Hamas‘s review of US President Donald Trump‘s Gaza plan stretched into a third day on Wednesday, a source close to the terrorist group said, as other Palestinian factions rejected the proposal and as Israel again bombed Gaza City.

Trump on Tuesday gave Hamas “three or four days” to respond to the plan he outlined this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has backed the proposal to end Israel‘s almost two-year war with the Palestinian terrorist group, which has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades.

“Accepting the plan is a disaster, rejecting it is another, there are only bitter choices here, but the plan is a Netanyahu plan articulated by Trump,” a Palestinian official, familiar with Hamas‘s deliberations with other factions, told Reuters.

“Hamas is keen to end the war and end the genocide and it will respond in the way that serves the higher interests of the Palestinian people,” he said, without elaborating.

Israeli planes and tanks pounded residential neighborhoods throughout the night, residents in Gaza City said.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military issued new orders for people to leave for the south and said it would no longer allow those to return to the north, as Gaza City came under heavy bombing.

Defense Minister Israel Katz described the move as “tightening the encirclement around Gaza on the way to defeating Hamas,” saying Palestinians willing to leave to the south would have to go through army vetting.

“This is the last opportunity for Gaza residents who wish to do so to move south and leave Hamas operatives isolated in Gaza City itself in the face of the IDF’s continuing full-scale operations,” Katz said.

The Israeli military also said that starting on Wednesday it would no longer allow people to use a coastal road to move from the south to communities in the north.

It would remain open for those fleeing south, it said. Witnesses said Israeli tanks began moving towards the coastal road coming from the east, but were not yet there.

In recent weeks, few people have moved from the south to the north as the military has intensified its siege on Gaza City. However, the decision will put pressure on those who are yet to leave Gaza City and also prevent hundreds of thousands of residents who have fled south from returning to their homes.

The military took similar measures in the early months of the war, completely separating north and south, before later easing those measures in January during a temporary ceasefire.

Hamas is yet to publicly comment on Trump‘s plan, which demands that the terrorist group release the remaining hostages, surrender its weapons, and have no future role in running Gaza.

The plan sees Israel making few concessions in the near term and does not lay out a clear path to a Palestinian state, one of the key demands of not only Hamas but the Arab and Muslim world.

The plan states that Israel would eventually withdraw from Gaza but does not define a time frame. Hamas has long demanded that Israel must fully withdraw from Gaza for the war to end.

Three smaller Palestinian militant factions in Gaza have rejected the plan, including two that are allies of Hamas, arguing that it would destroy the “Palestinian cause” and would grant Israel‘s control of Gaza international legitimacy.

Many world leaders have publicly supported Trump‘s plan.

A source who is close to Hamas told Reuters on Tuesday the plan was too heavily weighted towards Israel‘s interest and did not take significant account of the terrorist group‘s demands.

Many elements of the 20-point plan have been included in numerous ceasefire proposals previously backed by the US, including some that have been accepted and then subsequently rejected at various stages by both Israel and Hamas.

America’s adversaries have forged an axis of global instability. Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea exploit trade, technology, and diplomacy to undermine US influence and disrupt the global order. Yet, longstanding cracks in their relationships reveal the limits of their transactional partnerships. To prevail, the United States must double down on its authentic partnerships and innovate new forms of cooperation that outpace its adversaries.

Despite lacking a shared ideology, Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang have cooperated since the Cold War to counter Washington, with aims at controlling trade routes, reshaping regional balances of power, challenging global norms, and reducing US influence. For example, Iran’s nuclear and missile programs have used North Korean technology, with nuclear plans tracing back to AQ Khan’s proliferation network in the 1990s.

Building on their shared ambition, America’s adversaries have intensified their military cooperation, making countering any single axis member more challenging.

For more than three years, Russia’s war against Ukraine has provided insights into Western equipment that Ukrainian forces used, while Iran, China, and North Korea continue to provide Russia with military support through personnel, weaponry, and intelligence.

Israel’s campaign in June dealt a severe blow to Iran’s dangerous ballistic missile and nuclear programs, but adversaries will prepare for future fights by studying Iranian missile adaptations that occasionally penetrated joint US-Israeli air defenses and the capabilities of US aircraft, like F-35 fighter jets and B-2 bombers.

Collaboration among US adversaries has significantly increased their capacity to acquire weaponry, accelerating military modernization and circumventing arms restrictions. Beyond directly supplying Russia with Iranian drones, Iran’s construction of a drone factory on Russian territory to produce Iranian Shahed drones has enabled Russia to launch thousands of them against Ukraine. China has delivered ballistic missile fuel components to Iran — a key danger that prompted Israel to begin Operation Rising Lion in June — while both China and Russia have also provided intelligence and other forms of military support to the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Now, Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang could help Tehran replenish its depleted missile and air defense stocks and production capacity after the 12-Day War.

Beyond the battlefield, US adversaries have used trade and multilateral diplomacy to weaken Washington’s influence and undermine global norms. Chinese purchases of Iranian and Russian oil have provided both countries with critical revenue streams to fuel their aggression, despite Western sanctions. Beyond bilateral efforts, Russia and China continue expanding multilateral organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to undermine US-led alliances and strengthen their own influence. Russia and China have also provided critical support and resources to Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs, undermining global nonproliferation. Moscow and Beijing may oppose an Iranian nuclear bomb, but will likely support Tehran diplomatically and economically, aiding its nuclear ambitions.

Yet, the world’s most dangerous partnerships remain based on transactional interests, not real solidarity. While these countries share an aim to weaken US influence, competing goals limit their cooperation. The axis’s limitations were apparent during the 12-Day War when Iran stood alone. Underscoring their transactional relationship, Moscow even reportedly refused a request from Tehran for Iranian-designed, Russian-produced Shahed drones after Israeli strikes damaged Iran’s domestic production.

In contrast, the axis’s weaknesses are the United States’ greatest strength: a resilient network of alliances built on mutual interests. For decades, the United States has cultivated enduring alliances grounded in the confidence of America’s friends that when challenges arise the United States will stand by them. None more so than Israel.

As US adversaries grow closer, America must strengthen these alliance networks. The United States should pursue continued strategic-based integration with Israel, which proved during the 12-Day War to be the only US partner willing and able to mount a preemptive offensive against a revisionist axis nation. Developing US-Israel-Arab and US-Ukraine common operating pictures should also be a priority to strengthen regional security.

US leadership can also expand recent advances in Middle Eastern air defense cooperation to include maritime safety, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. With Iran looking to rebuild its nuclear and missile programs, a tailored mutual defense agreement to support Israel against existential threats would help deter Iranian escalation. On the economic front, promoting the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) provides strategic alternatives to vulnerable trade routes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that Iran has threatened to close.

 To counter increased cooperation among US adversaries, the United States should deepen defense industrial partnerships, especially in the Middle East. Coproducing air defense systems like Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow with Israel, acquiring Arrow batteries, and investing in new technologies will enhance security. Collaborating with Arab nations can also bolster regional defenses against Iran, while reducing opportunities for Chinese or Russian arms sales.

By forging bold, tailored, future-focused alliances, Washington can outmaneuver revisionist powers and break the cycle of regional unrest. America’s authentic action-based friendships provide unrivaled advantages and opportunities for greater security and shared prosperity.

Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, USN (ret.) is the former Chief of Naval Operations and a 2019 Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) Generals & Admirals Program participant. Ari Cicurel is the associate director of foreign policy at JINSA.

Spain and Italy have announced they are dispatching naval warships to assist in breaking Israel’s legal — and life saving — weapons blockade around the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Specifically, the countries have announced their navies will escort and protect the “humanitarian flotilla,” which includes Greta Thunberg.

The flotilla’s declared mission, according to organizers, is only secondarily to deliver aid. Its primary purpose is to break Israel’s legal weapons blockade: a technical act of war.

Accordingly, these two European countries and NATO allies have actually (even if unintentionally) committed their navies to a dangerous act of war against Israel, a legal “casus belli,” (an act permitting a military response), and an overt act of military cooperation with the Hamas terror organization.

Israel is not only permitted, but required to stop all attempts to break the Gaza blockade.

As we have previously explored in depth, Israel’s blockade on the Gaza Strip is both legal and also an essential life saving barrier against Hamas’ access to weapons.

The San Remo Manual on International Law (Sections 67 and 95) requires that Israel enforce its blockade universally and without exception, and for good reason: in the past, at least one “humanitarian flotilla” was found to be carrying large quantities of weapons.

Israel is absolutely permitted to stop the flotilla in international waters.

A common misconception is that international law provides total impunity for any act as long as it’s done in international waters. Anyone who follows the history of naval battles (which are almost always on the “high seas”) knows this is incorrect.

This is basic common sense: if a country couldn’t strike an invading navy until the warships reached its shores, then international law would have effectively outlawed self defense.

Indeed, according to Section 10 of San Remo, even being en route to commit an act of war (such as breaching a legal blockade) opens the invading vessel to legitimate attack, which is considered self defense.

There is already a widely used method for safely and legally delivering humanitarian aid.

Israel has, and continues to, deliver record amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza — far more than most countries have ever delivered in any modern conflict, especially into enemy territory.

We explored this topic in detail, in partnership with Ambassador Michael Oren’s publication, “Clarity.”

Not coincidentally, according to independent data, Gaza has one of the fastest growing populations in the world, a fact inconsistent with claims of deprivation. The current methods for delivering aid include life saving inspections for weapons, which would not occur if a flotilla were to successfully breach the blockade.

Israel has offered the flotilla organizers the opportunity to dock at the Israeli port of Ashkelon, where they would be permitted to unload their cargo for inspection against weapons smuggling, and then transfer to Gaza. The organizers refused, confirming that their primary mission is not aid at all, but breaching Israel’s legal weapons blockade.

Indeed, the flotilla is carrying only a minimal amount of actual aid — its organizers claim to be transporting 250 tons: roughly the average amount of aid that Israel transfers into Gaza every two hours (according to an independent, internationally peer reviewed academic study, as well as data from Israel’s COGAT office.)

For now, one can only hope that some sort of diplomatic process will prevent the Spanish and Italian warships from approaching Israel’s shores. However, if that fails, Israel will be obligated under both international law and basic morality to physically stop the approach of both the flotilla and its accompanying warships (San Remo Sections 67 and 98).

While a civilian ship can usually be disabled and boarded without damage, stopping a warship could require an actual, kinetic naval battle.

It’s not about aiding Gaza, it’s about aiding Hamas.

A widely ignored report by Israel’s Diaspora and Antisemitism Ministry indicates that this particular “humanitarian flotilla” was organized by fronts for the Hamas terror organization and the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Hamas affiliates are on board. If true, Spain and Italy are not only engaging in an act of war against Israel, but they may even be providing direct combat support to a Hamas controlled military operation.

It should go without saying, but it (tragically) needs to be repeated: October 7, 2023 was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Modeled on Muhammad’s 7th century “Khaybar Massacre,” the October 7 atrocities included mass rape, ritual beheadings, horrific torture, and more. Now, over 700 days later, the internationally designated Hamas terror organization continues to hold Israelis hostage, under horrifying conditions.

To give the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that Spain and Italy are actually naive enough to believe they are on a humanitarian mission. Yet if their warships leave port, the countries will (knowingly or not) become the first Western powers and NATO allies to provide direct, military combat support to the perpetrators of the October 7 massacre.

Spain and Italy will also become the first European powers since the Holocaust to engage in what is effectively a military attack on the Jewish people.

It is reasonable to assume that no one actually wants to spark a kinetic war between Israel and Europe. Yet we are approaching a delicate situation that is reminiscent of the Cold War: when any mistake can trigger severe and unwanted consequences.

The only way this ends well is if Italy and Spain come to their senses, and reverse their misguided and dangerous decision.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.