The Social World

Tag: Middle East

  • Why did Trump even want the Nobel Peace Prize?

    Why did Trump even want the Nobel Peace Prize?

    Did anyone seriously think that Donald Trump was going to emerge this morning as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize? First, there were the mechanics. Nominations for the prize closed on 31 January, at which point Trump was only 11 days into his second term and there was hardly a glint of hope in Gaza. The prize committee will have met for the last time around a week ago, when there was still doubt as to whether Hamas would accept this deal. The committee will have had to make its decision a few days before the announcement, because certain formalities have to be undertaken ahead of time, such as checking whether the recipient actually wants the prize.

    For those reasons, next year was always going to be a more appropriate time for Trump to win the prize. But even then, don’t hold your hopes. While the prize committee prides itself on its independence, it is not really free of outside pressure. As we have seen many times, part of the liberal mindset is a tendency to put yourself in a straightjacket of thought, sewn together by the opinions of other liberals. Had they awarded the prize to Trump, members of the committee would have faced cancellation. Dinner invitations would have dried up, high-powered jobs at universities and NGOs would have been denied to them. Norway has a pretty small establishment. There would have been nowhere to hide from angry liberal opinion. Even had the committee members been prepared to face up to that, it is only natural that a committee – even one not made up by liberals – would be a bit irritated by the brazen way in which Trump and his people have been lobbying for the prize, and be inclined to award it elsewhere as a result.

    That said, what Trump has achieved over the past couple of weeks is surely deserving of the prize. While other world leaders such as Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron dealt with the world they would like to exist, Trump dealt with the one which really does exist. It is hard to imagine anyone but him being able to moderate Benjamin Netanyahu and simultaneously being able to apply pressure on Egypt and other Arab countries to influence what is the effective surrender of Hamas. It is laughable to think that it could have happened under Joe Biden, and not much more far-fetched to think that Barack Obama – who really is a Nobel Peace laureate – could have achieved it.

    The big mystery, though, is why Trump actually wants the Nobel Peace Prize. He has spent his time in office scorning international bodies. He has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement, from the World Health Organization. He has treated the United Nations pretty sniffily. His whole philosophy in international affairs revolves around the idea that international bodies have grown too big for their boots: they are run by unelected busybodies who deserve to be cut down to size. He likes to see the world as being run by strong men, not worthy NGO types. So why does he even want the Nobel Peace Prize? He should want to scorn the idea of a bunch of aloof worthies appointed by the Norwegian government trying to sit in judgment on who is good and who is bad in the world.

    A little note ought also to be added for Maria Corina Machado, the actual recipient of the prize. It was always likely, given the lobbying by the Trump, that the Nobel committee would go for someone few have heard of. But there is the possibility, of course, that Machado is actually a deserving choice. Had it not been for Trump and Gaza we would this morning be heralding the Venezuelan opposition leader who was robbed on victory in her country’s elections by Nicolas Maduro. Trump doesn’t need a Nobel Peace Prize and shouldn’t really want it. For Machado and the people of Venezuela, on the other hand, the prize might actually do some good, by rewarding someone who has stood up against dictatorship.

  • Give the Nobel to Jared

    Give the Nobel to Jared

    On a season eight episode of The Simpsons, newscaster Kent Brockman interviews a man who’s woken up from a 23-year-long coma, and lets him know that Sonny Bono is now a Congressman and Cher has won an Oscar. The man dies soon after. If someone were to wake up from a coma today to find out that Donald Trump, who 23 years ago was hosting The Apprentice, is now the leading candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, it would have a similar result. 

    But who else deserves the award? If you can give Peace Prizes to Al Gore and Barack Obama for basically being Cool Liberal Guys Who Aren’t Dick Cheney, you can give one to Donald Trump. Look at who’s nominated him: Benjamin Netanyahu, the government of Pakistan, The Israeli Hostages Family Forum. It’s not exactly Rudy Giuliani, Kayleigh McEnany and an anonymous account from Barron’s burner phone. The “President of peace” does seem a little too eager to get his hands on the medal. “I should have gotten it four or five times,” he said in June. 

    But, again, who else should get it at this moment in history? Jimmy Carter deserved one in 1978 for brokering the Camp David Accords. What Trump’s done is equally significant. The list of other deserving candidates is pretty small: They could always give it to Pope Leo, who seems like a nice Pope, or to Chef José Andres, who’s fed millions of refugees in need. If the Nobel Committee hands it to Greta Thunberg, it might actually cause World War III.

    The only logical answer is Trump’s son-in-law, and the man who’s quietly done all the actual work on negotiating the Israel-Hamas peace accords: Jared Kushner. We’ve heard Kushner’s name in the Peace Prize conversation before. In 2022, Congressman Lee Zeldin nominated him for his role in brokering the Abraham Accords between Israel and the UAE, and the year before, Alan Dershowitz nominated him for the same reason. Then-CNN political writer Chris Cilizza, who’s never been nominated for anything other than “Weenus of the Year,” said that these nominations were “less of a big deal than you think.” But they were actually a pretty big deal. 

    In 2022, Jared Kushner was not anywhere near the seat of power. The Washingtonian wrote an article about him called “Javanka In Exile,” as he and Ivanka Trump tried to navigate their way in what a prematurely triumphant media considered to be a post-Trump Washington. And what was Jared Kushner doing in “exile”? Getting Nobel Peace Prize nominations while quietly going about his billionaire business trying to achieve an impossible 3,000-year-old dream of bringing peace to the Middle East. 

    Hamas’s horrifying October 7, 2023 terrorist attack on Israel and Israel’s response in Gaza were the opposite of peace in the Middle East. If anything, it created a situation where regional war could explode into world conflict, with calls to “globalize the intifada.” The war between Islamic militants and defenders of Israel spilled off computer screens and into the streets of the world, sometimes violently. Once the Trump Restoration occurred, Trump sent Kushner back into the fray. In his calm, patient, non-spotlight-seeking way, Kushner has once again sought to bring peace where, as long as any of us have lived, there’s been war. 

    Of course Trump is taking credit. That’s what he does. “All I can do is put out wars,” he said at the United Nations recently. “I don’t seek attention. I just want to save lives.” Trump always seeks attention, and it might be hard to sell him to the Nobel Peace committee on a week where he threatens to arrest the Mayor of Chicago, orders the National Guard to Portland and brags about blowing Venezuelan drug boats out of the water. Even if he goes to Egypt this weekend and parts the Red Sea, it still might not be enough. But peace in our time, despite all that, is still within reach. 

    The late Tom Lehrer once said “political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.” And it’s true, they gave the prize for ending the Vietnam War to the architect of the firebombing of Cambodia. Political satire is now either obsolete, or maybe we all just live in it daily. Donald Trump didn’t start the fire in the Middle East, but he’s certainly doing all he can to end the conflict, or at least Jared Kushner is. Give Jared the Nobel Prize. Javanka is no longer in exile. 

  • Has Trump won peace – or a pause? 

    Has Trump won peace – or a pause? 

    Donald Trump is on a roll. He not only wrangled Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu into submission, but also the terrorist organization Hamas, which has apparently agreed to release all remaining hostages. The war in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of at least 67,000 Palestinians, looks to be coming to an end. On Thursday evening, Trump took a victory lap as Israel and Hamas, who have been negotiating in Egypt, assented to the first phase of his 20-point peace plan.

    “I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan. This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

    They are indeed. A jubilant Trump has indicated that he is planning to visit Israel and Egypt. So far, so good. His push for peace and readiness to confront Netanyahu has been vindicated. Netanyahu himself called the agreement “a great day for Israel.” The cessation of hostilities after two years of combat may be a testament to exhaustion on all sides as much as anything else. But will the agreement bring something more substantial than a temporary ceasefire?

    Vexed questions remain. Among them: will Hamas disarm? How far will Israel withdraw from Gaza? And who will run the denuded area and supervise its reconstruction?

    For Netanyahu, an end to the conflict will pose significant risks. He has been able to dodge accountability for the grievous national security lapses that took place on October 7, when Hamas attacked and murdered numerous Israeli civilians. His rickety right-wing coalition partners, who harbor the dream of expelling the Palestinians, may also abandon Netanyahu over the agreement. Still, they would lose their privileges and prerogatives should they exit the coalition.

    The most likely prospect is that a special election will take place in advance of the one scheduled for October 2026. This would almost surely result in a new and more centrist government. The possibility of a grand coalition that excludes far-right figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich would seem to be very much in the offing. For one thing, opposition leader Yair Lapid has supported Netanyahu over the past week, declaring that the fate of the hostages trumps any quotidian political concerns. Lapid is also intent on creating a unity government after elections take place. After the turmoil that Israel has endured over the past several years, it might well be a winning message, though Netanyahu’s skill at pulling electoral rabbits out of a hat should never be discounted. 

    But these considerations remain in the future. The most pressing issue is what will transpire with the Gaza strip itself, which has been largely reduced to rubble by Israel. When Trump travels to the Middle East later this week, he will be seeking to ensure that the temporary ceasefire becomes a permanent one, rather than devolving into a fresh round of violence. Nothing would please him more to accomplish what his loathed predecessor Joe Biden could not. And then there is the small matter of the Nobel Peace Prize he covets.

  • Israel and Iran come full circle

    Israel and Iran come full circle

    On September 28, the UN again imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on Iran. Earlier in the summer, European powers had notified the UN Security Council of their intention to trigger the snapback mechanism within the original nuclear deal, the JCPOA, citing Iranian non-compliance with the terms of the original deal – specifically, the eye-watering percentages to which Iran is enriching uranium. And without a new resolution being agreed upon, the same sanctions that crippled the Iranian economy from 2013 to 2015, effectively dragging Tehran to the table in the first place, will have a devastating effect on ordinary Iranians who will see the value of their currency plummet and the price of daily goods skyrocket. The Iranian Ministry for Finance is considering reintroducing ration cards, albeit on smartphones. Yet for those elements of the IRGC and regime-linked oligarchy which have benefited from a thriving black-market economy, it might just be business as usual. Likewise for China, which will continue to enjoy cheap Iranian energy products.

    The Islamic Republic today is a markedly different entity from that of ten years ago

    In many ways, we have come full circle from the pre-JCPOA days: Iran under sanctions, with no solution to the nuclear issue in sight. And yet, the Islamic Republic of today is a markedly different entity from that of ten years ago. Team Trump’s decision to blow up the nuclear facilities at Fordow and elsewhere may have been brilliantly executed by America’s Air Force. But it has not fundamentally altered the dynamics of the region.

    Tehran is still a significant power – and has the energy potential to be an extremely rich one – but it is immeasurably weaker, having seen protests, war and economic collapse in the past decade. The old idea that Iran projected fear and influence through its dreaded proxies has been ruthlessly stripped away by repeated failures on the battlefield and within its intelligence agencies.

    There is a whiff of the delusional in the rhetoric of the regime, which insists it won the 12-day war with Israel and continues to vow to destroy Tel Aviv, and so on. Esmaeil Khatib, Iran’s Minster for Intelligence, put on his best poker face as he proudly showed the world a documentary about how the Iranian intelligence services had successfully infiltrated Israel’s sensitive nuclear sites.

    But before long, the joke was on him. It turned out that none of the photos or videos were from secret Israeli nuclear facilities, and nothing revealed in the video was more secret than the first page of a Google search. All very “Comical Ali,” though it’s no laughing matter for the many dozens of Iranians currently being executed for supposed links to Israeli intelligence.

    The debate in Iran over the summer has broadly been split between two positions. One is to compromise on the nuclear issue and come to an agreement with the West that avoids another conflict with Israel. This, it is argued, would pave the way for Iran to return to the global economy as well as ushering in a measure of stability. Those we would label “moderates” or “reformists,” all of whom believe in the Islamic Republic, trumpet this position because they fear a revolution could follow the present situation.

    The other position, adopted by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is to choose the path of resistance and trust that the Iranian people could absorb the consequences of sanctions and that the state could accept the increased risk of conflict with Israel and yet more diplomatic isolation.

    Khamenei’s decision to reject a compromise on uranium enrichment and Iran’s ballistic missiles program was understandable if one sees it from his perspective; without a nuclear program and ballistic missiles, Iran would be more reduced in stature. Any compromise with the hated West, Khamenei knows, would be a fatal sign of weakness that could lead to turmoil for the regime. The Islamic Republic is built on resistance to foreign “tyranny,” obsessed with its independence and morbidly afraid of enemies within and without, real or imagined. Just look at what happened to Colonel Gaddafi when he caved in to western demands and abandoned his nuclear dreams, they argue in the Iranian parliament. Dead in a ditch.

    Khamenei’s choice to pursue the path of rejection is not without risks. Put simply, Iran’s refusal to talk about its nuclear program, to decrease the percentages to which it enriches uranium and to pursue dialogue makes another war with Israel a matter of time, as certain Israeli politicians have said publicly and privately at that great diplomatic jamboree in New York that is the United Nations General Assembly. It sets these two adversaries on a collision course as Iran isolates itself from the world and Israel continues its rampage around the region’s sovereign nations.

    The rhetoric in the Iranian parliament has been bombastic, with MPs in their dozens claiming that Iran must withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, ban official weapons inspectors and review their nuclear doctrine that forbids the creation of bombs. Much of this rhetoric calls to mind similar threats at the height of the 12-day war over the summer, when those same parliamentarians voted to close the Strait of Hormuz. Alas, the vote wasn’t ratified by the Supreme National Security Council. Khamenei has sensibly distanced himself from talk of specifics, preferring to remain in the realm of vague threats and adherence to a tired revolutionary ideology of resistance to the West.

    It’s fashionable to ask, “What should be done?” at times like this, particularly in the pages of serious publications. But perhaps a more sensible question is, “What can be done?” The lines of communication appear to be closed. Khamenei has repeatedly ruled out dialogue as the West is asking concessions of Tehran it is simply unwilling to consider. Once able to choose where and how it operates in the region and strong enough to absorb sanctions and their social consequences, it seems that Tehran’s choices are between “bad” and “a bit worse.” This all feels like an impasse, beyond which there are few positive outcomes.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 13, 2025 World edition.

  • Has Israel won?

    Has Israel won?

    The deliberate slaughter of Israeli Jews on October 7, 2023, was the most consequential event in the modern Middle East. It sent powerful reverberations across the region and well beyond it to the United States, the UK, Europe and Russia. Those tremors, like the war begun by the massacre, continue to this day.

    On that fateful day, Hamas terrorists left Gaza, crossed into Israel in a carefully-planned attack, designed to kill as many Jews as possible and take others captive for negotiating leverage. The terrorists attacked young, unarmed concert-goers at an Israeli music festival and the residents of a nearby town. The attack killed 1,195 innocents. Approximately 250 more were taken hostage, dragged back to Gaza and held for ransom by their kidnappers. Some hostages remain there, living and dead, held for political ransom. Among those killed were 38 children, some of whom were beheaded. It was theatrical depravity.

    The next day, October 8, Islamists in Lebanon launched a second attack, this one on Israel’s northern border. (Gaza is on Israel’s southern, Mediterranean border, next to Egypt.) The northern assault was conducted by Hezbollah, the heavily-armed terror organization in control of Southern Lebanon and a powerful actor in the rest of the country. The goal of this second attack, approved and funded by Hezbollah’s patron and financier, Iran, was to open a second front in the war, divide the resources of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and inflict still more civilian casualties.

    As Israel mourned its dead and grieved for its hostages, they also witnessed another shocking sequence of events: the most virulent anti-Semitic demonstrations in Europe since the Holocaust. The celebrations in some European capitals and a few American cities complemented those by Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Significantly, all these celebrations began before the Israelis responded militarily to the attack. They were full-throated endorsements of the terrorist attack in New York, London and Paris, not a response to Israel’s counter-attack, which had not yet happened.

    Israel was, of course, determined to respond to this unprovoked slaughter, just as America was after Pearl Harbor. And, just like America, the goal was not to engage in some minimal tit-for-tat rejoinder. Israel had more consequential, strategic goals, just as America did.

    Israel’s primary goal was (and still is) to end its encirclement by Iran’s proxy forces (known as the “ring of fire”) and to end their constant attacks on Israel, which gave cover to Iran as it secretly finished developing nuclear weapons, which could exterminate Israel’s entire population and wipe the Jewish State off the map.

    It is these larger, strategic goals – entirely “negative” ones of wiping out imminent threats – that Israel has implemented systematically in the two years since the October 7 attacks.

    This comprehensive response has been led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with strong backing, at least initially, from his Cabinet and the public. Over time, however, that strong backing has eroded for four reasons. The first is war weariness, which always occurs in protracted conflicts. Second is the desire for the return of all hostages, living and dead, and the fear that continued military action in Gaza will lead Hamas to slaughter the remaining hostages and keep all of them as negotiating leverage. Third, some key IDF leaders are worried about rising casualties among their troops if door-to-door fighting continues in Gaza. Hamas has continued to fight because of its extreme ideology and continued to hold hostages because Hamas fighters fear they will be killed if they give up the hostages without clear commitments from Israel, backed by the US. Fourth, and most difficult of all, support within Israel for the war has decline because there is no clear, achievable goal for Gaza after the war ends. 

    The problem of post-war Gaza is not just the enormous cost of reconstruction, which will be borne, at least in part, by rich Western nations and Arab Gulf states. There are two even deeper problems.

    ·      Who governs? There is no clear, benign successor to Hamas as Gaza’s governing authority; and

    ·      Will the Jew-hatred in Gaza ever stop? Most Gazans endorse the same anti-Israel, anti-Semitic ideology as that terrorist organization. If that doesn’t change, then future Gazan governments will have public support for a staunch, anti-Israel stand.

    True, Gazans are sick of the war and sick of Hamas, but that doesn’t mean that they have given up their hate for Israel and for Jews. It was their votes in an election demanded by the George W. Bush administration that gave Hamas the power to govern Gaza after Israel withdrew completely. Hamas could have used that new-found “democratic authority” to build a state that lived in peace with the Jewish state. Instead, they built a terror state in partnership with Iran and significant funding from Qatar. Hamas consolidated its control by killing all its local opponents, eliminating alternative governance possibilities, aside from tribal groupings. The absence of those alternatives is a major problem for the future of Gaza.

    International support for Israel, which was strong in Western capitals in the months after October 7, has ebbed significantly as the destruction of Gaza has continued. The clearest indication of that erosion is the decision by France and the UK to recognize an imaginary Palestinian state that lacks clear borders or a unified government. The US has rejected that move, so far, but polls show declining support for Israel, especially among young people.

    Despite these strains, the long war has not been all bad news for Israel. The good news is that Israel’s tough, consistent military strategy has extinguished the “ring of fire” and delayed Iran’s nuclear program by years. The Jewish State has clearly emerged as the strong horse in the region and done so without permanently ending the chances for renewing ties with Arab-Muslim states, embodied in the Abraham Accords. It has sustained its stunning economic growth, grounded in high technology, despite calling up huge numbers of reserves from the civilian workforce. This combination of economic and military power is why Persian Gulf states want closer ties with Israel.

    But Gulf Arab states cannot take the next step until the Gaza War is finished. For Israel, that means Hamas must be crushed and the hostages returned.

    Those are the continuing obstacles of a war that began on October 7, with the Hamas slaughter of innocents, and expanded the next day when Hezbollah, backed and funded by Iran, attacked northern Israel. The dark shadow of those acts lingers over Israel, the Middle East, and the western world on this, the anniversary of that unprovoked terror.

  • Did Bibi miscalculate?

    In her new memoirs, 107 Days, Kamala Harris recounts that in July 2024 she had an important meeting about Israel and the Gaza Strip. Harris, who was running for the presidency, hoped to show that she could pressure Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu into reaching a ceasefire with Hamas. “Netanyahu’s hooded gaze and disengaged demeanors,” she writes, “made it clear to me that he was running out the clock.” His only goal was a temporary ceasefire and to undermine the Biden administration. “He wanted Trump in the seat opposite him,” Harris recalls. “Not Joe, not me. Netanyahu wanted the guy who would acquiesce to his every extreme proposal for the future of Gaza’s inhabitants and add his own plan for a land grab by his developer cronies.”

    But did Bibi miscalculate? Right now, Trump is pressuring him to stop bombing Gaza and to reach an accommodation with Hamas as the two sides negotiate in Egypt. On Truth Social, Trump declared, “I am told that the first phase should be completed this week, and I am asking everyone to move fast.” Trump was right. Speed is of the essence. The longer the negotiations last, the greater the chance of a hiccup.

    But for Netanyahu and his chums, Trump’s pressure could not be more unwelcome. The dream of expelling the Palestinians from the Gaza strip and even annexing the West Bank remains just that. For Netanyahu’s truculent coalition partners it is a cold dose of reality administered by an American president prepared to strong-arm his Israeli counterpart.

    Trump’s sudden embrace of a peace plan shouldn’t come as a big surprise. It is further testament to his unencumbered approach to foreign affairs, whether it’s Ukraine, NATO or the Middle East. “The heart wants what it wants,” Woody Allen once remarked. Something similar could be said about Trump. He wants what he wants. And he often gets it.

    Netanyahu should have been more perceptive. The Middle East was Trump’s proving ground in his first term, the region where he struck the Abraham Accords. Now Trump wants to build on them in the hopes, however evanescent, of securing a Nobel Peace Prize. To accomplish that goal, he has no compunctions about chastening Netanyahu and insisting upon an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

    How successful he will be remains an open question. Hamas is apparently demanding the release of some of its most sinister figures – terror chiefs Marwan Barghouti, Ahmad Saadat and Abdullah Barghouti.

    Will Hamas actually surrender its remaining hostages, not to mention its weaponry? Will it accede to an international board running Gaza? Its sanguinary record provides ample reason for doubts about its intentions, no matter what Trump and his vice president J.D. Vance may aver about the prospects for an agreement.

    Meanwhile, Israel is about to release further members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Led by the activist Greta Thunberg, the flotilla had hoped to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The convoy of 42 boats was intercepted by Israel and the prisoners are alleging inhuman conditions. They will be able to amplify their claims to a receptive western press when they are deported to Greece today.

    Their self-appointed mission, however, is likely to be overshadowed by the ongoing negotiations in Egypt. Even Iran has welcomed the termination of the conflict, though it was careful to stipulate that any agreement “does not negate the responsibility of governments and competent international institutions to pursue legal and judicial action against the crimes of the Zionist regime.” Zionist regime? Some things never change in the Middle East.

  • Trump pitches Gaza peace plan

    Trump pitches Gaza peace plan

    Donald Trump is perhaps one of the world’s most gifted salesman. But as he was speaking at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today, even he had trouble selling his 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza.

    This wasn’t for a lack of trying. “Today is an historic day for peace,” Trump told the assembled press corps. Calling today “a beautiful day, potentially one of the great days ever in civilization,” Trump went on to outline in broad strokes his diplomatic initiative, which aimed to thread the needle between Netanyahu’s vocal objections to a Palestinian state and the Arab world’s demand that any plan put forth provide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with an opportunity to take control of their own future. Trump earned Netanyahu’s support and received buy-in from the Arab states, but the positions of those two actors will eventually clash. And that even assumes Hamas, which wasn’t given a copy of the White House’s draft agreement and is now only digesting the material, agrees to play along.

    There is some good in Trump’s 20-point plan. For instance, it stresses that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will pull out of Gaza in a staged fashion as Palestinian police officers and their international supporters, presumably led by the Arab states, stabilize the enclave. Hamas will demilitarize and hand over its weapons, and those who renounce violence will be allowed to leave Gaza for a third-country. The hostages still in Hamas’s grasp will be released 72 hours after the accord comes into force, and humanitarian supplies will surge into the territory. Gaza, meanwhile, won’t be annexed by Israel; instead, it will be ruled by a consortium of Palestinian technocrats and international figures, where they will preside over a reconstruction and rehabilitation process until a reformed Palestinian Authority is up to the task.

    But even if Hamas agrees to such a scheme – and given the plan’s call for what is in effect Hamas’s complete and total surrender, it’s hard to picture the militant group doing so – the implementation problems will be gargantuan. The plan is loose on timelines and execution mechanisms. Although the so-called International Stabilization Force will cooperate with vetted Palestinian police officers to dismantle the tunnels and terrorist infrastructure that still exist in the enclave, the criteria for what is considered adequate demilitarization – and which party determines whether demilitarization has succeeded or failed – is a big red flag. If Netanyahu holds veto power over this decision, then the phased troop withdrawals the Israeli military signed onto will be delayed for as long as possible. We can say this with a reasonable degree of certainty because Netanyahu was very reticent to pull the Israeli military back during the January truce. The reticence has thinned out with age.

    Trump doesn’t want Israel to annex Gaza, and he made that position clear in his plan. Commentators will refer to this item as a big deal. In reality it’s the definition of low-hanging fruit. First, rejecting Israeli annexation is simply a reiteration of decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Second, Trump has a personal interest in kicking the annexation can down the road because whatever hopes he may have of expanding the 2020 Abraham Accords will be extinguished the moment Israel goes down that path. He can kiss an Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement goodbye in such a scenario, and you can bet that somebody in the president’s orbit – perhaps his son-in-law Jared Kushner – brought this to Trump’s attention.

    Netanyahu, however, isn’t following Trump’s schedule. As important as retaining Trump’s support is, it’s not the be-all, end-all in the Israeli premier’s calculations. The people who hold this honor continue to be the hardliners, nationalists and extremists in the Israeli cabinet, including Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and Israel Katz, who could destroy Netanyahu’s career by imploding his government. The first two men continue to harbor the dream of kicking out all of Gaza’s more than two million Palestinians, formally annexing it into the State of Israel and rebuilding – and expanding – the very Jewish settlements that were torn down back in 2005. Yes, Netanyahu accepted Trump’s plan and everything in it, but he’s a canny political operator and knows how to throw wrenches into a diplomatic process. It’s likely Netanyahu will play a similar game, as he’s done repeatedly when other Gaza peace negotiations were nearing the finish line.

    The biggest error in Trump’s scheme, however, was something that wasn’t even written into the plan. In essence, Netanyahu was gifted an escape clause. Trump stressed that Israel would have Washington’s full support for continuing the war if Hamas rejected the agreement.

    Many won’t find this comment objectionable. Yet for a guy who is supposedly a master negotiator and understands the power of leverage, Trump effectively killed whatever leverage he held over Netanyahu by giving the Israeli premier an incentive to do anything in his power to push Hamas into saying “no.” Even if Hamas accepts the deal with reservations, Netanyahu can now claim to Trump that the terrorist group is an intransigent party that can’t be reasoned with. The only alternative, the logic goes, is a resumption of the war.

    Sharing a stage with Trump in Washington, DC, Netanyahu laid it on thick and claimed that peace was just around the corner. But mark these words: once he lands back in Israel, Netanyahu will tell his coalition allies that the deal he agreed to is merely a general framework whose details are still to be negotiated. Trump will then have a decision to make: tether the United States even closer to Israel’s war in Gaza, try diplomacy again or wash his hands of the conflict.

  • Why does Trump want Tony Blair to run Gaza?

    Why does Trump want Tony Blair to run Gaza?

    The former British prime minister Tony Blair is a man for all seasons, a political operator who knows precisely on which side his bread is buttered, the side of the super-rich oil and gas sheikhs and the well-connected elites of the Middle East. It is no coincidence, then, that his name has emerged as a potential candidate for a role envisioned by President Donald Trump’s administration: effectively serving as governor of Gaza if, and when, the ongoing war there comes to an end.

    Driving his candidacy is Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who continues to accumulate vast wealth from investments backed by Saudi, Qatari and Emirati funds. Kushner is once again returning to mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab arena, though unlike during Trump’s first term – when he acted as an official advisor and diplomatic envoy – he now operates largely behind the scenes, wielding influence in a more informal but potent capacity.

    Alongside them, Steve Witkoff serves officially as the Trump administration’s envoy to the Middle East and other global conflicts, including the Ukraine-Russia confrontation. Collectively, this group – Trump, his sons, Kushner, Witkoff and Blair – shares a common thread in their extensive, interwoven networks. They operate in the twilight zone between the formal and the hidden, between the visible and the opaque. Their potential conflicts of interest are glaring.

    Their agenda is ambitious: to end the war in Gaza and establish a regional framework linking Israel with the Arab states, supported by Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Simultaneously, their companies, foundations and investment funds continue to receive vast sums from these very same states.

    In Israel, there is notable support for appointing Blair to head the transitional administration that would govern Gaza’s more than two million residents, 70 percent of whom have lost their homes in Israeli bombings and are displaced, cramped into tented camps. This administration is intended to replace the Hamas government.

    Should Trump succeed in compelling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept his 25-point plan for ending the Gaza conflict, and Blair – keen for the post – is appointed, the role will undoubtedly extend over many years, until the Gaza Strip is stabilized and rendered liveable.

    “Tony is a worthy candidate,” Danny Ayalon, former Israeli ambassador to Washington and deputy foreign minister, told me. “He knows the Middle East intimately from his time as prime minister and from the other roles he has held since. He is acceptable both to Netanyahu and Trump and to leaders across the Arab world.”

    Even more enthusiastic about the idea of Tony Blair heading a kind of international management and oversight body is Ehud Barak, Israel’s former prime minister and defense minister. “I know him well and remained in contact with him even after our official roles ended. Although I haven’t met with him in the past year,” he told me. “This is a good idea that will allow Arab states, including Egypt, to create a kind of buffer between themselves and Israel. If a year ago Trump’s plan was to save Gaza and its people, now, after the destruction, Trump’s plan is in effect an attempt to save Israel from the quagmire – without the Arabs being criticized at home for essentially coming to Israel’s aid.”

    Barak added: “Tony maintains informal ties with the key players in the Middle East, and he knows how to use them as political and economic levers to promote stability and arrangements.”

    Yet not all in Israel welcome his potential appointment. Far-right circles remember his long-standing support for a two-state solution and fear that Blair will implement Trump’s plan, which envisions the Palestinian Authority – led by Abu Mazen, whom they view as a thorn in their side – as part of Gaza’s transitional administration. Meanwhile, extremist Jewish settlers continue to push for the destruction of the Palestinian Authority, annexation of the West Bank, the expansion of settlements and the displacement of its three million Palestinian residents to Jordan.

    The Palestinian perspective is decidedly cooler still. Many see Blair as a staunch friend of Israel. “Tony is clearly pro-Israel,” a senior Palestinian Authority official told me, “but we have few alternatives. If Trump succeeds in ending the war and channeling Arab funds into the rehabilitation of the Palestinian people, Blair is certainly a reasonable default choice.”

    The central question remains whether Blair is suited to this nearly impossible task. It should not be forgotten that he faced a similar task in the past – and did not succeed.

    Upon leaving Downing Street in 2007, Blair accepted the position of special representative for the Middle East on behalf of the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, UN), a post he held until 2015. His mandate focused primarily on Palestinian economic development and institution-building rather than political negotiations, and his tenure sparked debate over its effectiveness.

    Through the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), Blair has advised Palestinian institutions and Arab governments on governance, public administration and economic reform. TBI’s involvement in Palestinian projects, and its commercial links, have been a recurring source of controversy. Blair consistently emphasized the importance of building Palestinian institutions and economies as prerequisites for progress, at times prioritizing these over a visible push for immediate political settlements.

    In 2010, the Daily Mail published an investigative report connecting Blair to Wataniya, a Palestinian mobile telecommunications company launched in 2009 as a joint venture between the Palestine Investment Fund and Wataniya International (a subsidiary of Qatar Telecom, with JP Morgan involvement). The report suggested that Abu Mazen and his sons benefited financially from the company, and alleged that Blair had used his official position to serve the interests of one of his employers.

    At the time, Blair’s spokesman said: “Tony Blair raised Wataniya at the request of the Palestinian Authority in his role as Quartet Representative. He has no knowledge of any connection between QTel [Qatar Telecom] and JP Morgan and has never discussed the issue with JP Morgan nor have they ever raised it with him. Any suggestion that he raised it for any reason other than the one stated to help the Palestinians or that in some way he has benefited from Wataniya is untrue and defamatory.”

    The longevity of Blair’s mission stands as a stark indicator of the stagnation and bankruptcy of what is commonly referred to as the “peace process”.

    Yet for Blair to assume another complex, long-term role, he must clear the ultimate hurdle. Trump, his son-in-law and Witkoff must bend Netanyahu’s will, as the Israeli prime minister fears that any agreement ending the war could also mark the end of his own time in office.

  • Has Trump changed Britain’s stance on Palestinian statehood?

    Has Trump changed Britain’s stance on Palestinian statehood?

    As Donald Trump visited the United Kingdom this week, the press seized the opportunity to confront both him and Prime Minister Keir Starmer about the issue of Hamas and Britain’s posture towards Palestinian statehood. In a rare moment of lucidity, and perhaps influenced by the firm presence of the President, Starmer appeared, briefly, to align his moral compass. Faced with questions over why his government was proceeding with the recognition of a Palestinian state in the wake of the October 7th atrocities, Starmer delivered what may be his most unequivocal statement to date:

    “Let me be really clear about Hamas: They’re a terrorist organization who can have no part in any future governance in Palestine. What happened on October 7th was the worst attack since the Holocaust. We have extended family in Israel. I understand first-hand the psychological impact that that had across Israel. So I know exactly where I stand in relation to Hamas. Hamas of course don’t want a two-state solution. They don’t want peace. They don’t want a ceasefire. I’m very clear where I stand on Hamas.”

    It was also strikingly convenient that, at this critical juncture, Starmer suddenly remembered his extended family in Israel. One wonders how reassured they feel about his use of them in such a moment – deployed as a sort of bauble to decorate a policy that is not only contradictory but potentially dangerous. If they are to serve as moral ballast for his position, they deserve more than to be name-dropped in the midst of strategic incoherence.

    Had Starmer stopped there, one might have mistaken him for a leader with conviction. But in the next breath, he returned to form, assuring the press that his decision to recognize a Palestinian state had been set out in July and had “nothing to do with this state visit.” He insisted that the matter had been discussed with president Trump “as you would expect among two leaders who respect each other and like each other and want to bring about a better solution in the best way we can.”

    The irony, of course, is that just as Starmer found the fortitude to call Hamas what it is, the group was issuing yet another declaration of grotesque barbarism. In a statement released by its al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas promised to turn Gaza into a “graveyard” for Israeli soldiers, to use hostages as human shields, and to ensure that not a single captive would be recovered alive. They referenced Ron Arad, the long-lost Israeli airman abducted by Iran-backed terrorists in Lebanon, as a model for how future hostages would disappear without trace.

    “We have prepared for you an army of martyrs,” they declared. “Your prisoners are scattered throughout Gaza City’s neighborhoods, and we will not spare their lives… you will not recover a single prisoner, neither dead nor alive, and their fate will be the same as that of Ron Arad.”

    So when Starmer finally managed to utter the truth about Hamas, it was as though he had been coaxed into it by the magnetic clarity of the man standing beside him. Trump, sensing the moment, actually grinned with approval and gave him a pat on the back – like a dog that had finally learned to sit when commanded. It is said the two spent around thirty minutes alone before the press conference, with no aides present. One can only imagine what was said, but it would not be a stretch to presume that Trump reminded him of the basics: do not reward genocidal jihadists with the trappings of statehood.

    Yet, despite the bluster, Starmer still intends to confer symbolic recognition upon a Palestinian entity that does not exist in any coherent, lawful or democratic form. He has mouthed the words of moral clarity, but he cannot follow them through with coherent policy. This is the essence of his weakness: he learns to say the lines but not to dance the dance. For all the talk of opposing Hamas, his government is giving succor to its cause by validating the fantasy of a state that Hamas itself openly defines through martyrdom, bloodshed, and the annihilation of Jews.

    Starmer’s rhetoric on Hamas is thus at odds with every other aspect of his posture. He decries their atrocities, then gestures toward recognition of a statehood project that would reward them. He acknowledges they do not want peace, then backs a policy that empowers them. He understands their strategy of hostage warfare, then gestures towards concessions that would only embolden it. And he said nothing of the failures of literally all other mainstream Palestinian leaders and political movements to act with decency, respect for humanity or international law, or indeed any ambition of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state. If not Hamas, Sir Keir, then who? It is not biased or racist to state these facts, however distressing and undesirable: it is merely looking a hard truth in the eye. Without that, how else can the situation be improved?

    Starmer’s position makes Britain appear rudderless. If the leader of His Majesty’s Government cannot translate his apparent convictions into action, if he cannot resist the theater of international appeasement even in the face of Islamist terror, then he diminishes not only himself but the standing of the nation he represents. One hopes that Trump, in those thirty private minutes, managed to plant a seed of realism. But there is, as yet, no sign that it has taken root.

  • Trump treads a fine line on Qatar and Israel

    Oops. The White House is claiming that President Trump directed the ubiquitous Steve Witkoff to warn Qatar that Israel was going to strike Hamas headquarters in Doha. But Qatari officials denied that they received any such warning.

    “What happened today is state terrorism and an attempt to destabilize regional security and stability, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the region to an irreversible level,” Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani stated in a televised address. “These missiles were used to attack the negotiating delegation of the other party. By what moral standards is this acceptable?”

    Trump himself has been a study in inconsistency on the Israeli effort to target the Hamas leadership. On the one hand, he declared on social media that “unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.” On the other, he averred that “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”

    The reason Trump is trying to spit the difference is, of course, that he wants to placate an aggrieved Qatar without openly denouncing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump’s caution may also be ascribed to the fact that there is no evidence that the attack was successful. Hamas is claiming that none of its senior leaders were killed. If so, the move was worse than a crime, to borrow Talleyrand’s famous phrase. It was a blunder.

    Trump has indicated to Al Thani that there will be no second strike, thereby ensuring that Hamas can operate with impunity. White House spokesman Karoline Leavitt says that Trump told Al Thani, “such a thing will not happen again on their soil.” Meanwhile, the fate of the hostages held by Hamas looks even more tenuous.

    Writing in the Washington Post, David Ignatius pointed out that “By undermining diplomatic options for ending the conflict, Israel has narrowed its path forward. Its only choice now might be military reoccupation of most of Gaza – something that Israeli officials say they badly want to avoid.” Some members of Netanyahu’s cabinet may be jonesing to occupy Gaza and extrude its inhabitants into Egypt. But whether Netanyahu himself wants to pursue that path is an open question. He may have reckoned that he could score a big success by blasting the leadership of Hamas into oblivion, then claim a grand victory over the terrorists who have been menacing Israel.

    Instead, he has created a chorus of international obloquy, as France, Germany and Great Britain, among others, denounce the Israeli move. In Trump’s own MAGA base dissatisfaction with Israel is mounting. At the recent National Conservatism conference in Washington, for example, American Conservative editor Curt Mills created something of a furor with his criticisms of the close ties between Israel and America. Mills asked, “Why are these our wars? Why are Israel’s endless problems America’s liabilities? Why are we in the national conservative bloc, broadly speaking, why do we laugh out of the room this argument when it’s advanced by Volodymyr Zelenskyy but are slavish hypocrites for Benjamin Netanyahu? Why should we accept America First – asterisk Israel? And the answer is, we shouldn’t.”

    With his attack on Doha, Netanyahu has ensured that the debate over Israel and America will only intensify. Quo vadis, Donald Trump?