Imagine if Israel had taken a more restrained and reasonable approach to October 7. Imagine if their focus had been on rescuing the hostages and bringing the perpetrators to justice instead of reducing the Gaza Strip to rubble creating an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. Had Israel pursued that course of action instead of the one it chose; it would have garnered the empathy and support of people around the world. Instead, it obliterated an entire civilization inflicting irreversible reputational damage on itself while severely undermining its prospects for the future.
Donald Trump’s plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contained two main elements:
- Allow Israel to annex more Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank (aka—The Trump Peace Plan)
- Assist Israel in forming alliances with Arab countries in the region to prevent them from supporting the Palestinian cause. (The Abraham Accords)
The combination of these two policies convinced Hamas’s leadership that the Palestinian people faced an existential crisis that could only be averted by launching a massive attack that would force the international community to get directly involved. This is the rationale that drove the October 7 attacks.
Bottom line: Trump’s makeshift “deal of the century”—which rejected 5 decades of official US policy and ignored a myriad of UN Resolutions, was the spark that ignited the October 7 attacks. According to the Financial Times: “Trump’s Israel-Palestine ‘deal’ has always been a fraud”.
It always looked like a smokescreen to mask the burial of the two-state solution — an independent Palestinian state on the occupied West Bank, and Gaza with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital living in peace alongside Israel — and greenlight the Israeli annexation of most of the West Bank.
The liberal Jewish group J Street drew the same conclusion as the conservative Financial Times:
It’s Not a Peace Plan, It’s an Annexation Smokescreen, “If there was ever any doubt that the Trump-Netanyahu ‘peace plan’ was anything other than a smokescreen for annexation, it was disabused just moments after the plan’s glitzy White House announcement.
Get the picture? Trump’s plan was so one-sided and so offensive that not one Palestinian participated in the White House’s unveiling on January 28, 2020. The only high-powered dignitary that attended was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who lavishly praised Trump for his efforts for peace.
The plan was authored by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who regarded it as the first part of a two-pronged strategy aimed at extinguishing any prospect of a viable Palestinian state. Not surprisingly, during the inaugural press conference, “Netanyahu announced that the Israeli government would immediately annex the Jordan Valley and West Bank settlements….. U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman claimed that the Trump administration had given permission for an immediate annexation, stating that “Israel does not have to wait at all” and “we will recognize it”. Wikipedia
How can we explain Trump’s bias in this matter other than to conclude that he was simply repaying his biggest supporters for their multi-million-dollar campaign donations? Is there a more compelling explanation?
The second prong in Kushner’s strategy was the Abraham Accords which were designed to throw the Palestinians under the bus by eliminating the support of their Arab neighbors. Ostensibly, the objective of the Accords was the “normalizing of relations” between Israel and other countries in the region. That sounds harmless enough, but the real goal was to integrate Israel into the broader region via bilateral agreements without making any concessions on issues related to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. That is a break with long-standing protocol that required Israel to comply with the demands of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a precondition for normalizing relations. The Abraham Accords allowed countries to ignore those requirements.
The overall impact of this evolving two-pronged strategy was quite dramatic. The Palestinians saw more of their land lost to annexation while their Arab allies gradually succumbed to the security inducements offered by Washington. Palestinian issues were progressively swept under the rug while their people were being slow-marched to extinction. Palestinian leaders were left with no options; they had to act. As Hamas’s former prime minister Ismail Haniyeh said, ‘We must have an integrated plan to bring down normalization’. That plan was October 7.
It’s worth noting, that Joe Biden confirmed much of our analysis when he opined on October 25:
“I’m convinced one of the reasons Hamas attacked when they did… is because of the progress we were making towards regional integration for Israel and regional integration overall… ”
Biden is right; Trump’s “regional integration” plan made October 7 inevitable. This is from an article at Responsible Statecraft:
Indeed, the Biden administration remains focused on the goal of integrating Israel into the U.S.-led network of alliances and partnerships in the Middle East, just as it had been trying to do before October 7. Rather than trying to achieve a two-state solution that could bring an end to what one U.S. representative recently called “75 years of misery,” the administration is working to take advantage of the current crisis for the purpose of strengthening U.S. dominance, regardless of the consequences for the Palestinians. Don’t be fooled, push for normalization is about US dominance, Responsible Statecraft
As more people begin to understand the role that Trump played in igniting the conflagration that has engulfed Gaza and the West Bank, they will also begin to see that October 7 was not an expression of hatred towards Jews or even and attempt to coerce the Israeli government into loosening the blockade on Gaza. No. October 7 was a desperate “break-the-glass” operation aimed at exposing the vicious face of an ethno-nationalist state that will stop at nothing to expel the native population from its historic homeland. October 7 was more of a ‘cry for help’ than an act of aggression. How do we know that?
Because we heard it directly from the horse’s mouth, Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s political and military leader who released the following statement in a short video that can be found on Twitter:
🔻Sinwar warned them, they should’ve listened pic.twitter.com/q1EvKoVaqd
— Suppressed News. (@SuppressedNws) July 20, 2024
“Within a limited period of months—which I estimate will not exceed one year—we will force the occupation to face two options: Either we force it to implement international law, respect international resolutions, withdraw from the West Bank and Jerusalem, dismantle the settlements, release the prisoners, and ensure the return of refugees, achieving the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem; or we place this occupation in a state of contradiction and collision with the entire international order, isolate it in an extreme and powerful manner, and end its integration in the region and the entire world, addressing the state of collapse that has occurred on all fronts of resistance over the past years.” SuppressedNews @SuppressedNws
There it is in black and white. This is what Hamas hoped to achieve via the October 7 attacks.
Notice there is no mention of “hating Jews” or “pushing all Israeli Jews into the sea” or any of the other incendiary poppycock we typically read in the western media. This is a straightforward strategy designed to force Israel to either comply with international law or suffer the blowback.
Notice also that Sinwar explicitly agrees to “the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands occupied in 1967”, which has been Hamas’s official position since the release of The Hamas Charter in 2017. Israel opposes a Palestinian state just as it opposes UN Security Council Resolutions 242 which “was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967” and which requires the:
- Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
- Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
In short, Israel has been in violation of international law for the last 57 years. (In contrast, Hamas is on the same side as ‘official US policy’ regarding a two-state solution.)
Finally, notice that Sinwar clearly states exactly what the strategic objective of the October 7 is: To force Israel to comply with United Nations resolutions or to use Israel’s defiance of international law to drive it deeper into isolation. So, the objective is not to defeat Israel in any type of military confrontation (which would be impossible) but to goad Israel into an overreaction that reveals the true face of a vicious, apartheid state that is committed to the annihilation of the indigenous population. This is Hamas’s clearly stated objective although the media has failed to report anything about it. (It’s obvious that most people aren’t curious enough to even ask themselves ‘what Hamas hoped to achieve by launching the attack.’)
So, did Hamas succeed in achieving its objectives or not?
Yes, it did, beyond its wildest imagination.
Is Israel more isolated than ever? Is Israel routinely condemned at meetings of the UN Security Council and General Assembly? Have a number of countries announced their acceptance of Palestinian statehood? Have various countries repudiated Israel’s Gaza operation as genocide? Does Israel find itself at odds with the ICC and ICJ? Are Israeli leaders likely to face arrest warrants issued by the International Court of Justice? Does the vast majority of humanity oppose Israel’s bloody rampage in Gaza? Have Israel’s atrocities increased the probability of a regional war in which Israel’s future is far from certain? Have a half a million Israelis fled the country in fear and despair? Are vastly fewer people moving to Israel? Is the BDS movement gaining momentum? Is the Israeli economy in severe and protracted recession? Has Israel’s massacre in Gaza generated more antisemitism? Is Israel still the safest place in the world for Jews?
By every metric, Sinwar appears to have achieved his objective, particularly in respect to the charge of Genocide which is an albatross that will be affixed to Israel’s neck until the end of time. At present, Israelis do not seem bothered by the onerous designation, but that will change. No one wants to be shunned by the majority and forced to go-it-alone. But that is the path that Israel has chosen.
Where Hamas has failed is also obvious. Yes, they have goaded Israel into a violent overreaction that has tarnished Israel’s reputation, damaged its economy and triggered an unprecedented outpouring of condemnation from people around the world. But the downside effects are also significant. All of Gaza lies in ruins, Israel is more unified in its opposition to a Palestinian state than ever, and the international community (represented by the UN Security Council) has been blocked at every turn by US vetoes. And while Russia and others are calling for enforceable measures to stop the relentless bloodletting, the Biden administration has derailed every effort to stop the fighting or to even reduce its supply of bombs and munitions delivered to Israel.
The glitch in Sinwar’s plan should be obvious; the United Nations cannot implement sanctions, cannot impose a blockade, and cannot deploy peacekeepers to Gaza as long as the US opposes such steps. But as the slaughter continues, and tempers rise in the Security Council, that could change. In recent meetings, various members have found it increasingly difficult to conceal their contempt for the United States in its role as “genocide enabler”. We are hopeful that the US delegation will eventually be removed from the Security Council on the grounds that it is a cobelligerent in the ongoing hostilities. That would allow the UNSC to do its job and apply the pressure on Israel that will bring the conflict to a swift end. Check out this seething presentation by Russia’s Chargé d’Affaires Dmitry Polyanskiy just last week:
Almost the entire population of the Gaza Strip has been forced to wander the enclave in search of any kind of shelter. But, as representatives of the UN “humanitarian wing” have repeatedly confirmed, there are no safe places in Gaza. Two million people are “trapped” and shelled; they have been enduring unthinkable suffering due to the lack of food, water, medicine and proper sanitation….From the outset, we warned that all “humanitarian” resolutions, including resolution 2720, are doomed to remain dead letter as long as there is no unconditional and comprehensive ceasefire in the enclave….. I would like to recall that Russia was the first country to introduce a draft Security Council resolution with such a demand; we did it on October 16 of last year. But one delegation, shielding its main ally in the Middle East, has spent 10 months, as we know, blocking any tangible steps by the Council in this direction….
Precisely one week ago, we heard in this hall more mendacious assurances of the US Permanent Representative that a ceasefire deal was supposedly about to be concluded, and that we all must exert pressure on Hamas for it to materialize. However, it turned out – and no one is surprised about it any longer – that these calls were as far from reality as was the US-sponsored resolution on Gaza adopted on June 10 to support the so-called “Biden plan”. …during all this time the USA never bothered to brief the Council about the parameters of the deal. It only demanded that the Security Council unconditionally approve this “pig in the poke” and exert pressure on HAMAS. As it turned out, Israel did not agree to this “deal” then, nor has it agreed now to end its operation. Instead, it continues to put forward more and more demands, which, among other things, threaten to undermine the entire system of agreements in the region. Far from putting the Israelis in their place, our American colleagues are unfortunately playing along by reconfiguring the parameters of the ceasefire in Gaza for the benefit of West Jerusalem. I recall that the Security Council did not consent to any reformatting of the parameters of the agreements set forth in resolution 2735…..
As a result, even the first phase of de-escalation, as set out in resolution 2735, cannot materialize in any way, not to mention the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and the restoration of the infrastructure of the enclave.
Thus, that document, which was initially premised on the misleading assertions and claims about Israeli consent, has become de facto irrelevant. And now we need to think what tangible steps the Council can take so as to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza, irrespective of whether Israel wants it or not, and to ensure its implementation. The Council has all the necessary tools at its disposal to reach this goal; what is needed now is the political will to use these tools. Otherwise, the UN Security Council will play the unenviable role of an extra in the Middle East geopolitical game, orchestrated by Washington, which is trying its hardest to supplant a full-fledged solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by destructive “deals of the century” under its sole cosponsorship. As we all remember, it is precisely the desire of the United States to “monopolize” the Middle East peace process and reshape it according to “templates” suited to Israel that led to the dramatic events that we are witnessing today.We call upon the Council to act in accordance with its mandate and not to take the lead of the US and Israel. The paramount objective is to bring about a prompt and sustained cessation of the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip, which implies as well monitoring mechanisms under the mandate issued by the UNSC, and (if necessary) enforcement mechanisms to ensure the compliance with the ceasefire. This will help in the future to relaunch the process of peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue on an internationally recognized basis in the interests of establishing an independent sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, coexisting in peace and security with Israel.
.…The situation can only be resolved through the immediate decisive action by the international community, through the UN Security Council. We are ready to cooperate with all parties who share embrace these approaches….
Everyone in this chamber is perfectly aware of the fact that it is the United States that bears the main responsibility for what is happening now in Gaza…. If my other colleagues do not have the courage to say this to your face, then I have no problem doing so. Statement by Chargé d’Affaires of the Russian Federation Dmitry Polyanskiy at UNSC briefing on the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, Russian Permanent Mission to the UN
Polyanskiy appears to be recommending that the United States be removed from the Security Council so the UNSC can do its job, enforce its resolutions, put an end to this senseless war, and bring justice to the Palestinian people. We think that is an idea whose time has come.
