RSS
What Comes Next in Gaza? Here Are Some Options — and the Best Solution
An Israeli military convoy moves inside the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as seen from Israel, June 17, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Discussions about the future of Gaza are being conducted in isolation, without comparative discourse, and the political dimension is causing opinions to harden rather than remain open and flexible.
Thus, for example, the head of the INSS Institute wrote on May 29 that, “An alternative civil address in Gaza [is] the need of the hour” and opened with the words, “There is no time,” while Gabi Siboni from the Mishgav Institute said on May 24 that, “We need to enter the Strip and take control of all humanitarian aid in Gaza.” And so on.
There are several alternatives for the future of Gaza, and in this article I will present five of them. A choice will be made through a comparative discussion of their costs and benefits. Constructive strategic planning creates maximum flexibility for decision makers, and optimal conduct would be to implement close alternatives that all serve Israel’s strategic goals.
Before presenting the options, we must define the Israeli goals and interests according to which they will be examined. I propose that Israel’s goals and interests should be prioritized thus:
Destroying Hamas’s military capability: This is the key strategic need. Israel’s long-term position in the region depends on its delivering the clear message that anyone who carries out a criminal attack like that of October 7 will, at the very least, lose their military capabilities and their ability to harm Israel for a very long time.
Abolition of Hamas control in Gaza: Following on from the first consideration, Israel must strive to ensure that any party — especially a terrorist organization — that carries out murderous attacks against Israel will lose its rule and its leaders will lose their lives. Between the statement that it is impossible to eliminate an idea, especially a radical one, and the statement that the existence of Hamas in any form, including a civilian one, should be protested, there are many shades of possibility, a significant one of which should be the abolition of Hamas control.
Relations with the United States: Every alternative should take into account the strategic need to maintain good relations with the United States over time. This is a complex consideration against the background of American domestic politics. There can be disagreements, even difficult ones, with the American administration, but Israeli insistence on its positions should be part of a healthy relationship between the countries despite occasional extreme asymmetry. An Israel that pleases the Americans time and time again will lose its position in the United States. With that said, however, it is important to respect American global interests and help to promote them.
The return of the abductees: This is an important issue, but as it is not an existential necessity, it does not meet the same level of importance as the previous considerations. The return of the abductees is a matter of moral and value considerations but not strategic ones. The reality is that there is no scope for a comprehensive deal with Hamas because Sinwar’s personal fate depends on his holding the hostages. He will continue to hold them as long as possible until he has another survival option. Efforts to return the abductees through operational means or through local deals should be continued in every way.
The issue of the northern front and dealings with Iran: This consideration is also complex. Hezbollah has said it will not stop firing on the north and will not allow the return of the displaced residents without the cessation of fighting in Gaza. But for Israel, the cessation of fighting in Gaza without the achievement of its objectives against Hamas would represent serious damage to its deterrence against it and against Iran. This is an impasse that can be resolved with either a wider-scale war, which would severely damage Hezbollah’s capabilities; or an informal arrangement that Hassan Nasrallah can present as an achievement or as a “non-cessation” of the fighting while the war in Gaza continues. Because of this impasse, this consideration has been relegated to a relatively low place, though in principle it is more fundamental.
Approaching the moderate regional countries, with an emphasis on Saudi Arabia: The war in Gaza, the escalation with Iran, and the incessant Houthi attacks, only strengthen the region’s understanding of the need to join forces with Israel. While the delay in implementation stems from public opinion and American interests, it seems that it will eventually continue, and Israel’s continued military achievements against Hamas strengthen the likelihood that it will come to fruition. This consideration, therefore, has less influence on the choice between the alternatives.
The issue of Israel’s legitimacy: In this area there is a gap. While in the short and medium term Israel’s legitimacy is under pressure from international institutions, in the long term, the gap — if not the abyss — between the false and politicized accusations against Israel and the actual situation on the ground will be revealed. Although the war is creating negative images, it is one of the “cleanest” wars in history in terms of the proportion of combatants to civilians killed and the amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. Therefore, despite the need to continue to fight resolutely and place the blame for the consequences on Hamas, in choosing alternatives, this is a less influential concern.
There are second-order considerations. These include resources (the economic cost of each option); legal (Israel’s obligations towards Gaza within the framework of international law and how they are realized); and social (the impact on each option on national resilience, though in my view this is included in each consideration). It would be better for these considerations to affect the means of carrying out the preferred option and less the actual choice.
Now that the seven main considerations have been defined, the five alternatives can be defined and examined:
The Hamas alternative: In this option, the fighting in Gaza stops and the IDF withdraws from it in exchange for the release of the abductees and the cessation of fighting in the north. A militarily weakened Hamas returns to control the Strip. This option is being promoted by some of the families of abductees and several opposition elements to the government, and the American administration may also support it for internal political reasons. In examining this choice against the balance of considerations, it is clear that while it might achieve the release of the abductees and the cessation of fighting in the north and might be perceived as a good move in terms of relations with the United States, it would substantially harm Israel’s core strategic need to destroy Hamas’s military capacity and abolish its control in Gaza. The notion that this option would lead to a comprehensive solution to the issue of the abductees and the Hezbollah challenge is questionable. It is more likely that the fighting would resume under less favorable conditions for Israel.
The revitalized Palestinian Authority alternative: In parallel with continued military damage to the military capabilities of Hamas and its government, a governmental and security alternative would be built that would include a revitalized Palestinian Authority with the integration of local elements and the backing and involvement of a coalition of Arab and Western countries. This “nation-building” alternative is being promoted by the United States and European countries in apparent collaboration with Arab countries, as well as by elements in Israel who give too much weight to the official American position. This option promotes American and possibly regional considerations (it is too early to say whether the Arab position is real or the artificial product of American pressure), but there is a big question mark over how much it would be able to provide a real answer to the core considerations of harming Hamas and preventing its re-establishment. It also provides no broad response to the issues of the abductees and the challenge in the north.
The military-civilian alternative: In this option, Israel continues to hit the Hamas organization, both in its military capabilities and in its governance, until it is sufficiently weakened to allow local Palestinian elements to replace it on the ground, with considerable regional and international backing. This alternative is being promoted by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and is reflected in key components of the cabinet’s decisions. This option provides a good answer to the core considerations of harming Hamas, and might even be tacitly accepted by the Americans and Arab and international actors. It does not, however, provide a solution to the problems of freeing the abductees and the fighting in the north.
The “chaos” alternative: Here, Israel continues to strike at the Hamas organization, both in its military capabilities and in its governance, and at the same time allows local, regional, and international parties to create governmental alternatives on the ground that may mature into a comprehensive governmental alternative. This option was given expression in the opinion that called (at least at the beginning of the war) for the “Somalization” of Gaza, meaning a kind of supervised, partially independent nation-building. This alternative would allow Israel to define what would not happen, and others to decide what is possible. It provides a good answer to Israel’s core considerations in terms of Hamas, but would be difficult for the Americans and the regional and international actors to digest. It also does not solve the problems of the abductees and the north.
The sovereignty alternative: Israel imposes a total military government on Gaza, applies its full military and security control over the Strip, and perhaps occupies and even annexes parts of it. This option is being promoted by the right wing of the government. While it provides a good answer to the core considerations in terms of Hamas and might even bring gains on the issue of the abductees, it would make relations with the United States as well as other considerations very difficult.
The alternatives for the future of Gaza clearly entail a complex discussion. It is likely possible to move between alternatives and merge them according to developments. As of today, the option that best balances Israel’s considerations is the military-civilian one. The most problematic are the Hamas option and the sovereignty option. It is appropriate and correct to continue a complex comparative discussion on Israel’s considerations and the alternatives to achieve them and to avoid perceptual and political attachment to any one of them.
Col. (res.) Shay Shabtai is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and an expert in national security, strategic planning, and strategic communication. He is a cyber security strategist and a consultant to leading companies in Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post What Comes Next in Gaza? Here Are Some Options — and the Best Solution first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Rashida Tlaib Introduces Resolution to Mandate Federal Recognition of Palestinian ‘Nakba’
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) addresses attendees as she takes part in a protest calling for a ceasefire in Gaza outside the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, US, Oct. 18, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) on Wednesday introduced a resolution recognizing the 77th anniversary of the “nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists to refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
“The nakba never ended. Today we are witnessing the Israeli apartheid regime carry out genocide in Gaza. It is a campaign to erase Palestinians from existence,” Tlaib said in a statement.
“War Criminal Netanyahu,” she continued, referring to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “has threatened to ethnically cleanse the entire Palestinian population in Gaza, annex the land, and permanently occupy it. As we mark the 77th anniversary of the nakba, we honor all of those killed since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine began, and the Palestinians who were forced from their homes and violently displaced from their land.”
Co-sponsors of the bill include Democratic Reps. André Carson (IN), Summer Lee (PA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (MN), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Delia Ramirez (IL), Lateefah Simon (CA), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ).
The resolution does not mention the Jewish people’s millennia-long connection to the land of Israel or any instances of Palestinian terrorism against the Jewish state.
“Nakba refers not only to a historical event but to an ongoing process of Israel’s expropriation of Palestinian land and its dispossession of the Palestinian people that continues to this day, including the systematic destruction of Palestinian homes, the construction and expansion of illegal settlements, and the confinement of Palestinians to ever-shrinking areas of land,” the bill reads.
“It is the sense of the House of Representatives that it is the policy of the United States to commemorate the nakba through official recognition and remembrance; denounce the ongoing nakba of the Palestinian people; [and] reject efforts to enlist, engage, or otherwise associate the United States government with denial of the nakba.”
Tlaib, the only Palestinian American woman in Congress, further repudiated the US as being “an accomplice” in the alleged ongoing “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians” by supporting Israel’s defensive military efforts.
Since entering Congress in 2018, Tlaib has established herself as one of the most vocal critics of Israel. She has repeatedly characterized Israel as an “apartheid state” and accused the Jewish state of transforming Gaza into an “open-air prison.”
In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led slaughters in Israel, Tlaib ramped up her condemnations of the Jewish state. She was initially hesitant to condemn the terrorist attacks in Israel, in which 1,200 people were murdered and 250 hostages were kidnapped. However, Tlaib was among the first US lawmakers to accuse Israel of committing “genocide in Gaza. In most of her public statements regarding the war in Gaza, she has omitted any mention of the Hamas terrorist group. Moreover, the lawmaker has sparked backlash by attending multiple pro-Palestine events connected to terrorists.
The post Rashida Tlaib Introduces Resolution to Mandate Federal Recognition of Palestinian ‘Nakba’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
No Diploma for NYU Senior After Unauthorized Anti-Israel Commencement Speech
Students and professors attend the New York University (NYU) graduation ceremony at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx borough of New York City, US, May 15, 2025. Photo: Eduardo Munoz via Reuters Connect.
New York University is withholding the diploma of a senior student at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study who lied to the administration about the content of his commencement speech to conceal its claim of a genocide taking place in Gaza, an anti-Israel falsehood propagated by neo-Nazi groups and jihadist terror organizations.
“My moral and political commitments guide me to say that the only thing that is appropriate to say in this time and to a group this large is a recognition of the atrocities currently happening in Palestine” the student, Logan Rozos, said, delivering the unauthorized remarks to a din of acclamation from the audience. “I want to say that the genocide currently occurring is supported politically and militarily by the United States, is paid for by our tax dollars, and has been live streamed to our phones for the past 18 months.”
He continued, “I want to say that I condemn this genocide and complicity in this genocide.”
Rozos drew a trenchant rebuke from a university that has enacted a slew of policies to reduce antisemitic discrimination on its campuses. Since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, a bloody invasion that started the war in Gaza, NYU has issued policies which acknowledge the “coded” subtleties of antisemitic speech and its use in discriminatory conduct that targets Jewish students and faculty.
“NYU strongly denounces the choice by a student at the Gallatin School’s graduation today — one of over 20 school graduation ceremonies across our campus — to misuse his role as student speaker to express his personal and one-sided political views,” university spokesman John Beckman said in a statement. “He lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules. The university is withholding his diploma while we pursue disciplinary actions.”
He continued, “NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.”
Jewish civil rights groups rebuked Rozos as well, with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) saying he uttered “divisive and false comments about the current Israel/Hamas war.” The group added, “We are thankful to the NYU administration for their strong condemnation and rather pursuit of disciplinary action.”
End Jew Hatred (EJH), writing to The Algemeiner, called on NYU to impose the severest disciplinary measure possible on Rozos: withholding his diploma in perpetuity as punishment for using so high an honor to spread lies that have been used to justify antisemitic violence and discrimination.
“It was right to denounce his deception and abuse of the platform, and it was essential to affirm that hate speech masquerading as political commentary has no place at a graduation ceremony,” the group said. “But that cannot be where it ends. The diploma must be permanently withheld. The full process — from Rozos’s selection to speech approval to mic control — demands transparency. And NYU must do more than punish a student; it must confront the climate that made this outburst possible.”
The conclusion of the 2024-2025 academic year has seen other attempts to place anti-Zionism at the center of the public’s attention.
A group of pro-Hamas students at Yale University recently vowed to starve themselves inside an administrative building until such time as officials agree to their demands that the university’s endowment be divested of any ties to Israel as well as companies that do business with it. However, Yale officials are refusing to even meet with the students, who have been told that their demonstration, held in Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall, is “in violation of university policy.”
At the University of Washington, in Seattle, over 30 members of a pro-Hamas student group calling itself “Super UW” were arrested for commandeering the university’s Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB) to protest and demand the termination of the institution’s partnerships with The Boeing Company, whose armaments manufacturing they identified as a resource aiding Israel’s war to eradicate Hamas from Gaza.
The illegal demonstration involved students establishing blockades near the building using “bike rack[s] and chairs,” burning trash — while setting off sizable fires — that they then left unattended, and calling for violence against the police. Law enforcement officers eventually entered the building equipped with riot gear, including helmets and batons.
University officials’ tolerance for such disruptions is depleting.
Earlier this month, George Washington University suspended its Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter until Spring 2026, punishing the group for a series of unauthorized demonstrations it held on school property last month. The move marked one of the severest disciplinary sanctions SJP has provoked from the GW administration since it began violating rules on peaceful expression and assembly, as well as targeting school officials for harassment, following Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel. Until next May, SJP is barred from advertising and may only convene to “complete sanctions or consult with their advisor,” according to a report by The GW Hatchet.
SJP will be placed on probation for one year after its suspension is lifted, the paper continued, during which it must request and acquire prior approval for any expressive activity. Additionally, members will be required to attend “teach-ins on university policy” for “ten consecutive semesters.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post No Diploma for NYU Senior After Unauthorized Anti-Israel Commencement Speech first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Announces $200 Billion in Deals During UAE Visit, AI Agreement Signed
US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Yousif Al Obaidli, director of Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, as he tours the mosque grounds in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
President Donald Trump on Thursday pledged to strengthen US ties to the United Arab Emirates and announced deals with the Gulf state totaling over $200 billion and the two countries also agreed to deepen cooperation in artificial intelligence.
After Trump’s meeting with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the White House said he announced deals that included a $14.5 billion commitment from Etihad Airways to invest in 28 Boeing 787 and 777x aircraft powered by engines made by GE Aerospace.
The US Commerce Department said the two countries also agreed to establish a “US-UAE AI Acceleration Partnership” framework and Trump and Sheikh Mohamed attended the unveiling of a new 5GW AI campus, which would be the largest outside the United States.
Sources have said the agreements will give the Gulf country expanded access to advanced artificial intelligence chips from the US after previously facing restrictions over Washington’s concerns that China could access the technology.
Trump began a visit to the UAE on the latest stage of a tour of wealthy Gulf states after hailing plans by Doha to invest $10 billion in a US military facility during a trip to Qatar.
“I have absolutely no doubt that the relationship will only get bigger and better,” Trump said in a meeting with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
“Your wonderful brother came to Washington a few weeks ago and he told us about your generous statement as to the 1.4 trillion,” Trump said, referring to a UAE pledge to invest $1.4 trillion in the US over 10 years.
Trump was referring to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Sheikh Mohamed’s brother and the UAE’s national security adviser and chairman of two of Abu Dhabi’s deep-pocketed sovereign wealth funds.
The US president was met at the airport in Abu Dhabi by Sheikh Mohamed, and they visited the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, its white minarets and domes, impressive in the late-afternoon light.
“It is so beautiful,” Trump told reporters inside the mosque, which he said had been closed for the day.
“First time they closed it. It’s in honor of the United States. Better than in honor of me. Let’s give it to the country. That’s a great tribute.”
$200 BILLION IN NEW DEALS
A White House fact sheet said Trump had secured $200 billion in new US-UAE deals and accelerated the previously committed $1.4 trillion.
It said Emirates Global Aluminum would invest to develop a $4 billion primary aluminum smelter project in Oklahoma, while ExxonMobil Corp, Occidental Petroleum, and EOG Resources were partnering with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in expanded oil and natural gas production valued at $60 billion.
Sheikh Mohamed told Trump the UAE was “keen to continue and strengthen this friendship for the benefit of the two countries and peoples,” adding to Trump: “your presence here today, your excellency, the president, confirms that this keenness is mutual.”
Before his departure for the UAE, Trump said in a speech to US troops at the Al Udeid Air Base southwest of Doha that defense purchases signed by Qatar on Wednesday were worth $42 billion.
UAE has been seeking US help to make the wealthy Gulf nation a global leader in artificial intelligence.
The US has a preliminary agreement with the UAE to allow it to import 500,000 of Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips a year, starting this year, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
The deal would boost the UAE’s construction of data centers vital to developing AI models, although the agreement has provoked national security concerns among sectors of the US government.
The AI agreement “includes the UAE committing to invest in, build, or finance US data centers that are at least as large and as powerful as those in the UAE,” the White House said.
“The agreement also contains historic commitments by the UAE to further align their national security regulations with the United States, including strong protections to prevent the diversion of US-origin technology.”
Former US President Joe Biden’s administration had imposed strict oversight of exports of US AI chips to the Middle East and other regions. Among Biden’s fears were that the prized semiconductors would be diverted to China and buttress its military strength.
At the UAE presidential palace, Trump and Sheikh Mohamed could be seen in TV footage in conversation with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang.
Trump said he would probably return to Washington on Friday after a regional trip that began on Tuesday, although he said it was “almost destination unknown.” Trump had hinted he could stop in Istanbul for talks on Ukraine.
DEALS, DIPLOMACY
Other big business agreements have been signed during Trump’s four-day swing through the Gulf region, including a deal for Qatar Airways to purchase up to 210 Boeing widebody jets, a $600 billion commitment from Saudi Arabia to invest in the US and $142 billion in US arms sales to the kingdom.
The trip has also brought a flurry of diplomacy.
Trump said in Qatar that the United States was getting very close to securing a nuclear deal with Iran, and Tehran had “sort of” agreed to the terms.
He also announced on Tuesday the US would remove longstanding sanctions on Syria and subsequently met with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
He urged Sharaa to establish ties with Syria’s longtime foe Israel.
Trump has made improving ties with some Gulf countries a key goal of his administration. If all the proposed chip deals in Gulf states, and the UAE in particular, come together, the region would become a third power center in global AI competition after the United States and China.
The post Trump Announces $200 Billion in Deals During UAE Visit, AI Agreement Signed first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login