Latest Analysis and Commentary
by Khaled Abu Toameh • November 20, 2025 at 5:00 am
Hamas claims it agreed only to the first phase of Trump's plan, which calls for an end to the war and the release of all the hostages – alive and deceased – within 72 hours. That was on October 9, 2025; by now, weeks have passed. The only reason the terror groups agreed to the first phase of Trump's plan was so that the war would end and they could maintain their rule over the Gaza Strip. The main reason the terror groups oppose the presence of international forces or an international governing body inside the Gaza Strip is evidently that they fear this coalition would obstruct their plan to pursue Jihad (holy war) against Israel. For them, the October 7 massacre was just another phase in their Jihad to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamist state. The only plan the Palestinian terror groups apparently will accept is one that legitimizes their Jihad and allows them to rearm, regroup and prepare for another October 7-style attack on Israel. To that end, just this year, Iran, despite sanctions, has already managed to smuggle $1 billion to Hamas. The last part of the PIJ statement is actually a direct threat to launch terror attacks against members of the proposed International Stabilization Force in the Gaza Strip. That is why, even if the international troops sent to the Gaza Strip are granted a clear mandate to use force to disarm the terror groups and dismantle their military infrastructure, not one of them will use it. No one, after all, wants to get shot at, especially when, as the world has seen for years with UN forces in Lebanon, it is so much easier to look the other way, or even be rewarded for helping a terror group reconstruct its power. Even with such a mandate, Hamas and its captive subjects in the Gaza Strip will steadfastly continue to serve as one of the largest bases for Iranian-backed Islamist terrorists in the Middle East.
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and other Palestinian terror groups have rejected UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which welcomes the establishment of a "Board of Peace" and a temporary "International Stabilization Force" in the Gaza Strip. A PIJ statement actually included a direct threat to launch terror attacks against the proposed International Stabilization Force. Pictured: Hamas terrorists stand next to an International Red Cross (ICRC) vehicle in Gaza City on November 2, 2025. (Photo by Omar Al-Qataa/AFP via Getty Images)
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and other Palestinian terror groups have rejected US-backed United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on November 17, which welcomes the establishment of a "Board of Peace" and a temporary "International Stabilization Force" in the Gaza Strip. The resolution is based on US President Donald J. Trump's 20-point peace plan for ending the war in the Gaza Strip, which erupted in response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led invasion of Israel. On that day, Hamas terrorists and their supporters murdered 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, and wounded thousands more. Another 251 were kidnapped to the Gaza Strip, where the remains of three hostages – two Israelis and a Thai – are still being held. Hamas claims it agreed only to the first phase of Trump's plan, which calls for an end to the war and the release of all the hostages – alive and deceased – within 72 hours. That was on October 9, 2025; by now, weeks have passed.
Continue Reading Article
by Pierre Rehov • November 19, 2025 at 5:00 am
This new statecraft, begun by [US President Ronald] Reagan, was neither isolationist nor utopian. It was positive and pragmatic, based on whatever might work, rather than confined by ideological strictures. Its successes—such as revitalized growth, a revived military and renewed national morale — have given the US a strategic steadiness. Both political parties, once fluent in kitchen‑table economics and national pride, often sounded like seminars rather than positive results, for instance, a functional education for its citizens or "affordable healthcare" that was actually affordable. Into this vacuum came a businessman, speaking a language voters understood: borders, jobs, sovereignty and global respect. He did not reject American leadership; he redefined it as the capacity to secure the interests of American citizens. Tariffs – which some other countries had been imposing on the US – were not "taxes" or theology; they were instruments of geopolitical persuasion other than war. Alliances were tools to strengthen America's military breadth. Diplomacy was to be measured by outcomes—defeated terrorists, deterred adversaries, reshored industries — not by applause at international conferences. On China, the government's new hard look at reality ended decades of wishful thinking that economic engagement alone would liberalize a Communist party‑state. By imposing tariffs and spotlighting technology theft, supply chain vulnerabilities, and the national security stakes of having handed over American jobs to its adversaries, he forced a reconsideration of how much malign behavior it is advisable to tolerate. Communist China, in 1990, had already declared a "peoples war" – meaning all-out war – on the US. On the Middle East, the government rediscovered deterrence making it clear -- credibly -- to enemies that the cost to them of aggression would be catastrophically high. Looking at "what works" demands that leaders match means to ends and judge policies by what they deliver. Under this lens, moral posturing is not a virtue; it is vanity. A nation that promises to save the world while failing to protect its own communities is not moral—it is at best negligent, at worst catastrophically destructive, as can be seen in much of Europe. What looks like "moral righteousness" often compounds the problem: it depends on who thinks what is "moral." Many seem to have recast foreign policy as "virtue signaling": proclamations (here, here and here), hashtags, and ambitious frameworks that unravel upon contact with reality. Multilateral consensus, as over "climate change," is confused with legitimacy, and national borders are treated as embarrassments rather than as obligations to protect one's citizens for national security. This is not compassion; again, it is vanity -- abdication cloaked as empathy. Pragmatic, unsentimental realism is not cynical: it assumes that safeguarding a nation requires enforceable borders, credible deterrence and growing paychecks. While an unsecured border may sound humane; it is often seen as an invitation for abuse. America's current call for enforcement — walls, technology, remain‑in‑Mexico, interior checks — should be judged by results: fewer deaths, less fentanyl and safer streets. Internationally, if you are no-nonsense, you choose your priorities. The United States faces simultaneous challenges from China's aggression, Russia's expansion, and Iran's terror networks. The United States cannot meet them with "slogans." It needs steady, vast defense spending; energy dominance – most urgently from developing nuclear fusion energy with which China is racing ahead, rather than US addiction to low-hanging nuclear fission energy. Some politicians, perversely, seem to obstruct their constituents from flourishing – perhaps to keep them dependent on promises always just a nose in front of them; perhaps to thwart accomplishments by another political party to prevent one's own deficiencies from being exposed. The antidote is the Constitution — checks and balances, federalism that gives power to the states, and public debate that keeps leaders tethered to positive results.
When US President Ronald Reagan revived the phrase "shining city on a hill," he did so not as a marketing flourish but as a governing ethic: the United States would deter evil by projecting confidence, prosperity and moral clarity. His message blended optimism with hard power — lower taxes and deregulation to spur growth, rebuilding the military to restore deterrence, and an unapologetic defense of Western civilization. Pictured: Reagan, on February 8, 1982. (Photo by Michael Evans/The White House/Getty Images)
When US President Ronald Reagan revived the phrase "shining city on a hill," he did so not as a marketing flourish but as a governing ethic: the United States would deter evil by projecting confidence, prosperity and moral clarity. His message blended optimism with hard power — lower taxes and deregulation to spur growth, rebuilding the military to restore deterrence, and an unapologetic defense of Western civilization. The mix resonated because it tied virtue to results: fewer hostages, a stronger dollar, and an adversary in Moscow forced onto its back foot. This fusion of ideals and outcomes gave the GOP a compass that pointed true north.
Continue Reading Article
by Grégoire Canlorbe • November 18, 2025 at 5:00 am
In the Middle East, the attempts at "crimes against humanity," for more than 70 years, have been targeted at Jews. Defending oneself by responding after a major massacre is not a genocide. If you do not want your people killed, do not attack your neighbor. The October 7, 2023 massacre, if Lebanon and Iran had joined in, was probably intended as a genocide. Israel has found itself swarmed for the past two years on seven fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran. That looks more like a genocide. As for Gaza, there is no genocide: there is no intention from Israel to exterminate the Palestinians, even though there are, obviously, civilian casualties. What is targeted is the destruction of a terrorist group, Hamas, and its fighters. [T]here exists, in a part of Islam, a fierce hostility towards the West. When Muslims become the majority in a society, it undergoes profound transformation. Other citizens — Christians, secularists, or others — then become, in a way, second-class tolerated citizens, dhimmis. What the terrorists did to Israel on October 7, 2023, is just part of what radical Islam would seemingly like to extend to the West. They do not have the means to do so at the moment, but if they had, I am convinced they would act accordingly. In this regard, we are extremely naïve to think that this will not happen. For Europe, this prospect remains distant, but demographic upheavals could accelerate the threat. [T]he crux of the problem lies in the idea of submission — Islam means "submission" to Allah and His Word, as stated in the Quran and the Hadiths. From there, the sacred text is no longer up for discussion. Whatever one may say, this text is quite harsh: the will to convert the entire world to Islam, apostasy punishable by death, Jews and Christians presented as dhimmis, "tolerated," second-class citizens, or as people to be fined or converted. [A] majority of Muslims can always say: "it's written in the Quran" — meaning said by the Almighty, like the Ten Commandments in the Bible — and consider that any other reading must therefore be erroneous... Apostasy is central and regarded as punishable by death. The European left regrets the "good old days" of the Labor Party — Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, etc. — which coincided with the dominance of social democracy both in Europe and in Israel. It was this group that brought Israel the Oslo Accords, which only succeeded in legitimizing the Palestinian Authority and its ongoing "pay-for-slay" terrorism.... It seems these circles have never accepted that the Israeli majority has turned away from the "peace now" narrative put forth by Rabin and Peres, or that it has rejected the idea of a Palestinian state, although since the attacks of October 7, 2023, the idea of a Palestinian state next to Israel appears over for everyone. Netanyahu... is, objectively, a major statesman. He... led the country in a simultaneous confrontation with several actors—Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, the Houthis from Yemen, Hamas.... Netanyahu's track record at the helm of Israel remains positive and remarkable. What is fundamentally reproached about Netanyahu is having tolerated Qatar's financing of Hamas — those planes filled with cash, transiting through Israel, ended up in the pockets of the movement. Netanyahu made a misjudgment — he is not the only one—in thinking that at some point Hamas would choose peace, the development of Gaza, and renounce the war against Israel.... it was a bet that turned out to be lost. It was a mistake because Hamas used that money to prepare and wage war. But no one really protested, certainly not even the EU, which was aware that Hamas received funds from Qatar. Gaza could resemble Tel Aviv.... But Hamas chose war and the misery of the Palestinian people, fully knowing that Israel would retaliate. [A]fter 77 years, [the Palestinians] are no longer refugees; it is the UN that perpetuates this myth. So I do not blame Netanyahu at all for October 7. The major failure was that of Israeli intelligence — reputed to be excellent — which saw nothing coming. The problem is having mistakenly believed, in hindsight, that Hamas could be appeased. This obviously does not make Netanyahu responsible for the attacks of October 7. That accusation is absurd. I spent a total of twelve years at Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in various roles, and I am sad at what MSF has become. In Gaza, MSF is working with a totalitarian organization. Hamas controls Gaza. Working in Gaza means working with — and under the control of — Hamas. Therefore, in my view, Doctors Without Borders has become complicit with Hamas throughout the war and should have withdrawn, stating: "We do not operate alongside a totalitarian movement and regime." [Doctors Without Borders-MSF] cover for everything Hamas does. The organization not only condones the diversion of humanitarian aid but also the conduct of the war. All Doctors Without Borders' posts on X, regarding the conflict, targets Israel, I have not seen one clear call for the release of hostages. However, the release of the hostages was key to ending the conflict: the war would have stopped much earlier if Hamas had agreed to release them. Doctors Without Borders did not ask for this because the organization operates under Hamas's control: calling for the release of hostages would have risked confronting them. Among the "new Asian tigers" (excluding Australia and New Zealand), Taiwan possesses the most advanced democracy: a free press, regular elections, and, since 2000, political alternation.... Taiwan actually ranks alongside European countries in democratic assessments. Supporting Taiwan and its 23 million inhabitants is therefore a geopolitical, strategic, and democratic imperative. [A]ccess to Belgian nationality was particularly easy: three years of residence — two for refugees — with few requirements for linguistic, cultural, or economic integration. All of this has produced a spectacular demographic transformation of the country... Today, statistics show that our capital is one of the three most crime-ridden cities in Europe. Belgium — although primarily Brussels — serves as a laboratory for what Europe might face tomorrow: drug trafficking, insecurity, a weakened state, electoral clientelism, deterioration of public services, widespread dissatisfaction, housing shortages, political impotence ... In politics, I act like a doctor. I start by making a diagnosis: here, population change. Then I propose a treatment: here, measures such as drastically reducing family reunification and asylum.... In Brussels, demographic evolution is practically irreversible, especially since the Belgian middle classes continue to leave the city: this situation is only amplifying.
Pictured: Alain Destexhe pictured during a press conference in Brussels, Belgium, on February 20, 2019. (Photo by Paul-Henri Verlooy/AFP via Getty Images)
Alain Destexhe (MD), an honorary senator in Belgium, is a former secretary general of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), former president of the International Crisis Group, and former president of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank & IMF. He has written 15 books on Belgian politics and international issues, including Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. He is a regular contributor to Gatestone, Le Figaro and several media outlets in France. He also practices medicine overseas and in France. Canlorbe: As someone who studied the genocide in Rwanda, would you say that a genocide is also underway in Gaza? Destexhe: A genocide targets a particular group — ethnic, racial, or religious. We can speak of genocide in Rwanda because the extermination targeted the Tutsis as a group. Certainly, some Hutu opponents were also killed, but they were not targeted as members of a group.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • November 17, 2025 at 5:00 am
[C]ountries such as Jordan and Lebanon had extremely negative experiences with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other Palestinian armed groups who were trying to overthrow or destabilize their governments (Black September in Jordan in 1970 and the Lebanese Civil War 1975-1990). Arab leaders often make strong statements, issue condemnations of Israeli actions, and attend high-profile summits that express solidarity with the Palestinians. Their gestures, however -- apart from Iran and Qatar -- are often not matched by decisive steps... The refusal of the Arab countries to absorb Palestinians (including the ex-prisoners) is... proof why it would be a mistake to rely on the Arab countries to help rebuild and demilitarize the Gaza Strip. US President Donald J. Trump, who seems to be pinning his hopes on the Arabs to assist in funding and establishing a new government as well as deploying an international force in the Gaza Strip, needs to bear in mind that most of the Arab heads of state and regimes actually do not care about the Palestinians. By now, most Arab heads of state see Palestinians as having caused immeasurable harm wherever they have gone and as having rewarded with treachery whoever stretched out a hand to them. For the Arab leaders, the Palestinian issue is just another tool to advance their own political objectives, shore up their own popular support at home, or unite various factions against a common enemy. Most Arab leaders, in short, will continue to pretend that they are eager to help the US administration with its efforts to implement Trump's 20-point plan for peace in the Gaza Strip. In reality, the Arabs will continue to do their utmost to stay away from the Palestinians -- apart from helping them to regroup in the Gaza Strip.
US President Donald J. Trump, who seems to be pinning his hopes on the Arabs to assist in funding and establishing a new government as well as deploying an international force in the Gaza Strip, needs to bear in mind that most of the Arab heads of state and regimes actually do not care about the Palestinians. Pictured: Trump poses with leaders of Arab and Islamic countries at the Gaza Peace Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on October 13, 2025. (Photo by Yoan Valat/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Dozens of Palestinians released by Israel as part of last month's ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas have complained that "no Arab country has agreed to receive us." According to reports in Arab media outlets, 145 Palestinians who arrived in the Egyptian capital of Cairo upon their release from Israeli prison "did not find any Arab or Islamic country willing to host them." Most of the ex-prisoners were serving one or more life terms for deadly terrorist attacks on Israelis over the past few decades. Many are affiliated with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction. The Arab countries have offered no official explanation as to why they refuse to host the released prisoners.
Continue Reading Article
by Con Coughlin • November 16, 2025 at 5:00 am
[W]ith both Turkey and Qatar, two countries that support Hamas's hardline Islamist agenda, seeking to play a more prominent role in Gaza's future development, the prospect of persuading Hamas to disarm and relinquish control appears even more remote. King Abdullah II of Jordan tried to warn Trump, also at the end of October: "[W]e hope that it is peacekeeping, because if it's peace enforcing, nobody will want to touch that.... If we're running around Gaza on patrol with weapons, that's not a situation that any country would like to get involved in." Trump's radical plan to transform Gaza's political landscape -- especially his focus on disarming Hamas -- could come unstuck, though, if pro-Hamas states such as Turkey and Qatar have any involvement in the territory's future administration. Turkey's desire for Hamas to be reconciled with the PA completely contradicts a key requirement of Trump's peace plan, which demands that the terror group not only disarms, but ends its political involvement in Gaza. If implemented, any Turkish involvement in Trump's efforts to end the Gaza conflict would simply offer Hamas a lifeline, one that would enable it to maintain its terrorist agenda. The Trump administration may be tempted to believe that Turkey's involvement in the issue is crucial if a settlement in Gaza is to be reached. The administration must also understand, however, that any Turkish involvement will completely undermine Trump's stated objective of forcing the terrorist organisation to disarm if there is to be any hope of a lasting peace in the Middle East.
[W]ith both Turkey and Qatar, two countries that support Hamas's hardline Islamist agenda, seeking to play a more prominent role in Gaza's future development, the prospect of persuading Hamas to disarm and relinquish control appears even more remote. Pictured: Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (right) honors then Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at the Parliament in Ankara, Turkey on January 3, 2012. (Photo credit by Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images)
Attempts by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to play a key role in plans to form an "international security force" for Gaza pose a serious threat to US President Donald J. Trump's efforts to disarm Hamas terrorists and augur poorly for his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. A key requirement of Trump's 20-point plan to end the Gaza conflict is for Hamas to disarm and end its malign control of the Gaza Strip. Only then will negotiations begin on finding a lasting ceasefire agreement and rebuilding the enclave for an enduring peace after two years of brutal conflict. Trump has made clear his commitment to removing Hamas from Gaza even if, as is currently the case, the Islamist terror group shows no sign of complying with the terms of Trump's peace plan.
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • November 16, 2025 at 4:00 am
For a number of reasons, the BBC's standards have experienced a slow but steady deterioration for decades. It was initially created in 1972 when the Sunday Times exposed the damage that use of thalidomide tablets did to unborn babies, with facts fed to the paper by rivals of a pharmaceutical giant. Two years later came the trans-Atlantic version, when two "investigative" reporters helped topple a US president. There, too, there was no investigation but a leaking of information by President Richard Nixon's political foes. Journalists started talking of writing a "story" rather than reporting "news". Transformed into celebrities, some journalists became shallower, and the shallower they got, the more full of themselves they became. The next step was to gift-wrap arrogance as "challenging" or "adversarial" interviews that put the emphasis on the rudeness of the interviewer rather than the frankness of the interviewee. Today the BBC has hit a new low in terms of standards it advocated for decades.
For a number of reasons, the BBC's standards have experienced a slow but steady deterioration for decades. Pictured: The BBC Television Centre in London, England. (Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images)
The latest controversy over the BBC's editing of a news clip to accuse US President Donald Trump of ordering an attack on the Capitol in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021, reminded me of folkloric narrations of historic or mythological events in my childhood in Iran. The show consisted of a screen that depicted the event with the tiny figure of a narrator in one corner biting a finger in awe or admiration. The real narrator would tell the story without commenting, let alone taking sides. Did the British government have that model in mind when it created the BBC in 1922 with John Reith as director general? That model was in contrast with Chaucer's style in Canterbury Tales, a classic of English literature, in which the narrator unleashes a torrent of delightful and naughty comment.
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • November 15, 2025 at 5:00 am
From the very first day of their 1979 revolution, the Ayatollahs established a theocracy whose core mission was not just to govern, but to export its revolution across the world and impose its radical Shia Islamist doctrine on others. The Islamic Republic's constitution actually mandates exporting the revolution. Spreading its ideology beyond its borders is not an option, it is a structural principle of the state itself. The regime has never sought to win influence by persuasion or diplomacy, but through nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and global assassinations. The regime uses its nuclear weapons program and ballistic missiles as both a shield and a spear — a way to protect its power domestically and threaten its adversaries abroad. Iran's regime is already plotting its next war: 2,000 missiles pointed at Israel to swarm it all at once and overwhelm its interceptors. There needs to be an unmistakable ultimatum delivered to the regime: either it halts its nuclear program, dismantles its ballistic missile program, and ends its global assassination and terror operations — or it will soon face a new military campaign. The West cannot allow Tehran once again to buy time, deceive inspectors, and hide behind diplomatic jargon. Economic and political pressure alone will fail if not accompanied by credible enforcement. President Trump's approach of cutting off all financial lifelines, including secondary sanctions, to the regime remains one of the most effective strategies. The Chinese Communist Party must be held accountable for purchasing Iranian oil: they are directly violating international sanctions and empowering the regime to finance its military and nuclear projects. Europe must also stop treating the regime as a legitimate diplomatic partner. Iranian consulates and embassies across European capitals have often been used as centers for intelligence gathering and operational planning. Many of the regime's terror plots have been conceived or coordinated from within these diplomatic compounds. The European Union should immediately close Iranian consulates and expel their staff. The West cannot afford to fall asleep while Tehran quietly prepares for the next great war. The stakes are higher than ever — for Israel, for Europe, for the United States, and for every nation that values stability and peace.
Since its inception, the current Iranian regime has not been built on peace, but on the sword. The revolutionary slogans of the regime are not about coexistence or mutual respect; they are about domination, erasing enemies, and building an empire under the flag of the Supreme Leader. The regime has never sought to win influence by persuasion or diplomacy, but through nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and global assassinations. Pictured: Iran's Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei gives a speech on November 1, 2023, televised on Iran's Channel 1. (Image source: MEMRI)
Since its inception, the current Iranian regime has not been built on peace, but on the sword. From the very first day of their 1979 revolution, the Ayatollahs established a theocracy whose core mission was not just to govern, but to export its revolution across the world and impose its radical Shia Islamist doctrine on others. The regime's founding ideology is built on conquering people and lands through terror, deception and force. The revolutionary slogans of the regime are not about coexistence or mutual respect; they are about domination, erasing enemies, and building an empire under the flag of the Supreme Leader. The Islamic Republic of Iran's constitution actually mandates exporting the revolution. Spreading its ideology beyond its borders is not an option, it is a structural principle of the state itself. The regime has never sought to win influence by persuasion or diplomacy, but through nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and global assassinations.
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence Kadish • November 14, 2025 at 5:00 am
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has turned to America's defense industry and told them -- in no uncertain terms -- that they should consider production to be on a wartime footing. Pictured: Hegseth delivers remarks as part of the Marine Corps' 250th anniversary celebration at Camp Pendleton, California, on October 18, 2025. (Photo by Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth knows something the rest of us should embrace. For the last five years, Communist China's military spending has grown consistently. Published reports suggest annual budget increases of 6.8-7.2%, rising from approximately $209 billion in 2021 to $246 billion in 2025. And that is only what is reported. The real numbers are undoubtedly much higher. In response, Hegseth has turned to America's defense industry and told them -- in no uncertain terms -- that they should consider production to be on a wartime footing. It is recognition that our nation's ability to design and field new weapons systems usually takes years, sometimes decades. If deterrence is to play a role in keeping China's pistol in its holster, we do not have the luxury of time.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • November 13, 2025 at 5:30 am
According to these [Hamas] officials, Hamas only agreed to the first phase of the Trump plan, which calls for Israel to suspend military operations and release Palestinian prisoners, and for Hamas to return all Israeli hostages, dead and alive, within 72 hours. It has been weeks, and Hamas has not yet fulfilled that phase-one obligation. What about the part in the Trump plan that talks about the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip and the deployment of an "International Stabilization Force" as a "long-term security solution?" Hamas insists that these issues are "up for negotiation" but that it never agreed to demilitarization or the presence of international experts and security forces in the Gaza Strip. Hamas official Osama Hamdan affirmed on November 10 that his group did not accept all the 20 points of Trump's plan. By November 12, the terror group had not yet returned the remains of four hostages, although Israel suspended its military activities and released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. By stating that it needs to launch "negotiations and discussions" about the implementation of the rest of Trump's plan, Hamas is clearly seeking to win as much time as ever to enable it to maintain a grip on the Gaza Strip. As far as Hamas is concerned, the longer the negotiations continue, the better. The Hamas official dismissed outright the deployment of international forces in the Gaza Strip. Hamdan also repeated Hamas's refusal to lay down its weapons in accordance with the Trump plan. The weapons of the Palestinian terror groups, he emphasized, will be handed only to the government of a future Palestinian state after its establishment: "When there's a Palestinian state capable of protecting its people, it's natural that the weapons would be handed over to that state. Until then, resistance is a right that we cannot give up. This issue has not been discussed until now with the mediators or with the Americans." This statement by the Hamas official contradicts what Witkoff recently said: "Hamas has always indicated they would disarm. They've said so – they said it to us directly during that famous meeting that Jared [Kushner] had with them." It is crucial to pay attention to what Hamas leaders are telling their people in Arabic.... For Hamas, the Trump plan is nothing but a temporary ceasefire that would enable it to wait out the Trump administration, get back on its feet to rule Gaza again, and resume its Jihad (holy war) to destroy Israel.
Hamas official Osama Hamdan affirmed on November 10 that his group did not accept all the 20 points of Trump's plan. In a podcast interview, Hamdan said that Hamas had accepted only the first phase of Trump's plan, which calls for Israel to suspend military operations and release Palestinian prisoners, and for Hamas to return all Israeli hostages, dead and alive, within 72 hours. It has been weeks, and Hamas has not yet fulfilled that phase-one obligation. Pictured: Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan on the podcast, on November 10, 2025. (Image source: MEMRI)
Did Hamas lie to US President Donald J. Trump when it said that it had accepted his 20-point plan for ending its war against Israel in the Gaza Strip? Or is the terror group simply trying to buy time to reassert control over the Gaza Strip and prepare for more terror attacks against Israel? Yes and yes. Hamas lied. Hamas is trying to gain time by arguing that it needs to engage in negotiations and discussions about the implementation of most parts of the Trump plan. Since the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip went into effect in early October, Hamas officials have repeatedly emphasized that they did not accept all the points mentioned in the Trump plan.
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence A. Franklin • November 12, 2025 at 5:00 am
US President Donald J. Trump announced the latest addition to his remarkable Abraham Accords last week: China's and Russia's neighbor, Kazakhstan. One hopes that at some point, Azerbaijan, too, might join the Abraham Accords. Although Azerbaijan has enjoyed close relations with Turkey, relations between Turkey and Israel have now reached an all-time low. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – after accusing Israel of genocide and crimes against humanity, and issuing arrest warrants for 37 Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- reportedly took Trump's assurance of a Turkish role in the future of Gaza, without consulting Israel, as a green light to assemble 2,000 special forces troops to occupy Gaza. What could possibly go wrong? Erdogan is also trying to buy F-35 jets – to use for what? -- from the US, which always appears delighted to make a sale. If Trump has any interest in peace in the Middle East, this is one sale he must unquestionably turn down.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is trying to buy F-35 jets – to use for what? -- from the US, which always appears delighted to make a sale. If Trump has any interest in peace in the Middle East, this is one sale he must unquestionably turn down. Pictured: A Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet performs aerial maneuvers during an airshow over the Turkish-occupied northern part of Cyprus' capital Nicosia, on November 15, 2021. (Photo by Birol Bebek/AFP via Getty Images)
US President Donald J. Trump announced the latest addition to his remarkable Abraham Accords last week: China's and Russia's neighbor, Kazakhstan. Not only thanks to its oil and mineral deposits is it the largest and wealthiest country in Central Asia; its leadership is eager for closer ties with the US. Europe and the West, and the widening opportunities for growth that spring from them. Israel's friendly ties with Azerbaijan are also perhaps one of the Jewish state's most potentially advantageous bilateral relationships. Israel and Azerbaijan, which have had diplomatic relations since 1992, have thriving military and economic linkages. Israel, incongruously, is now the leading importer of Azerbaijani oil. Azerbaijan, a Muslim-majority state, celebrates Israel's existence. Azerbaijan has, moreover, refrained from condemning Israel during the war in Gaza. One hopes that at some point, Azerbaijan, too, might join the Abraham Accords.
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence A. Franklin • November 11, 2025 at 5:00 am
Both Israel and India have pledged to cooperate on future dual-use technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing and robotics, as well as space projects. India, a Hindu-majority country, is, like Israel, a democracy bordered by authoritarian states. India, like Israel, is exposed daily to internal and external threats, with the neighboring Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking India's destruction. Perhaps the most meaningful dimension of this growing alliance, apart from the benefits of the often outstanding education in both nations, is the element of shared values and trust. It is a strengthening alliance, uplifting to watch.
Israel and India have in recent years been developing increasingly amicable relations and deepening military cooperation. Their activities include co-production of weapons systems such as drones and air-defense missiles, joint defense exercises, and intelligence exchanges between their special forces. Perhaps the most meaningful dimension of this growing alliance, apart from the benefits of the often outstanding education in both nations, is the element of shared values and trust. Pictured: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a press conference in New Delhi on January 15, 2018. (Photo by Money Sharma/AFP via Getty Images)
Israel, reacting to the usual condemnations from its supposed European allies, is understandably seeking assurance that its armed forces will have, in any future military crisis, an uninterrupted supply of critical weapons, spare parts and ammunition. As some European states that were arms suppliers to Israel, such as Germany, have embargoed the delivery of weaponry, India seems to be a prime candidate to satisfy Israel's ongoing needs. India, a Hindu-majority country, is, like Israel, a democracy bordered by authoritarian states. India, like Israel, is exposed daily to internal and external threats, with the neighboring Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking India's destruction.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • November 10, 2025 at 5:00 am
This statement [by senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya that the group will "accumulate capabilities to move towards the liberation of Palestine"] contradicts recent remarks by White House Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who said that Hamas officials told him and Jared Kushner that the terror group will disarm. If Hamas had any real intention of laying down its weapons, its leaders would not be participating in a conference that has come out in public against disarming terror groups in the Middle East. If Hamas were serious about implementing the Trump plan, it would not be participating in a conference that rejects it. The ANC conference in Beirut featuring the Iran-backed "axis of resistance" is a direct challenge not only to the Trump administration but also to the Lebanese government, which has failed to carry out its decision from August 2024 to disarm Hezbollah. The statements of the leaders of the terror groups at the conference show that they, together with Iran's regime, are determined to continue their Jihad to obliterate Israel and resist attempts to confiscate their weapons. The war in the Gaza Strip may be over, but the Islamist terrorists' desire to destroy Israel remains as strong as ever.
Although Iran's terror proxies have been weakened, they are trying to rise from the ashes with the help of their patrons in Tehran. A statement by senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya, that the group will "accumulate capabilities to move towards the liberation of Palestine," contradicts recent remarks by White House Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who said that Hamas officials told him that the terror group will disarm. Pictured: Al-Hayya meets with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran on February 8, 2025. (Image source: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader)
While US President Donald J. Trump and his administration are working hard to bring peace to the Middle East and disarm terror groups in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the Iranian regime and its proxies are doing their utmost to ensure that their Jihad (holy war) to destroy Israel continues in full force. The Iranian regime is evidently (and understandably) afraid of losing its terror proxies – Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. These terror groups, whose primary goal is to eliminate Israel, have suffered severe blows over the past two years as a result of Israeli military operations targeting their leaders and military infrastructure. Although Iran's terror proxies have been weakened, they are trying to rise from the ashes with the help of their patrons in Tehran.
Continue Reading Article
by Pierre Rehov • November 9, 2025 at 5:00 am
The UNDP's own auditors uncovered more than 100 investigations into fraud, bribery, and "ghost projects." If corruption could flourish under nominal Iraqi government control, imagine the diversion potential in Gaza — where much of the terror regime remains intact. Earlier UN experiments, such as the Oil-for-Food scandal, showed how -- when oversight is weak and politics trumps accountability -- "humanitarian" programs become self-enriching rackets. For years, Hamas forces have been filmed confiscating relief shipments directly from UN trucks and warehouses. It is not chaos; it is a business model. These are not isolated abuses — they form a structural pattern in which humanitarian efforts in fact bankroll jihad. After Hamas's October 7, 2023 invasion of Israel, investigations confirmed that many UNRWA employees participated in or facilitated the Hamas attacks, leading more than 20 donor countries — including the U.S., Canada, and Germany — to suspend funding. Some countries, however, under political pressure, resumed payments months later, even as fresh evidence emerged of UNRWA staff ties to Hamas's military wing. The U.S. administration... continues to push for a "political process" aimed at reviving a desired "peace framework" partially disconnected from the region's realities. Washington may view reconstruction as a path to normalization, but for Israel — the country whose citizens were massacred and whose borders remain under threat — security comes before expediency, and survival before consent.
For years, Hamas forces have been filmed confiscating relief shipments directly from UN trucks and warehouses. It is not chaos; it is a business model. These are not isolated abuses — they form a structural pattern in which humanitarian efforts in fact bankroll jihad. Pictured: Masked members of the Hamas-controlled "People's Protection Committees" guard a humanitarian aid truck in the southern Gaza Strip on April 3, 2024. (Photo by Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images)
When the guns fall silent, Western governments rush to rebuild. The European Union, the United States, and several Arab states are now pledging tens of billions of dollars to "reconstruct" Gaza. The impulse may be humane, but the outcome could be catastrophic. Unless funds are subjected to strict, transparent and enforceable controls, they will once again be used to fertilize the same terror infrastructure responsible for Gaza's destruction. Lessons from the Rubble of Mosul In Iraq, after ISIS's defeat, the UN and Western donors launched the Funding Facility for Stabilization (FFS), pouring more than $1.5 billion into bridges, hospitals, and power grids. Within two years, the UNDP's own auditors uncovered more than 100 investigations into fraud, bribery, and "ghost projects." If corruption could flourish under nominal Iraqi government control, imagine the diversion potential in Gaza — where much of the terror regime remains intact.
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • November 9, 2025 at 4:00 am
The real test of Trump's durability will come in next year's midterm elections. Socialism might have been invented by a character in Charles Dickens's novel Oliver Twist, when the cheeky street urchin, along with other urchins being served the orphanage's soup, shouts, "More!" He doesn't care that if he gets more, someone must get less. Obama understood that. He "socialized" large chunks of the healthcare sector, almost 12 percent of GDP, while swearing he wasn't doing socialism.
Pictured: Zohran Mamdani speaks to the media in Queens, New York on November 4, 2025. (Photo by Leonardo Munoz/AFP via Getty Images)
The election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City mayor is widely hailed as a political setback for President Donald Trump across the global commentariat. European pundits describe it as a sign that populism, triumphant for the past few years, may be peaking out. At first glance, pundits may seem to have hit the bullseye. Mamdani represents anti-Trumpism in many ways. He is a Muslim, while one of Trump's first moves in his first term as president was to ban citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the US. Mamdani describes himself as a Twelver Shi'ite, which brackets him with what Trump regards as an especially challenging brand of religion. The fact that in Tehran official media has hailed Mamdani's "victory" reinforces that impression.
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • November 8, 2025 at 5:00 am
Iran's is not a normal political system that responds to diplomacy as other governments do. Iran's regime is fundamentalist -- built on a radical ideological foundation. Iran's regime defines its very existence by confrontation, expansion and violence. The Islamic Republic is not merely a government; it is a revolutionary movement wrapped in the structure of a state. Its leadership does not operate by the logic of "compromise" or "coexistence" but by the logic of domination and destruction. The Iranian regime's animating belief is that it was divinely chosen to challenge and replace the global order, to export its ideology beyond its borders, and to destroy those it considers its ultimate enemies—Israel, Jews and the United States. To expect moderation from such a regime is to misunderstand its deepest nature, its DNA. Recently, Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, revealed that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has built a vast global terror network... The network often operates through cutouts — local criminals, mercenaries and radicals — so Tehran can deny direct involvement. The strategy is insidious: to spread terror through surrogates while officially maintaining plausible deniability on the world stage. When Iranian leaders say that Israel "will not exist in 25 years," they mean it. When they boast that their missiles can reach Europe or the United States, they mean it. Iran's leadership views itself as the vanguard of a global struggle between the "pure" Shia Islamic revolution and the "corrupt" Western order. The West's mistake for four decades has been to treat this rhetoric as fanciful talk, when in fact it is a window into the regime's worldview and a roadmap for its actions. The Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons now more than ever. Facing internal unrest, economic pressure and international isolation, the regime still views nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of its survival and of its ability to dominate the region and beyond. Possessing such weapons would not only deter foreign intervention but also allow it to blackmail its neighbors to reshape the Middle East on its own terms. Unlike most nations, Iran's goal is not security through deterrence but power through fear. Its ideological mission — to export its Islamic revolution, to dominate the Middle East, and to challenge the West — would be vastly amplified by the possession of nuclear arms. Iran's regime, playing the long game, examines the psychology of its adversaries and sees that democratic societies tire quickly of conflict and prefer the illusion of peace. Iran's regime is not just an enemy of its own people — it is an enemy of freedom, modernity and humanity itself. It has survived because the world has allowed it to survive. It has exploited every pause, every negotiation and every concession. It has turned Western diplomacy into a weapon of delay and opportunity. We must increase pressure on Iran — the only language it understands — until its machinery of terror collapses. The free world has a moral and strategic duty not to let Iran's weapons of mass destruction threaten all of us again. Unlike most nations, Iran's goal is not security through deterrence but power through fear. Its ideological mission — to export its Islamic revolution, to dominate the Middle East, and to challenge the West — would be vastly amplified by the possession of nuclear arms.
Iran's is not a normal political system that responds to diplomacy as other governments do. Iran's regime is fundamentalist -- built on a radical ideological foundation. Iran's regime defines its very existence by confrontation, expansion and violence. Pictured: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prepares to award a medal to General Amir Ali Hajizadeh (L), commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in the presence of the senior IRGC leadership, in Tehran on October 6, 2024. (Image source: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader)
Please do not think that just because Iran took a few hits in June that their threat is over, or that the Iranian regime has learned its lesson or is going to change. Iran's is not a normal political system that responds to diplomacy as other governments do. Iran's regime is fundamentalist -- built on a radical ideological foundation. Iran's regime defines its very existence by confrontation, expansion and violence. The Islamic Republic is not merely a government; it is a revolutionary movement wrapped in the structure of a state. Its leadership does not operate by the logic of "compromise" or "coexistence" but by the logic of domination and destruction.
Continue Reading Article
|
