreover, Turkey’s relationship with Iran and Russia complicates the situation. Erdogan has cultivated strong ties with both nations, enabling Turkey to leverage its relationships with the new Syrian leadership to gain economic benefits from Iran. This alignment stabilizes Iran’s influence in Syria, creating opportunities for Turkey to extract advantages from its connections with both Iran and its adversaries. Given Syria's geographical significance but economic liabilities, Erdogan's strategy may involve encouraging Gulf states and energy-rich nations, including Iran, to participate in rebuilding efforts.

Trump's offer to mediate between Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is critical for several reasons. First, it illustrates the U.S. role as a central player in Middle Eastern diplomacy. By positioning himself as a mediator, Trump aims to stabilize relations between two countries that have historically been at odds, particularly regarding their respective approaches to the Syrian conflict.

Moreover, Trump's influence could potentially steer Erdogan towards a more conciliatory stance regarding Israel. 

While Trump’s relationship with Erdogan provides a unique opportunity for diplomatic engagement, the extent of his influence is debatable. Erdogan's actions are driven by Turkey's national interests, which may not always align with U.S. or Israeli objectives. For instance, Erdogan’s strong support for Hamas and his anti-Israel rhetoric complicate any straightforward mediation effort.

Furthermore, Erdogan's recent statements indicating a desire to avoid confrontation with Israel suggest a potential openness to dialogue, albeit cautious. 

Trump's perception of Erdogan as a "winner" reflects a broader acknowledgment of Turkey's strategic gains in Syria, especially through its relationships with Iran and Russia. Erdogan's successes, while beneficial for Turkey, also pose challenges to Israeli interests, making Trump’s proposed mediation a critical juncture in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As Syria emerges from devastation, the need for reconstruction creates a complex dynamic; Erdogan will likely seek Gulf states' participation, recognizing that any rebuilding effort will come with significant geopolitical strings attached. This transformative potential could reshape regional dynamics, with the outcomes of Erdogan's actions significantly impacting the future stability of Syria and the broader SWANA region.