‘This is How Israel is Moving The US Along’

By Jamal Kanj

Netanyahu’s manipulation of the ceasefire agreement and US complicity in extending phase one reveal Israel’s ongoing strategy to delay peace and continue its genocidal actions against Palestinians.

The three-phase ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Resistance, while offering a fleeting glimmer of hope for ending Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, was never likely to succeed. Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to break the ceasefire by blocking food and medical aid from entering Gaza—furthering war-crime starvation—was not a matter of “if” but “when.”

The ceasefire agreement was carefully designed to be implemented in three distinct phases, each to be implemented sequentially, with the oversight and verbal guarantees from the three key mediators: the United States, Qatar, and Egypt.

The integrity of the agreement hinges on the mediators’ ability to ensure that all parties remain fully committed to honoring its terms. Otherwise, what credibility would the mediators’ signatures or the mediation process hold if Netanyahu could simply demand to renegotiate an agreement that took at least 8 months to finalize?

Netanyahu is leading negotiations on two conflicting fronts: one with the Resistance to exchange Israeli captives for Palestinian hostages held in Israeli dungeons, and second with the racist warmonger’s wing in his government.

In preparation to break the agreement, and to placate his warmonger ministers, Netanyahu changed the negotiating team for phase two by replacing the heads of Mossad and Shaback with his alter ego, Ron Dermer, minister of strategic affairs. Dermer, who during a war cabinet meeting in mid-October 2023, told US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, “There won’t be a humanitarian crises [sic] in Gaza if no civilians are there.”

Talks for the second phase were scheduled to start the first week of February, but Israel did not show up at the negotiation table. In a desperate bid to buy time and secure American support, Netanyahu dispatched Dermer to Washington over a week ago. His mission: to sell the idea of renegotiating the current agreement and extend the first phase.

This tactic is emblematic of Netanyahu’s broader strategy— exploiting diplomatic engagements to maintain the status quo, buying time and maximizing the number of released Israeli captives by extending phase one before finishing his genocide war and ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

The timing is no coincidence. With growing international scrutiny mounting over Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, Netanyahu is investing in Washington’s habitual deference to Israeli demands. By stalling negotiations, Netanyahu hopes to delay difficult political reckonings required in phase two, mainly ending the Israeli blockade and aggression on Gaza.

The Trump administration complied with Netanyahu’s request, pledging to dispatch its Middle East special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to renegotiate the current ceasefire agreement and floating an Israeli demand to extend phase one for an additional 50 days. Trump’s decision to heed the Israeli prime minister’s  request so swiftly only serves to validate Netanyahu’s view of the US when he was caught on tape back in 2001 saying that “America is a thing you can move very easily.”

By acquiescing to Netanyahu’s maneuvering, Trump not only reinforced this perception but also risked undermining his own standing as a world leader. The pattern of deference to Israeli interests continues to resonate as a stark reflection of the bizarre dynamics in US-Israel relations, where America’s Middle East foreign policy is exclusively franchised to Israel and its Washington Jewish lobby.

Netanyahu’s latest scheme is a reminder that as long as Washington remains willing to be “moved” at Israel’s convenience, meaningful progress toward peace will remain unattainable. Rather than acting as an impartial mediator, the US continues to function as a complicit enabler, reinforcing the very power imbalances that perpetuate Israeli depravity and Palestinian adversity.

In endorsing Netanyahu’s demand to renegotiate the existing agreement rather than negotiating an end of war in phase two, the Trump administration is effectively empowering Netanyahu’s prevarications. This allows Israel to prolong Palestinians’ suffering while appearing to engage in negotiations. In reality, the extension serves as a tool for Netanyahu to consolidate his power amid domestic political turmoil, neutralize international pressure, and further cement Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies.

By backing Netanyahu’s decision to halt humanitarian aid to Gaza—Trump, much like his predecessor—kowtows to Netanyahu’s wishes. America’s willingness to leverage its global influence in service of Israel is a major factor in the increasingly rigid Israeli position, enabling a racist Jewish government more invested in maintaining the status quo than in seeking genuine peace. Israeli intransigence is not merely an oversight—it is a deliberate policy intended to maintain Palestinian dispossession, statelessness, and subjugation.

Israel has also violated the ceasefire agreement with Lebanon by failing to fully withdraw from Lebanese territory within the 60-day timeframe stipulated under the American and French-mediated agreement. Additionally, it has breached the decades-old ceasefire treaty with Syria, launching countless air raids and occupying the buffer zone and army positions along the border.

Israel’s willingness to violate every agreement it signs is not a failure of diplomacy—it is a direct result of enabling a war criminal who has shown time and again that his only path forward is through bloodshed. If the international community truly seeks an end to this genocide, it must stop treating Netanyahu as a legitimate partner in peace and start holding him accountable for his crimes.

By denying Palestinians their agency and as long as Washington remains beholden to an Israel-centric foreign policy—shaped by doomsday messianic Christians and the Jewish lobby—Tel Aviv will continue to perpetuate repression, sustain aggression, and ensure the failure of phase two.

– Jamal Kanj is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America, and other books. He writes frequently on Arab world issues for various national and international commentaries. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle

Continue reading
Saudi Arabia Plays Host to Superpower Politics

By Maksym Skrypchenko 

Diplomatic efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine War are once again in the spotlight, as US and Russian officials meet in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. In a sharp contrast to the previous administration’s strictly defined red-line policy, representatives from the newly formed US President Donald Trump-aligned diplomatic team—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff—are set to engage with their Russian counterparts in discussions that many fear may sideline Ukraine’s own interests.

The stakes in this conflict extend far beyond territorial disputes. For Ukraine, the war is an existential struggle against an enemy with centuries of imperial ambition. Every defensive maneuver is a stand for sovereignty and self-determination. Yet recent diplomatic moves suggest that Ukraine’s central role in negotiations may be diminished. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s absence from the Saudi meeting underscores the deep-seated concern in Kyiv that their security concerns might be marginalized in a process dominated by transactional interests.

https://twitter.com/canon75gaz81/status/1891836717696450562

Under the previous administration, Washington’s policy was driven by a clear set of red lines designed to deter any actions that could provoke a nuclear-armed adversary. That approach was predicated on a belief that excessive support for Ukraine might lead to a dangerous escalation. However, the new strategy, as signaled by Trump’s team, appears less encumbered by these constraints. Instead, the focus seems to have shifted toward a pragmatic resolution—a process that prioritizes ending the war at the expense of Ukraine’s moral imperatives underpinning their fight for survival. This shift represents not only a departure in tone but also in substance. While the previous policy imposed strict limitations to avoid provoking Moscow, the current approach appears more willing to concede Ukraine’s positions if it serves the broader goal of ending the fighting.

Trump’s affiliation with Saudis


The decision to hold talks in Saudi Arabia is far from arbitrary. The Saudi Kingdom provides a neutral venue and a longstanding trusted mediator especially for figures like Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump, whose longstanding business and diplomatic ties in the region are well known. This credibility is further reinforced by Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement of a $600 billion package with the US, comprising investments and procurement agreements from both public and private sectors.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s position outside NATO shields it from the obligations that compel Western allies to enforce international legal mandates, including the ICC arrest warrants issued against top Russian officials, notably Putin. In such an environment, Saudi Arabia offers a secure venue for direct negotiations with Moscow, free from the pressures of external legal mandates.

Meanwhile, high-ranking European officials express growing concern over their exclusion from the process. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even suggested the possibility of deploying British troops to enforce any resulting peace deal, a move that underscores the importance European leaders give to Ukraine’s future. The concerns are not merely about the cessation of hostilities, but about the long-term security guarantees that Ukraine desperately needs. European officials argue that a peace process that excludes Kyiv from the initial stages could lead to an agreement lacking the robust assurances necessary to prevent future Russian aggression.

Russian approach

Russia, for its part, is approaching the negotiations with its signature long-game strategy. Recent reports suggest that Kremlin officials are assembling a team of seasoned negotiators well-versed in securing maximum advantage. Their method is well known—ask for a shopping mall when all they need is a cup of coffee. Just one day before the talks, Russian diplomats are already staging a narrative of victory, asserting that the EU and the UK are entirely non-negotiable parties to any future agreements on Ukraine. According to the Russian representative at the UN, Ukraine has irretrievably lost key territories, and any new arrangement should force Kyiv into accepting a demilitarized, neutral state determined by future elections. This approach is designed to create the illusion of strength while ultimately settling for concessions that heavily favor Russian interests.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the principle that “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is more than just a slogan—it is a critical security principle. Ukrainian leaders are rightfully wary of any agreement negotiated without their active participation. With the current US strategy favoring swift and transactional outcomes rather than comprehensive negotiations, there is a real danger that Kyiv’s position could be compromised. The absence of Ukraine from these early discussions may result in a peace agreement that fails to address the existential risks the nation faces. Without strong security guarantees built into any deal, Ukraine remains vulnerable to renewed incursions and a potential destabilization of the entire region.

In this evolving diplomatic landscape, the contrast between the old and new approaches is stark. The previous risk-averse strategy sought to maintain clear boundaries to prevent escalation, whereas the current approach appears more willing to blur those lines in the hope of bringing an end to the bloodshed. Yet by doing so, there is an inherent risk: the very nation fighting for its survival might be reduced to a bargaining chip in a broader geopolitical deal.

It is imperative that Ukraine’s interests remain at the forefront of any negotiations. The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict—it is a struggle that speaks to the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Any peace settlement that fails to incorporate Ukraine’s security concerns is likely to be unstable at best, and catastrophic at worst.

Maksym Skrypchenko is the president of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center

Continue reading
US Officials Downplay Trump’s Gaza Proposal as Unvetted Ideas

US President Donald Trump’s abrupt announcement proposing that the US take “ownership” of the Gaza Strip – battered by a 15-month Israeli offensive – has left senior officials, foreign counterparts, and political observers perplexed, press reports said on Wednesday.

While Trump presented the idea as a formal initiative, advisors and insiders described it as underdeveloped and lacking the necessary planning to make it a viable policy, according to The New York Times. During his first term, Trump was also known for presenting unvetted ideas as policy, leaving his aides scrambling to justify what the president unexpectedly said.

During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump read his proposal from a prepared statement, but sources within the administration said the plan had not been discussed in any formal capacity.

“There had been no meetings, no interagency consultations, no feasibility studies – nothing,” one senior official familiar with the matter was quoted by The New York Times as saying.

Idea without foundation

The lack of preparation behind the announcement was obvious, according to the Times.

Officials from the Pentagon and State Department – critical stakeholders in any foreign policy initiative of this magnitude – were not consulted.

There were no assessments of the military or financial requirements needed to implement such a plan, nor any evaluations of its legal or diplomatic implications.

The announcement also caught Netanyahu off guard.

According to individuals briefed on the matter, Trump told the Israeli leader of the proposal just minutes before their public appearance.

While Netanyahu appeared pleased during the press conference, the broader international response has been far cooler, and even hostile.

The announcement was met with immediate opposition from key US allies in the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia.

Critics highlighted several glaring questions left unanswered by Trump’s proposal.

These include the logistics of removing Palestinian group Hamas, clearing unexploded ordnance, rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure, and justifying such an action under international law.

There are also concerns about the fate of the some 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza, their home.

Trump suggested that residents could be relocated temporarily to neighboring countries such as Jordan or Egypt, but both nations have already rejected the proposal.

In his remarks, Trump claimed Palestinians would be eager to leave Gaza due to its uninhabitable conditions, a statement that drew further criticism for its tone and feasibility.

Trump is known for vaguely citing people said to hold certain opinions to justify a course of action he has decided upon.

Contradictions, mixed messaging

In a bid to clarify the president’s remarks, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt downplayed the scope of the proposal, stating that Trump was merely seeking temporary solutions involving regional partners.

However, Trump’s comments during the announcement, including his willingness to put “boots on the ground” (soldiers) if necessary, signaled a far more ambitious and interventionist approach, according to The New York Times.

Senior administration officials have struggled to defend the proposal.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, speaking on CBS News, described the plan as a collection of “concepts” rather than a fully formed policy.

“The fact that nobody has a realistic solution, and he puts some very bold, fresh new ideas out on the table, I don’t think should be criticized in any way,” Waltz said.

He added that Trump’s announcement could spur other nations in the region to develop their own solutions if they find his proposal not to their liking.

Critics raise alarms

Many experts and former officials have dismissed the idea as implausible and dangerous.

Daniel B. Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel, described the proposal as “not serious” and warned it could worsen tensions in an already volatile region.

“The danger is that extremists within the Israeli government and terrorists of various stripes will take it literally and seriously, and start to act on it,” Shapiro said.

He also cautioned that the plan could jeopardize the ongoing release of hostages under the current ceasefire deal and undermine efforts toward normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Senior officials within the administration privately expressed similar reservations, calling the proposal a “fantastical event” born out of Trump’s ad hoc approach to foreign policy.

One advisor suggested that the plan would likely fade away as its practical challenges grow more and more apparent.

Trump’s approach to Gaza is consistent with his broader foreign policy style, which often frames international relations as transactional deals.

During his presidency, he has proposed similar ideas, including purchasing or otherwise acquiring Greenland, reclaiming the Panama Canal, and treating Canada as a potential 51st state.

His critics argue that such proposals lack serious consideration of geopolitical realities and international norms.

Trump’s vision for Gaza reflects his background as a real estate developer, viewing the region’s challenges as opportunities for reconstruction and investment.

His Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, also comes from a real estate background and reportedly influenced Trump’s thinking after visiting Gaza and witnessing the dire conditions in the war-battered enclave firsthand.

But David Friedman, who served as Trump’s ambassador to Israel, praised the proposal as “out of the box” thinking.

“It’s brilliant and creative,” Friedman said, while acknowledging the immense challenges involved.

“After 15 years of rebuilding, it could be a market-driven process,” he added, referencing Gaza’s potential as a waterfront destination according to Anadolu.

Broader implications, future steps

Despite the skepticism surrounding the plan, Trump’s announcement has already sparked debate among policymakers and international observers.

Supporters argue that it could serve as a catalyst for alternative solutions to the Gaza crisis, while critics warn of the risks associated with floating such half-baked idea.

The proposal’s timing also raises questions, given Trump’s ongoing efforts to reshape US foreign policy.

His administration has faced criticism for reducing the role of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other agencies responsible for humanitarian and development assistance.

Observers pointed to contradictions between his stated goals and his administration’s actions.

As the discussion around Gaza evolves, the lack of detailed planning behind Trump’s proposal underscores the challenges of addressing one of the world’s most complex conflicts.

Whether the idea gains traction or fades away quietly, its announcement highlights the unpredictable nature of Trump’s presidency and its impact on global diplomacy.

Proposal

At a news conference on Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said the US “will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too,” and that if necessary, US troops would be sent in to turn it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

​The controversial announcement sparked global outrage, with many Arab, European, and African countries, as well as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, issuing statements condemning the proposal.

Trump first triggered an uproar last week by suggesting that Palestinians in Gaza should be relocated to Jordan and Egypt, calling the enclave a “demolition site” after Israel’s 15-month war that has claimed more than 47,500 lives. A ceasefire that took hold on Jan. 19 is currently in place.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants in November for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.

Continue reading
Amos Harel: Israel Didn’t Defeat Hamas

Israeli military analyst Amos Harel has dismissed a “total victory” for Tel Aviv in the Gaza war, arguing that such assertions, promoted by supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are contrary to the ground reality.

Harel, a military affairs analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in his write-up published on Friday, stated, “One has to be a blind follower who has shed all vestiges of doubt and criticism to believe that Israel actually defeated Hamas.”

“The organization sustained a tremendous military blow, but it certainly did not surrender,” he noted, adding that “that’s not consistent with Netanyahu’s declarations about the war’s goals, or with his promises in its course.”


US mediation efforts

Harel also touched on the role of the US in the region, highlighting that the administration of President Donald Trump is pushing for the full implementation of a multi-phase ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement between Israel and Hamas. This contrasts with Netanyahu’s preference to focus solely on the initial phase.

The ceasefire, which began on Jan. 19, is set to last for 42 days in its first stage, with negotiations ongoing for subsequent phases under the mediation of Egypt, Qatar, and the US.

According to Harel, “The visit to the region by Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s special Mideast Envoy, attested to the mood of the administration.

“Washington views the first phase of the deal as a necessary point of transition to the second phase, which in itself is preparation for the bigger deal.

“Washington views the first phase of the deal as a necessary point of transition to the second phase, which in itself is preparation for the bigger deal: huge US-Saudi contracts accompanied by normalization between Riyadh and Jerusalem.”

He added that “Witkoff was here to ensure that Israel continues on the track laid out by Trump,” with key details expected to be discussed next week in a meeting between Trump and Netanyahu in Washington. This meeting, Harel suggested, holds significant weight as reported in Anadolu.


Challenges to Gaza deportation plans

Harel also addressed Trump’s controversial suggestion of relocating Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries, highlighting the practical difficulties in implementing such a proposal.

The idea is partly aimed at maintaining Netanyahu’s coalition with the far right. However, he noted that the chances of executing such a plan are slim.

“Washington’s bargaining power in the Middle East on emigration doesn’t resemble what it’s capable of achieving with its neighbors in Latin America,” said the analyst.

“Trump appears to be looking at Gaza like the real estate entrepreneur he used to be. To resettle the destroyed area, an evacuation-construction project is needed,” he explained.

Harel pointed out that while these proposals align with the long-standing aspirations of Israel’s right-wing to remove Palestinians from the equation, they are likely to face strong resistance.

“Such schemes will inevitably encounter Palestinian opposition, backed by Arab states. At this moment, it is difficult to imagine any Arab leader endorsing Trump’s relocation plan for Gaza,” he concluded.

On Jan. 25, Trump publicly proposed relocating Gaza’s Palestinian population to nearby countries like Egypt and Jordan. His suggestion has been widely rejected by several countries, including Jordan, Iraq, France, Germany, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the UN.

Continue reading