Hamas Archives - Page 2 of 32

Historical Kick: Weighing The Hit Against Iran

CrossFireArabia
January 14, 2026

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a reprint of an article written by me and posted in 2008 about Israel gearing up to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities. Perceptive is the fact it took Israel and and the USA 17 years, in June 2025, to make a direct hit on Iran and its nuclear facilities. Today, US President Donald Trump, and with the current protests in Iran, is weighing the options for another direct on Iran. However Tehran said it will retaliate with more launches on Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities just as it did last year as well on as US military bases. The reprint is made here with the same title, Weighing the hit against Iran as it appeared in the Media Monitors Network.

Will Israel hit Iran’s nuclear facilities, or won’t they? You would think everyone would be talking about it on the international level, and it might be the case judging from the newspaper articles that are being churned out about a possible nuke followed by regional conflagration.

In Jordan news is in full throttle: Yes Israel is contemplating a hit on Iran and it is in line with its power-hungry policies to dominate the region even if it eventually destroys itself.

Newspapers here see Israel as careless and would not only be prepared for that slippery-slope of a nuclear exchange but would use her nukes as a deterrent force to stop Iran from gaining her own nuclear capability.

Iran is not afraid, saying time and again, her nuclear development is for peaceful purposes and it will have a nuclear capability come what may regardless of what Israel is trying to do and of the international nuclear inspectors monitoring her activities which is more than can be said of Israel whose nuclear reactors and capabilities remain a state secret.

On a more personal level, I briefly talked to my wife about the possible hit in Iran, which I thought was well probable after reading the recent articles, and she just looked and said the issue is being blown out by media talk: There “won’t be war” and it is “media hype”.

Someone else just made fun of the issue. All this was going on when International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad Al Baradei was warning that if a strike does happen then it will surely turn the region into a ball-fire.

Ball-fire or not, the journalists and media were having a field day, now they say is the best time to strike because US President George W. Bush is nearing his tenure in office and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in trouble over allegation of corruption charges and accepting bribes, and so the theory states if he is going to go then he wants to go in style.

But such reports and opinions are being made when the actual devastation and the far-reaching consequences of a potential strike and the subsequent military and nuclear exchange is underplayed and even treated as a daily occurrence where people will just pick up the pieces and continue with their lives.

People, including the media are not fully aware of what a nuclear exchange would mean, in terms of the scale of human losses, of radiation, devastation, the so-called nuclear winter of darkness, the nuclear holocaust that would actually make the area, the region and the geography completely uninhabitable for many years to come.

While this maybe the case in the West with the media there long tackling these issues, especially at the height of the Cold War in the 1980s, here the media has taken more of a sedate view about tackling these subjects especially since more important issues were on the scene.

That is up till now. Seeing the issue as an extension of the Arab-Israeli conflict, today the media is using the possible strike as a point of titillating us into fright regardless of the cynicism of many people like my wife who keep saying its media scare-mongering. But, and regardless again, what is required is a real cold analysis of the situation as it exists.

Would Israel be willing to take a chance and strike, whether military or nuclear, knowing full-will that the present Iran has the long-range missile capability, and knowing also the United States is not too sure and can’t make up its mind about the strike while playing lip service to negotiation and diplomatic talk.

Iran is not Iraq; this is not 1982 when Israeli F 16s flew over the region and bombed the Ozreiq reactor being built by under Saddam Hussein. Despite the fact the Americans are in Iraq, and the Israelis are flexing their muscles against the Palestinians and frequently threatening the Lebanese and Syrians, the security and military environment in the region is changing,

New powers like Iran, Syria, Turkey and non-state actors like Hizbollah and maybe Hamas are increasingly making headways in the region and internationally, and therefore a direct hit on Iran by Israel would not be received at all well by the Europeans who already recognize Israel’s intransigence on the Middle East process regardless if they want to do something about it or not.

Today, Israel’s image is increasingly at stake, an image that has come to be increasingly tarnished since the start of the Intifada in the year 2000, and Israel would definitely not want to rock the boat by seeking to pot practice with its own nuclear war heads and missiles–guessed at 200 in the late 1990s–on states like Iran.

The other important thing to remember is that Israel values its own existence and survival; that’s why it will not practice adventurist measures to the point where it may destroy itself through nuclear striking other nations even though such would be surgical strikes or limited which are nullified for all intense and purpose.

Hence survival is not only a security argument but an ideological one that involves an entity, identity and statehood. An Israeli state even if it does survive a nuclear exchange would probably be sitting in an ocean of radiation still far to be within the parameters of Europe, and certainly too far to remain as the United States valuable ally because if all things are destroyed there would be no need to have a “trusted friend” in the Middle East.

These continue to be in the realm of possibilities and conjectures. However, and against the argument of nuclear hit on Iran is the fact that American troops are in Iraq, in the middle of what would become a “nuclear ball-fire”. This is, unless of course, Israel refuses to give warning and go for the element of surprise and unleashes its weapons against Iran in the hope of preemption, a doctrine the US used for launching its 2003 war to remove Saddam Hussein and destroy his so-called weapons of mass destruction which were subsequently proved false.

Analyses

For Israel The ‘Yellow Line’ is Occupation

CrossFireArabia
December 21, 2025

By Ismail Al Sharif

Two months after the signing of the ceasefire, that remains merely ink on paper, the region is yet to witness a fundamental shift to the second phase: A transition from a strategy of destruction to a withdrawal mechanism, and from the logic of military operations to a framework of international administration, paving the way for a political process to ultimately lead to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

However, the realities on the ground today proves this path is nothing more than a theoretical assumption quickly crumbling in the face of a complex reality.

Two months after the supposed ceasefire, a completely different truth emerges; Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. Palestinian civilians are dying from the bitter cold, just as they previously perished from the bombardment, while unilateral decisions are being made whilst deepening the chasm of mistrust between the parties supposedly partnering in ending this humanitarian tragedy and implementing the Donald Trump plan, who claims to have ended a three-thousand-year-old war.

What was supposed to be a temporary withdrawal line for the Israeli army has, according to its generals, become a new de facto border called the “Yellow Line,” swallowing up more than half of the Gaza Strip.

Early this month, the army’s chief of staff Eyal Zamir addressed his troops, asserting Israel “now exercises effective control over vast areas of the Strip” and its military units “will maintain their positions on these defensive lines.” He explicitly declared “the Yellow Line represents a new border of an advanced line of defense to protect Israeli society, and serves as a framework for the ongoing military operational activity.”

From these comments it can be understood the ceasefire line is no longer a temporary, transitional measure, but has effectively become a forcibly-imposed border, a permanent defensive zone, and a legal framework that legitimizes a long-term Israeli military presence within territories that, until recently, were an integral part of the Palestinian territories.

These pronouncements are not merely political rhetoric. The “Yellow Line” is now embodied on the ground by massive, yellow-painted concrete blocks that bisect the Gaza Strip to a depth of between 1.5 and 6.5 kilometers. Before the recent escalation, the Strip extended about 41 kilometers in length and between 6 and 12 kilometers in width. As it stands however, Israel has tightened its grip on more than half of this area in one of the world’s most densely-populated regions. This has exacerbated overcrowding, drastically reduced usable land, and devastated the agricultural sector, thus intensifying the humanitarian catastrophe, entrenching mass forced displacement, deepening the destruction, and contributing to the complete collapse of the institutional infrastructure.

The Zamir statements cannot be separated from the context of the pronouncements of war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, who, from northern occupied Palestine, spoke of the expansion of his northern and northeastern borders by establishing a demilitarized buffer zone from the Syrian capital, Damascus, to the occupied Golan Heights. This is being made with the advance of his military forces into the UN-monitored buffer zone and the occupation of the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Sheikh). Also, Israel is presently establishing establishing a “buffer zone” in the territory of southern Lebanon, destroying border villages and/or leaving them completely depopulated and deploying military reinforcements at strategic border points to impose a new security and geopolitical reality by force.

According to the Trump’s plan the second phase was supposed to begin after Hamas fulfilled its commitment to release all Israeli captives, both alive and deceased, and after Netanyahu announced his readiness to move to this phase.

However, this transition was contingent on two fundamental conditions: The deployment of international peacekeeping forces and the complete disarmament of Hamas. Herein lies the complexity of the issue; Netanyahu has publicly expressed skepticism about the ability of any international force to carry out the disarmament mission and has categorically stated that Hamas’s disarmament will be achieved through coercive military means and under the direct supervision of Israeli forces.

In contrast, Hamas maintains its categorical refusal to disarm except within a comprehensive framework that includes the formation of a unified Palestinian ‘technocratic” government and a complete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces. At a minimum, Hamas has expressed its willingness to store its weapons within an agreed-upon mechanism as part of a comprehensive political process, as confirmed by Bassem Naim, a member of the movement’s political bureau, in recent statements.

The current situation reveals that Israel is treating the existing circumstances as a strategic opportunity to expand its geographical borders and exert maximum pressure on the Palestinian people, paving the way for what it calls “voluntary displacement” under a humanitarian pretext—a pretext it itself created.

Simultaneously, it is deliberately and systematically obstructing the transition to the second phase of the Trump agreement by continuing its policies of occupation, killing, and destruction under the guise of a ceasefire.

It is clear this arrangement serves its strategic interests and intersects with broader Western interests, with the ultimate result being the aborting of any chance of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state, and keeping the Gaza Strip – as it has always been – a besieged enclave, which Israel exploits to achieve its political agenda and strengthen its internal cohesion, and turning it into a field laboratory in which various military weapons, biological tools and advanced technological techniques are tested, but with a reduction in the population, which allows it to continue what is strategically known as “managing the conflict” in the long term.

This article by Ismail Al Sharif was originally written in Arabic for the Addustour daily and published in Crossfirearabia.com.

News

White House Rebukes Israel on Violation of Ceasefire

CrossFireArabia
December 16, 2025

The White House views Israel’s assassination of Al-Qassam leader, Raed Saad, as a violation of the Gaza ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump, two US officials told Axios.

The officials said the White House sent a stern private message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the strike.

Israel murdered Raed Saad on Saturday in Gaza City. Israel calls Saad the deputy commander of Hamas’ military wing. The attack murdered four people in total.

US officials said Israel did not notify or consult Washington before the strike.

“The White House message to Netanyahu was clear,” a senior US official said. “If you want to ruin your reputation and show you do not abide by agreements, be our guest. But we will not allow you to ruin President Trump’s reputation after he brokered the Gaza deal.”

An Israeli official confirmed that the White House expressed anger. The official claimed the message was softer and cited concerns from “certain Arab countries.” US officials rejected that account and said the White House was unequivocal that Israel violated the ceasefire.

The development comes as Israel continues to reject moving to the second phase of Trump’s ceasefire agreement to end the genocide in Gaza.

Israeli media reported ongoing resistance inside Netanyahu’s government to advancing the next phase. An Israeli security source told the public broadcaster that implementing the second phase “remains far from achievable.”

Netanyahu is expected to meet President Trump at Mar-a-Lago on December 29.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces continued daily ceasefire violations on Monday. Naval boats opened heavy fire toward Gaza’s coast. Israeli aircraft launched an airstrike alongside intense artillery shelling east of Khan Younis. Artillery fire also hit areas east of al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza.

Hamas condemned the Israeli violations and called on mediators and guarantor states to intervene. The movement said Israel seeks to undermine and sabotage the agreement.

Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya reaffirmed commitment to the ceasefire in a recorded speech marking the movement’s 38th anniversary. He said starting the second phase is a top priority to secure full Israeli withdrawal.

Al-Hayya said any international forces in Gaza should focus only on maintaining the ceasefire and separating the two sides at Gaza’s borders. He stressed that resistance and its weapons remain a legitimate right under international law and are tied to establishing a Palestinian state.

Al-Qassam Brigades said Israel’s assassination of Saad represents a blatant breach of the ceasefire. The group said Israel crossed all red lines by targeting its leaders and civilians and by continuing military aggression.

Al-Qassam said Israel is disregarding President Trump’s plan and held him and the mediators responsible. The group affirmed its right to respond and defend itself by all means.

The first phase of the Gaza ceasefire began on October 10 after two years of Israeli genocide that killed more than 70,000 Palestinians and destroyed most civilian infrastructure.

Despite the agreement, Israel continues airstrikes, alters the agreed withdrawal line known as the Yellow Line, and restricts vital humanitarian aid to Gaza’s population according to the Quds News Network.

News

Yasser Abu Shabab: Israeli Collaborator Killed in Rafah

CrossFireArabia
December 4, 2025

Yasser Abu Shabab, a militia leader who collaborated with Israeli occupation forces throughout the genocide, was killed on December 4 by unknown fighters in Gaza, according to Israeli media reports.

His death comes after months in which he became one of the most controversial figures of the genocide, operating openly under Israeli military protection and playing a central role in aid theft, extortion, intimidation, and killing of civilians in areas occupied by Israeli forces.

Abu Shabab, 32, was originally detained by Hamas authorities on drug trafficking charges and he escaped prison in the aftermath of October 7, 2023.

By early 2024, he had aligned himself with Israeli occupation forces and assumed command of an armed group in eastern Rafah, later known as the “Popular Forces.”

The Israeli-backed militia was responsible for overseeing territory on behalf of the occupying army.

Multiple humanitarian officials and journalists documented how the group operated near the Kerem Shalom and Rafah crossings, where it controlled the movement of aid convoys entering the Strip.

Humanitarian workers accused the militia of seizing or diverting relief supplies, demanding payments from organizations, and contributing to the collapse of aid distribution at a time when famine conditions were intensifying. UN officials stated that criminal gangs, including Abu Shabab’s, had been able to operate “under the watch of Israeli forces.”

During the temporary ceasefire in January 2025, Israel deepened its support for Abu Shabab’s faction by providing uniforms, tactical gear, weapons, and vehicles.

Israeli media later confirmed that members of these militias, including Abu Shabab’s, received direct orders from Israeli officers during operations targeting Hamas and other resistance factions. The Israeli government acknowledged the policy publicly after domestic criticism, framing it as an effort to reduce Israeli military casualties.

Western outlets subsequently began portraying Abu Shabab as the leader of a local anti-Hamas movement. One high-profile example was a July 2024 Wall Street Journal op-ed attributed to him, despite reports that he did not speak English and had limited literacy in Arabic.

Videos verified by international media showed his men accompanying Israeli soldiers in areas that were militarily occupied by Israel.

Inside Gaza, resentment toward Abu Shabab was significant. Residents and clan representatives accused him of exploiting the humanitarian crisis, collaborating with an army responsible for mass civilian casualties, and strengthening Israel’s control over key areas in Rafah. His own family eventually issued a statement formally disowning him and condemning his collaboration with Israeli authorities.

Abu Shabab’s influence grew alongside Israel’s broader strategy of supporting local armed groups in Rafah, Khan Yunis, and northern Gaza during renewed operations in 2024 and 2025.

These groups were tasked with conducting raids, gathering intelligence, and confronting Palestinian resistance fighters in territories Israel sought to secure.

By late 2025, Abu Shabab had become a primary target for Palestinian resistance groups as well as a polarizing figure among civilians. Hamas declared that it would seek to kill him, and Israeli media reported several earlier attempts on his life.

His killing on December 4 leaves open questions about the future of other Israeli-backed militias operating in Gaza and the extent to which those networks will persist without their most prominent commander.

Palestine Chronicle

News

Analysis: Israel Seeks “Most” Out of Ceasefire

CrossFireArabia
November 5, 2025

Military-strategic expert retired Major-General Mamoun Abu Nuwar states the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip remains extremely fragile as Israel continues to control the ground, security corridors and the buffer zone east of the enclave.

Abu Nuwar told Jordan 24 the current situation on the so-called “yellow line”—with its construction, improvements, and the creation of earthen fortifications—clearly shows Israel wants to make this line a permanent reality and has no intention of withdrawing from east of Gaza and will continue to carry out airstrikes and artillery shelling under the pretext of “thwarting imminent terrorist attacks.”

He added Israel seeks to establish a new reality on the ground and reinforce its security presence in the eastern areas, while simultaneously continuing to bombard the western areas of the Strip. This, he clarified, threatens the continuation of the truce and reduces it to a mere shadow.

Retired Major-General Mamoun Abu Nuwar

Regarding the formation of an international stabilization force in Gaza, Abu Nuwar explained it would be “a key element in the transitional phase,” but its success hinges on several crucial factors, notably a clear UN and Security Council.

He pointed out that any international force wouldn’t succeed without first of all coordinating it with and agreement of Hamas. He said without this, such a force would be seen as an occupation force exposing it to armed confrontation with the other resistance factions.

He stressed such force must have specific and clear tasks limited to maintaining security and assisting in the reconstruction of Gaza, along with establishing rules of engagement and a unified command structure to prevent a slide into open conflict.

Abu Nuwar indicated disarming Hamas is going to be one of the most “significant obstacles” to a settlement, as Israel insists on making it a precondition for any reconstruction or withdrawal. This is while Hamas states it would only disarm if a just political settlement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state is reached.

He added Hamas agreed in principle to the formation of a technocratic administrative committee to take over the administration of Gaza and to allow the deployment of a new Palestinian force currently being trained in Jordan and Egypt, as part of an international plan to manage the next phase. However, Israel rejects the presence of Turkish forces in any potential mission and prefers the participation of countries such as Azerbaijan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Abu Nuwar believes Israel will not withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip and will seek to maintain its security and military control over the border crossings and areas. He pointed out the continuation of this situation could lead to new waves of displacement of Palestinians, given the catastrophic humanitarian conditions in the south, particularly in Rafah and Khan Younis.

He indicated any attempts to rebuild or develop new areas in Rafah will fail unless the siege is lifted and full Palestinian control is restored. He noted the continued ambiguity surrounding the “yellow line” drawn by Israel east of the Gaza Strip suggests there is an attempt to impose a new geographical and political division in the enclave

Abu Nuwar concluded by saying that the road to a political solution or a comprehensive peaceful settlement is still long and arduous, especially with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lack of interest in the political process due to his internal electoral calculations. He stressed that the continuation of the current situation will make the ceasefire merely a cover for a new occupation reality, and will open the door to repeated clashes and numerous difficulties in implementing any peace plan or genuine reconstruction.