Hamas has accepted the latest proposal for a 60-day ceasefire with Israel that includes the return of half the hostages the terrorist group holds in Gaza and Israel‘s release of some Palestinian prisoners, an Egyptian official source said on Monday.

Senior Hamas official Basem Naim wrote on Facebook: “The movement has handed over its approval to the new proposal presented by the mediators.”

There was no immediate response from Israel.

The Egyptian official source said the latest proposal included a suspension of Israeli military operations for 60 days and a path to a comprehensive deal to end the nearly two-year war.

A source familiar with the matter said the proposal was nearly identical to one put forward previously by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, which Israel had accepted.

Israel‘s plans to seize control of Gaza City have stirred alarm abroad and at home where tens of thousands of Israelis on Sunday held some of the largest protests since the war began, urging a deal to end the fighting and free the remaining 50 hostages held in Gaza since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. Israeli officials believe 20 are alive.

The planned offensive has spurred Egyptian and Qatari ceasefire mediators to step up efforts to forge a deal.

Thousands of Palestinians fearing an imminent Israeli ground offensive have left their homes in eastern areas of Gaza City, now under Israeli bombardment, for points to the west and south in the shattered territory.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described Gaza City as Hamas‘s last big urban bastion. But, with Israel already holding 75 percent of Gaza, the military has warned that expanding the offensive could endanger hostages still alive and draw troops into protracted and deadly guerrilla warfare.

Dani Miran, whose son Omri was taken hostage on Oct. 7, said he feared the consequences of an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza City. “I’m scared that my son would be hurt,” he told Reuters in Tel Aviv on Monday.

In Gaza City, many Palestinians have also been calling for protests to demand an end to a war that has demolished much of the territory, and for Hamas to intensify talks to avert the Israeli ground offensive.

An Israeli armored incursion into Gaza City could displace hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have been uprooted multiple times during the war.

Ahmed Mheisen, Palestinian shelter manager in Beit Lahiya, a war-devastated suburb abutting eastern Gaza City, said 995 families had departed the area in recent days for the south.

A protest by unions is scheduled for Thursday in Gaza City, and people took to social media platforms vowing to participate, which will raise pressure on Hamas.

DIPLOMATIC DEADLOCK

The last round of indirect ceasefire talks ended in deadlock in late July with the sides trading blame for its collapse. Israel and the US both recalled their negotiators from the talks in Qatar, with Witkoff saying at the time that Hamas had not been acting in good faith and “clearly shows a lack of desire” to reach a deal.

Israel says it will agree to cease hostilities if all the hostages are released and Hamas lays down its arms – the latter demand publicly rejected by the Islamist group until a Palestinian state is established.

A Hamas official told Reuters earlier on Monday the terrorist group rejects Israeli demands to disarm or expel its leaders from Gaza.

Sharp differences also appear to remain over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and how humanitarian aid will be delivered around the enclave.

US President Donald Trump wrote on his social media platform on Monday: “We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed!!! The sooner this takes place, the better the chances of success will be.”

On Saturday, the Israeli military said it was preparing to help equip Gazans with tents and other shelter equipment ahead of relocating them from combat zones to the south of the enclave. It did not provide further details on quantities or how long it would take to get the equipment into the enclave.

The war began when Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists stormed across the border into southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza.

Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing power in the enclave.

In a world that is increasingly polarized, few tactics are as dangerous as the deliberate perversion of sacred texts to undermine legitimate national existence and justify political agendas.

This disturbing trend is particularly evident in the ongoing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel, often leveraging the Christian faith to do so. From the outright fabrications peddled by figures like Nun Agapia to certain theological interpretations that inadvertently — or even directly — question Israel’s very foundations, this campaign demands a robust and principled counter-argument. It’s time to expose how the Christian faith is being weaponized, not only by outright anti-Zionists, but sometimes even by those within the Church who, perhaps unintentionally, give succor to such narratives.

Consider the recent spectacle of Orthodox Nun Agapia Stephanopoulos on Tucker Carlson’s program.

Dressed in the robes of spiritual authority, she spun a narrative rife with historical falsehoods and theological distortions. Her claims of Palestinians as unique “Canaanite descendants” and the “first Christians” are not merely inaccurate; they are calculated fabrications designed to strip away the millennia-long, unbroken Jewish connection to the Land of Israel.

This narrative isn’t about historical truth; it’s about manufacturing a theological supersessionism, implying that Christian claims somehow negate or outweigh Jewish indigeneity and self-determination in their ancestral homeland. This is weaponization: taking a faith tradition and twisting its tenets to serve an overtly political, anti-Zionist agenda.

This problematic trend extends to how some Christian scholars interpret Biblical texts in the context of the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Take, for instance, Father David Neuhaus, a German-Israeli Jesuit priest, in his recent L’Osservatore Romano article, “Leggere la Bibbia dopo la distruzione di Gaza.”

Father Neuhaus grapples with the agonizing question of how Christians should read Biblical passages that speak of conquest or judgment. He specifically criticizes the use of texts like Deuteronomy 20:16-17 or the Amalek passage by figures like David Ben-Gurion and Benjamin Netanyahu, asserting they constitute a “dangerous biblicism” that can “promote war and hatred” and legitimize military actions or dispossession.

While Father Neuhaus’s Christian conscience may lead him to question certain interpretations, his critique, by linking Israeli leaders’ use of Biblical references to concepts of “dispossession” and “dangerous biblicism,” unwittingly feeds into narratives that undermine Israel’s historical and theological legitimacy. It implies that the deep, covenantal bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, as understood and articulated by Jewish leaders, is somehow problematic or even a misuse of scripture when applied to modern national self-determination.

Such a perspective risks placing a Christian lens above Jewish self-understanding of their own foundational texts and national aspirations. It fails to adequately distinguish between modern political actions and the millennia-old, unbroken spiritual, and historical claim of the Jewish people to their homeland, a claim rooted in the very same Biblical narratives.

The core issue isn’t whether modern nations should live by ancient laws of war, which they clearly do not. It’s the implicit suggestion that a Jewish understanding of their historical and Biblical ties to the land, expressed by their leaders, is inherently “dangerous” when it pertains to their national rebirth and defense. This interpretation, while perhaps well-intentioned from a Christian perspective, can inadvertently echo the very arguments used by those who seek to deny Israel’s fundamental right to exist. It opens the door for anti-Zionist Christian movements to further weaponize their faith by claiming that Israel’s very existence, particularly its defense of its borders, is somehow contrary to divine will or proper Biblical understanding.

These anti-Zionist groups employ a perverse form of “replacement theology” — often cloaked in social justice rhetoric — that argues the Church has superseded the Jewish people, thereby nullifying God’s covenant with Israel and, by extension, its modern re-establishment. They take the nuanced, often challenging, Biblical narrative of a particular people’s covenant and twist it into a universalistic dismissal of Jewish national aspirations. They don’t merely critique Israeli policies; they systematically dismantle the theological foundations for Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of their Christian followers.

The implications for societies and interfaith relations are dire. This weaponization of Christian faith fosters deep distrust between Jews and Christians, undermining decades of good-faith interfaith dialogue. It provides moral cover for those who advocate for Israel’s dismantling, transforming political animosity into a religiously sanctioned imperative. It emboldens antisemitism by clothing ancient prejudices in modern theological language, painting Jews as occupiers or oppressors defying divine will. And it deeply wounds the vast majority of Christians worldwide who stand in genuine solidarity with Israel, recognizing its historical, Biblical, and democratic significance.

For all who value truth, justice, and the integrity of faith, the task ahead is clear and urgent. There must be an unequivocal rejection of the ideological hijacking of sacred texts for political ends, whether those ends are to deny national self-determination or to demonize a nation. It is crucial to firmly challenge interpretations, even from well-meaning scholars, that inadvertently undermine the Jewish people’s unique and enduring connection to their land. The sacred bond between the Jewish people and their land, affirmed throughout scripture, must be understood and respected on its own terms. The Christian faith, at its best, is a source of profound love, compassion, and reconciliation. It must never be perverted into a destructive force, manipulated to deny the legitimate aspirations and very existence of the Jewish State.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx

When the United States unleashed the GBU-57 “bunker buster” on Iran’s fortified nuclear sites during the recent Middle East conflict, it didn’t just send shockwaves through the Middle East.

Although Trump made it clear that the strike was to serve American interests, and not Israel — many still claimed Trump acted on Israel’s behalf. This reignited an old debate here at home: Why, exactly, is America so committed to Israel?

For critics, the answer is always the same: shadowy influence from pro-Israel lobbying groups, with AIPAC cast as the chief culprit. It’s the same tired script — a blend of conspiracy and double standard — that’s been dusted off for decades with one recent example being the 2003 Iraq War.

But the reality, if we take the time to look, is starkly different: this alliance is one of the most mutually beneficial relationships in US foreign policy. It strengthens US security, boosts the US economy, and reflects hard-earned historical lessons about what happens when the Jewish people are left defenseless.

The Numbers Tell the Story

A 2016 RAND Corporation study found that for every dollar America spends on overseas security commitments, it gains roughly three dollars in economic return. US military alliances aren’t charity — they’re investments. And the US–Israel partnership is a textbook example.

Former CIA leaders have called Israel’s intelligence sharing the equivalent of “having five CIAs” working for us — a force multiplier against threats like Iran’s nuclear program and global terrorism. Israel’s battlefield innovations in counter-terrorism and urban warfare have directly shaped US Special Operations tactics.

Our defense industries benefit, too. Israel’s real-world use of F-16s and F-35s has saved US manufacturers billions in R&D by identifying upgrades and fixes under combat conditions. Joint projects like Iron Dome don’t just protect Israeli civilians — 60–70% of US funding for those systems goes straight into American factories, supporting millions of jobs.

It’s true that AIPAC is a high-profile advocacy organizations in Washington. In the 2023–24 cycle, its Super PAC spent about $37.9 million, and its traditional PAC gave around $3 million directly to candidates. That’s large compared to other diaspora advocacy groups — but it’s neither secretive nor foreign-funded. Every dollar comes from US citizens, and every activity falls within American campaign finance law.

And AIPAC is hardly unique in concept. Armenian-American groups advocate for strong US–Armenia ties. Cuban-American PACs promote pro-democracy policies for Cuba. The difference is scale, not kind — and scale reflects donor engagement and organizational focus, not hidden control.

The Historical Imperative

If the alliance were only about economics and security, it would still be worth defending. But history gives it an even deeper resonance.

The modern Zionist movement took shape in the ashes of antisemitic violence long before the Holocaust. After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, Russian Jews endured brutal pogroms and the May Laws, which stripped them of basic rights.

When they tried to flee, the West often slammed its doors. Britain’s 1905 Aliens Act targeted poor Jewish refugees. America’s 1924 Johnson-Reed Act imposed harsh quotas that shut out Eastern European Jews entirely.

By the time the Evian Conference met in 1938, as Nazi persecution intensified, 32 nations expressed sympathy but refused to meaningfully raise immigration quotas. The following year, the MS St. Louis — carrying over 900 Jewish refugees — was turned away by Cuba, the US, and Canada. Many passengers were later murdered in the Holocaust.

Even after 1945, Jewish survivors faced pogroms in Eastern Europe — the Kielce massacre of 1946 being the most infamous. It became clear that without a sovereign state, Jews would always be at the mercy of others’ borders, policies, and prejudices.

Israel in Global Context

The displacement that accompanied Israel’s birth in 1948 was tragic — but it was not unique. In the same post-WWII period, 14.5 million people were displaced during the India–Pakistan partition, and 12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during Israel’s War of Independence; somewhat concurrently, roughly 850,000 Jews fled or were expelled from Arab and Muslim countries, most finding refuge in Israel.

Seen in that context, Israel’s founding fits into a broader historical pattern of population transfers aimed at resolving ethnic conflict — not as an unprecedented singular event.

A Partnership of Equals

Some in Israel now question whether US aid — $3.8 billion annually under the current Memorandum of Understanding — comes with too many strings attached. Likud MK Amit Halevi has suggested phasing it out to remove the leverage that Washington can exert on Israeli policy.

That’s a legitimate debate, and many in Washington, including at the Heritage Foundation, agree that the alliance should evolve toward a partnership of equals. But equal does not mean distant. It means recognizing the immense value each side brings — and ensuring the relationship continues to serve both nations’ interests.

The Iran strike wasn’t just a military operation — it was a real-time demonstration of what this alliance can do when the stakes are highest.

For America, the US–Israel relationship delivers intelligence, technology, and economic returns that far exceed its costs. For Israel, it offers a trusted partner that shares its democratic values and understands the lessons of history: that Jewish sovereignty is not optional, but essential.

In a world where both our nations face rising threats — from Tehran’s nuclear ambitions to the spread of terrorism — the case for this alliance has never been clearer.

Alexander Mermelstein, a recent USC graduate with a Master’s in Public Policy and Data Science, is an aspiring policy researcher focused on Middle East affairs and combating antisemitism.