media review: Hundreds of writers boycott New York Times over Gaza coverage

media review: Hundreds of writers boycott New York Times over Gaza coverage

    Wednesday, October 29, 2025   No comments

As of yesterday Oct. 28, over 150 contributors, and the list is growing, to the New York Times have declared a boycott of its opinion section, accusing the paper of “biased coverage” of Israel’s war on Gaza.

In a joint letter cited by Middle East Eye, the writers said the Times “launders the US and Israel’s lies,” and called for an internal review of anti-Palestinian bias and a US arms embargo on Israel.

“Until the New York Times takes accountability for its biased coverage and commits to truthfully and ethically reporting on the US-Israeli war on Gaza, any putative ‘challenge’… is, in effect, permission to continue this malpractice,” the letter read.

Signatories include Rashida Tlaib, Greta Thunberg, Chelsea Manning, Sally Rooney, Rima Hassan, Elia Suleiman, Viet Thanh Nguyen, and Dave Zirin.

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

    Wednesday, October 29, 2025   No comments

When President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s Burevestnik had completed a 15-hour, 14,000-kilometer flight, the message was unmistakable: Moscow had achieved what others abandoned decades ago—a nuclear-powered cruise missile capable of circling the globe. By marrying compact nuclear propulsion with stealthy, low-altitude flight, Burevestnik promises endurance beyond any conventional weapon and an ability to bypass existing missile defenses.

The implications are stark. Strategically, Burevestnik upends the logic of mutual deterrence. Its unpredictable trajectories compress warning times and could destabilize crisis decision-making. Legally, the missile sits in a treaty gray zone, likely outside New START’s limits, potentially igniting a new arms race in exotic propulsion and sensor-evading systems. Environmentally, it revives long-dormant fears of nuclear contamination should a test or mission fail.

For Moscow, Burevestnik symbolizes technological defiance and ensures that no adversary can strike Russia without risking annihilation in return. For the rest of the world, it is a reminder that the nuclear age is far from over—and that deterrence is entering a more volatile, less predictable phase, where the line between deterrence and disaster grows dangerously thin.

Putin's recent statements on this matter:

Putin stated that the "Burevestnik" has unconditional advantages, Russia can be proud of the achievements of scientists

The nuclear power part of the "Burevestnik" is 1000 times smaller than the nuclear reactor of a nuclear submarine with comparable power, Putin said.

He added that the nuclear reactor installed in the missile starts within minutes and seconds.

The nuclear technologies used in the "Burevestnik" will be used in the lunar program, Putin stated.

In addition, according to him, Russia will be able to apply these technologies in the national economy.

...

Given the fact that this is a new development and no information is in the public domain, here is an analysis that might shed some light and insight.

Hasty Peace Summit in Egypt

Hasty Peace Summit in Egypt

    Monday, October 13, 2025   No comments

Diplomatic Showmanship, War Crimes, and the Unresolved Reckoning

In a hastily convened summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, world leaders gathered under the banner of peace, hoping to forge a ceasefire agreement that might end the devastating war in Gaza. But beneath the polished veneer of diplomacy, the gathering exposed deep fractures within the international order, and the growing demand for accountability—both legal and political—for the war crimes committed over the past year.

This unexpected summit, held amid growing international outrage over the Gaza conflict, saw major power players—including Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and the United States—jockey for position, not just to broker a truce, but to shape the post-war reality in the region. Yet, one of the most dramatic developments occurred before the summit even began: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was barred from attending, following coordinated diplomatic pressure from Turkey and Iraq.

Netanyahu Blocked Amid Diplomatic Pushback

According to multiple diplomatic sources cited by Agence France-Presse, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan led efforts to block Netanyahu’s attendance, supported by Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al-Sudani. Erdoğan's plane reportedly circled over the Red Sea awaiting confirmation that Netanyahu would not be present, underscoring the intensity of regional resistance to legitimizing the Israeli leader’s role in any peace process.

The Iraqi delegation went as far as threatening to boycott the summit entirely if Netanyahu were allowed to attend. Cairo, under pressure, ultimately rescinded the invitation. Netanyahu later claimed that his absence was due to Jewish holidays—a statement seen widely as a face-saving maneuver.

This moment marks a significant political humiliation for Netanyahu, who had previously been confirmed by the Egyptian presidency to attend alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. It also signals a shift in the diplomatic atmosphere: leaders once willing to engage Netanyahu now fear the political consequences of being seen as complicit in normalizing his actions during the Gaza campaign.

A Peace Built on Diplomatic Expediency

The Sharm El-Sheikh summit, rushed and reactive, symbolizes a broader crisis in international diplomacy. While it aims to cement a ceasefire, the terms remain vague, the enforcement mechanisms uncertain, and the actors around the table deeply divided on what post-war Gaza should look like.

Earlier this year, reports emerged that the U.S. had floated a controversial plan to install former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as head of an interim administration in Gaza. The plan, which included a multinational force to secure borders and facilitate reconstruction, was met with skepticism. Most recently, President Donald Trump expressed doubts about Blair’s appointment, questioning whether the former prime minister is “acceptable to everyone”—a subtle acknowledgment of Blair's legacy in the region and the broader crisis of legitimacy facing Western interventions.

The Shadow of War Crimes and Political Reckoning

Beneath the surface of diplomatic maneuvering lies the unresolved question of war crimes. The Gaza war, which has resulted in staggering civilian casualties and widespread destruction, has pushed far beyond the bounds of international law. Human rights organizations, UN experts, and even some Western legislators have begun calling for independent investigations into potential war crimes committed by all parties, but particularly by the Israeli military under Netanyahu’s leadership.

While legal accountability through institutions like the International Criminal Court remains politically fraught and unlikely in the short term, political accountability may arrive sooner. Netanyahu’s increasing isolation—evident in his exclusion from this summit—suggests that even long-standing allies are recalibrating their alliances. The symbolism of excluding a wartime leader from a peace summit is powerful: it sends a message that diplomatic immunity is not a given for those accused of gross violations of humanitarian norms.

Looking Ahead: Fragile Peace, Uncertain Justice

The summit in Egypt may temporarily halt the violence, but it does little to address the root causes of the conflict or to lay the groundwork for sustainable peace. With Netanyahu sidelined, the question becomes: who will shape Gaza’s future, and how will justice be served?

If anything, these developments show that multiple centers of power—regional and global—are now moving to reassert control over a crisis that spiraled far beyond its original boundaries. The speed and secrecy with which this summit was arranged are telling: peace is being pursued not through transparent negotiation, but through diplomatic backchannels shaped by geopolitical interests rather than legal principles or the voices of those most affected. 

Still, for those calling for justice and accountability, this moment may be a turning point. Netanyahu’s diplomatic snub could be the beginning of a broader reckoning—not just for him, but for all leaders who believe that military force can be deployed without consequence. The world may be witnessing the birth of a fragile peace—but it is a peace haunted by the specter of unresolved war crimes and the lingering demand for justice.

Israel Used Fabricated 3D Tunnel Visuals to Justify Gaza Bombardments, Investigation Finds

Israel Used Fabricated 3D Tunnel Visuals to Justify Gaza Bombardments, Investigation Finds

    Monday, October 13, 2025   No comments

A recent journalistic investigation has revealed that the Israeli government, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, presented misleading and fabricated 3D visualizations of Hamas tunnels as authentic intelligence to justify its military operations in Gaza. According to the report—published by Spanish news outlet laSexta—the Israeli military reused identical digital models to depict underground networks beneath multiple civilian sites, including hospitals and schools, despite claiming each represented unique, verified threats.

Fabricated Evidence Presented as Intelligence

The investigation found that some of the widely circulated animations were not produced by Israeli intelligence at all. Instead, they were sourced from publicly available online assets—including a 3D model originally created by a Scottish maritime museum to illustrate a ship repair workshop. These generic graphics were then repurposed and disseminated by Israeli military spokespeople as if they were classified intelligence products demonstrating Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

Notably, an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson did acknowledge on several occasions that the visuals were “illustrations only,” stating: “This is just an illustration—I repeat, we will not share the real images we have in our possession.” However, such disclaimers were often absent or downplayed in initial media briefings, leading international audiences and news organizations to treat the visuals as credible evidence.

Broader Pattern of Misrepresentation

The report further alleges that Israel employed similar deceptive visual tactics beyond Gaza. Comparable 3D recreations were reportedly used to depict alleged underground facilities in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran—countries that subsequently experienced Israeli airstrikes. This suggests a broader strategic use of digital fabrication to shape public perception and legitimize military action.

Significance and Implications

The use of falsified or misleading visual evidence carries profound ethical, legal, and geopolitical consequences. By presenting generic or repurposed animations as verified intelligence, Israeli authorities may have influenced international opinion and policy decisions during a conflict that has resulted in massive civilian casualties and widespread destruction in Gaza.

Critics argue that such tactics undermine transparency in wartime communication and erode trust in official narratives. Moreover, if these visuals were used to justify strikes on protected civilian sites—such as hospitals and schools—they could raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law, which prohibits attacks on non-military targets unless there is clear, verified evidence of their military use.

The revelations also highlight the growing role of digital media in modern warfare—not only as a tool for documentation but also as a vector for propaganda and manipulation. In an era where visual content can rapidly shape global narratives, distinguishing between evidence and illustration becomes a critical safeguard against misinformation.

This investigation underscores the urgent need for independent verification of wartime claims, especially when they rely heavily on digital reconstructions. While Israel maintains that Hamas embeds military infrastructure within civilian areas—a claim supported by some prior evidence—the deliberate use of fabricated or recycled visuals to bolster that argument risks discrediting legitimate concerns and deepening skepticism about official justifications for military force. As scrutiny over the conduct of the Gaza war intensifies, this report adds a troubling dimension to debates over accountability, truth, and the ethics of information in conflict.

The Nobel Peace Prize Award is for Politicians, Not Peacemakers

The Nobel Peace Prize Award is for Politicians, Not Peacemakers

    Friday, October 10, 2025   No comments

The announcement of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for Venezuelan opposition figure Maria Corina Machado has, once again, ignited a familiar debate. While her courage in facing a repressive regime is undeniable, the language of the Nobel Committee’s citation reveals a profound shift in the prize’s purpose—a shift that has been decades in the making. The award is no longer primarily for those who achieve peace; it is for those who promote a specific Western form of democracy, confirming that the prize has become a tool of ideological propaganda.

The Committee praised Machado for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” Notice the key terms: “democratic rights,” “transition from dictatorship to democracy.” The award is explicitly given for the promotion of a political system, not for the tangible achievement of peace. There is no ceasefire to uphold, no peace treaty she has signed, no war she has ended. The peace she is credited with is entirely hypothetical, residing in a future where her preferred political model is realized.

This exposes a core, unstated dogma of the modern Nobel Committee: peace is seen not as a state in itself, but as a direct and exclusive outcome of Western liberal democracy. Within this framework, any action that advances this model is de facto a peacemaking action, and any system that opposes it is inherently warlike. This ideological litmus test explains the prize’s most peculiar and controversial awards.

The Ghost of Prizes Past: A Pattern of Ideological Promotion

Consider the 2009 award to Barack Obama, just months into his presidency. The Committee lauded his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Yet, he was a leader of a nation engaged in two active wars. The prize was not for an achieved peace, but for the promise of a return to a multilateral, democratic-values-based world order—a sharp contrast to his predecessor’s foreign policy. It was an award for an attitude, an ideology, not a result.

This pattern illuminates why a figure like Donald Trump, who often positions himself as an anti-interventionist and brokered multiple peace agreements in the Middle East like the Abraham Accords, is anathema to the Committee. If the premise is that true peace is only possible through the spread of Western democracy, then a leader who questions the universality of that model, ends wars through realpolitik rather than democratic evangelism, and is himself labeled "authoritarian" by his critics, cannot be a true peacemaker. His peace is not the "right kind" of peace.

The award to Machado, therefore, serves a dual purpose. It champions a pro-democracy activist in a region long considered a battleground of influence, and it serves as a clear ideological shot across the bow of resurgent populism and nationalism in the West, exemplified by Trump. The message is unambiguous: you cannot be a peace president if your governance strays from the democratic ideal we espouse. No matter how many wars you end, if you do not do so under the banner of liberal democracy, your achievements are invalid.

From Peace to Politics: A Noble Prize Loses Its Way

This redefinition has profound consequences. It sidelines genuine peacemakers who operate outside this political framework. Where is the prize for the tribal elder who negotiates a lasting end to a generations-long conflict based on custom, not constitutions? Where is the recognition for the leader who achieves stability and non-aggression through non-democratic means, sparing their people the chaos of war? Under the Committee's new dogma, they are disqualified. Their peace is an illusion because it lacks the required democratic seal of approval.

The original vision of Alfred Nobel was to honor "the champion of peace," the person who did "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." This was a vision focused on the condition of peace—the absence of war and the building of fraternity.

The modern Nobel Committee has narrowed this vision dramatically. It now operates on the conviction that democracy is peace, and only through democracy can true peace be achieved. In doing so, the Nobel Peace Prize has transformed from a reward for humanity’s most cherished state into a political instrument for promoting one specific path to it. The award to Maria Corina Machado is not for what she has done for peace, but for whom she opposes and what political future she symbolizes. It is the ultimate confirmation that the prize is no longer for peacemakers; it is for democracy propagandists.

Pope Leo XIV Backs Vatican’s Stark Condemnation of Gaza “Massacre” Igniting Diplomatic Tensions

Pope Leo XIV Backs Vatican’s Stark Condemnation of Gaza “Massacre” Igniting Diplomatic Tensions

    Tuesday, October 07, 2025   No comments

 Pope Leo XIV’s Strong Gaza Remarks Set Stage for Historic Middle East Pilgrimage

The Vatican’s sharp condemnation of the war in Gaza comes at a pivotal moment—just weeks before Pope Leo XIV embarks on his first international journey as pontiff to two Muslim-majority nations in the Middle East. On Tuesday, the Holy See announced that the Pope will visit Türkiye from November 27 to 30, followed by Lebanon from November 30 to December 2. The trip, described as an “apostolic visit” to Lebanon at the invitation of the country’s president and local Church leaders, marks a significant early diplomatic and spiritual initiative for the new Pope. Against the backdrop of escalating regional tensions and deepening humanitarian crises, his upcoming pilgrimage is widely seen as an effort to promote interfaith dialogue, Christian–Muslim coexistence, and peace in a region scarred by conflict—making his recent, unflinching remarks on Gaza not only a moral statement, but a prelude to a broader mission of reconciliation.

In a rare and forceful intervention, Pope Leo XIV has publicly endorsed one of the Vatican’s strongest condemnations yet of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza—describing it as a “massacre” and urging the world not to grow numb to the daily slaughter of civilians, especially children. The Pope’s remarks, made this week from his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo near Rome, mark a significant escalation in the Holy See’s stance on the Israel–Gaza war and have drawn sharp rebuke from Israel’s embassy to the Vatican.

Pope’s top diplomat blasts Israel’s Gaza offensive as ‘ongoing massacre’

The controversy stems from an interview given by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State and its top diplomat, on the second anniversary of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. While Parolin unequivocally denounced that assault—calling it “inhuman and indefensible” and expressing prayers for the remaining hostages—he reserved his harshest language for the consequences of Israel’s retaliatory campaign.

“The war between Hamas and Israel has had catastrophic and inhuman consequences,” Parolin told Vatican media. “I am shocked by the daily death of so many children, whose only sin seems to be that they were born there.” He warned against normalizing the violence: “We fear becoming accustomed to this massacre. It is unacceptable and unjustifiable to reduce human beings to mere ‘collateral damage.’”

Pope Leo XIV, who assumed the papacy in May following the death of Pope Francis, stood firmly behind Parolin’s words. When asked by reporters about Israel’s angry response, the Pope said simply: “The Cardinal expressed the position of the Holy See very well.”

That position, however, has ignited a diplomatic firestorm.

In a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Israel’s embassy to the Vatican expressed “regret” that the interview “focused on criticizing Israel while ignoring Hamas’s continued refusal to release hostages or end its violence.” The embassy took particular offense at the use of the word “massacre,” arguing that it wrongly equates Israel’s actions with those of Hamas. “There is no moral equivalence between a democratic state defending its citizens and a terrorist organization seeking to kill them,” the statement read. “We hope future statements will reflect this crucial distinction.”

Yet the Pope’s message went further. Speaking with palpable sorrow, he acknowledged the trauma of October 7—“a terrorist attack that killed more than 1,200 people”—but immediately juxtaposed it with the staggering toll in Gaza. “Over two years… we speak of 67,000 Palestinians killed,” he said, citing figures from Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry. “This makes us reflect on the depth of violence and evil humanity is capable of.”

The numbers remain contested, but the human cost is undeniable. According to the AFP, 1,219 people—mostly civilians—died in Hamas’s initial assault. In response, Israel launched a military operation that has claimed at least 67,160 Palestinian lives, displaced nearly the entire population of 2.3 million, and left much of the enclave in ruins.

Cardinal Parolin emphasized that while self-defense is a legitimate right, it must adhere to the principle of proportionality—a cornerstone of just war theory long upheld by Catholic teaching. “The war to eliminate Hamas militants cannot ignore that it is being waged against an exhausted, defenseless population living on land whose buildings have been reduced to rubble,” he said.

He also issued a pointed critique of global inaction: “The international community appears paralyzed. Nations with influence have done nothing to stop this ongoing massacre.” And in a veiled but unmistakable reference to arms suppliers, he added: “It is not enough to say what is happening is unacceptable and then allow it to continue. We must seriously question the legitimacy of continuing to supply weapons used against civilians.”

This shift in tone from the Vatican is notable. Historically, the Holy See has favored quiet diplomacy and measured language in Middle East conflicts. But under Pope Leo XIV—a pontiff already signaling a more outspoken moral leadership—the Church appears unwilling to remain silent in the face of what it sees as a humanitarian catastrophe compounded by global indifference.

The Pope’s call is clear: end the hatred, return to dialogue, and pursue peaceful solutions. But as bombs continue to fall and children keep dying, his words stand as both a spiritual plea and a stark indictment of a world that watches, yet fails to act.

In the eyes of the Vatican, silence is no longer neutrality—it is complicity.

 

"Two satellite images show how Israel 'wiped out' Gaza City"

Before

After

Quarter of a million flood Amsterdam streets in solidarity with Gaza

Quarter of a million flood Amsterdam streets in solidarity with Gaza

    Monday, October 06, 2025   No comments

 Nearly 30 percent of Amsterdam’s population—around 250,000 people—marched through the Dutch capital yesterday, demanding stronger action from their government against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Organizers described the rally as one of the largest in the city’s history. Participants, dressed in red to mark a symbolic ‘red line’ against Israel’s siege, filled Amsterdam’s streets for a six-kilometer march. Police confirmed the crowd size.

"We are here to condemn everything that is happening in Gaza," said 27-year-old Emilia Rivero, who traveled from Utrecht to join the march.

PAX Netherlands, which organized the demonstration, said the protest aimed to pressure the government to act decisively against Israeli crimes. 

Director Rolien Sasse told Reuters that demonstrators want an immediate ceasefire and accountability for Israel’s actions. "We hope there will be a real ceasefire very, very soon … but we are also worried about the long-term commitment of Israel to stop the genocide," she said.

The protest came just weeks before national elections, with activists accusing the Dutch government of failing to confront Israel’s war policy.

Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

    Saturday, October 04, 2025   No comments

A new, decentralized youth movement is shaking the political landscape of Morocco. Dubbed "Generation Z 212" — a nod to the country's international dialing code and its digitally-native leaders — the group has sustained protests for over a week in several cities, channeling widespread public anger over corruption, deteriorating public services, and a deep-seated political disillusionment.

The movement's core demands are starkly local: improved healthcare and education, a serious fight against corruption, and the resignation of Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch. However, its emergence reflects a global pattern of youth-led activism fueled by economic stagnation and a loss of faith in traditional institutions.

A Spark in Agadir, A Fire Across Cities

The immediate catalyst for the protests was a tragic incident in the southern city of Agadir. The deaths of eight pregnant women in less than a month at a public hospital ignited public outrage, serving as a grim symbol of a healthcare system in crisis. The protests that began there quickly spread to other urban centers.

The situation on the ground has been volatile. While "Gen Z 212" activists have called for and committed to peaceful demonstrations, their gatherings have been met with bans, violence, and mass arrests by the authorities. Some protests have devolved into riots, resulting in the deaths of three people and injuries to dozens. The movement's activists have been quick to disavow the violence, blaming it on opportunistic elements and reaffirming their commitment to peaceful dissent.

A Generation Filling a Political Vacuum

Analysts point to a profound vacuum in political and social representation as the bedrock of this unrest. The majority of Moroccan youth have lost confidence in established political parties, which they view as having lost their credibility. The traditional power of labor unions has also waned.

This void has been filled by young people organizing through social media and digital networks, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. The movement is leaderless and organic, making it both resilient and difficult for the government to engage with through conventional channels.

The economic backdrop is bleak. According to the High Commission for Planning, Morocco's overall unemployment rate stands at 12.8%, a figure that skyrockets to 35.8% among young people and 19% among university graduates. This lack of opportunity for a highly educated generation is a primary source of frustration.

A "Ticking Time Bomb" No Longer Silent

Experts had long warned that this combination of factors was a recipe for social explosion.

Professor Mohamed Al-Merrani Boukhabza, a political scientist at Abdelmalek Essaâdi University, highlighted the demographic reality: "There is a demographic shift whereby a third of the population pyramid in Morocco is made up of young people between the ages of 15 and 35." He noted that the socioeconomic reality, coupled with declining public services and weak trust in traditional institutions, formed a "ticking time bomb" that has now detonated.

Echoing this sentiment, Ahmed Al-Bouz, a professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law, stressed the need for "urgent and tangible reforms, especially in education, health, and employment, while guaranteeing freedom of expression and the right to protest." He warned that in the absence of such reforms, any government dialogue with the youth would be seen as merely a tactic to buy time.

A Government in Response Mode

Faced with the growing momentum, the government has stated that it "understands the demands of the movement" and has expressed its readiness to open a dialogue with the protesting youth. However, for a generation that feels it has been repeatedly promised change without seeing results, mere words are no longer enough.

The "Gen Z 212" movement represents a critical juncture for Morocco. It is the voice of a disenfranchised, connected, and impatient generation demanding not just dialogue, but demonstrable action to address the deep-rooted economic and social crises that define their daily lives. The government's next steps will determine whether this energy can be channeled into meaningful reform or if it will further fuel the flames of discontent.

Trump Demands Israel "Immediately" Halt Bombing of Gaza, Hamas Agrees to Proposal

Trump Demands Israel "Immediately" Halt Bombing of Gaza, Hamas Agrees to Proposal

    Friday, October 03, 2025   No comments

In a significant and unexpected shift, former US President Donald Trump has publicly called on Israel to immediately cease its bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip, as the Palestinian group Hamas announced its acceptance of a comprehensive peace proposal he previously outlined.

The developments, which unfolded on Thursday, have introduced a potential breakthrough in the long-running conflict, injecting a new dynamic into stalled diplomatic efforts.

Trump's Direct Appeal and Hamas's Acceptance

The momentum began when Hamas issued a formal statement expressing its "immediate" readiness to enter into negotiations through mediators to discuss all details related to implementing an agreement. The group confirmed its agreement to release all captives, both living and the remains of the deceased, in line with the framework of Trump's plan.

In a swift response on his Truth Social platform, Trump amplified the possibility of a deal. He stated that the Hamas statement was "an indicator that they are ready for a permanent peace" and made a direct demand: "The American President Donald Trump has demanded that Israel stop bombing the Gaza Strip 'immediately' to allow for the release of the detainees in the strip."

Trump further revealed that "discussions are currently underway regarding the details that need to be worked on" to implement the plan for ending the war. He framed the moment as a critical juncture, emphasizing that the issue "is not only about Gaza, but about the long-awaited peace in the Middle East."

A Comprehensive White House Plan

The proposal at the center of the flurry of statements originates from a detailed plan released by the White House on September 29, 2025. That plan called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, to be followed by a comprehensive reconstruction program and a reorganization of the strip's political and security situation.

Hamas's statement aligned with several key aspects of this vision. The group renewed its prior agreement to hand over the administration of Gaza to a body of Palestinian independents, based on a national consensus and supported by broader Arab-Islamic backing.

Crucially, Hamas also signaled a significant political concession, stating that the provisions in Trump's proposal concerning the future of Gaza and the rights of the Palestinian people "are linked to a national position to be discussed within a comprehensive Palestinian national framework, in which Hamas will be included and will contribute to with all responsibility."

Unanswered Questions and the Path Ahead

While the statements from both Trump and Hamas mark the most positive diplomatic development in recent memory, the path forward remains fraught with challenges. The most significant immediate question is Israel's official response. The Israeli government, which has long maintained that military pressure is essential for securing the release of captives and dismantling Hamas's capabilities, has not yet publicly commented on these latest developments.

Furthermore, the "details" Trump mentioned as being under discussion are likely to be highly complex, encompassing the sequencing of the ceasefire and prisoner exchange, the guarantees for security, and the composition and authority of the proposed Palestinian administrative body.

For now, the world watches to see if this unexpected convergence of statements—a US political figure's direct demand, a White House plan, and Hamas's strategic agreement—can create the necessary momentum to halt the fighting and open a new, albeit uncertain, chapter for Gaza and the region.

Trump signs order EO considering any attack on Qatar as security threat to US--Israel’s Strike on Qatar Shakes US Credibility in the Gulf

Trump signs order EO considering any attack on Qatar as security threat to US--Israel’s Strike on Qatar Shakes US Credibility in the Gulf

    Wednesday, October 01, 2025   No comments

The United States has long positioned itself as the primary security guarantor for Gulf states, but that image has been severely shaken following Israel’s unprecedented strike on Doha earlier this month. Despite Qatar’s role as host to the largest US military installation in the Middle East, and despite decades of close security cooperation, Israel—a close American ally—was able to carry out an attack on Qatari soil with no immediate US response.

The incident rattled regional leaders and raised difficult questions: if Washington cannot—or will not—restrain Israel from striking a partner it formally protects, how reliable can its security assurances really be?

In an effort to repair the damage, President Donald Trump this week signed an executive order declaring that “any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar” will be treated as a direct threat to the peace and security of the United States. The order commits Washington to take all “lawful and appropriate measures”—including diplomatic, economic, and if necessary, military action—to defend both American and Qatari interests.

The timing was no accident. The decree came just three weeks after Israel’s air strikes targeting Hamas leaders in Qatar, an operation that provoked outrage in Doha and embarrassment in Washington. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has since issued a rare apology to Qatar, the episode left a lingering sense that US security guarantees may be more fragile than Gulf states had assumed.

At stake is not just the bilateral relationship with Qatar, but the broader credibility of the United States as the cornerstone of Gulf security. For years, Washington’s promise of protection has been central to its influence in the region, countering both Iranian power and the growing appeal of alternative security partners such as China and Russia. The failure to prevent or deter the Israeli strike cut to the heart of that credibility.

Complicating matters further is the ongoing war in Gaza. Qatar has played a key mediating role in negotiations, including talks aimed at securing a ceasefire and addressing the humanitarian crisis. If Washington, working through Doha, can help deliver a viable and lasting deal, it could partially repair the trust eroded by Israel’s attack. Such success would reaffirm the US as not only a military protector, but also as a diplomatic broker capable of shaping outcomes in the region.

But the risks are equally stark. If a Gaza deal collapses or fails to halt the bloodshed, the damage to Washington’s standing could be irreparable. Gulf leaders may conclude that the United States lacks both the will and the leverage to restrain its own allies, let alone manage conflicts across the Middle East.

The executive order signed by Trump is therefore more than a symbolic gesture toward Qatar. It is a test of whether American promises still carry weight in a region where credibility is everything—and where one misstep can reshape alliances for decades to come.

Media reaction and analysis:

Israeli Media noted the changed posture and connected it to the Gaza plan. Israel's Channel 12 correspondent and Axios reporter Barak Ravid says the US will 'dramatically upgrade' its commitment to Qatar's security:

• "As part of the initiative to end the war in Gaza and as compensation to Qatar for the Israeli strike in Doha, President Trump signed a presidential decree on Monday that dramatically upgrades the US commitment to Qatar’s security. This marks an unprecedented security agreement between the US and an Arab state."
•  "According to the presidential decree, published today, 'The United States will regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.'
•  "The decree further states: 'In the event of such an attack, the United States will take all lawful and appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military, to protect the interests of the United States and the State of Qatar and to restore peace and stability.'