“Was Modi’s Attack merely publicity ploy? Why he accepted Humiliated Ceasefire?” by Afzaal Rehan, critically examines India’s 2025 airstrikes in Pakistan. The article argues that these strikes, specifically targeting alleged terrorist camps, were a publicity stunt by the Modi government and ultimately ineffective in combating terrorism. Rehan asserts that the targeted areas were deliberately left vulnerable, resulting in no significant damage to terrorist organizations or their infrastructure, and that any casualties were likely innocent civilians used to garner sympathy against India.

The article further suggests that terrorism in the region is a complex issue influenced by Pakistani establishment policies and American involvement, rather than being solely attributable to independent terrorist groups.

Assessing India’s Air Strikes against Pakistan

The article extensively discusses the effectiveness of the air strikes carried out by India, primarily by Prime Minister Modi, against alleged terrorist targets in Pakistan.

Here’s a summary of the article’s perspective on the effectiveness of these air strikes:

Publicity Ploy and Lack of Achievement:

The article contends that Modi’s air strikes, including those following “Pehalgam” and previously in Balakot, was merely a “made-up show” and a “publicity ploy” designed to please his own people. The strikes were described as “utterly baseless and a meaningless exercise”. Despite India’s claim of targeting specific terrorist locations rather than military bases, the article asserts that the outcome was “zero achievement” for India, beyond generating hatred.

No Damage to Terrorist Organizations:

The article explicitly states that “not even an iota of damage was done” to terrorist organizations or their organizational structure. Instead, these groups reportedly gained a form of “public sympathy”. The article questions what number of terrorists died or what even slightest damage was inflicted on their organizational structure.

Minimal Impact on Infrastructure:

While it is acknowledged that mosques or infrastructure might have been damaged, the article argues that this makes no difference; as such infrastructure can be easily rebuilt or repaired. It’s noted that terrorists did not invest their own money in building these structures, so their destruction does not represent a minimal significant financial loss to them.

Who Died?

The article challenges the idea that terrorists were killed in the strikes. Given that India had openly announced its intention to target terrorist hideouts, and even common writers like him knew about these potential attacks, the article questions why any “jihadi” would remain in such locations. Instead, the article suggests that the casualties were innocent women and children who were intentionally brought to those locations. This was allegedly part of a plan by “smarter terrorists” to gain international sympathy and portray the Modi government as ruthless, thereby fueling hatred against India and fostering sympathy for the charitable organizations of these centers.

Context of Terrorism’s Roots:

The article provides a broader context for terrorism in Pakistan, stating that Pakistan’s own “powerful establishment” has influenced the curbing of terrorist activities due to international pressure. It highlights that Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, somewhat slightly admitted that Pakistan engaged in terrorist activities for “western powers, especially America”. Former Army Chief General Bajwa is also quoted saying that the “terrorism seeds” were planted 40 years ago with American coordination is now being harvested, implying that Pakistan itself “nurtured this dangerous snake of terrorism”.

Alternative Approaches:

As a true humanitarian, author, suggests alternative ways to combat terrorism, such as capturing terrorists alive (like Ajmal Kasab) to gain international public opinion, improving relations with Pakistan’s “real powers” (the establishment), and avoiding deterioration of relations with America. The article also suggests addressing the Kashmir issue by providing a good life experience for Kashmiris and improving relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Terror Seed: A Forty-Year Harvest

According to the article, the origin of terrorism in Pakistan is attributed to actions taken approximately 40 years prior to the events discussed.

Specifically, former Army Chief General Bajwa stated that “40 years ago we planted the seeds of terrorism with American coordination” and is now “reaping its harvest”. The article further elaborates that Pakistan itself “nurtured this dangerous snake of terrorism”.

Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, also slightly admitted that Pakistan engaged in terrorist activities “for western powers, especially America,” indicating a history of cooperation or influence from external entities in these activities. The article implies that this “seedling” of terrorism, nurtured by Pakistan itself, is now being confronted by its own armed forces.

Modi’s Air Strikes: A Propaganda Ploy

The article extensively discusses political propaganda, particularly in the context of the air strikes carried out by India under Prime Minister Modi.

Here’s a breakdown of how the article characterizes political propaganda:

Purpose as a “Publicity Ploy”:

The article asserts that Modi’s air strikes, including those following “Pehalgam” and previously in Balakot, were primarily a “made-up show” and a “publicity ploy”. The aim was to “please his own people” and was deemed an “utterly baseless and a meaningless exercise”. The article consistently refers to this as “Modi’s propaganda”.

Fabricated Claims and False Narratives:

The propaganda involved spreading claims that India had successfully penetrated Pakistan and destroyed terrorist strongholds. The article states that Indian friends were led to believe, through “governmental propaganda or fake and fictional stories spread by the media,” that significant damage was inflicted on terrorism. Modi’s government explicitly stated that they targeted specific terrorist locations and not military or airbases.

Zero Achievement despite Propaganda:

Despite the claims of success, the article vehemently argues that the strikes resulted in “zero achievement” for India, achieving nothing beyond generating hatred. It emphasizes that “not even an iota of damage was done” to terrorist organizations or their structure.

Exploitation of Casualties:

The propaganda, according to the article, was also designed to manipulate public sentiment regarding casualties. The article suggests that innocent women and children were intentionally placed in targeted locations, becoming part of a “planning by smarter people”. This was allegedly to garner international sympathy, portray the Modi government as ruthless, and incite hatred against India, while simultaneously fostering sympathy for the charitable organizations associated with these centers.

Leaders Using Propaganda for Political Gains:

The article laments how political leaders resort to “hideous methods of propaganda” to “shine their politics”. The example of Modi’s actions is presented as a repeated pattern, noting that similar propaganda was used with the same enthusiasm regarding the Balakot strikes, which the article dismisses as a “drama”.

Media’s Role in Spreading Propaganda:

The article indicates that the media plays a significant role in disseminating these “fake and fictional stories”, contributing to the public’s misunderstanding of the actual outcomes of the strikes.

Contrast with Reality:

The author, identifying as a “true humanitarian,” feels it is their duty to reveal the “reality” or “truth” against these propagandistic narratives, asserting that the claims of successfully eliminating terrorist bases were “totally baseless and a futile exercise”.

Geopolitical Influences: US, Pakistan, India, and Terrorism

The article provide several insights into geopolitical influence, particularly concerning the United States’ role in the region and the impact of international pressure on India and Pakistan.

Here’s a breakdown of the geopolitical influences discussed:

US Influence on Terrorism’s Origin and Nurturing:

The articles explicitly state that the “seedling of terrorism” in Pakistan was planted “40 years ago… with American coordination”. Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, slightly admitted that Pakistan engaged in terrorist activities “for western powers, especially America,” indicating a significant external influence on Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism. The article states that Pakistan itself “nurtured this dangerous snake of terrorism”.

International Pressure on Pakistan:

The curbing of terrorist activities by Pakistan’s “powerful establishment” is attributed to “diplomacy and international pressure” and “global pressure”. This indicates that external forces played a role in compelling Pakistan to take action against these groups, suggesting that Pakistan’s policies are not solely internal but responsive to global demands.

America’s Role in Pakistan’s Internal Power Dynamics:

The article highlights the significant influence America has over Pakistan’s “real powers” – its establishment. It notes that the American President (Donald Trump) hosted Pakistan’s “real powerful General” for lunch and extended discussions, contrasting this with the perceived lack of recognition for Pakistan’s elected Prime Minister – even he did not know the name of Pakistani PM. This suggests that the US interacts more directly and significantly with Pakistan’s military establishment than with its civilian government, indicating a geopolitical strategy that prioritizes the “real powers” in the country.

Kashmir as an “American Tool”:

The article posits that the Kashmir issue is “in reality an American tool” used to “control matters”. It suggests that this “wound” (Kashmir) will fester when relations with America deteriorate, implying that the US leverages this issue as a means of influence or control in the region.

India’s Efforts to Gain International Opinion, Sympathy:

The article suggests that the alleged casualties of the air strikes—innocent women and children—were part of a “planning by smarter people” to “gain international sympathy” and portray the Modi government as ruthless, while simultaneously generating sympathy for the targeted “charitable organizations”. This indicates an awareness of the global audience and the importance of shaping international perception.

The article advises India to capture terrorists alive, like Ajmal Kasab, and then use “international public opinion” to its advantage, demonstrating an understanding of how global consensus can be leveraged in geopolitical conflicts.

Maintaining Relations with America:

India is advised that the current deterioration in its relations with America “should not have happened”, further underscoring the perceived importance of positive relations with the US for regional stability and influence.

Rethinking Counter-Terrorism: Diplomacy, Humanity, and Geopolitics

Based on the article, the discussion around counter-terrorism strategy primarily critiques the effectiveness of military air strikes and suggests alternative approaches, emphasizing diplomatic and social dimensions alongside international relations.

Here’s a discussion of counter-terrorism strategies as presented in the articles:

Critique of Air Strikes as a Counter-Terrorism Strategy:

The article strongly argues that India’s air strikes, such as those following “Pehalgam” and in Balakot, were ineffective as a counter-terrorism strategy. These actions were described as a “made-up show” and a “publicity ploy” with “zero achievement” in combating terrorism.

It is asserted that “not even an iota of damage was done” to terrorist organizations or their structural integrity. Instead, these groups reportedly gained “public sympathy”.

The destruction of infrastructure like mosques was deemed meaningless; as such facilities can be easily rebuilt without significant financial loss to the terrorists, who did not invest their own money in them.

The article questions the claim of killing terrorists, suggesting that innocent women and children were the actual casualties, intentionally placed to garner international sympathy and fuel hatred against India, thereby benefiting the “charitable organizations” associated with these centers. This implies that military strikes on alleged terrorist hideouts can be counterproductive; leading to unintended civilian casualties and potentially increasing sympathy for the very groups they aim to eliminate.

Suggested Alternative Counter-Terrorism Strategies:

The author, identifying as a “true humanitarian,” proposes several alternative approaches for combating terrorism effectively:

Capture Terrorists Alive to Influence Global Opinion:

India is advised to “capture terrorists alive”, citing the example of Ajmal Kasab. This approach would allow India to leverage “international public opinion” in its favor. The idea is to present tangible evidence and gain global consensus, rather than relying on military actions with questionable outcomes.

Improve Relations with Pakistan’s “Real Powers”:

The article suggests that India should “try to improve its relations with Pakistan’s real powers,” referring to its powerful establishment, rather than its “nominal” elected government. This implies that engaging with the influential military and intelligence establishment in Pakistan is crucial for any meaningful progress against terrorism, as this establishment has historically influenced counter-terrorism efforts within Pakistan due to international pressure.

Maintain and Improve Relations with the United States:

A critical piece of advice is that the current deterioration in relations between India and America “should not have happened”. The article emphasizes America’s significant geopolitical influence, including its historical involvement in the “seedling of terrorism” in Pakistan and its role as a “tool” in controlling regional matters like the Kashmir issue.

Maintaining good relations with the US is thus presented as a vital component of regional stability and effective counter-terrorism efforts.

Address the Kashmir Issue with Humanitarian Focus:

Instead of military confrontation, the article suggests that India can gain “considerable control over this issue” by “providing a good life to Kashmiris through their encouragement” and by “improving relations with Pakistan”. This points to a strategy that addresses the root causes of disaffection and seeks a peaceful resolution, rather than relying solely on force.

In essence, the article advocates for a shift from aggressive military posturing to a more nuanced counter-terrorism strategy that prioritizes diplomacy, international relations, public opinion, and addressing humanitarian concerns, while being skeptical of the efficacy of conventional air strikes.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

“Is Trump Destroying PM Modi?”, critically examines Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s actions and policies, particularly in the wake of “Operation Sindoor” and the “Pahalgam Tragedy.” It questions the Modi government’s handling of security, its claims regarding the operation’s success, and the subsequent ceasefire, highlighting discrepancies between the Indian government’s narrative and statements made by the US President Donald Trump.

The article also discusses Trump’s evident involvement in de-escalating the conflict and his public remarks that seemingly undermine Modi’s stance. Furthermore, it touches upon Modi’s foreign policy approach, his perceived misjudgment of Trump, and the potential political ramifications for the BJP in future elections.

Operation Sindoor: Controversy, Criticism, and Ceasefire

Operation Sindoor was launched by the Modi government following the “Pahalgam” incident.

Context and Launch:

Operation Sindoor was launched in response to the “Pahalgam” tragedy.

It criticizes the “blunt” manner in which Modi launched Operation Sindoor, stating that it could have caused “destruction” in the region.

It is agreed that despite often praising Prime Minister Modi’s efforts for India’s development and prosperity. There is no doubt in believing that Modi’s actions regarding Operation Sindoor cannot be justified.

Contradictory Statements: Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Amarinder Singh, raised questions about Operation Sindoor in the Lok Sabha.

They questioned how cricket teams could be formed if Operation Sindoor was still ongoing, especially after a “storm” was created post-Pahalgam, which involved a strict curfew that neglected even the sick and disabled. This was highlighted as a “contradiction”.

Lack of Justification from Government: Prime Minister Modi, Defense Minister Rajnath, and Interior Minister Amit Shah reportedly had no strong arguments or concrete answers to the opposition’s objections.

Questionable Evidence: The government claimed that three terrorists involved in Pahalgam were killed under “Operation Mahadev” and that Pakistani chocolates were found in their pockets as “proof”. This was seen as a “fabricated story” and accused of being a “fake police encounter” to mislead the public.

Timing of Announcements: There was a question about why these actions (Operation Mahadev) were linked to the Lok Sabha session and revealed the next day, implying it was an attempt to cover up a mistake.

Government Responsibility and Security Lapses: Priyanka Gandhi demanded answers from the government regarding their responsibility, particularly concerning the deaths of 26 innocent people (25 Indian citizens) on April 22 in front of their families. She emphasized that they were “Indian” citizens, regardless of their religion.

She questioned what arrangements were made for the protection of citizens in Pahalgam given their large numbers and how terrorists from Pakistan managed to travel such a long distance to Pahalgam.

Lack of Pakistani Involvement Proof: Former Interior Minister Chidambaram stated that the government had not yet presented any evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in the Pahalgam tragedy, suggesting that the perpetrators might have been Indian citizens. The BJP responded by saying this would be a “clean chit” for Pakistan.

Cessation of Operation Sindoor:

Rahul Gandhi questioned why Operation Sindoor was suddenly stopped on May 10, especially when the entire nation, including the opposition, stood with the Prime Minister. This was described as a “genuine” and “absurd” question. The news of the ceasefire came from Washington instead of Delhi. Prime Minister Modi stated that the ceasefire was initiated at Pakistan’s request, not due to external pressure. However, question is raised why it was done so quickly if India was “successful”.

US President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, 29 times, that he brokered the ceasefire. He stated at a dinner with Republican lawmakers on July 18 that he intervened because five fighters were killed in Pak-Hind clashes, and there were fears of beginning a nuclear war between the two atomic nations. Trump also reiterated this claim during his visit to Saudi Arabia and to other foreign leaders visiting the White House.

This is challenged PM Modi to publicly state in the Lok Sabha that Trump was lying and had no role in the ceasefire. It is contrasted with Indira Gandhi’s resilience against US pressure in 1971.

In summary, Operation Sindoor was a controversial military action initiated by the Modi government, facing significant criticism from opposition leaders and regarding its execution, the government’s justification, the evidence presented, and the sudden cessation under disputed circumstances, with US President Trump claiming credit for brokering the ceasefire. Operation Sindoor was a significant event discussed in the article, launched by the Modi government following the “Pahalgam” incident.

Launch and Initial Response:

Operation Sindoor was initiated by the Modi government as a response to the “Pahalgam” tragedy.

It is expressed as criticism regarding the “blunt manner” in which Prime Minister Modi launched the operation, suggesting it could have led to “destruction” in the region. While generally acknowledging Modi’s contributions to India’s development, the author stated that Modi’s actions in this instance should not be justified.

Cessation of Operation Sindoor:

Rahul Gandhi questioned why Operation Sindoor was abruptly halted on May 10, especially when the entire nation, including the opposition, was supporting the Prime Minister. This was deemed a “genuine” and “absurd” question. Significantly, the news of the ceasefire emerged from Washington rather than Delhi.

Trump’s India Diplomacy: Mediation, Perceived Humiliation, and Sikh Issues

US-India relations, particularly during Donald Trump’s presidency, appear to be characterized by complex dynamics, including US claims of mediation in regional conflicts, perceived challenges to Prime Minister Modi’s image, and US engagement with certain Sikh diaspora issues.

US Claims of Ceasefire Mediation between India and Pakistan:

US President Donald Trump repeatedly (29 times) claimed that he was responsible for brokering the ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

Trump stated at a dinner with Republican lawmakers on July 18 that he intervened because five fighters were killed in Pak-Hind clashes, and there were fears of a nuclear war between the two atomic nations.

Perceived “Humiliation” of PM Modi by Trump:

“Is Trump Destroying PM Modi?”, suggesting a challenging dynamic. The author notes that Trump has been “humiliating” PM Modi for the past six months.

PM Modi is described as having made an “assessment error” regarding Trump, even going so far as to campaign for him and cheer him on. The author implies that PM Modi might privately wish that Kamala Harris or Joe Biden had won the election instead of Trump, given the ongoing perceived “humiliation”.

US Engagement with Sikh and Khalistani Movement Issues:

President Trump wrote a letter to Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a leader of the Khalistani movement who holds US citizenship. Pannun subsequently shared this letter on social media.

In the letter, Trump reportedly stated that he prioritizes American citizens, the nation, and American democratic values, asserting that a safe America contributes to a safe world. A referendum related to the Khalistani movement is scheduled to take place in Washington on August 17.

The article also mentions that Canadian Sikhs have lodged several complaints against the Modi government regarding attacks on their people, and these concerns have been voiced in the Canadian Parliament. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reportedly conveyed these complaints to Trump indirectly.

Perspective on Modi’s Foreign Policy Approach:

While acknowledging PM Modi’s significant contributions to India’s development and economy, the article criticizes his approach to both internal and external policies. The article suggests that Modi’s frequent display of “intensity” in his policies, often aimed at pleasing his “extremist factions” under his Hindutva ideology, leads him to lose the required political foresight and balance in his domestic and foreign affairs.

Certain actions, like “forced hugs”, are described as not being fitting for an Indian Prime Minister, especially when attempting to project an image of a “global leader”. This could indirectly influence how international leaders, including those in the US, perceive him.

Modi’s Leadership: Achievements, Criticisms, and Foreign Policy Quandaries

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, as discussed in the article, presents a complex picture, marked by both acknowledged achievements and significant criticisms, particularly concerning his foreign policy, decision-making, and public image.

Approach to Domestic and Foreign Policy:

Modi is described as displaying “intensity” in his internal and external policies. This intensity is often seen as an attempt to “please his extremist factions” aligned with his Hindutva ideology.

However, this intense approach is criticized for causing him to “lose the required political foresight and balance” in both domestic and foreign affairs.

Modi’s leadership is challenged for its lack of public defiance against Trump’s repeated claims (29 times) that he brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. The article explicitly asks if Modi has the “courage” to state in the Lok Sabha that Trump is lying and had no role in the ceasefire, drawing a contrast with Indira Gandhi’s resilience against American pressure in 1971.

Modi’s statement that the ceasefire was initiated at Pakistan’s request, not due to external pressure, is highlighted. However, the article questions why, if this was the case, the news of the ceasefire came from Washington instead of Delhi.

Calls for introspection or Change:

The article suggests that given the perceived “humiliation” by Trump, Modi might secretly wish that Kamala Harris or Joe Biden had won the US election.

A significant question is raised about whether Modi should “voluntarily step aside” for another BJP leader, such as Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, to prevent the BJP from potentially losing the next election.

Modi’s Succession and the BJP’s Future

The discussion regarding the future of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is primarily presented as a speculative concern by the article, in the context of Prime Minister Modi’s leadership and perceived challenges to his image.

The key point regarding the BJP’s future is:

The article raises the “important question” of whether Prime Minister Modi should “voluntarily step aside” for another BJP leader. An example of such a leader provided is Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

The article suggests that this move might be necessary to prevent the “possibility that the BJP might lose the next election”. This suggestion is made after a critique of Modi’s foreign policy approach and the perceived “humiliation” by former US President Donald Trump.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

This article critiques the political approach of Narendra Modi, contrasting it with that of past Indian leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Mahatma Gandhi. It argues that Modi’s actions are often driven by emotional responses and a desire for cheap popularity, rather than thoughtful strategy. The text warns against emulating nations like America or Israel, asserting that India’s unique geopolitical position requires a different approach to foreign policy. It stresses the importance of maintaining strong relationships with neighboring countries and internal communities, advocating for unity and strategic wisdom over impulsive or aggressive tactics. It suggests that a path of collaboration and careful diplomacy is essential for India’s prosperity and standing on the global stage.

The Prudent Path of National Leadership

Prudent leadership, as discussed in this article, emphasizes thoughtful decision-making, a focus on long-term national benefit, and a cautious approach to both domestic and international affairs.

Key aspects of prudent leadership include:

Thoughtful Decision-Making: A leader should make decisions with careful consideration, examining various facets of an issue, rather than acting under the influence of emotions. Hasty actions taken in a state of agitation, even minor mistakes, can lead to significant downfall. A wise leader always considers the potential consequences of any major step, ensuring the situation does not backfire.

Prioritizing National Interest and Unity: Genuine national leaders prioritize the true benefit of the country and its people, guiding them to progress rather than inciting emotions for popular sympathy. This involves uniting different communities within the country rather than dividing them. Internationally, it means managing relations with neighbors and other nations with generosity and wisdom, even enduring some “whims” if necessary, to foster peace and prosperity.

Strategic Foreign Policy:Avoiding Misguided Imitation: Prudent leaders understand that each nation’s context is unique. The article strongly advise against blindly following examples of powerful nations like America or Israel, as India’s internal and external realities are different. 

Attempting to imitate the US, for instance, has already damaged India’s relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations. Similarly, copying Israel’s aggressive responses to terrorism is cautioned against, as Israel benefits from being “America’s pampered child,” a position India cannot assume. India’s historical decision to accept a separate Muslim state is also highlighted as a contrast to Israel’s situation regarding Palestine.

Diplomatic Skill and Sensitivity: Foreign affairs require sensitivity and delicacy. Leaders must recognize that in today’s international system, nations are interconnected and have their own compulsions and demands. Support from other countries in areas like science, technology, and trade comes with expectations. A prudent leader monitors the nation’s interests constantly in a changing global landscape.

Avoiding Unnecessary Hostility: Prudent leaders refrain from increasing animosities, especially with neighbors, and should not give others an opportunity to attack them. 

However, if war becomes unavoidable, a leader should not become a “Narinder Surrender” joke by succumbing to haste or pressure.

Patience and Restraint: In challenging situations, a prudent leader exhibits patience and courage, akin to Mahatma Gandhi, rather than rushing into enmity or reacting aggressively. This can lead to a “moral and principled victory,” which can be more significant than a military one.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee is presented as an example of a great and prudent leader. During the Kargil incident, despite calls for retaliation by crossing the Line of Control, he famously stated, “Then what is the difference between us and them?”. His decision not to retaliate militarily secured India a significant moral and principled victory in the eyes of the global community, surpassing any potential military triumph.

Mahatma Gandhi is cited as an exemplar of the “courage” and patience needed to avoid rushing into hostility.

Narendra Modi’s response to the April 22nd Pahalgam incident is critiqued. While his immediate return from Saudi Arabia and meeting victims were understandable, the author suggests it was more crucial for the government to meticulously pursue the perpetrators and their masterminds alive to gather evidence for diplomatic leverage globally, rather than engaging in election campaigning. His approach is described as that of a politician seeking “cheap popularity” rather than a “great leader,” making non-serious statements and attempting to elevate his stature through “showy and fabricated attacks”.

The article also criticize leaders who fail to understand global realities, leading to strained relationships, such as with Canada, Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan, due to an inflated sense of self-importance. The confusion between maintaining relations with traditional allies like Russia and new Western partners is also noted as a sign of indecisiveness.

Ultimately, the article advocates for leadership that is far-sighted, composed, morally upright, and strategically astute, focusing on real long-term benefits for the nation rather than emotional reactions or short-term gains.

Crafting Prudent Foreign Policy: A Strategic Guide

Foreign policy, according to the article, requires a highly sensitive, delicate, and strategic approach, prioritizing long-term national interest and avoiding emotional or misguided actions. It is an area where prudence in leadership is paramount.

Key aspects and considerations for foreign policy include:

Thoughtful Decision-Making and Long-Term Vision: A wise leader always considers the consequences of any major step in foreign policy, ensuring the situation does not backfire. Decisions should not be made under the influence of emotions. The goal is to guide the nation towards progress and peace, even enduring minor “whims” from others if it serves to foster prosperity.

Avoiding Misguided Imitation: The article strongly caution against blindly following the foreign policy models of powerful nations like America or Israel.

Imitating the US: India is advised not to consider itself America, as its internal and external realities are different. Attempting to mimic the US has already damaged India’s relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations. This “illusion” of self-importance has also led to strained ties with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan.

Imitating Israel: Copying Israel’s aggressive responses to terrorism or its handling of neighboring states is discouraged. The key distinction highlighted is that Israel is “America’s pampered child,” a position India cannot assume. Additionally, Israel’s unique situation regarding Palestine, where a sovereign Palestinian state has not formed, contrasts sharply with India’s historical decision to approve a separate Muslim state seven decades ago, a decision for which India’s Hindu leadership reportedly feels no regret.

Diplomatic Skill and Sensitivity: Foreign affairs demand sensitivity and delicacy. Leaders must recognize that in today’s international system, nations are interconnected and have their own compulsions and demands. Support from other countries in areas like science, technology, and trade comes with expectations; there is no such thing as a “free lunch” in international relations. A prudent leader constantly monitors the nation’s interests in a changing global landscape.

Fostering Regional Stability and Unity: Prudent leaders should refrain from increasing animosities, especially with neighbors. Instead of dividing communities internally, foreign policy should also aim to mend relations with neighboring countries with generosity. If a nation truly wishes for progress, peace, and prosperity for its people, it may need to tolerate some “whims” of its neighbors and learn to manage affairs better with love, wisdom, and improved strategies.

Strategic Handling of Adversaries and Conflicts: While avoiding unnecessary hostilities and not giving others an opportunity to attack, a prudent leader also maintains composure.

In the event of an unavoidable conflict or war, the leader should not become a “Narinder Surrender” joke by succumbing to haste or pressure.

The example of Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the Kargil incident is cited as prudent foreign policy. Despite calls to retaliate by crossing the Line of Control, his refusal to do so secured India a significant moral and principled victory in the eyes of the global community, which was considered greater than any potential military triumph.

In contrast, the handling of the April 22nd Pahalgam incident by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is criticized. While his return from Saudi Arabia was understandable, the author suggests it was more crucial for the government to meticulously pursue the perpetrators and their masterminds alive to gather evidence for diplomatic leverage globally, rather than engaging in election campaigning. His approach is described as that of a politician seeking “cheap popularity” rather than a “great leader”.

Navigating Complex Alliances: India faces the challenge of balancing its relationship with traditional allies like Russia and the demands of new Western allies, indicating a level of confusion or indecisiveness in its foreign policy.

Awareness of Global Power Dynamics: Leaders must be aware of significant global powers like China, which is described as a rising global power asserting itself with pride, arrogance, and dictatorship, and maintaining border tensions with India. The reality is that no nation, no matter how powerful, can stand alone without partners and allies in today’s international system.

India’s Strategic Imperatives: Diplomacy, Unity, and Prudence

India’s position, as described in the sources, is one that requires prudent and sensitive leadership, especially in its foreign policy, to navigate complex internal and external challenges. The sources strongly emphasize that India is not America or Israel and should avoid blindly imitating their models.

Here are key aspects of India’s position:

Unique Geopolitical and Historical Context:

Unlike Israel, which is described as “America’s pampered child” and has not seen the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state, India’s Hindu leadership approved a separate sovereign Muslim state (Pakistan) seven decades ago, a decision for which the sources state there is no regret. 

This historical context fundamentally differentiates India’s approach to its neighbors and internal communities from Israel’s.

India’s internal and external realities are distinct from those of the United States, meaning that following the US as an example for domestic and foreign affairs can be detrimental.

Challenges in Foreign Relations:

Damaged Relations with Western Nations: India’s foreign relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations have been severely damaged due to what is perceived as an “illusion” of self-importance, where India started considering itself like America.

Strained Ties with Other Countries: This “intoxication” (or inflated self-perception) has also led to deterioration or issues in Indian relations with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan.

Confusion in Alliances: India is currently in a state of confusion regarding its foreign policy, struggling to decide whether to prioritize pleasing its traditional friend Russia or meeting the demands of its new Western allies.

Border Tensions with China: A significant global power, China, is described as asserting itself with pride, arrogance, and dictatorship on India’s northern border, maintaining continuous tensions.

Interdependence in the Global System: The sources stress that in today’s international system, no nation, however powerful, can stand alone without partners and allies. There are no “free lunches”; support in science, technology, and trade comes with expectations and demands.

Approach to Neighbors and Internal Unity:

Prudent leadership for India means mending relations with neighboring countries with generosity and wisdom. To achieve peace and prosperity, India might need to tolerate some “whims” of its neighbors and learn to manage affairs better with love, wisdom, and improved strategies.

Internally, rather than dividing different communities, India should strive to unite them, recognizing that even opposing ideologies can find common ground once a community is part of the nation. The sources warn against viewing a separated part (like a “cancerous limb”) as simply removed, as it can continue to fester and harm the main body.

Leadership Examples and Criticisms:

Atal Bihari Vajpayee is lauded as a “great and prudent leader” for his approach during the Kargil incident. His decision not to retaliate by crossing the Line of Control, stating “Then what is the difference between us and them?”, secured India a moral and principled victory in the eyes of the international community, which was considered greater than any military triumph.

Mahatma Gandhi is also highlighted for his patience and courage in avoiding rushing into hostility.

In contrast, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s actions regarding the April 22nd Pahalgam incident are criticized. The sources suggest that instead of engaging in election campaigning and making “non-serious statements” to appeal to “fanatical people” for “cheap popularity,” the government should have focused on meticulously capturing the perpetrators and masterminds alive to gain evidence for diplomatic leverage globally. His approach is depicted as that of a politician rather than a “great leader”. His government’s foreign policy is also seen as indecisive and confused regarding its alliances.

In essence, India’s optimal position is one of strategic prudence, diplomatic sensitivity, and a commitment to long-term national interest and unity, both domestically and internationally, while clearly understanding its unique place in the global order without inflated self-perception.

The Indivisible Nation: A Call for Unity

National unity, as discussed in the sources, is presented as a crucial aspect for a nation’s progress, peace, and prosperity, demanding a deliberate and inclusive approach from its leadership.

Key points regarding national unity include:

Integrating Diverse Communities: The sources emphasize that regardless of how opposing the ideologies of a specific community may be, once it is made a part of the nation, numerous ways emerge to remove mutual animosities and resentments. It is suggested that “101 ways” can be found to resolve differences.

Fostering Cohesion over Division: Prudent leadership should prioritize uniting different communities within the country rather than breaking them apart. This directive underscores the importance of internal cohesion for a healthy nation.

Consequences of Division: The sources use a strong metaphor when discussing the historical decision to approve a separate Muslim state. It suggests that if one considers oneself so benevolent as to have “cut off and thrown away a cancerous limb,” then not only does the nation become “maimed,” but that severed part can continue to fester and inject poison, even stinging like a snake when given the opportunity. This highlights the long-term, potentially harmful, implications of national division or unresolved post-separation issues.

Prerequisite for Progress: Achieving progress, peace, and prosperity for the people necessitates managing internal affairs with love, wisdom, and improved strategies, implying that national unity and internal harmony are foundational for a nation’s well-being.

Principled Statecraft: Navigating International Relations and National Interest

International relations, as described in the sources, necessitate a highly sensitive, delicate, and strategic approach from a nation’s leadership, always prioritizing long-term national interest and avoiding actions driven by emotion or misinformation.

Key aspects and considerations in international relations include:

Interdependence and Mutual Expectations: In today’s global system, nations are interconnected and interdependent. There is no concept of a “free lunch”; if countries offer support in areas like science, technology, or trade, they will also have their own expectations and demands. Every nation operates under its own compulsions and demands. A prudent leader must constantly monitor the nation’s interests within this changing global landscape. No nation, regardless of its power, can stand alone without partners and allies.

Thoughtful Decision-Making and Long-Term Vision: Any major step in foreign policy must be taken with deliberation, considering various aspects and potential consequences to prevent the situation from backfiring. Decisions should not be made under the influence of emotions. The goal is to guide the nation towards progress and peace, even tolerating minor “whims” from others if it serves to foster prosperity.

Avoiding Misguided Imitation: The sources strongly caution against blindly following the foreign policy models of powerful nations like America or Israel.

Imitating the US: A nation, specifically India, is advised not to consider itself America, as its internal and external realities are different. Attempting to mimic the US has already damaged relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations. This “illusion” of self-importance has also strained ties with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan.

Imitating Israel: Copying Israel’s aggressive responses to terrorism or its handling of neighboring states is discouraged. The key distinction is that Israel is “America’s pampered child,” a position other nations cannot assume. Furthermore, Israel’s unique situation regarding Palestine, where a sovereign Palestinian state has not formed, contrasts with India’s historical decision to approve a separate Muslim state seven decades ago, a decision for which India’s Hindu leadership reportedly feels no regret.

Strategic Handling of Adversaries and Conflicts: While avoiding unnecessary hostilities and not giving others an opportunity to attack, a prudent leader maintains composure even in conflict.

The example of Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the Kargil incident is cited as a model of prudent foreign policy. Despite calls for retaliation by crossing the Line of Control, his refusal, based on the principle of “Then what is the difference between us and them?”, secured India a significant moral and principled victory in the eyes of the global community, which was considered greater than any potential military triumph.

In contrast, the handling of the April 22nd Pahalgam incident by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is criticized, suggesting that a focus on gathering evidence from perpetrators for diplomatic leverage globally would have been more beneficial than “cheap popularity” or election campaigning.

Fostering Regional Stability and Unity: Prudent leaders should refrain from increasing animosities, especially with neighbors. Instead of dividing communities internally, foreign policy should also aim to mend relations with neighboring countries with generosity. To achieve progress, peace, and prosperity, a nation may need to tolerate some “whims” of its neighbors and learn to manage affairs better with love, wisdom, and improved strategies.

Navigating Complex Alliances: Nations, like India, face the challenge of balancing relationships with traditional allies (e.g., Russia) and the demands of new partners (e.g., Western allies), which can lead to confusion or indecisiveness in foreign policy.

Awareness of Global Power Dynamics: Leaders must be aware of significant global powers like China, described as a rising global power asserting itself with pride, arrogance, and dictatorship, and maintaining border tensions with India. International relations also involve managing “clashes of interests” and disagreements, which should be handled with courage and patience, avoiding a rush to hostility.

Whether an ordinary citizen or a national leader, every decision must be made after thoroughly considering all aspects of the matter. Actions driven solely by emotion rarely lead to good outcomes. Even a small mistake made at the spur of the moment can result in devastating consequences. If we were to examine the disastrous outcomes of such errors in politics or warfare, an entire article could be dedicated to that alone.

I have long taken a deep interest in the affairs of both Jews and Hindus, which is why I have closely followed the approaches and policies of leaders ranging from Prime Minister Golda Meir to Benjamin Netanyahu, and from Mahatma Gandhi to Narendra Modi. A seemingly minor mistake by Pandit Nehru ignited a crisis of Himalayan proportions. There is no doubt that the tragic incident in Pahalgam, Indian Kashmir, on April 22 was a heart-wrenching moment for the entire country. Upon receiving the news, Prime Minister Narendra Modi cut short his visit to Saudi Arabia and returned home. Visiting the grieving families of the victims, consoling them, and encouraging the state government to apprehend the culprits were necessary steps—arguably more urgent than launching the election campaign in Bihar. Holding detailed meetings with security agencies to ensure a swift investigation was also entirely understandable.

What was truly required, however, was for the Modi government to work diligently and strategically—not just to capture the perpetrators, but especially to identify and apprehend the masterminds behind the attack. Capturing them alive was critical. As in the case of Ajmal Kasab, having a living, speaking source of evidence could have strengthened India’s position on the global diplomatic stage. Exposing links between the incident and a neighboring country would have revealed its sinister role and invited international condemnation. India could have gained both global sympathy in its fight against terrorism and respect for its restraint, patience, and principled stance.

From Pandit Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi to Lal Bahadur Shastri, I.K. Gujral, P.V. Narasimha Rao, V.P. Singh, and Manmohan Singh—India has seen many capable leaders. Yet my personal admiration lies with Atal Bihari Vajpayee. What a statesman he was, despite the devastating Kargil conflict, when urged to retaliate by crossing the Line of Control, he famously replied, “Then what difference would remain between us and them?” By choosing not to retaliate militarily, India earned a moral victory that far outweighed any short-term tactical gains.

In contrast, Narendra Modi often appears to act more like a politician seeking popular approval than a statesman. To appease certain segments of his base, he has made inflammatory statements and staged exaggerated responses that conflict with known facts—attempts that seem aimed more at personal image-building than national interest.

While public emotions naturally run high after tragic events, a true leader must channel that energy into constructive, long-term strategies that benefit the nation. Incendiary speeches might serve the ambitions of a power-seeking politician, but not the mission of a genuine national leader. Before taking any major step, a wise leader must weigh the consequences: Will this action serve the country or backfire?

Some may look to the United States or Israel as models for how to respond to terrorism, but this reflects a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.

First, understand that India is not the United States. Emulating America in handling internal or external affairs can lead to serious missteps. A failure to recognize this distinction has already resulted in diplomatic embarrassments. Relations with Canada, once warm, have cooled due to an inflated self-image that caused India to overestimate its global influence. This same misjudgment has also strained ties with several Western nations. The deterioration of relations with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan can likewise be traced back to foreign policy missteps rooted in misplaced confidence and insensitivity.

Now consider the so-called “Israeli model.” Israel, under the pretext of counter-terrorism, has repeatedly launched aggressive operations against its neighbors—storming Lebanon to strike Hezbollah, infiltrating Syria to destroy select targets, or conducting sweeping operations in Gaza against Hamas. While India might be tempted to mirror such tactics, it must resist this urge.

To the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Modi government: for the sake of the nation, do not fall into the trap of trying to replicate Israel’s strategies. India is fundamentally different—economically, diplomatically, and militarily. And let us be clear: Israel enjoys a unique position as America’s favored ally. India does not share that luxury. Even so, Israel has its own challenges. Its geopolitical success partly lies in the fact that, after more than seventy years, no sovereign Palestinian state exists alongside it. Had such a state been established, the perpetual tension between two parallel nations could have left Israel no better off than the Palestinians.

By contrast, seven decades ago, India’s own Hindu leadership agreed to the creation of a sovereign Muslim state beside it—something that many in India still do not deeply regret. No matter how antagonistic a community’s views may be, once it becomes part of your nation, there are always opportunities to resolve conflict and bridge divisions. But if you arrogantly treat that separation as the removal of a “cancer,” then not only do you become lopsided as a nation, but the severed part—now filled with venom—will hiss at you and, when the opportunity arises, strike back like a cobra.

In such a situation, if you truly seek peace, prosperity, and stability, you must learn to endure certain provocations and adopt more intelligent, strategic forms of engagement—with love, wisdom, and foresight.

Secondly, remember that a powerful and assertive China looms to the north, with unresolved border tensions. Thirdly, you face a strategic dilemma: should you maintain your historical alliance with Russia, or yield to the interests of your newer Western partners? In today’s global order, no support comes without strings attached. If foreign nations offer help in science, trade, or defense, they will also expect compliance with their political agendas. Empty gestures and symbolic embraces are not enough.

Every country, regardless of its power, is bound by mutual dependencies, demands, and pressures. This is no longer the age of empires—it is the age of nation-states. India must therefore avoid unnecessary hostilities. Just as it should unify its internal communities rather than divide them, it must also reassess and improve its diplomatic posture in the neighborhood.

In the global arena, conflicts of interest are inevitable. The wise path is not to let them escalate into enmity. Do not respond like Nathuram Godse, who believed violence could serve a higher cause but ultimately damaged that cause irreparably. Instead, emulate Mahatma Gandhi—respond with courage, strategy, and nonviolence. Avoid attacking others in emotional outbursts, and never give others a reason to strike you. But if war ever becomes absolutely necessary, make sure it is waged not in haste or under pressure, but with dignity—so that the nation never becomes a global laughingstock labeled “Narendra Surrender.”

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

Following a Hamas attack on Israel, resulting in significant Israeli casualties and the capture of hundreds of hostages, a ceasefire agreement was brokered with Hamas’s cooperation. The deal involves a phased prisoner exchange, with Israel releasing Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli hostages. The agreement also includes provisions for humanitarian aid to Gaza and the establishment of a buffer zone. The agreement’s terms are controversial within Israel, generating debate and political pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu. Finally, the article speculates on future US and Israeli actions in the Middle East.

Study Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Recent Events

Quiz

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source material.

1. What event triggered the recent escalation of conflict between Israel and Hamas, according to the text?
2. What was the initial demand made by the US President Donald Trump, and what was its connection to the events in the text?
3. What are the primary elements of the peace deal reached, including the key exchange?
4. According to the text, why are some Israeli government officials not fully supportive of the peace deal?
5. What was the role of international actors such as the United States, Egypt, and Qatar in this situation?
6. How does the text characterize the differing perspectives on who achieved “success” in the recent conflict?
7. What does the text suggest about the long-term implications of the conflict on the two-state solution?
8. How many Palestinian prisoners are slated to be released according to the text, and how many of them are Hamas members accused of terrorism?
9. According to the text, what does the conflict appear to be setting the stage for in terms of regional power dynamics and future actions against other groups or nations?
10. What was a key motivating factor for Hamas in agreeing to the deal, and what does the text say was the primary goal of Israel in the negotiation?

Quiz Answer Key

1. The recent escalation of conflict was triggered when Hamas entered Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping 250 non-combatants. This attack, according to the text, took place on the Day of Peace and included killing innocent people and non-combatants and taking them to Gaza.
2. The text states that President Donald Trump demanded the release of “my Iqbali,” threatening to make the world “a hell” if his demand was not met. This threat is what the text identifies as the reason for the acceleration of events between Hamas and Israel.
3. The peace deal includes a six-week ceasefire, the release of 33 Israeli prisoners (including women, children, and the elderly) in exchange for 2,000 Palestinian prisoners (including 250 Hamas members accused of terrorism), and a controlled reopening of humanitarian aid routes to Gaza. The text says that Israel will blockade the populated areas of Gaza but will remain in the 800 meter buffer zone.
4. Some Israeli government officials, particularly the National Security Minister and Finance Minister, believe the deal wastes the “success” achieved in the conflict, specifically that they fear the release of Hamas prisoners. They see it as a betrayal of the efforts made in the previous 15 months of conflict.
5. The US, Egypt, and Qatar played a supervisory role in brokering the peace deal. The text states that the Biden administration has been involved, and the international brotherhood, including the EU, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have all welcomed this ceasefire.
6. Hamas is celebrating what they claim as having maintained their old status and securing the release of their fighters. Meanwhile, Israel is celebrating the release of their prisoners and what they see as a reduction of Hamas’s future capacity to harm them.
7. The text suggests that the conflict has destroyed the “two-state perspective,” indicating that the possibility of a lasting resolution based on separate states for Israelis and Palestinians is currently ruined. The text indicates it has destroyed the entire existence of this plan.
8. According to the text, 2,000 Palestinian prisoners are to be released, including 250 Hamas members who were accused of terrorism and sentenced in Israeli courts. The text does specify that 250 Hamas members are terrorists.
9. The text suggests the conflict is setting the stage for the US and Israel to address Iran’s influence in the region, including its role in Lebanon and Syria. It is also going to focus on the Yemeni Houthi rebels.
10. Hamas’s key motivating factor was to maintain its status in the future and secure the release of as many of its fighters as possible. Israel’s primary goal in negotiations was the release of its own captured citizens from Hamas.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the perspectives of both the Israeli and Palestinian sides in the conflict based on the information given. Explore the strategic goals of each side, and explain why a lasting peace has been so elusive.
2. Discuss the role of international powers, such as the US and the European Union, in the conflict and peace process. How do their interventions shape the outcomes of the conflict, and what are their motivations?
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the peace deal presented in the text. Consider the immediate terms of the agreement as well as the long-term implications for both Israelis and Palestinians.
4. Examine the ways in which the media coverage and public statements, specifically those from various involved governments, affect public perception and the ongoing political dynamics within the region.
5. Considering the implications of this specific event, how does the conflict fit into the broader context of regional and international power dynamics? What trends can you identify, and what future conflicts or solutions might they suggest?

Glossary of Key Terms

• Hamas: A Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist militant organization that is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and other countries and governs the Gaza Strip.
• Gaza Strip: A self-governing Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea that borders Egypt and Israel.
• Two-State Solution: The idea of having two independent states in the region of Israel and Palestine, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians.
• Ceasefire: A temporary cessation of fighting, agreed upon by all parties involved in conflict.
• Phila Delphi Corridor: A narrow strip of land along the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip that is a key point for border control and trade.
• Rafah Crossing: The primary land crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.
• Mujahideen: A term used to refer to people engaged in Jihad, usually understood as a struggle or fight against an enemy of Islam.
• Naqshbandi Action: The text refers to this as a specific event which triggered the most recent conflict in the text; the context seems to indicate an attack that happened on October 7th.
• Malians (Malian): The text appears to be using this term to refer to individuals captured or held captive during the conflict, but this is not the most common use of this term. Most common use of the word Malian means someone who is from Mali.
• Buffer Zone: An area established to separate opposing forces, providing a space to help prevent direct conflict. In this text, it refers to the 800-meter-wide area on the eastern side of Gaza.

Israel-Hamas Ceasefire: A Fragile Peace

Okay, here’s a briefing document summarizing the key themes and information from the provided text:

Briefing Document: Analysis of “Pasted Text”

Date: October 26, 2023 (Based on context)

Subject: Analysis of a conflict situation in the Middle East, focusing on a ceasefire agreement and its context.

Executive Summary:

This document analyzes a news report detailing a complex conflict involving Israel, Hamas, and various international actors. The report focuses on the aftermath of a Hamas attack on Israel, Israel’s retaliatory actions, and a subsequent ceasefire agreement brokered by international mediators. Key themes include the human cost of the conflict, the political pressures on leaders, and the complex interplay of international interests. The narrative is presented from a perspective sympathetic to the Israeli position.

Key Themes and Analysis:

1. The Genesis of Conflict: Hamas Attack and Israeli Response:

• Hamas Attack: The conflict was triggered by a Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of 1,200 Israelis, labeled “innocent Shari’in,” celebrating “the Day of Peace.” The text emphasizes the brutality of this attack, including the kidnapping of 250 non-combatants: “They killed them mercilessly and kidnapped 250 non-combatant Jews and took them to Gaza. These included children, old people and young women.”
• Israeli Retaliation: Israel responded by entering Gaza, targeting Hamas militants, and causing extensive damage. The text highlights the civilian casualties in Gaza, stating that “thousands of innocent people… Palestinian Arabs were also becoming victims, including women and children, undoubtedly.” The casualty figures given for Palestinians are 4,644 dead and over 500,000 injured. However, the source also claims Israel killed around 177,000 “terrorists belonging to Hamas.” The text also stresses the severe destruction of Gaza stating that “Israel has turned Gaza into a ruin whose construction will take nine years.”

1. International Mediation and Ceasefire Agreement:

• Negotiations: Mediated by the US, Egypt, and Qatar, a peace deal was reached with a ceasefire set to begin on January 19th. The talks were held in Doha, and the text describes the negotiators as a “crowd of Muzakis… who have proved to be extremely fruitless.” The agreement suggests that the negotiations were extremely complicated.
• Ceasefire Terms: The deal involves a phased approach. The first phase includes a six-week ceasefire, the release of 2,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for 33 Israeli prisoners held by Hamas. It also stipulates Israeli forces will move to a buffer zone on Gaza’s eastern border. Israel will also open roads to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
• Prisoner Release Details: The exchange of prisoners is a major focus. The report states that Israel will release “250 Palestinians from Hama who have been accused of terrorism,” while Hamas will release 33 Israelis, including children, the elderly, the wounded, the sick and women. It further mentions that 34 “gardeners” were killed, whose bodies will be returned in a later phase, and 27 others released by Hamas. The mention of gardeners suggests a potential distinction between civilians and soldiers/militants held by Hamas, with an implication that the latter are more expendable.

1. Political Pressures and Internal Conflicts:

• Netanyahu’s Dilemma: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faces pressure from within his own government, specifically from the National Security Minister and Finance Minister, who view the prisoner release as a “waste” of gains made in the conflict. The text suggests internal debate in Israel, with some questioning the value of exchanging potentially dangerous Hamas militants for Israelis.
• External Pressure: Netanyahu is also under pressure from the families of the hostages and the general Israeli public to secure their release. The text frames this pressure as being essential to “save his country at any cost.”
• Trump’s Role: The report highlights Donald Trump’s role in the peace deal, suggesting he was the first to announce it and was thanked by Netanyahu. Trump’s involvement is emphasized and framed as crucial to the deal’s existence. Trump reportedly characterized the deal as a victory against “terrorists in the Middle East.”

1. Longer-Term Implications and Geopolitical Context:

• Future Goals: The report speculates on the future aims of the US and Israel, suggesting they intend to free the Iranian people from “religious oppression” and target Iranian forces in Lebanon and Syria. This highlights that the conflict has regional implications that extend beyond the immediate Israeli-Palestinian issue. It also notes that Yemeni Houthi rebels are expected to be a future target of Israel.
• Hamas’ Future: The report suggests Israel intends to diminish Hamas’s power by cutting off supply lines, and weakening their capacity for future attacks. The source seems to believe that “after getting rid of all its wealth, the Israelis will make Hamas take over the throne.” This assertion is unclear, as the author does not seem to believe this is a good thing for Palestinians. The text’s skepticism regarding the success of the peace deal is evident.
• Comparison to Past Events: The situation with the Israeli hostages is compared to the 52 American hostages held in Iran in 1980, highlighting the difficult decisions and political ramifications of hostage situations. This comparison frames the current events in a historical context, suggesting that past patterns are repeating.

1. Conflicting Perceptions of Victory

• The report notes that both Hamas and Israel are celebrating the outcome as a victory. Israel’s success is framed as achieving the release of their people and weakening Hamas. However, the author implies that Hamas’ celebration is less understandable, questioning what aspect they would perceive as a success.

Concluding Remarks:

The provided text offers a specific perspective on the complex situation in the Middle East. It emphasizes the Israeli perspective, portraying Hamas as aggressors and highlighting the immense destruction they have caused. The report showcases the complex negotiations and pressures involved in reaching the ceasefire agreement, suggesting there are both internal and external factors at play. The future stability of the region remains uncertain, with several potential conflict areas and targets indicated. The text portrays the overall deal as a fragile agreement that may not result in long-term stability.

Further Analysis:

• It would be beneficial to analyze sources that provide alternative viewpoints, particularly those of Palestinians and other international observers, to get a more holistic perspective on this conflict.
• The political background of the source is important to consider when evaluating the claims made in the text.
• Analyzing this conflict requires recognizing the deeper historical grievances and the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Ceasefire Agreement and Aftermath

FAQ on Recent Israel-Gaza Conflict and Ceasefire Agreement

1. What triggered the recent escalation of conflict between Israel and Hamas? The conflict was triggered by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, where they killed approximately 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped around 250 non-combatants (including children, elderly, and women) taking them to Gaza. This attack led to Israel launching military operations in Gaza, targeting Hamas and resulting in widespread casualties and devastation.
2. What are the key terms of the recent ceasefire agreement? The ceasefire agreement, brokered by the US, Egypt, and Qatar, includes a three-phase approach. The first phase involves a six-week ceasefire during which Israel will release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for 33 Israeli prisoners (including women, children, and the sick) held by Hamas. Israel will also withdraw from some areas in Gaza while maintaining an 800-meter buffer zone, open the Rafah crossing for aid, allow injured Palestinians to seek treatment and allow the return of displaced Palestinians.
3. How is the release of prisoners being structured in this deal? In the first phase of the deal, Israel will release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including some accused of terrorism, and Hamas will release 33 Israeli prisoners, who include children, the elderly, the wounded, the sick and women. The deal also mentions that the bodies of 34 Israeli gardeners killed by Hamas will be returned in later phases, with a total of 27 gardeners already released. The release of prisoners is a complex issue with Hamas attempting to ensure the release of as many of their prisoners as possible while Israel focuses on the return of its own citizens.
4. What is the state of Gaza after the conflict and what kind of aid is being provided? Gaza has suffered massive destruction. It has been described as a ruin, with reconstruction estimated to take nine years. While the US and EU have pledged significant financial aid, the immense damage will require a massive amount of funds for complete restoration. The ceasefire deal includes allowing more relief trucks and fuel tankers to enter Gaza and for the provision of medical and relief supplies, which will be essential for the recovery.
5. What were the main negotiating goals of Hamas and Israel during the ceasefire talks? Hamas’ primary focus was on maintaining its status in the region and securing the release of as many of its captured members as possible. Israel’s main objective was the release of their captured citizens and minimizing the future threat posed by Hamas. The negotiations were complex, with both sides seeking to maximize their gains.
6. How is this ceasefire deal perceived within Israel and is there any opposition? While the Israeli government, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu, is under pressure to bring home the captured Israelis, there is internal opposition. Some right-wing politicians within the government believe that releasing Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israelis undermines their previous military victories. There’s public concern over releasing Hamas fighters in exchange for Israelis, raising questions about the value of their military operations.
7. What is the broader regional and international response to the ceasefire? The international community, including the EU, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and China, have welcomed the ceasefire. The deal is also being seen as a potential shift in regional dynamics, with the United States having a key role as mediator. The agreement has also included the potential for future measures targeting Iranian influence in the region, specifically in Lebanon and Syria.
8. What is the future outlook for the region, and what might be the implications of this conflict and ceasefire agreement? The conflict has severely damaged the two-state solution concept. Israel has weakened Hamas by cutting off their supply lines, making it more difficult for the group to launch attacks in the future. There also seems to be anticipation in the text of the future U.S./Israeli policy of acting against the Iranian religious regime which is seen as oppressing its own people. Further potential targets mentioned are the Yemeni Houthi rebels. The long term outcome depends on the implementation of the ceasefire deal, and the future relationships between Israel and its neighbors and a solution to the Palestinian question.

Gaza Conflict: Ceasefire and Future Implications

The provided text details aspects of the Gaza conflict, including its origins, key events, and a recent ceasefire agreement. Here’s a breakdown:

• Origins and Escalation: The conflict escalated after Hamas entered Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping 250 non-combatants [1]. This attack is described as occurring on the “Day of Peace” and is also referred to as the “Naqshbandi action” [1]. In response, Israel launched a military operation in Gaza [1].
• Casualties and Destruction: The conflict resulted in a large number of casualties, with a reported 4,644 Palestinians killed and over 500,000 injured, according to the Ministry of Health [1]. Israel claims to have killed around 177,000 Hamas terrorists [1]. The text also notes that Israel has turned Gaza into a ruin that will take nine years to rebuild [1].
• Ceasefire Agreement: A ceasefire agreement was reached, brokered by the US, Egypt, and Qatar, with a start date of January 19 [1]. The deal involves a three-phase process:
• Phase 1: A six-week ceasefire where Israel will release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners (including 250 Hamas members accused of terrorism) in exchange for 33 Israeli prisoners, including children, the elderly, the wounded, the sick and women [1].
• Movement and Aid: Israeli forces will move out of populated areas of Gaza but remain in an 800-meter buffer zone on the eastern side [1]. The Rafah road to Egypt will be opened for aid trucks, fuel, and medical supplies [1]. Injured Palestinians will be allowed to go to other countries and Palestinians who fled their homes will be accommodated [1].
• Conflicting Views on Success: The text suggests that both Hamas and Israel have viewed this deal as a success, each celebrating at different locations. The author notes that Israel’s celebration is understandable in that they have secured the release of some hostages and believe they have damaged Hamas and its ability to attack in the future. However, the text questions what exactly Hamas is celebrating [1].
• Political Ramifications: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faced opposition from members of his government regarding the prisoner release, which was seen as undermining the gains made in the conflict [1]. There was also internal debate within Israel regarding the exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli “gardeners”, suggesting a civilian, non-combatant status of the Israeli prisoners [1]. The deal is compared to the release of 52 American hostages in Iran during the Carter administration [1].
• Future Conflicts: The text suggests that the US and Israel intend to target Iranian forces in Lebanon and Syria and that the Yemeni Houthi rebels are also expected to be an Israeli target [1]. Additionally, the supply lines of Hamas have been cut, and after the conflict Israel intends for Hamas to take over the throne, creating a situation where the Palestinians have no choice but to be led by Hamas [1].

Overall, the text portrays a complex and multifaceted conflict with significant human costs and political implications, with an outlook for further conflicts in the future [1].

Gaza Ceasefire Agreement: Terms and Reactions

The provided text details a recent peace deal, focusing on the terms of the agreement and the political reactions to it [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects:

• Ceasefire Agreement: A ceasefire agreement was reached under the supervision of the US, Egypt, and Qatar, with a start date of January 19 [1].
• Three-Phase Deal: The deal is structured in three phases [1]:
• Phase One: A six-week ceasefire is implemented [1]. During this period, Israel will release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners [1]. This includes 250 Hamas members accused of terrorism and sentenced to heavy terms in Israeli courts [1]. In exchange, Hamas will release 33 Israeli prisoners [1]. These 33 include children, the elderly, the wounded, the sick, and women [1].
• Movement and Aid: Israeli forces will withdraw from the populated areas of Gaza but will remain in an 800-meter buffer zone on the eastern side of Gaza [1]. The Rafah road to Egypt will be opened to allow 600 trucks carrying aid, medical supplies, and fuel into Gaza [1]. Injured Palestinians will be allowed to seek treatment in other countries, and Palestinians who fled from their homes will be accommodated [1].
• The text mentions that 34 “gardeners” have been killed whose bodies will be returned in the next phase, while about 27 “gardeners” have been released [1].
• Political Ramifications:Internal Israeli Conflict: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faced opposition from his right wing government regarding the prisoner release, specifically from the National Security Minister and Finance Minister [1]. These ministers believe that the success achieved after 15 months of conflict should not be undermined by the release of prisoners [1]. There was also internal debate regarding the exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli “gardeners”, who were civilian non-combatants [1].
• Hamas’s Objectives: Hamas’s main focus in the negotiations was to maintain its status in the future setup and ensure the release of as many of its captured members as possible [1].
• Netanyahu’s Pressure: Netanyahu faced pressure from the families of the captured Israelis and the public to secure their release [1].
• Comparison to Previous Hostage Release: The deal is compared to the release of 52 American hostages in Iran during the Carter administration, which also occurred at the end of his presidency [1].
• International Response: The international community, including the European Union, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, has welcomed the ceasefire [1].
• Conflicting Views on Success: Both Hamas and Israel have presented the deal as a success [1]. Israel believes it has weakened Hamas and secured the release of some of its people, while the text questions the basis of Hamas’s celebration [1].
• Future Conflicts: The text indicates that despite this deal, the US and Israel intend to target Iranian forces in Lebanon and Syria, and the Yemeni Houthi rebels are also expected to be an Israeli target [1]. The supply lines of Hamas have been cut, and the intention is that after the conflict Israel will put Hamas in power, creating a situation where the Palestinians have no choice but to be led by Hamas [1].

Israel-Hamas Prisoner Exchange

The provided text details a prisoner exchange that is part of a larger ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects of the prisoner exchange:

• Terms of the Exchange:Israel will release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners [1]. This includes 250 Hamas members who have been accused of terrorism and sentenced in Israeli courts [1].
• In return, Hamas will release 33 Israeli prisoners [1]. These include women, children, the sick and wounded, and the elderly [1].
• Phased Release: The prisoner exchange is part of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, which involves a six-week ceasefire [1].
• Other Hostages: The text also mentions that 34 “gardeners” were killed and their bodies will be returned in a later phase of the deal and that 27 “gardeners” have been released [1].
• Negotiating Positions:Hamas’s priority in the negotiations was to secure the release of as many of their members as possible and to maintain its position in the future [1].
• Israel’s primary goal was the release of its own people [1].
• Internal Conflict in Israel:Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faced opposition from his own government regarding the release of Palestinian prisoners [1].
• Some members of his government felt that releasing prisoners undermined the progress made in the conflict [1].
• There was also internal debate about exchanging Palestinian prisoners for Israeli “gardeners” who were seen as innocent non-combatants [1].
• Public Pressure: Netanyahu was under significant pressure from the families of the captured Israelis and the general public to secure their release [1].
• Comparison to Past Event: The prisoner exchange is compared to the release of 52 American hostages from Iran during the Carter administration, which also occurred at the end of his presidency [1].

In summary, the prisoner exchange is a key component of the ceasefire agreement, involving a significant number of Palestinian prisoners being released in exchange for a smaller number of Israeli hostages. This exchange has caused internal political conflict within Israel. [1].

Hamas’s October 2023 Attack on Israel

The provided text describes Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, as a pivotal event that escalated the conflict in Gaza [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects:

• Nature of the Attack: Hamas entered Israel and killed 1,200 Israelis [1]. This attack occurred on what is described as the “Day of Peace” and is also referred to as the “Naqshbandi action” [1]. The text states that the Israelis were killed “mercilessly” [1]. In addition to the deaths, Hamas kidnapped 250 non-combatant Jews, including children, the elderly, and young women, taking them to Gaza [1].
• Impact of the Attack: This attack served as the catalyst for Israel’s military operation in Gaza [1]. The scale and nature of the attack are presented as the justification for the subsequent conflict, during which Israel aimed to target and eliminate the Hamas terrorists [1].
• Motivation and Objectives: The text suggests that Hamas’s main focus in the subsequent negotiations for a ceasefire was to maintain its status and ensure the release of as many of its captured members as possible [1]. The text questions what exactly Hamas was celebrating in the aftermath of the peace deal, while acknowledging that Israel’s celebration was understandable, given that it secured the release of some hostages and damaged Hamas [1].
• Aftermath: According to the text, after the conflict, Israel intends to put Hamas in power, creating a situation where the Palestinians have no choice but to be led by Hamas [1].

The text emphasizes the brutality of the Hamas attack and its role in triggering the intense conflict in Gaza. It also highlights the political ramifications of the attack, leading to internal debates within Israel regarding the appropriate response and negotiations for a ceasefire [1].

Israel’s Response to the Hamas Attack of 2023

Based on the provided text, here’s a breakdown of Israel’s response to the Hamas attack:

• Military Operation: Following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, where 1,200 Israelis were killed and 250 non-combatants were kidnapped [1], Israel launched a military operation in Gaza [1]. The text notes that this operation aimed to target and eliminate Hamas terrorists [1].
• Casualties and Destruction: The conflict resulted in a large number of casualties. The text states that according to the Ministry of Health, 4,644 Palestinians were killed and over 500,000 were injured. Israel, however, claims to have killed around 177,000 Hamas terrorists [1]. The text also notes that Israel has turned Gaza into a “ruin” that will take nine years to rebuild [1].
• Ceasefire Agreement: A ceasefire agreement was eventually reached, brokered by the US, Egypt, and Qatar, with a start date of January 19 [1]. This deal includes a three-phase process [1]:
• Phase One: A six-week ceasefire during which Israel will release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 Hamas members accused of terrorism, in exchange for 33 Israeli prisoners held by Hamas. This exchange includes women, children, the sick and wounded, and the elderly [1].
• Movement and Aid: Israeli forces will withdraw from populated areas of Gaza but will remain in an 800-meter buffer zone on the eastern side of Gaza. The Rafah road to Egypt will be opened to allow aid trucks, fuel, and medical supplies into Gaza [1]. Injured Palestinians will be allowed to seek treatment in other countries, and Palestinians who fled from their homes will be accommodated [1].
• Political Ramifications:Internal Conflict: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faced opposition from his own government regarding the prisoner release, with some members believing it undermined the progress made in the conflict. There was also internal debate about exchanging Palestinian prisoners for Israeli “gardeners,” who were seen as innocent non-combatants [1].
• Netanyahu’s Pressure: Netanyahu was under significant pressure from the families of the captured Israelis and the general public to secure their release [1].
• Goals and Perceptions: The text suggests that Israel views the peace deal as a success because it has secured the release of some of its people and believes it has damaged Hamas and its ability to attack in the future. The text questions what exactly Hamas is celebrating, while acknowledging that Israel’s celebration is understandable [1].
• Future Plans: The text indicates that the US and Israel intend to target Iranian forces in Lebanon and Syria and that the Yemeni Houthi rebels are also expected to be an Israeli target. Additionally, the supply lines of Hamas have been cut, and after the conflict, Israel intends for Hamas to take over the throne, creating a situation where the Palestinians have no choice but to be led by Hamas [1].

In summary, Israel’s response to the Hamas attack involved a large-scale military operation, which caused significant casualties and destruction in Gaza, followed by a negotiated ceasefire that included a prisoner exchange and the delivery of humanitarian aid. The response also led to internal political conflict within Israel and has long-term implications for the region, according to the text [1].

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

The provided text discusses Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the United States amidst the Gaza crisis, focusing on the stalled ceasefire negotiations and President Trump’s attempts at mediation. It highlights Trump’s political rivalry with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, alongside his ambition for a Nobel Peace Prize for his perceived peace-making efforts in various conflicts. The article also examines the core reasons for the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, attributing it to stubbornness on both sides and the challenges of prisoner exchanges. Ultimately, the text underscores the humanitarian impact on Gaza’s civilians, caught between the two factions.

Trump’s Diplomacy: Ambition, Conflict, and Peace Efforts

Based on the provided sources, here’s a discussion of Donald Trump’s diplomacy:

Donald Trump’s diplomacy is characterized by his strong self-perception, ambitious claims, and specific efforts to resolve international conflicts, though not always with successful outcomes.

Key Aspects of Trump’s Diplomacy:

• Self-Perception and Rivalries: Trump views former American President Barack Obama as his rival and Joe Biden as a “Titamma or child” in American politics. He is described as not letting “any nine be lacking in bragging” and considers himself incomparable. He also frequently mentions how he stopped a major war between Pakistan and India and limited the Iran-Israel war to just 12 days.
• Foreign Policy Stance: Throughout his election campaign, Trump’s slogan was that he would not allow American resources to be “destroyed in foreign wars”. He claimed that with his knowledge, success, and political strategy, he would give America a prestigious position in world politics and not only prevent new wars but also end old ones.
• Efforts in the Middle East:Gaza Crisis: Trump issued a statement indicating ongoing talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the Gaza war, hoping to soon provide “good news” to the world. There was hope for a ceasefire issue in the fifth round of Doha talks.
• Netanyahu’s Visits: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Washington, D.C., three times in less than six months, during which Trump sought to have him accept a Gaza ceasefire. However, Netanyahu’s agenda was to teach Iran a further lesson based on the principle of greater American control, aiming to complete an “incomplete mission of regime change in Iran”.
• Outcome in Gaza: Despite Trump’s efforts, the output regarding the Gaza war ceasefire “remained zero”. Both Trump and Netanyahu were unsuccessful in getting their objectives or demands accepted.
• Perceived Obstacles to Diplomacy (Gaza): The sources attribute the lack of success in ending the Gaza ceasefire to the “excesses” and “stubbornness” of both Israel and Hamas.
• Israel’s Stance: Netanyahu stated that Israel “cannot tolerate terrorism at our doorstep under any circumstances”. He insisted that Hamas would “have to become non-Muslim” and leave Yamali. Israel is also under intense internal pressure to secure the release of Israelis captured by Hamas on October 7, 2023, many of whom have died in custody. Israel aims to “wipe out” Hamas, sometimes reportedly overlooking human rights concerns.
• Hamas’s Stance: Hamas is “not ready to become non-Muslim under any circumstances” nor is it willing to release captured Israelis. Hamas also has objections to a 60-day ceasefire and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Gaza and observe a “permanent ceasefire” with strong international guarantees. Hamas is accused of using the “common people of Gaza as shields” for its Jihadi activities.
• Shared Impact: As a result of the rigidity of both sides, “the common people of Gaza, children and women are being crushed between these two millstones”.
• International Recognition and Support for Nobel Peace Prize:Pakistan and Israel’s Endorsement: Notably, both Pakistan and Israel have “declared American President Trump as the prophet of peace” and deem him “the legitimate deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize”. They have openly requested the Nobel Prize Committee to honor Trump with the award, drawing a comparison to “our President Obama”.
• Joint Recommendation: Israel’s “Hafiz Bibi” (likely referring to a figure from Israel, similar to “Hafiz Sahib” for Pakistan) presented a letter sent to the Nobel Prize Committee to Trump at a White House lunch, receiving thanks. Both nations collectively “did not leave any stone unturned or negligent in our efforts” to promote Trump for the prize.Based on the provided sources, here’s a discussion of Donald Trump’s diplomacy:

Donald Trump’s diplomacy is characterized by his strong self-perception, ambitious claims, and specific efforts to resolve international conflicts, though not always with successful outcomes.

Key Aspects of Trump’s Diplomacy:

• Self-Perception and Rivalries: Trump views former American President Barack Obama as his rival and Joe Biden as a “Titamma or child” in American politics. He is described as not letting “any nine be lacking in bragging” and considers himself incomparable. He also frequently mentions how he stopped a major war between Pakistan and India and limited the Iran-Israel war to just 12 days.
• Foreign Policy Stance: Throughout his election campaign, Trump’s slogan was that he would not allow American resources to be “destroyed in foreign wars”. He claimed that with his knowledge, success, and political strategy, he would give America a prestigious position in world politics and not only prevent new wars but also end old ones.
• Efforts in the Middle East:Gaza Crisis: Trump issued a statement indicating ongoing talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the Gaza war, hoping to soon provide “good news” to the world. There was hope for a ceasefire issue in the fifth round of Doha talks.
• Netanyahu’s Visits: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Washington, D.C., three times in less than six months, during which Trump sought to have him accept a Gaza ceasefire. However, Netanyahu’s agenda was to teach Iran a further lesson based on the principle of greater American control, aiming to complete an “incomplete mission of regime change in Iran”.
• Outcome in Gaza: Despite Trump’s efforts, the output regarding the Gaza war ceasefire “remained zero”. Both Trump and Netanyahu were unsuccessful in getting their objectives or demands accepted.
• Perceived Obstacles to Diplomacy (Gaza): The sources attribute the lack of success in ending the Gaza ceasefire to the “excesses” and “stubbornness” of both Israel and Hamas.
• Israel’s Stance: Netanyahu stated that Israel “cannot tolerate terrorism at our doorstep under any circumstances”. He insisted that Hamas would “have to become non-Muslim” and leave Yamali. Israel is also under intense internal pressure to secure the release of Israelis captured by Hamas on October 7, 2023, many of whom have died in custody. Israel aims to “wipe out” Hamas, sometimes reportedly overlooking human rights concerns.
• Hamas’s Stance: Hamas is “not ready to become non-Muslim under any circumstances” nor is it willing to release captured Israelis. Hamas also has objections to a 60-day ceasefire and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Gaza and observe a “permanent ceasefire” with strong international guarantees. Hamas is accused of using the “common people of Gaza as shields” for its Jihadi activities.
• Shared Impact: As a result of the rigidity of both sides, “the common people of Gaza, children and women are being crushed between these two millstones”.
• International Recognition and Support for Nobel Peace Prize:Pakistan and Israel’s Endorsement: Notably, both Pakistan and Israel have “declared American President Trump as the prophet of peace” and deem him “the legitimate deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize”. They have openly requested the Nobel Prize Committee to honor Trump with the award, drawing a comparison to “our President Obama”.
• Joint Recommendation: Israel’s “Hafiz Bibi” (likely referring to a figure from Israel, similar to “Hafiz Sahib” for Pakistan) presented a letter sent to the Nobel Prize Committee to Trump at a White House lunch, receiving thanks. Both nations collectively “did not leave any stone unturned or negligent in our efforts” to promote Trump for the prize.

Gaza Conflict: Impasse, Diplomacy, and Humanitarian Cost

The Gaza Conflict, as discussed in the sources, is a complex and deeply entrenched issue characterized by the rigid stances of the involved parties and a significant humanitarian cost, despite international diplomatic efforts.

Donald Trump’s Diplomatic Involvement: American President Donald Trump has publicly stated his intent to resolve the ongoing Gaza war in the Middle East, indicating that talks were underway with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and promising “good news” to the world soon. There was hope for a ceasefire issue to emerge from the fifth round of Doha talks. Netanyahu visited Washington, D.C., three times in less than six months, during which Trump sought to persuade him to accept a Gaza ceasefire. However, in terms of output concerning the Gaza war, Trump’s efforts “remained zero”. Both Trump and Netanyahu were unsuccessful in achieving their specific objectives or demands related to the conflict.

Conflicting Agendas and Stubbornness of Parties: The sources attribute the lack of success in ending the Gaza ceasefire primarily to the “excesses” and “stubbornness” of both Israel and Hamas, describing them as “extremely stubborn with an ordinary mentality” and unwilling to compromise or show flexibility.

• Israel’s Stance:
• Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly asserted that Israel “cannot tolerate terrorism at our doorstep under any circumstances”.
• He has insisted that Hamas “will have to become non-Muslim” and leave Yamali (likely a reference to a specific location or concept related to Hamas’s presence).
• Israel is under intense internal pressure to secure the release of Israelis who were captured by Hamas on October 7, 2023, during an incursion into Israel. Many of these captured individuals have died in Hamas custody.
• Hamas is accused of trading in the dead bodies of these captives to secure the release of its own fighters from Israeli custody.
• Currently, around 25 alive and an equal number of dead Israelis are reportedly still in Hamas custody.
• The sources suggest that Israeli actions aim to “wipe out” Hamas, sometimes reportedly disregarding human rights concerns.
• Hamas’s Stance:
• Hamas, on the other hand, is “not ready to become non-Muslim under any circumstances”.
• It is also unwilling to release the captured Israelis.
• Hamas has objections to a 60-day ceasefire and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Gaza and observe a “permanent ceasefire” with strong international guarantees.
• Hamas is accused of using the “common people of Gaza as shields” for its “Jihadi activities” to achieve its personal goals.

Humanitarian Impact: As a direct consequence of the rigidity and conflicting demands of both Israel and Hamas, “the common people of Gaza, children and women are being crushed between these two millstones”. The immediate need highlighted is to “free Raja’s people from hell” (likely referring to Gaza’s people).

Netanyahu’s Broader Regional Agenda: Beyond the immediate Gaza conflict, the Israeli Prime Minister’s agenda during his visits to Washington also included a desire to “teach Iran a further lesson on the basis of the principle of greater American control,” aiming to complete an “incomplete mission of regime change in Iran”.

International Recognition of Trump’s Peace Efforts: Despite the stated “zero” output regarding the Gaza ceasefire, both Pakistan and Israel have “declared American President Trump as the prophet of peace” and consider him “the legitimate deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize”. They have openly requested the Nobel Prize Committee to honor Trump with the award, drawing a comparison to former President Obama’s Nobel Prize. This joint recommendation highlights their perception of Trump’s efforts to save them from their “worst enemies” and contribute to “global peace and security,” particularly referencing his claims of stopping a major war between Pakistan and India and limiting the Iran-Israel war to 12 days.

Israel and Hamas: Unyielding Conflict and Humanitarian Crisis

The dynamics between Israel and Hamas, as described in the sources, are characterized by extreme rigidity, conflicting demands, and a profound lack of compromise, leading to significant humanitarian consequences in the Gaza conflict. Despite diplomatic efforts, notably by former American President Donald Trump, the core issues remain unresolved due to the entrenched positions of both parties.

Key Aspects of Israel’s Stance:

• Security Imperative: Israel, as articulated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “cannot tolerate terrorism at our doorstep under any circumstances”.
• Dismantling Hamas: Netanyahu has insisted that Hamas “will have to become non-Muslim and we will have to leave Yamali”. This indicates a demand for Hamas to abandon its core ideology and presence.
• Pressure to Release Captives: Israel faces “intense pressure within Israel to release these Yemenis” (Israelis) who were captured by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Many of these captives have died in Hamas custody, and Hamas is accused of “trading in their dead bodies” to secure the release of its own fighters. Currently, approximately 25 alive and an equal number of dead Israelis are reportedly still in Hamas custody.
• Military Objective: Israel’s actions aim to “wipe out” Hamas, with the sources noting that this pursuit sometimes leads them to “even forget the demands of human rights”.
• Broader Regional Agenda: Beyond Gaza, Netanyahu’s agenda includes a desire to “teach Iran a further lesson on the basis of the principle of greater American control,” aiming to complete an “incomplete mission of regime change in Iran”.

Key Aspects of Hamas’s Stance:

• Unyielding Ideology: Hamas is “not ready to become non-Muslim under any circumstances”.
• Refusal to Release Captives: Hamas is unwilling to release the captured Israelis.
• Ceasefire Conditions: Hamas objects to a 60-day ceasefire. Instead, it demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Gaza and observe a “permanent ceasefire” with strong international guarantees.
• Alleged Tactics: Hamas is accused of using the “common people of Gaza as shields” for its “Jihadi activities” in order to achieve its personal goals.

Impact of the Dynamics:

• Diplomatic Stalemate: Both Israel and Hamas are described as “extremely stubborn with an ordinary mentality,” and neither is “ready to back down from oppression and atrocities or to show leniency or flexibility in their respective positions”. This rigidity is cited as “the basic reason” why President Trump was “not able to succeed in ending the ceasefire in Gaza”.
• Humanitarian Crisis: The direct consequence of these unyielding positions is that “the common people of Gaza, children and women are being crushed between these two millstones”. The immediate stated need is to “free Raja’s people from hell”.
• Unsuccessful External Mediation: Despite Trump’s stated efforts to stop the Gaza war and his promises of “good news,” his diplomatic output “remained zero” in terms of achieving a ceasefire. Both Trump and Netanyahu “were not successful in getting their objectives or demands accepted” regarding Gaza.
• Underlying Schemes: Beyond the visible issues, both sides are described as having “internal schemes about how to destroy each other”.

The sources also mention a potential future political role for the Arabs of Hebron, under Ash-Sheikh al-Jabri, who expressed willingness to form an alliance with Israel under the Abrahamic Accord if an independent building (presumably a self-governing entity) is established.

Trump’s Nobel Ambition: Pakistan and Israel’s Endorsement

The Nobel Peace Prize is discussed in the sources primarily in the context of former American President Donald Trump’s perceived rivalry with Barack Obama and the joint recommendation by Pakistan and Israel for Trump to receive the award.

Here’s a breakdown of the Nobel Peace Prize discussion:

• Barack Obama’s Precedent: Donald Trump, in American politics, considers former President Barack Obama as his rival. Trump is particularly vexed by Obama’s success in winning the Nobel Prize for Peace despite so many wars, which “does not let them relax even for a moment”. This suggests a perceived disparity or political challenge that Trump aimed to overcome.
• Trump’s Perceived Deservingness and Nomination:
• Both Pakistan and Israel have “declared American President Trump as the prophet of peace”.
• They have openly stated that they consider him the “legitimate deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize”.
• They are standing in front of the Nobel Prize Committee, openly requesting that their “Mamdu, our hero Donald Trump has decided to declare a free ceasefire to save us from our worst enemies and for the sake of global peace and security”.
• They specifically cited his “humanitarian service” in stopping a major war from starting between two nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, and also limiting the Iran-Israel war to just 12 days, which they claim he achieved after years of conflict.
• Both a “powerful Hafiz Sahib” (presumably representing Pakistan) and “Israel’s Hafiz Bibi” (presumably representing Israel) presented this suggestion, with the latter reportedly giving Trump a letter sent to the Nobel Prize Committee during a White House lunch.
• Political Implications and Reception:
• The sources note that Indians or Iranians “can feel jealous or complain about this as much as they want” and “can keep calling Trump a liar as much as you want,” indicating that this joint recommendation is controversial to others.
• Despite these significant endorsements and Trump’s own claims of stopping wars, the sources highlight an irony: in terms of “output” regarding the Gaza war, Trump’s efforts “remained zero”. Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu were “not successful in getting their objectives or demands accepted” concerning Gaza, even though the Nobel Peace Prize nominations laud his broader peace efforts.
• The narrative also touches upon the question of “how much importance the Nobel Prize Committee gives to our joint recommendation, i.e. that of Pakistan and Israel”.

In essence, the discussion around the Nobel Peace Prize in the sources focuses on Trump’s ambition to match or surpass Obama’s achievement, and the explicit advocacy by Pakistan and Israel for him to receive the award based on their perception of his contributions to regional and global peace, particularly in de-escalating conflicts involving themselves.

US-Israel Relations: Alliance, Divergence, and Diplomatic Engagement

The relationship between the United States and Israel, as presented in the sources, is characterized by frequent high-level diplomatic engagement, shared strategic interests, and mutual declarations of support, yet also by instances where their immediate objectives do not perfectly align, leading to limited success on specific issues.

Key aspects of US-Israel relations include:

• High-Level Diplomatic Engagement: The relationship involves close and frequent interactions between leaders. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is highlighted as a world leader who visited Washington three times in less than six months, engaging in “jokes on President Trump… on almost every common platform”. This indicates a strong personal rapport and a high degree of accessibility between the heads of state.
• Aligned Strategic Interests, Especially Regarding Iran: A significant shared agenda between the two nations involves Iran. During Netanyahu’s visits, his agenda included a desire to “teach Iran a further lesson on the basis of the principle of greater American control,” aiming to complete an “incomplete mission of regime change in Iran”. This suggests a deep alignment on regional geopolitical strategy and a common approach to confronting Iran.
• Divergent Immediate Priorities on Gaza: Despite the close ties, the sources indicate that the US and Israel had differing immediate priorities concerning the Gaza conflict. President Trump “wanted the Israeli Prime Minister to accept the Gaza ceasefire”. However, Netanyahu’s primary focus during these visits was on Iran. This divergence meant that “both of them were not successful in getting their objectives or demands accepted” regarding the Gaza war, and Trump’s efforts in this specific area “remained zero” in terms of “output”.
• Mutual Endorsement and Appreciation: The relationship is also marked by strong mutual appreciation and political endorsement. Israel, along with Pakistan, has “declared American President Trump as the prophet of peace and declared him the legitimate deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize”. An Israeli representative (“Israel’s Hafiz Bibi”) notably presented Trump with a letter sent to the Nobel Prize Committee during a White House lunch, receiving “a lot of thanks”. This joint recommendation underscores Israel’s perception of Trump’s significant contributions to regional peace and security, including his claimed role in “limiting the Iran-Israel war to just 12 days” after years of conflict.
• US Role in Regional Conflict Management: Trump frequently highlighted his perceived success in preventing or de-escalating conflicts involving Israel, such as the claim of stopping the Iran-Israel war, which he presented as a “humanitarian service”. This suggests a US role, as perceived by both sides, in mediating or influencing regional conflicts involving Israel.

In essence, the US-Israel relationship, as depicted, is a robust and strategically aligned partnership, particularly on issues like Iran, but one that can experience limitations in achieving specific diplomatic outcomes when immediate priorities, such as a ceasefire in Gaza, are not fully synchronized. The personal chemistry between leaders and the public declarations of support further underscore the depth of this bilateral bond.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

The discussion critically examines the current geopolitical landscape, particularly the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel and its broader implications. The dialogue touches upon the historical context of Israel’s creation and its comparison to the formation of Pakistan, both established on religious grounds. It also explores the impact of clerical rule in Iran, contrasting the perceived prosperity under the Shah with the current regime’s restrictions and the resulting public discontent. Furthermore, the conversation questions the narrative surrounding the Israel-Arab conflict, suggesting it is more of a racial issue than a religious one, while also expressing disdain for Western influence and the perceived hypocrisy in international relations.

Iran-Israel War: Nuclear Fears, History, and Regional Politics

The ongoing situation in the Middle East includes a full-fledged war between Iran and Israel, which is described as a “great catastrophe”.

Here’s a breakdown of the conflict and related perspectives:

• Nuclear Concerns
• Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed concern that if Iran possessed nuclear capability and its missiles were equipped with nuclear weapons, the consequences for the world would be unimaginable.
• There is a broader debate about whether nuclear weapons are the right of every country or should remain the monopoly of major powers.
• The concept of using atomic energy for the benefit of mankind, such as utilizing the heat generated from fission, was the basis for Dr. Abdul Salam’s Nobel Prize. It’s noted that an atom bomb’s explosion requires a specific mechanism, such as two missiles hitting the atom.
• Historical Context and US Role
• During a past Arab-Israel war, Iran and Saudi Arabia notably stopped the supply of petrol to Israel.
• This action by the Shah of Iran was viewed as a “betrayal” by the United States.
• According to memories attributed to the US ambassador in Tehran, the ambassador himself was involved in actions against the Shah, who was reportedly punished for halting petrol supply to Israel.
• The sources claim that Israel was created by Britain and America. The creation of Pakistan, a state formed in the name of religion by Britain and America, is mentioned as a historical justification to counter arguments against Israel being a state based on religion. It’s suggested that if Pakistan, created under the British Act of Parliament, is accepted, then Israel should also be accepted.
• Nature of the Conflict and Perceptions of Israel
• The issue between Israel and Arabs is characterized by one speaker as not an issue of Islam, but primarily a racial issue of the Arabs.
• Despite this, there is strong hatred towards Israel among some people. The Quran is cited as stating that “O Muslims, those who are Judos can never be your friends”.
• Israel is described by some media as a “naughty child” that troubles everyone. Israel is also accused of committing atrocities and killing many people in Gaza.
• Iran’s Internal Situation and the Cleric Rule
• The current conflict is seen by some as part of a larger plan for a “Greater Israel,” which is considered practically impossible.
• The sources heavily criticize the current cleric rule in Iran, stating that “Mullahs ruined progressive Iran”.
• It is suggested that if the cleric rule ends, the entire Iranian nation would rejoice. People reportedly touch their ears in dismay when thinking about what the Maulvis (clerics) have done.
• The Shah of Iran’s era is remembered fondly as the “Paris of Asia,” characterized by low costs and significant development like the construction of flyovers. Iranians are described as longing for that time, with people even keeping old currency notes bearing the Shah’s picture.
• The current clerics are accused of having “broken all the records” of oppression, even surpassing the Savak (secret police under the Shah), and of killing people over minor incidents, such as a girl’s headscarf coming off.
• The younger generation in Iran reportedly questions why older generations did not protest the clerics when they took power.
• Pakistan’s Stance
• Pakistan currently does not accept Israel, despite having no shared borders or direct connections.
• It is suggested that Pakistan is waiting for the Saudi government to accept Israel before it does.
• Concerns exist that acceptance of Israel could lead to significant public unrest or “ruckus” within Pakistan.
• Path to Peace
• Some countries have announced the importance of maintaining peace.
• The welfare of the people is seen as achievable through compromise.

US Foreign Policy and Middle East Geopolitics

Based on the sources, US foreign policy is depicted as highly influential, strategic, and at times, interventionist, particularly concerning the Middle East.

Here’s a breakdown of key aspects:

• Role in State Creation and Justification:
• The US, along with Britain, is stated to have created Israel. This creation was reportedly a point of contention, as it was a “state in the name of religion”.
• To counter this criticism, the US (and Britain) are said to have created Pakistan as another state “in the name of religion”. This was part of a strategic justification, where Roosevelt allegedly wrote to Churchill during World War II, stating that for US help, Britain needed to conquer India and create two “military states”. Pakistan was thus formed under the British Act of Parliament, serving to justify Israel’s existence as a religiously-based state by demonstrating the creation of a Muslim state as well.
• Punitive Measures and Non-Forgiveness of “Betrayal”:
• US foreign policy does not “forgive” what it perceives as “betrayals”.
• A significant example given is Henry Kissinger’s alleged threats to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Shah of Iran, and Faisal. These threats were reportedly a direct consequence of Iran and Saudi Arabia stopping petrol supplies to Israel during a past Arab-Israel war. The source claims that Kissinger “blew away all three of them”.
• Specifically concerning Iran, the US ambassador in Tehran is alleged to have been directly involved in actions against the Shah, whom the US “punished” for halting petrol supply to Israel. This punishment is described metaphorically as the “landlord” sending a “henchman” to “beat him with shoes”.
• Intervention and Strategic Manipulation:
• The sources suggest a US strategy of “using the governments of all the Muslim countries” and “the clerics” for its own objectives, citing Afghanistan as an example.
• Regarding Iran, it is controversially suggested that the rise of the clerics (Mullahs) who replaced the Shah was “part of the plan” orchestrated by the US, potentially alongside Russia and Britain, despite the subsequent anti-American sentiment. The US ambassador in Tehran is implicated in actions against the Shah, reportedly supporting those against him and punishing him.
• The conflict between Iran and Israel is seen by some as part of a larger, though “not practically possible,” plan for a “Greater Israel”.
• Influence and Future Considerations:
• The US exerts significant influence, as evidenced by the importance placed on a “call from the byte house” (White House) for leaders like Pakistan’s Prime Minister.
• In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the sources mention that America has “so much money” to potentially resettle Palestinians in other Muslim countries like Jordan and Egypt.
• It is also cryptically stated that “America will set up a super college in the future”, hinting at a continued, significant US presence or strategic involvement in the region.
• In the current Iran-Israel war, the “status of America is in front of you on the surface,” with suggestions that “their nuclear potential has been destroyed”, implying US involvement or impact on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The Double Standard of Religious States: Israel and Pakistan

The sources discuss “religious states” primarily in the context of the creation of both Israel and Pakistan by Britain and America, and the subsequent implications and perceptions surrounding them.

Here’s a breakdown of the concept of religious states as presented in the sources:

• Creation of Religious States by the US and Britain:
• Israel was explicitly created by Britain and America as a “state in the name of religion”. This creation initially faced questions because of its religious basis.
• To counteract the criticism of Israel being a state formed on religious grounds, Pakistan was also created by Britain and America “in the name of religion”. The stated rationale was that during World War II, Roosevelt told Churchill that for US help, Britain needed to conquer India and create two “military states.” Pakistan was thus formed under the British Act of Parliament to serve as a justification, demonstrating that “not just Israel, we have created Pakistan also in the name of religion, both the states in the name of religion”.
• Arguments and Perceptions Regarding Religious States:
• A key argument presented is that if Pakistan, a state created under the British Act of Parliament by Britain and America, is accepted, then Israel should also be accepted. The sources question why Pakistan fights with Israel, given there are “neither borders nor any connection” between them, yet Pakistan accepts its own creation by Britain.
• Pakistan is described as a country that “run[s] our country in the name of religion” and “defend[s] our country which was formed in the name of religion”.
• The “two nationalist view” in Pakistan, often associated with its religious foundation, is questioned in the context of historical atrocities, specifically the killing of “38 lakh people” by “Islamic taba, Al Bad and Shams” (referring to events during the Bangladesh Liberation War). The speaker ponders what kind of “nationalist view” allows for such killings.
• Political and Diplomatic Stance on Religious States:
• Pakistan currently does not accept Israel, despite having no direct shared borders or connections. It is suggested that Pakistan is “waiting for the Saudi government to accept” Israel before it does.
• There are concerns that if Pakistan were to accept Israel, it could lead to significant “public unrest” or “ruckus” within the country.
• Religious Sentiment and Conflict:
• Despite the issue between Israel and Arabs being characterized by one speaker as “not an issue of Islam, it is a racial issue of the Arabs,” there is “a lot of hatred” towards Israel among some people.
• The Quran is cited as stating: “O Muslims, those who are Judos can never be your friends”. This suggests a religious basis for animosity in some interpretations.

In summary, the sources portray religious states as entities whose creation by Western powers was intertwined with strategic justifications and which continue to generate complex political, identity, and conflict dynamics.

Pakistan: Created, Questioned, and Contradictory Legitimacy

Pakistan’s legitimacy is discussed in the sources primarily through the lens of its creation by Britain and America as a “religious state” and its subsequent acceptance (or non-acceptance of others) on the global stage.

Here’s a breakdown of how Pakistan’s legitimacy is portrayed:

• Creation as a “Religious State” and Strategic Justification:
• Pakistan was created by Britain and America “in the name of religion”.
• This was part of a larger strategic move during World War II, where Roosevelt allegedly told Churchill that for US help, Britain needed to “conquer India and create two states here for us, making them military states”.
• The creation of Pakistan served as a justification for Israel’s existence, which was also a “state in the name of religion.” The argument presented was: “sir, not just Israel, we have created Pakistan also in the name of religion, both the states in the name of religion”.
• Pakistan was formed under the “British Act of Parliament”. The sources explicitly state there was “no connection of any Jana Saheb Gandhi or Nehru in this nor is there any name of any actual parliament” in its creation, implying it was a colonial construct.
• Internal Critique and the “Two Nationalist View”:
• The sources mention that Pakistan “run[s] our country in the name of religion” and “defend[s] our country which was formed in the name of religion”.
• However, the “two nationalist view” in Pakistan is sharply questioned in the context of historical atrocities. The speaker asks, “which two nationalist view is this sir, under which you killed 38 lakh people,” referring to killings by “Islamic taba, Al Bad and Shams” (groups mentioned in relation to the Bangladesh Liberation War). This implies a critique of the moral legitimacy of the state’s foundation when such violence occurred under its purported religious/nationalist ideology.
• International Acceptance and Hypocrisy:
• A central argument posed by the sources is that “if you accept Pakistan created by Britain and America, then accept Israel”. This highlights what is perceived as a hypocrisy in Pakistan’s foreign policy, as it does not accept Israel despite both states being created “in the name of religion” by the same powers.
• The sources question Pakistan’s conflict with Israel, stating, “what is your fight with Israel, neither do you share borders nor do you have any connection, you do not accept Israel for no reason”.
• Pakistan is currently waiting for the Saudi government to accept Israel before it does. There are concerns that accepting Israel could lead to “significant public unrest” or “ruckus” within Pakistan.
• The importance of international recognition and influence is also hinted at, with references to Pakistani leadership longing for a “call from the byte house” (White House).

In summary, the sources portray Pakistan as a state whose legitimacy is tied to its unconventional, religion-based creation by external powers (Britain and America). While it is accepted as a state, its moral and political consistency are questioned due to historical events and its stance on Israel, especially given the shared, religiously-motivated origins of both nations.

The Clerics’ Grip: Iran’s Ruin and Foreign Influence

The influence of Mullahs (clerics) is presented in the sources primarily through their significant role in Iran, their alleged manipulation by external powers, and the profound impact they have had on Iranian society.

Here’s a discussion of their influence:

• Role in Iran’s Political Shift and Alleged External Orchestration:
• The sources suggest that the rise of the clerics (Mullahs) who replaced the Shah in Iran was “part of the plan” orchestrated by America, Russia, and Britain. This implies that their ascendance to power was not merely an internal uprising but potentially a strategically engineered outcome by major global powers.
• It is alleged that the US ambassador in Tehran was directly involved, supporting those against the Shah and effectively “punish[ing]” the Shah for halting petrol supplies to Israel. This suggests that the Mullahs’ rise was facilitated, if not directly engineered, by American foreign policy objectives.
• Negative Impact on Iran and Suppression of Freedoms:
• The clerics are accused of having “ruined progressive Iran”.
• Under their rule, “all the records” of suppression have been broken, surpassing even the Savak (the Shah’s intelligence agency). It is stated that “if a person speaks even a little, he is blown away,” and a “tabaaya has spread in Iran”.
• The sources suggest that the clerics have caused immense “destruction” in Iran, specifically mentioning the decline of the Iranian currency which was once among the highest in the world. This stands in stark contrast to Iran during the Shah’s time, which was described as the “Paris of Asia” and a place of prosperity.
• The Mullahs are blamed for the killing of people over minor issues, such as a girl’s head covering coming off, leading to widespread destruction and deaths.
• Public Perception and Desire for Their Removal:
• There is a strong sentiment expressed that the “entire Iranian nation will come out in joy” if the rule of these clerics were to end. People are said to “touch their ears to hear what these Maulvis have done there”.
• Younger generations in Iran reportedly question older people why they did not resist the clerics when they rose to power, given the current suffering and abuses.
• The speaker expresses a personal wish to witness “the funeral procession of these clerics to come out and end there,” believing that “Iranians are crazy” with joy at the prospect.
• Strategic Utility by External Powers:
• Beyond Iran, America is stated to have “used the governments of all the Muslim countries, [and] used the clerics” for its own objectives, citing Afghanistan as an example. This indicates that the influence of clerics is not confined to internal governance but is also a tool that global powers leverage for strategic purposes in the broader Muslim world.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

Critical examination of various global political figures, comparing them to the “three idiots” from a popular Indian film to highlight their perceived foolishness or unpredictability. It discusses former and current leaders, including an American president, as well as leaders from Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan, labeling some as dictatorial or self-serving. Also criticizes specific actions and policies of leaders from Israel and India, particularly their handling of conflicts and the resulting civilian casualties. Expresses disappointment in leaders who prioritize personal gain or showmanship over the well-being of their nations and people.

The Erratic Reign: Unpredictable Leaders and Global Repercussions

Unpredictable leadership is a prominent theme in the sources, primarily exemplified by the actions and characteristics attributed to a former American President, often referred to with terms like “unpredictable” and “too wise”.

Key aspects and examples of unpredictable leadership, as described in the sources, include:

• Characteristics of the Leader
• The American President, particularly during his first term, was described as exhibiting characteristics that led to him being labeled “unpredictable”. He is portrayed as having “crossed all limits of being too wise”.
• This leader’s actions and words are depicted as highly erratic, with the sources noting that “No one knows what Masoof will say where. Call it a double-edged sword or a dagger. Nobody knows where it will turn”.
• He is described as having “no discrimination or identification of friend or foe” for people of his “caste”.
• The sources state he “can kill anyone, whenever and wherever he wants”.
• His dressing style was even “objected to by the rich and wise”.
• The source explicitly calls “Sir Frist coming from America” a “clown” among current Jamhuris.
• Impact on Relationships and Diplomacy
• The unpredictability extended to interactions with allies, as seen when an “Indian soldier was hugging him while shouting slogans of Jai-Jai, saying friend-friend, when suddenly it fell on his neck”. This left the soldier unable to determine if the leader was a “hero or a villain”.
• This behavior led to a perception of “Cruelty to your own people and kindness to strangers,” making it difficult to maintain “some illusion of friendship”.
• Even “European followers” were seen as having “no status in front of this American parrot-like personality”.
• The sources mention instances like the leader’s actions regarding the “Ukraine incident,” which turned into a “Jarbul muscle” in front of the media.
• Despite flattery towards “big Chaudhry Putin,” when the Russian dictator did not yield, the American leader reportedly tried to “make amends for his previous misdeed” by meeting in the Vatican away from media eyes. However, he “still did not desist from his real activities”.
• The leader is also noted for calling the President of Africa to the White House and “washed his black skin,” leading the African leader to lament not having billions to save his honor with a gift.
• Consequences and Perceptions
• The leader was “thrown out of the White House in such a humiliating manner”.
• The source suggests that if this leader “had come to power in Russia, China or any third world country, he would have proved to be the worst dictator”.
• This type of leadership contributes to unresolved international issues, as seen with the unresolved “issue of Russia and Ukraine” and the continued “blood of Gaza”.
• Other Examples of Leaders with Questionable or Unpredictable Outcomes
• The sources also refer to “three dreaded characters dominating the Muslim world” from Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan, who tried to declare themselves “revolutionaries.” The outcome for all three was predicted to be “terrible and horrific,” with an unlikelihood of a “natural death without achieving martyrdom”. This implies a dangerous and unpredictable trajectory for their leadership.
• Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Benjamin Netaji (Netanyahu) are mentioned, with concerns that their actions are “bent upon humiliation or world-renunciation” for their countries. The source questions how leaders “whose own hands are stained with blood” can “flaunt his supremacy to the world”.
• Specifically, Netan Yau’s actions after the 7 October incident are criticized for killing “ordinary citizens instead of terrorists,” which made it impossible for “even a Jew” to defend, and made it difficult for the world to stand with Israel.
• Similarly, India’s “Operation Sindoor” is criticized for killing “innocent people instead of terrorists,” which made it difficult for the world to stand with India despite initial sympathy for the 22 April incident. The source suggests that if India had not retaliated in this way, it would have achieved “much global prominence”. These examples suggest that retaliatory actions, even if perceived as unpredictable or disproportionate, can negatively impact global standing and support.

Unpredictable Leaders and Global Consequences

Global politics, as depicted in the sources, is significantly shaped by the actions and characteristics of individual leaders, particularly those exhibiting unpredictable or controversial behavior, and the subsequent impact on international relations, alliances, and global standing.

Key aspects of global politics discussed include:

• The Impact of Unpredictable Leadership: The American President
• The former American President, often referred to as “Sir Frist coming from America,” is described as having “crossed all limits of being too wise” and being so unpredictable that “No one knows what Masoof will say where”. His actions are likened to a “double-edged sword or a dagger” with unknown turns.
• This unpredictability extended to his relationships, as he showed “no discrimination or identification of friend or foe” for people of his “caste”.
• Allies and Partners: An “Indian soldier was hugging him while shouting slogans of Jai-Jai, saying friend-friend, when suddenly it fell on his neck,” leaving the soldier unable to determine if he was a “hero or a villain”. The sources note “Cruelty to your own people and kindness to strangers,” which made it difficult to maintain “some illusion of friendship”. Even “European followers” were seen as having “no status in front of this American parrot-like personality”. The leader also “honoured his close neighbour and friend, the young Canadian PM Justin Trudeau” even before taking office.
• Adversaries and Rivals: Regarding the “Ukraine incident,” his actions were described as “that dog thing in front of the media which turned into a Jarbul muscle”. Despite “flattery of this big Chaudhry Putin,” when the Russian dictator did not yield, the American leader reportedly tried to “make amends for his previous misdeed” by meeting in the Vatican away from media eyes, though he “still did not desist from his real activities”.
• Treatment of Other Nations: He famously “called the President of Africa to the White House and washed his black skin,” leading the African leader to lament not having billions to save his honor with a gift.
• Consequences: The leader was “thrown out of the White House in such a humiliating manner”. The sources suggest that if he “had come to power in Russia, China or any third world country, he would have proved to be the worst dictator”.
• Leaders with Destructive Trajectories in Global Politics
• The sources mention “three dreaded characters dominating the Muslim world” from Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan, who tried to declare themselves “revolutionaries”. The outcome for all three was predicted to be “terrible and horrific,” with an unlikelihood of a “natural death without achieving martyrdom,” implying a dangerous and unpredictable trajectory for their leadership and regional stability.
• Prime Minister Modi of India and Prime Minister Benjamin Netaji (Netanyahu) of Israel are also discussed regarding their impact on global standing.
• Netanyahu’s Actions: After the 7 October incident, Netan Yau’s actions are criticized for killing “ordinary citizens instead of terrorists”. This made it impossible for “even a Jew” to defend his actions, and made it difficult for the world to stand with Israel despite the initial sympathy for the “deadly terror” experienced.
• Modi’s Actions: Similarly, India’s “Operation Sindoor” is criticized for killing “innocent people instead of terrorists” after the 22 April incident. The sources suggest that despite initial global sympathy, this retaliation made it difficult for the world to stand with India. It is proposed that if India had not retaliated in this way, it would have achieved “much global prominence”.
• The sources question how leaders “whose own hands are stained with blood” can “flaunt his supremacy to the world”.
• Ongoing Global Issues and Diplomacy
• The “issue of Russia and Ukraine is not being resolved”, highlighting a continuing global conflict.
• The “blood of Gaza” also continues to be shed, indicating another unresolved and tragic international issue.
• The sources note that “Today’s world values realities and not hollow slogans”, emphasizing a shift in global perceptions.
• Diplomatic efforts are recognized, such as India sending its “diplomatic delegation to win over the world opinion”.

Political Hypocrisy: Leaders’ Contradictory Actions

Political hypocrisy, as discussed in the sources, manifests primarily through a discrepancy between a leader’s stated intentions or perceived moral standing and their actual actions, particularly concerning violence, diplomacy, and the treatment of their own people versus others.

Key examples and facets of political hypocrisy include:

• Contradictory Actions of the American President:
• The former American President is described as having “crossed all limits of being too wise” and being so unpredictable that “No one knows what Masoof will say where”. This unpredictability sometimes translated into actions that appear hypocritical, such as showing “Cruelty to your own people and kindness to strangers”. This made it difficult for allies, like an “Indian soldier,” to understand whether to call him a “hero or a villain”, highlighting a lack of consistent principle in his relationships.
• Despite attempts at flattery towards “big Chaudhry Putin,” when the Russian dictator did not yield, the American leader reportedly tried to “make amends for his previous misdeed” by meeting in the Vatican away from media eyes, yet he “still did not desist from his real activities”. This suggests a performative diplomacy that did not genuinely alter his underlying, often disruptive, approach.
• His overall demeanor, being called a “clown” but having the potential to be the “worst dictator” in other contexts, and his dressing style being “objected to by the rich and wise”, points to a notable disconnect between expected presidential decorum and his actual behavior, creating a perception of an leader who acts outside norms while holding a powerful office.
• Leaders Whose Actions Contradict Their Moral Claims:
• The sources directly question the moral authority of leaders “Whose own hands are stained with blood. How can he flaunt his supremacy to the world?”. This accusation is leveled specifically at Prime Minister Modi of India and Prime Minister Benjamin Netaji (Netanyahu) of Israel.
• Netanyahu’s actions after the 7 October incident are criticized because “instead of terrorists, ordinary citizens are being killed”. The source states that this made it impossible for “even a Jew” to defend, implying a profound hypocrisy where the stated goal of fighting terrorism was undermined by actions that harmed civilians. Despite initial global sympathy for the “deadly terror” Israel faced, these actions made it difficult for the world to stand with Israel.
• Similarly, India’s “Operation Sindoor” after the 22 April incident is criticized for killing “innocent people instead of terrorists”. The source suggests that this retaliation, despite initial global sympathy for India, made it difficult for the world to stand with India. It is proposed that if India had not retaliated in this way, it would have achieved “much global prominence”, highlighting how actions perceived as hypocritical (claiming to fight terrorists but killing innocents) can negatively impact global standing.
• The source emphasizes that “Today’s world values realities and not hollow slogans”, directly addressing the idea that political hypocrisy, or the attempt to maintain a façade (“hollow slogans”), is no longer effective in an era where actions speak louder than words.
• Self-Proclaimed Revolutionaries with Destructive Outcomes:
• The sources mention “three dreaded characters dominating the Muslim world” from Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan who “try their best to declare themselves as revolutionaries or to make others declare themselves as such”. However, their predicted outcome was “terrible and horrific,” with an unlikelihood of a “natural death without achieving martyrdom”. This implies a hypocrisy between their self-proclaimed revolutionary status and the destructive, non-heroic reality of their leadership and its consequences.

The Perilous Dance of Nations: Diplomacy, Conflict, and Leadership

International relations, as illuminated by the sources, are a complex web influenced by individual leaders’ behaviors, strategic alliances, diplomatic maneuvers, and the significant impact of conflict and perceived hypocrisy on a nation’s global standing.

Here’s a discussion of key aspects of international relations:

• The Influence of Unpredictable Leadership:
• The former American President is described as a pivotal figure whose actions profoundly affected international relations. His unpredictability was so extreme that “No one knows what Masoof will say where” and his actions were likened to a “double-edged sword or a dagger” with unknown turns. This made it difficult for allies, as he showed “no discrimination or identification of friend or foe” even for people of his “caste”.
• For instance, an “Indian soldier was hugging him while shouting slogans of Jai-Jai, saying friend-friend, when suddenly it fell on his neck,” leaving the soldier confused whether to call him a “hero or a villain”. This highlights the fragility of perceived alliances under such leadership.
• His “Cruelty to your own people and kindness to strangers” further complicated maintaining “some illusion of friendship”. Even “European followers” were seen as having “no status in front of this American parrot-like personality”.
• Despite attempts at flattery towards “big Chaudhry Putin,” the Russian dictator did not yield on issues, instead trying to form a troika against the US. The American leader then reportedly tried to “make amends for his previous misdeed” by meeting in the Vatican away from media eyes, yet “still did not desist from his real activities,” demonstrating a strategic yet inconsistent approach to adversaries.
• His unusual actions, such as calling the “President of Africa to the White House and washed his black skin”, led to awkward diplomatic moments and highlighted a disregard for international protocol.
• Alliances and Bilateral Relations:
• The American President did “honour his close neighbour and friend, the young Canadian PM Justin Trudeau” even before taking office, indicating some stable bilateral relationships can exist.
• The sources also allude to the long-standing cultural power, democratic politics, and global status of India and Israel, which suggests a history of significant international engagement.
• Conflict and its Global Repercussions:
• Ongoing conflicts like the “issue of Russia and Ukraine is not being resolved” and the continued shedding of “blood of Gaza” underscore the persistence of international disputes and humanitarian crises.
• The sources critically examine how nations respond to terror incidents. Following the “deadly terror that happened with Israel on 7 October” and with “India on 22 April,” both nations initially received “much praise all over the world” and global sympathy. However, the subsequent retaliatory actions by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and India’s “Operation Sindoor,” which reportedly killed “ordinary citizens” or “innocent people instead of terrorists,” made it difficult for the world to stand with them. This suggests that indiscriminate retaliation can severely damage a nation’s international support and prominence, even when they are the victims of terrorism.
• The Role of Hypocrisy in International Standing:
• The sources directly question the moral authority of leaders “Whose own hands are stained with blood. How can he flaunt his supremacy to the world?”. This highlights a critical aspect of international relations: perceived political hypocrisy undermines legitimacy and global influence.
• The observation that “Today’s world values realities and not hollow slogans” emphasizes that superficial claims or justifications for actions are no longer effective in gaining international favor. Actions, particularly those involving civilian casualties, have tangible consequences for a nation’s global image and diplomatic efforts.
• Diplomatic Efforts:
• Despite the challenges, diplomatic efforts continue, as seen by India sending its “diplomatic delegation to win over the world opinion”. However, the sources imply that the effectiveness of such delegations is diminished if prior actions contradict the message they carry. If India “had sent them without retaliating,” it would have achieved “much global prominence”.

In essence, international relations are portrayed as a dynamic arena where leadership style, the handling of conflict, and adherence to perceived ethical standards (or lack thereof) profoundly shape alliances, adversarial relationships, and a nation’s standing on the global stage.

Failed Resolution: Leaders, Retaliation, and Global Standings

Conflict resolution, as depicted in the sources, is a complex and often unsuccessful endeavor, heavily influenced by the actions and perceived integrity of national leaders. The sources highlight instances where conflicts persist and where attempts at resolution or gaining international support are undermined by specific tactical choices and leadership behaviors.

Key insights into conflict resolution from the sources include:

• Persistence of Major Conflicts: The sources explicitly state that “the issue of Russia and Ukraine is not being resolved”. Similarly, the “blood of Gaza” continues to be shed, indicating an ongoing, unresolved humanitarian crisis and conflict in that region. This suggests that despite global attention, some major international disputes remain intractable.
• Counterproductive Retaliation: A significant theme is how nations’ responses to terrorism can hinder rather than help in achieving a desirable resolution or maintaining international support.
• Following the “deadly terror that happened with Israel on 7 October” and with “India on 22 April,” both nations initially garnered “much praise all over the world” and global sympathy.
• However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions after the 7 October incident are criticized because “instead of terrorists, ordinary citizens are being killed,” making it difficult for “even a Jew” to defend. This suggests that actions seen as disproportionate or indiscriminate hinder moral standing and international support for conflict resolution.
• Similarly, India’s “Operation Sindoor” after the 22 April incident, which reportedly killed “innocent people instead of terrorists,” made it impossible for the “world [to] stand with you”. The sources propose that if India “had sent them [diplomatic delegation] without retaliating,” it would have achieved “much global prominence”. This implies that restraint and a focus on non-civilian targets could lead to greater global legitimacy and facilitate more effective diplomatic solutions.
• Impact of Leadership Credibility and Hypocrisy: The perceived moral authority and consistency of leaders are crucial for effective conflict resolution and international standing.
• The sources directly question leaders “Whose own hands are stained with blood. How can he flaunt his supremacy to the world?”. This applies to figures like Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Such a perception of hypocrisy, where actions contradict claims of fighting terrorism by harming civilians, undermines a nation’s ability to lead or gain genuine support in conflict resolution efforts.
• The modern world “values realities and not hollow slogans”. This means that superficial justifications or “hollow slogans” for violent actions are not effective in gaining international favor or fostering resolution.
• Influence of Unpredictable Leadership on Diplomatic Outcomes: The actions of the former American President are also noted for their impact on international relations, often hindering stable diplomatic outcomes. His unpredictability meant “No one knows what Masoof will say where”, making it difficult for even allies to discern if he was a “hero or a villain”. While he tried to “make amends for his previous misdeed” by meeting with “big Chaudhry Putin” in the Vatican, he “still did not desist from his real activities”. This suggests that even diplomatic overtures by such a leader might not lead to genuine shifts or resolutions if underlying actions remain inconsistent or disruptive.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

The source provides a critical analysis of former President Trump’s diplomatic approach, asserting that his bold claims often lacked substantive results. It examines specific instances, such as Trump’s engagement with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, his threats against Hamas regarding Israeli hostages, and his actions concerning Iran’s nuclear program and the subsequent Iran-Israel tensions. The text highlights discrepancies between Trump’s public statements and leaked Pentagon reports regarding the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, suggesting a more nuanced reality to his claims of success. Furthermore, it touches upon Trump’s alleged efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza, proposing a multi-national Arab solution for the region’s governance post-Hamas, and concludes by questioning the feasibility and simplicity of such proposed solutions given the complex regional dynamics.

Trump’s Unorthodox Diplomacy: Claims, Threats, and Contradictions

President Trump’s diplomacy, is characterized by a blunt and outspoken communication style, often involving loud claims and threats, yet sometimes failing to achieve the desired results or having outcomes that contradict initial statements.

Here are key aspects of Trump’s diplomacy:

• Communication Style and Claims:
• He is described as a “unique president who speaks blatantly on any issue, makes loud claims, but then fails to achieve the desired results”.
• This style contrasts with the Arabic proverb “Man Katsar Kalama Katsar Khatawah” (The more talkative he is, the more his mistakes will be), which suggests that those with important responsibilities should be careful with their words.
• Trump has used “objectionable language” against his media, accusing them of trying to “smear their achievements by adding mangoes to milk”.
• Russia-Ukraine War:
• Upon entering the White House, Trump claimed he would “immediately end the Russia-Ukraine war”.
• However, the effect was reversed, and Russian President Putin “became even more lion against America and Europe” after Ukrainian President Zelensky was “humiliated by the White House blocker”.
• Hamas and Israeli Hostages:
• Trump “insulted Hamas” and threatened to “release the Israeli hostages before I take oath, or I will make Gaza a hell for you”.
• Despite these threats, that Hamas extremists “sold the bodies of Israeli hostages with heavy receipts,” and the hostages from October 7, 2023, are still “rotting in prison”. This is presented as a contradiction to Trump’s “exaggerating his achievements in the Nobel Prize”.
• Diplomacy with Iran:
• Threats and Nuclear Program: Trump “threatened Iranian mullahs to surrender unconditionally or I will broadcast your doomsday”. He also claimed to have “stopped Iranian nuclear installations” by bombing them, likening it to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that stopped a world war.
• However, American media, citing leaked Pentagon reports, indicated that Trump’s claim of “total destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is not true”. While nuclear facilities were “definitely destroyed,” the Americans had “informed the Iranians” beforehand, allowing them to move 400 kilograms of enriched uranium to a safe place.
• In contrast, the US Secretary of Defense supports Trump’s claim of complete destruction and held a press conference at The Hague to that effect.
• “Friendly War” Approach: Trump is described as being “against wars anyway or believes in friendly war”.
• He informed Iranians before attacks on Iran.
• He then “settled matters with Iranians himself through Qatar”.
• He gave Iran “every chance to drop as many missiles at the US military base in Doha as the Americans bombed Iranian nuclear installations,” deliberately allowing only one of fourteen “light quality” missiles to drop to prevent harm.
• Ceasefire and De-escalation with Israel:
• Iran ordered a formal ceasefire with Israel, advanced by Qatar.
• When Israelis violated it, they were “rebuked,” and “seventy rear planes that were going to attack Iran” were recalled under “severe pressure on Netanyahu”.
• Trump prevented attacks on Iranian oil refineries and the killing of Supreme Leader Khamenei, despite knowing his secret location.
• He “openly condemned Israel,” stating, “I love Iranians. I am also angry but more angry with Israelis”.
• At The Hague, he praised Iranians as a “great nation, rich with oil wealth” and supported their right to export oil for rebuilding, indicating a willingness to “soften sanctions on Iran”.
• He stated that the dispute was “only about nuclear weapons, we will not allow atomic bombs to be made. Also, there is no issue” for negotiations to start soon.
• Stance on Regime Change: Trump gave a “positive” answer against regime change in Iran, stating that it “could have started violence and anarchy in Iran, so it was not necessary”.
• Outcomes: This diplomacy is seen as having “avoided wars in each two lines at least temporarily”. Both sides felt they had won, with Iran celebrating a victory despite losses, preventing a fate like Saddam and Gaddafi.
• Gaza Ceasefire and Future Plans (Alleged Report):
• An international media report, citing an Israeli newspaper, suggests that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have reached an “ace in regards to ceasefire in Gaza within the next two weeks”.
• This alleged plan involves:
• Joint control of Gaza by four Arab countries (including UAE and Egypt) to replace Hamas.
• Deportation of Hamas leadership while releasing all Israeli hostages.
• Resettlement of Palestinians leaving Gaza in “some unknown countries”.
• Establishment of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Israel, with other Arab countries following suit.
• US recognition of Israeli control over some parts of the West Bank.
• Challenges to the Gaza Plan (Darwish’s perspective): Darwish views these things as “not as simple” as the report describes.
• The question of who should control Gaza after Hamas is complex, with Arab countries often naming the Palestinian Authority under Mahmood Abbas, despite internal fights between Al-Fatih and Hamas. Israel prefers supervision by Arab countries over the Palestinian Authority.
• The recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia under the Abraham Accord is also complex, suggesting Saudi Arabia should involve other OIC countries.
• Despite destruction, Hamas’s power in Gaza could not be completely eradicated, and Israeli hostages “cannot be completely freed from its custody”.
• Trump’s current challenge is “putting Arab countries forward to solve the Gaza issue”. The timing is seen as opportune because “Hamas is not getting the help of Iran nor has Hezbollah any position”.

Trump’s Middle East Diplomacy: A “Friendly War” Approach

President Trump’s approach to Middle East peace is characterized by a blend of blunt communication, bold claims, and a unique “friendly war” strategy, which sometimes led to de-escalation despite initial aggressive rhetoric, though not always to the claimed outcomes.

Here’s a discussion of Trump’s diplomacy concerning Middle East peace:

• General Diplomatic Style and Rhetoric
• Trump is described as a “unique president who speaks blatantly on any issue, makes loud claims,” but often “fails to achieve the desired results”. This style contrasts with the Arabic proverb “Man Katsar Kalama Katsar Khatawah” (The more talkative he is, the more his mistakes will be), which suggests careful speech for those in sensitive responsibilities. He has also used “objectionable language” against media he perceives as trying to “smear their achievements”.
• Engagement with Iran and Israel
• Threats and De-escalation with Iran: Trump threatened Iranian mullahs to “surrender unconditionally or I will broadcast your doomsday” and claimed to have “stopped Iranian nuclear installations” by bombing them, likening it to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. However, American media, citing leaked Pentagon reports, indicated that Trump’s claim of “total destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is not true,” suggesting that while facilities were destroyed, Iranians were informed beforehand and moved enriched uranium to safety. In contrast, the US Secretary of Defense supported Trump’s claim of complete destruction.
• “Friendly War” Approach: Trump is described as being “against wars anyway or believes in friendly war”. This was evidenced by him informing Iranians before attacks on Iran. He then “settled matters with Iranians himself through Qatar”. He allegedly allowed Iran to “drop as many missiles at the US military base in Doha as the Americans bombed Iranian nuclear installations,” deliberately stopping thirteen out of fourteen and ensuring the remaining one was “of light quality so that there be no harm”.
• Ceasefire and Preventing Further Conflict with Israel: Following this, Iran ordered a formal ceasefire with Israel, advanced by Qatar. When Israelis violated it, Trump reportedly “rebuked” them, leading to the recall of “seventy rear planes that were going to attack Iran” under “severe pressure on Netanyahu”. Trump also prevented attacks on Iranian oil refineries and the killing of Supreme Leader Khamenei, despite knowing his secret location. He “openly condemned Israel,” stating, “I love Iranians. I am also angry but more angry with Israelis”. At The Hague, he praised Iranians as a “great nation, rich with oil wealth” and supported their right to export oil for rebuilding, indicating a willingness to “soften sanctions on Iran”. He clarified that the dispute was “only about nuclear weapons,” and “negotiations with Iran may start next week”.
• Stance on Regime Change: Trump gave a “positive” answer against regime change in Iran, stating that it “could have started violence and anarchy in Iran, so it was not necessary”.
• Outcomes: This diplomacy is seen as having “avoided wars in each two lines at least temporarily”. Both sides reportedly felt they had won, with Iran celebrating a victory despite losses, preventing a fate like Saddam and Gaddafi.
• Engagement with Hamas and Israeli Hostages
• Trump “insulted Hamas” and “threatened to release the Israeli hostages before I take oath, or I will make Gaza a hell for you”. However, “Hamas extremists also sold the bodies of Israeli hostages with heavy receipts, and even today these hostages of Hamas belonged to October 7, 2023 They are rotting in prison”. This is presented as a contradiction to Trump “exaggerating his achievements in the Nobel Prize”.
• Alleged Gaza Ceasefire and Future Peace Plan
• An international media report, citing an Israeli newspaper, suggests that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have reached an “ace in regards to ceasefire in Gaza within the next two weeks”. This report emerged amidst criticism of Iranian leadership for not agreeing to a ceasefire linked to Gaza.
• The alleged plan includes:
• Joint control of Gaza by four Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, to replace Hamas.
• Deportation of Hamas leadership while releasing all Israeli hostages.
• Resettlement of Palestinians leaving Gaza in “some unknown countries”.
• Establishment of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Israel, with other Arab countries following suit.
• US recognition of Israeli control over some parts of the West Bank.
• Skepticism and Challenges to the Gaza Plan
• Darwish views these proposed elements as “not as simple” as the alleged report describes.
• Control of Gaza: The question of “to whom should we give control of Gaza after removing Hamas?” is complex. Arab countries often suggest the Palestinian Authority under Mahmood Abbas, despite internal conflicts between Al-Fatih and Hamas. Israel, however, prefers supervision by Arab countries over the Palestinian Authority, potentially involving Jordan and Syria with Egypt.
• Saudi Arabia’s Recognition of Israel: The recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia under the Abraham Accord is also seen as complex, with Darwish suggesting that Saudi Arabia should “carry OIC’s other countries along with them in this regard”.
• Hamas’s Enduring Power: Despite destruction, “the power of Hamas in Gaza could not be completely eradicated,” and “the Israeli hostages of October 7, 2023 cannot be completely freed from its custody”.
• Current Challenge and Opportunity: Trump’s current challenge is “putting Arab countries forward to solve the Gaza issue”. However, the timing is considered opportune because “Hamas is not getting the help of Iran nor has Hezbollah any position,” presenting “the right time to end the violence from Gaza”.

Trump’s Unconventional Diplomacy: Iran, Israel, and De-escalation

Iran-Israel relations, particularly during President Trump’s tenure, were characterized by a complex interplay of aggressive rhetoric, claimed military actions, diplomatic interventions, and attempts at de-escalation, with the US acting as a significant, albeit unconventional, third party.

Here’s a discussion of Iran-Israel relations as depicted below:

• Trump’s Rhetoric and Claims Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Program:
• President Trump is described as a “unique president who speaks blatantly on any issue, makes loud claims”. Upon entering the White House, he threatened Iranian mullahs to “surrender unconditionally or I will broadcast your doomsday”.
• He claimed to have “stopped Iranian nuclear installations” by bombing them, drawing a controversial comparison to the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that ended a world war. He asserted that he had “stopped the war” between Iran and Israel by bombing Israel, which appears to be a misstatement in the source, likely intending to refer to actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities that he believed prevented a broader conflict.
• However, American media, citing leaked Pentagon reports, contradicted Trump’s claim of “total destruction of Iran’s nuclear program,” stating that while facilities were destroyed, Iranians were reportedly informed beforehand by Americans and moved 400 kilograms of enriched uranium to a safe place. In contrast, the US Secretary of Defense supported Trump’s claim of complete destruction, holding a press conference to that effect. Trump reportedly used “objectionable language” against media he perceived as trying to “smear their achievements”.
• The source also notes the historical context, mentioning that the US under President Eisenhower had previously provided nuclear technology and founded the Tehran Nuclear Research Center during the Shah’s era.
• Trump’s “Friendly War” and De-escalation with Iran:
• Trump is portrayed as being “against wars anyway or believes in friendly war”. This was evidenced by him informing Iranians before attacks on Iran.
• He then “settled matters with Iranians himself through Qatar,” allowing Iran to “drop as many missiles at the US military base in Doha as the Americans bombed Iranian nuclear installations”. This was carefully managed, with thirteen out of fourteen missiles reportedly stopped and the remaining one being “of light quality so that there be no harm”.
• Ceasefire and Preventing Further Conflict with Israel:
• Following these US actions and mediation via Qatar, Iran ordered a formal ceasefire with Israel.
• When Israelis violated this ceasefire, Trump reportedly “rebuked” them. This led to Israel recalling “seventy rear planes that were going to attack Iran” under “severe pressure on Netanyahu”.
• Trump also prevented attacks on Iranian oil refineries and the killing of Supreme Leader Khamenei, even though his secret location was known.
• Significantly, Trump “openly condemned Israel,” stating, “I love Iranians. I am also angry but more angry with Israelis”. At The Hague, he praised Iranians as a “great nation, rich with oil wealth” and supported their right to export oil for rebuilding, indicating a willingness to “soften sanctions on Iran”. He clarified that the dispute was “only about nuclear weapons,” and that “negotiations with Iran may start next week”. Trump also gave a “positive” answer against regime change in Iran, believing it could lead to “violence and anarchy”.
• The overall outcome of this diplomacy, according to the source, was that “wars have been avoided in each two lines at least temporarily,” and “each side feels like they have won”.
• Future Regional Peace Plans and Implications for Israel:
• An international media report, citing an Israeli newspaper, suggests a future “ace” plan involving President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu for a Gaza ceasefire. This broader plan, though not directly about Iran-Israel relations, has significant regional implications:
• It includes the proposed establishment of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Israel, with other Arab countries following suit.
• The potential for Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel under the Abraham Accord is discussed as complex, with the suggestion that Saudi Arabia should “carry OIC’s other countries along with them”.
• It is noted that the current timing is considered “the right time to end the violence from Gaza” because “Hamas is not getting the help of Iran nor has Hezbollah any position”.

Trump’s Gaza Strategy: Ceasefire, Control, and Challenges

The Gaza Conflict, involves a complex interplay of various actors, with former President Trump playing a significant, albeit unconventional, role in attempts to shape its future.

Trump’s Initial Stance and Hostage Situation: Upon entering the White House, President Trump “insulted Hamas” and threatened to “make Gaza a hell” for them if Israeli hostages were not released before he took oath. However, “Hamas extremists also sold the bodies of Israeli hostages with heavy receipts,” and even today, “these hostages of Hamas belonged to October 7, 2023 [and] They are rotting in prison”. This observation casts doubt on claims of “exaggerating his achievements in the Nobel Prize”, possibly implying unfulfilled promises regarding hostage release. Despite destruction in Gaza, “the power of Hamas in Gaza could not be completely eradicated” and that “the Israeli hostages of October 7, 2023 cannot be completely freed from its custody”.

Alleged Trump-Netanyahu Ceasefire Plan for Gaza: An international media report, citing an Israeli newspaper, suggests a significant development: President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have reportedly reached an “ace in regards to ceasefire in Gaza within the next two weeks”. This report emerged amidst criticism of the Iranian leadership for not agreeing to a ceasefire linked to Gaza.

According to this alleged report, the proposed plan includes several key components:

• Joint Control by Arab Nations: Four Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, would take joint control over Gaza to replace Hamas.
• Hamas Leadership Deportation and Hostage Release: The Hamas leadership would be deported, and all Israeli hostages would be released.
• Palestinian Resettlement: Palestinians leaving Gaza would be settled in “some unknown countries”.
• Expanded Diplomatic Relations: Saudi Arabia and Syria would establish diplomatic relations with Israel, with other Arab countries expected to follow suit.
• US Recognition of Israeli Control: The US would recognize Israeli control over some parts of the West Bank.

Challenges and Skepticism Regarding the Plan: Despite the ambitious nature of the alleged plan, “things are not as simple… as described in this alleged report”. Key challenges include:

• Post-Hamas Governance: The question of “to whom should we give control of Gaza after removing Hamas?” is complex. Arab countries generally suggest the Palestinian Authority under Mahmood Abbas, despite internal conflicts between Al-Fatih and Hamas. However, Israel prefers to move forward by giving Gaza under the supervision of Arab countries, potentially involving Jordan and Syria with Egypt, rather than the Palestinian Authority.
• Hamas’s Enduring Strength: Despite “all the destruction,” “the power of Hamas in Gaza could not be completely eradicated”.
• Hostage Release Complexity: It is acknowledged that “despite all global efforts, the Israeli hostages of October 7, 2023 cannot be completely freed from its custody”.
• Saudi-Israeli Relations: The question of Saudi Arabia recognizing Israel under the Abraham Accord is presented as complex, suggesting that Saudi Arabia should “carry OIC’s other countries along with them” in this regard.

Current Dynamics and Opportunities for Resolution: The current challenge for President Trump is “putting Arab countries forward to solve the Gaza issue”. However, the timing is considered opportune to “end the violence from Gaza” because “Hamas is not getting the help of Iran nor has Hezbollah any position”. This situation presents a potential window to address the “sorrows” of Gaza residents. While Hamas has celebrated “victories” in Gaza, the overall situation remains dire, with a perceived need for a definitive resolution.

Trump, Iran, and the Nuclear Program

The discussion of the “Nuclear Program” revolves around Iran’s nuclear capabilities and President Trump’s actions and claims concerning them.

Here’s a breakdown:

• Trump’s Claims of Destruction and Contradictions:
• President Trump claimed to have “stopped Iranian nuclear installations” by bombing them, drawing a controversial comparison to the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that ended a world war. He asserted that he had “stopped the war” between Iran and Israel by taking these actions.
• He also made the “loud claim” of “total destruction of Iran’s nuclear program”.
• However, American media, citing leaked Pentagon reports, contradicted Trump’s claim, stating that while nuclear facilities were “definitely destroyed,” the Americans themselves had reportedly informed the Iranians beforehand. This allowed Iran to move “four hundred kilograms of enriched uranium” to a safe place prior to the attacks.
• In contrast, the US Secretary of Defense supported Trump’s claim of complete destruction and held a press conference to that effect. Trump reportedly used “objectionable language” against media he perceived as trying to “smear their achievements”. He also suggested that any “shortage or subtraction left in the destruction” would be completed at a next stage or controlled by diplomacy.
• Trump’s “Friendly War” Approach:
• President Trump is described as being “against wars anyway or believes in friendly war”. This approach was evidenced by him informing Iranians before attacks on Iran.
• He then “settled matters with Iranians himself through Qatar,” allowing Iran to “drop as many missiles at the US military base in Doha as the Americans bombed Iranian nuclear installations”. Thirteen out of fourteen missiles were reportedly stopped, and the remaining one was “of light quality so that there be no harm”.
• US Stance on Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions and Diplomacy:
• Trump clarified that the US dispute with Iran was “only about nuclear weapons,” stating, “we will not allow atomic bombs to be made”. He stressed that there was “no other issue” beyond this.
• Despite the military actions, Trump indicated a willingness to engage in diplomacy, stating that “negotiations with Iran may start next week”. He also expressed support for softening sanctions on Iran, stating, “If possible, we will soften sanctions on Iran”.
• He praised Iranians as a “great nation, rich with oil wealth” and supported their right to export oil for rebuilding.
• Historical Context of Iran’s Nuclear Program:
• The historical involvement of the US in Iran’s nuclear development. During the Shah’s era, US President Eisenhower had provided nuclear technology to Iran and founded the Tehran Nuclear Research Center by providing a nuclear research reactor and enriched uranium.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!