The Cradle has learned from informed sources close to Hamas that a recent US proposal, delivered to Hamas senior political leader Khalil al-Hayya, who is currently based in Doha, was flatly rejected. The offer, which called for the surrender of the Palestinian resistance movement and the departure of its leadership from the Gaza Strip, was dismissed with a blunt response, “Let them do what they want.”

A day later, on 30 March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly vowed to intensify the war on Gaza, escalating both the siege and the bombardment of the strip. By dawn, as Palestinians prepared for Eid al-Fitr, a feast marking the end of Ramadan, Gaza came under one of the most intense barrages of the war. Explosions thundered across the strip, shaking homes and sending shockwaves as far as occupied Beersheba and the Negev.

The American proposal reportedly included safe passage for Hamas fighters and their families, financial guarantees, and promises of protection from assassination. When Hamas rejected the offer, Washington notified Tel Aviv, prompting Netanyahu to double down on his war aims: Hamas must either disarm or be driven into permanent exile, in line with US President Donald Trump's displacement doctrine. Ideally, Netanyahu appears determined to secure both outcomes.

False dawns and broken promises 

Despite Israeli media claims of progress in truce talks since 27 March and speculation of a ceasefire timed with Eid, the reality was marked by fresh massacres carried out by the occupation army. No short-term or long-term truce materialized.

Nonetheless, due to sustained Egyptian pressure, a deal remains possible, however slim. The Arab push for an endgame in Gaza – driven by the UAE and backed by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, though contested in part by Egypt – is rooted in a desire to sweep the file clean for the sake of regional normalization with Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu, however, continues to sabotage every initiative. He accepts only what serves his single aim: maintaining power. War is to continue regardless, even as an Israeli Channel 12 poll reveals 69 percent of Israelis support a comprehensive deal to bring home all prisoners and end the war, and 70 percent say they no longer trust Netanyahu’s government.

Egypt’s latest proposal included the release of five living Israeli captives in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and a 40-day halt to fighting. The ceasefire window would allow wounded civilians to be evacuated via Rafah and humanitarian aid to re-enter Gaza. Hamas agreed but asked for 50 days, and that a Palestinian prisoner be released every 10 days. The occupation state refused.

Sources inform The Cradle that Israeli demands were inconsistent and disruptive. At different stages, Tel Aviv insisted on 10 living captives, then 11 – some alive, others dead – before proposing a 40-day ceasefire, leaving mediators disoriented and negotiations stalled.

In a gesture preceding the rejected surrender deal, Hamas shared information – via Qatari and Egyptian intermediaries – about the condition of American-Israeli captive Alexander Idan. Yet Washington’s envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, displayed no indication that the US would pressure Israel to engage with any Hamas-compatible proposal. Instead, the message felt in Doha, Cairo, and Gaza alike was one of American indifference. Washington's attention, it appears, is instead heavily focused on battlegrounds in Ukraine and Yemen. 

Arab complicity reaches new heights

Middle East Eye recently reported Jordan’s offer to expel 3,000 Hamas members from Gaza, disarm other resistance factions, and hand governance to the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA). The Cradle has independently confirmed that Jordan’s King Abdullah II adopted an especially aggressive stance during the Riyadh mini-summit, aligning with the UAE in urging Hamas’s eradication, “They believe that they will remain.”

It is Abu Dhabi, however, that has emerged as the true driver behind the shift in US posture, its harsh maneuvers over Gaza even raising concerns among allies. Cairo, for one, reportedly sought Saudi help to contain the Emiratis, while the US-backed, West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) – though eager for Hamas’s downfall – fears being sidelined in the process.

Egyptian sources describe aggressive UAE lobbying for immediate displacement of Gazans, while Israeli crossings have seen a drop in aid shipments, despite Abu Dhabi holding privileges for such transfers – privileges now withheld even from Jordan. Meanwhile, high-level UAE–Israeli coordination continues, exploring “scenarios” that deliberately exclude aid deliveries, despite repeated Egyptian pleas.

According to the sources:

“There are inappropriate Emirati moves that threaten Egyptian interests, national security, and even the Palestinian cause directly, but we cannot speak out and confront Abu Dhabi directly for many considerations. Egyptian fears now are that the UAE is trying to carry out large-scale plans to blow up the Gaza Strip from within by stimulating protests against Hamas and creating confrontations between the people and the resistance. It even amounted to Emirati funding through Israel for any Gazan who wants to demonstrate against Hamas.”

Cairo believes Abu Dhabi is even more eager than Tel Aviv to realize Trump’s displacement scheme and is willing to bankroll it, The Cradle's sources say. With Egypt refusing to open its borders to mass displacement, alternate US–Israeli plans involve evacuating Gazans by sea to Cyprus, then to third countries. Observers say the occupation army’s evacuation maps point not to Rafah but to the Mediterranean Sea.

Abu Dhabi has even sounded out an African state – via its own channels – on Israel’s behalf to accept displaced Gazans.

Even Egypt, traditionally Hamas’s fallback, has shown signs of distancing itself since the resistance movement halted large-scale operations. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Ati recently declared that “factions will not rule Gaza anymore” – the first official Egyptian statement on post-war governance, which previously centered on a “management committee,” including Hamas indirectly.

Occupied West Bank next in line for fragmentation 

Meanwhile, the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth revealed Israeli plans to fragment the occupied West Bank into autonomous city-states, dismantling the PA, and replacing it with local councils. The blueprint begins in Hebron (Al-Khalil), where Israel intends to install a compliant local leadership working directly with the occupation.

The plan was reportedly discussed during a secret UAE meeting that brought together West Bank Jewish settlement leaders and Emirati officials at a Ramadan iftar.

This aligns with annexationist policies pushed by far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. The UAE’s role appears increasingly active – amplifying PA corruption accusations while building direct ties with the Jewish settler movement, bypassing Israel’s own government. This calculated outreach undermines any pretense that normalization with the Arab world might lead to Palestinian statehood. 

“We continue, with God’s help, to lead a revolution of normalization and regulation in the settlement,” Smotrich was quoted as saying. “Instead of hiding and apologizing, we raise the flag, build, and settle. This is another important step on the way to actual sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.” 

During Ramadan, a West Bank settlement delegation visited Abu Dhabi and met with Dr Ali Rashid al-Nuaimi, UAE National Council member, Israeli Ambassador Yossi Sheli, UAE businessmen, and social media influencers.

The Israeli newspaper also quoted the head of the settlement council, Yisrael Gantz, as saying, “There is a new world order that requires new alliances and thinking outside the box.”

The delegation disclosed little, but according to Yedioth Ahronoth, they sought to assure UAE officials that normalization does not require evacuating Jewish settlements. UAE ties with settlement leaders like Nablus Council head Yossi Dagan date back years, with trade links forged under the Trump administration. Settlers now openly bypass Tel Aviv to deal directly with Persian Gulf capitals.

Hamas braces for a final stand

With famine at catastrophic levels, regional support dwindling, and the resistance fronts – save for Yemen – largely subdued, Hamas now confronts a stark dilemma. The movement, facing internal and external pressure to capitulate, insists that surrender remains unthinkable.

Sources within the group say even some Muslim Brotherhood-linked entities urged them to fold, citing the scale of devastation. But Hamas’s rejection is not about survival or political continuity – it is about safeguarding the very idea and practice of resistance. Accepting exile would mark not just Hamas’s end, but the liquidation of Palestinian armed struggle across all factions.

Worse still, surrender would not prevent mass displacement, but would accelerate it. The collapse of Gaza would send shockwaves through the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the 1948 territories, heralding the final act of the Palestinian cause.

Even though the latest truce proposal would reduce the number of living Israeli prisoners of war held by the resistance – now estimated at 20 out of 59 – Hamas accepted it to ease Palestinian suffering and buy time. But the movement remains under no illusion: Israel has no intention of stopping the war, especially with the full political and military backing of the Trump administration.

Hamas has resolved to continue the fight regardless of the cost. “If we are to be eliminated,” one source tells The Cradle, “let it be in an honorable battle, not in exile.” They cite the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp massacres as a grim lesson: once the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) left Lebanon, the residents of the defenseless camps were butchered. The difference now is that Hamas is on its own land, among its own people.

Tactically, resistance has shifted. The Israeli presence in Gaza has eroded the battlefield, leaving little room for maneuver. The Qassam Brigades now relies on ambushes, waits for troops to enter dense urban terrain, and fires sporadic rockets to maintain psychological pressure, particularly through videos of Israeli captives designed to torment the occupation government.

The battle continues – and Hamas intends to face it, not flee it.

https://thecradle.co/articles/why-hamas-resists-all-foreign-demands-for-surrender

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Peter Slezak

Remarks made by University of Technology Sydney academic Peter Slezak at a rally at UTS on 26 March, have attracted considerable negative coverage in the Murdoch media. [The Australian and The Daily Telegraph]

Pearls And Irritations is carrying the full text of the speech so that readers can make up their own minds.

-----

For over a year now the horrors of the genocide in Gaza mean that we — especially Jews — are facing one of the great moral tests of our time.

We have seen the images. Gaza looks like Hiroshima after the atom bomb in 1945. Who in their right mind can believe Israeli propaganda that this is self-defence, or that it’s targeting HAMAS militants?

Given the devastation and sheer quantity of bombing on Gaza, Chomsky’s (1971) remarks on the Vietnam War are relevant today. He said:

“With no further information than this, a person who has not lost his senses must realise that the war is an overwhelming atrocity.”

However, we are being subjected to intense propaganda to deny Israel’s crimes, although everyone can see the truth on our mobile phones.

In these circumstances, the current obsession with a definition of antisemitism is obscene. We are distracted from the horror by panic about an alleged explosion of antisemitism and concerns about Jewish safety – even though it’s been exposed as mostly bullshit.

My mother and grandmother survived the Nazi extermination camp Auschwitz, and I grew up hearing their stories. So, l think I know antisemitism when I see it. In fact, there has never been any antisemitism at our rallies, at universities or anywhere in Australia in my lifetime.

Saying “F**k Israel” or “F**k Zionism” is not antisemitic.

The antisemitism crisis in Australia is based on faked incidents like graffiti by people who can’t even spell Israel or f**k.

And even hating people who are guilty of committing or supporting oppression, war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid – is not racism. It is moral outrage and contempt for what they do, Not what they are. If Israelis and their Zionist supporters were all Buddhists, we would have the same moral outrage and contempt for their crimes.

The wonderful young Palestinian writer Mohammed El Kurd has put it eloquently saying:

“Your warplanes … have burned Palestinian people alive in their tents while they are connected to IV drips on makeshift hospital beds. And I am asked to care about your stupid feelings!”

Palestinians are expected to put aside their suffering, their trauma and grief, and to pander to Jewish discomfort about a slogan or poster.

The cricket commentator Peter Lalor was sacked because people said they were “triggered” by the sound of his voice. And we are supposed to worry about the feelings of Jews who feel “unsafe” because of seeing a keffiyeh.

The brilliant Randa Abdel-Fattah at Macquarie University put it eloquently: She asks:

“Since when do the victims of genocide have the responsibility to defer to and protect the feelings of those who enact, support, and enable their genocide?”

We must listen to Palestinians. She says:

“The feelings and fragility of Zionists are used as a rhetorical shield to deflect from engaging with the moral and material reality of genocide.

“Palestinians bear no responsibility to coddle the feelings of Zionist racists. We collectively refuse to provide Zionists with reassurances to placate and soothe their political anxieties.

“We have the right to demand an end to settler colonialism, apartheid and occupation without factoring in how our oppressors ‘feel’.

“We have the right to imagine that another world is possible. We have the right to refuse to be held hostage to confected feelings by people who support our annihilation.”

So, I agree with Randa when she says “Jews SHOULD feel uncomfortable. It is our DUTY to make them uncomfortable.”**

For her courage and her powerful moral voice, Randa has been targeted by the Zionist Thought Police in a McCarthy-style witch hunt. Her government research grant has been suspended by Education Minister Jason Clare. This is blatant political interference in the independence of universities – something you’d expect in China or the former Soviet Union.

Now, Australia’s 39 universities have endorsed a version of the pernicious IHRA definition of antisemitism that will be enforced on our campuses.

This is a direct attack on fundamental freedoms, stifling freedom of speech, academic debate and protest.

As in the US, here too, the government has relied on consulting fanatical pro-Israel propagandists such as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry whose official, Jillian Segal, has been absurdly appointed as our antisemitism envoy.

Their new definition ties Zionism to Jewish identity and thereby makes criticism of Zionism antisemitic. But Zionism a political ideology, and it is, in fact, an ethno-nationalist, supremacist doctrine responsible for apartheid and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

The universities’ definition also states that criticism that calls for the elimination of the state of Israel might be antisemitic. But questioning the legitimacy of the state in its current form based on historical, political, or moral arguments is neither genocidal nor antisemitic.

It’s important for me to say something about our chant heard at rallies around the world: “From the River to the Sea …” The apologists for Israel’s crimes claim this slogan is antisemitic or even a call for the annihilation of Israel.

But the charter of Israel’s governing Likud Party says there will be no Palestinian state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state and, in July 2024, the Israeli Knesset voted overwhelmingly against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

In 2018, Israel passed a Nation State Law according to which Israel is the state of the Jews alone. Human rights organisations HRW, Amnesty and Israel’s own B’Tselem have recent reports showing that Israel is an apartheid regime. The Israeli NGO Adalah lists over 50 laws that discriminate against the citizens of Israel who are Palestinians.

Obviously, the global chant is a plea for liberation.

The point has been made by US Palestinian Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib who also said “a call for freedom, human rights and peaceful co-existence” is not “a call for death, destruction or hate”.’

My Palestinian colleague, Dr Lana Tatour, has pointed out: We “ought to listen to Palestinians who have been articulating liberation as an inclusive project of equal rights for all.” She says, this liberation means “equality for all the inhabitants of the land — and the dismantling of the settler colonialism and the apartheid regime that exist now”. This is “the demand for … the right of Palestinians to live in dignity and equality in their homeland.”

This is not antisemitism.

It is a desecration of the memory of the victims of real antisemitism when it is weaponised by Zionists to silence justified criticism of the racist, criminal State of Israel.

We should also listen to Palestinian Nasser Mashni, president of APAN, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network:

“The call is ‘a vision for a shared political reality beyond Israel’s current brutal colonial apartheid. It should not be controversial for Palestinians to reject oppression or to aspire for liberation, to live a life in their own homeland, free from Israel’s racist system of control’. …

“That’s why we say Palestine will be free from the River to the Sea for everyone. And if you have a problem with everyone being free, because you only want some people to be free, the problem is not the chant, the problem is you.”

American historian Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors and among the foremost scholarly critics of Israel. Finkelstein warns that “the real enemies of the Jews” are “those who debase the memory of Jewish suffering by equating principled opposition to Israel’s illegal and immoral policies with antisemitism”.

US political scientist John Mearsheimer points out that the attacks on free speech at universities is a “fundamental threat to academia” – the very idea of universities as we have known it.

The foundation of a liberal decent society is the protection of dissent — unpopular opinions — especially at universities. Despite the official warnings, I used to begin my lectures by explaining that my classes are not a “safe space” for ideas you don’t like or don’t agree with.

In fact, during the Vietnam War, Noam Chomsky pointed out:

“[Universities] are institutions for indoctrination and for imposing obedience. Far from creating independent thinkers, schools have always, throughout history, played an institutional role in a system of control and coercion.

“Academics and students have been rewarded for obedience and submission to authority.”

But in a healthy society, Chomsky suggests, “the social and intellectual role of the university should be subversive”.

This is the spirit in which our students have been exemplary, leading the way with their encampments which always included Jews.

One handwritten sign by a student put it best: **“**You f**ked with the wrong generation. Hashtag #FreePalestine”.

As today, in the 1960s, beginning in the US at my own Columbia University, the students launched a national and international protest movement.

However, today, Columbia, and other universities have chosen to be active collaborators and facilitators in the neo-McCarthyist erosion of due process and academic freedom.

Here, the entire political class and media are having a meltdown about antisemitism. Sky News held an “Antisemitism Summit” to address the “National Emergency” of antisemitism in Australia

ECAJ co-director Alex Ryvchin said: “We face a crisis that has brought open support for terrorism to our streets.” He means us!

So Ryvchin proposed a 15-point plan of action. These are totalitarian mechanisms of thought control that would have impressed Stalin or Mao Tse-tung. As one commentator remarked “In short, ECAJ has become drunk on the possibilities of using the state to advance Zionism and suppress its critics.”

Recommendations include:

Tougher legislation to overcome restrictions on disciplinary action against academics.

In other words, it should be easier to suppress criticism of Israel and penalise dissenting voices at universities. This means weakening traditional protections for academic freedom, undermining the very foundation of universities with punitive action against critical academics like Randa Abdel-Fattah.

Developments in the US serve as a warning to us.

At Columbia, post-graduate student and legal resident Mahmoud Khalil was abducted and threatened with deportation by federal immigration agents.

At Columbia, one academic law professor and vocal advocate for pro-Palestine students, Dr. Katherine Franke, was terminated.

She said:

“Rather than fostering critical debate, research and learning”, the university had “demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with the very enemies of our academic mission".

Columbia University was accused by the Trump administration of a systemic failure to protect students and faculty members “from antisemitic violence and harassment".

Columbia University capitulated, agreeing to overhaul its protest policies, security practices and Middle Eastern studies department in a concession to the Trump administration, accepting increased criminalisation of its students and the dismantling of academic freedom for its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department. The Columbia administration has made these enormous concessions with no certainty of even salvaging the US$400 million federal funds that were withheld.

Columbia will also adopt the notorious IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Columbia’s response to the White House’s demands sets a dangerous precedent.

Edward Said’s legacy at Columbia stands today as a condemnation of the hypocrisy of US liberal institutions, their moral corruption, and the hollowness of the very values that they profess to teach.

This irony is best illustrated by a Columbia student’s protest sign, which read:

“Columbia, why require me to read Prof. Edward Said, if you don’t want me to use it?”

Chomsky (1969) wrote: “Traditionally the self-image of intellectuals and academics has been that they are independent thinkers and dispassionate critics. But in fact,

“Insofar as that role has been lost, the relation of the schools to intellectuals should, in fact, be one of self-defence.”

I quote our Macquarie University colleague Amanda Wise on Twitter:

“If you are more worried about disruptive students being a bit noisy and untidy on campus, and using words that make you uncomfortable than you are about actual violence, genocide, the destruction of entire universities, targeting professors, and the genocide of civilians in Gaza then you do not stand for the kind of university I believe in.”

​** Clarification - Peter Slezak has quoted Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah from Macquarie University as saying “Jews SHOULD feel uncomfortable. It is our DUTY to make them uncomfortable.” [YouTube video, watch from 5:25] Taking that sentence in its proper context – she is clearly referring to Zionist Jews. This is a distinction Dr Abdel-Fattah makes often and very specifically.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/04/peter-slezaks-speech-to-the-uts-rally-on-26-march/\\\\\\\

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Arab Complicity in Israel’s Genocide

By Ramzy Baroud
Z Network

Explaining Arab political failure to challenge Israel through traditional analysis — such as disunity, general weakness and a failure to prioritize Palestine — does not capture the full picture.

The idea that Israel is brutalizing Palestinians simply because the Arabs are too weak to challenge the Benjamin Netanyahu government — or any government — implies that, in theory, Arab regimes could unite around Palestine. However, this view oversimplifies the matter.

Many well-meaning, pro-Palestine commentators have long urged Arab nations to unite, pressure Washington to reassess its unwavering support for Israel and take decisive actions to lift the siege on Gaza, among other crucial steps.

While these steps may hold some value, the reality is far more complex, and such wishful thinking is unlikely to change the behavior of Arab governments. These regimes are more concerned with sustaining or returning to some form of status quo — one in which Palestine’s liberation remains a secondary priority.

Since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, the Arab position on Israel has been weak at best, and treasonous at worst.

Some Arab governments even went so far as to condemn Palestinian resistance in United Nations debates. While countries like China and Russia at least attempted to contextualize the Oct. 7 Hamas assault on Israeli occupation forces imposing a brutal siege on Gaza, countries like Bahrain placed the blame squarely on the Palestinians.

With a few exceptions, it took Arab governments weeks — or even months — to develop a relatively strong stance that condemned the Israeli offensive in any meaningful terms.

Though the rhetoric began to shift slowly, the actions did not follow. While the Ansarallah movement in Yemen, alongside other Arab non-state actors, attempted to impose some form of pressure on Israel through a blockade, Arab countries instead worked to ensure Israel could withstand the potential consequences of its isolation.

In his book War, Bob Woodward disclosed that some Arab governments told then-U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken that they had no objections to Israel’s efforts to crush Palestinian resistance. However, some were concerned about the media images of mutilated Palestinian civilians, which could stir public unrest in their own countries.

That public unrest never materialized, and with time, the genocide, famine, and cries for help in Gaza were normalized as yet another tragic event, not unlike the war in Sudan or the strife in Syria.

For 15 months of relentless Israeli genocide that resulted in the killing and wounding of over 162,000 Palestinians in Gaza, official Arab political institutions remained largely irrelevant in ending the war. 

In the U.S., the Biden administration was emboldened by such Arab inaction, continuing to push for greater normalization between Arab countries and Israel — even in the face of over 15,000 children killed in Gaza in the most brutal ways imaginable.

While the moral failures of the West, the shortcomings of international law and the criminal actions of Biden and his administration have been widely criticized, the complicity of Arab governments in enabling these atrocities and for serving as a shield for Israel’s war crimes is often ignored.

The Arabs have, in fact, played a more significant role in the Israeli atrocities in Gaza than we often recognize. Some through their silence, and others through direct collaboration with Israel.

Throughout the war, reports surfaced indicating that some Arab countries [UAE] actively lobbied in Washington on behalf of Israel, advocating against an Egyptian-Arab League proposal aimed at reconstructing Gaza without ethnically cleansing its population — an idea promoted by the Trump administration and Israel.

The Egyptian proposal, which was unanimously accepted by Arab countries at their summit on March 4, represented the strongest and most unified stance taken by the Arab world during the war.

The proposal, which was rejected by Israel and dismissed by the U.S., helped shift discourse in the U.S. around the subject of ethnic cleansing. It ultimately led to comments made on March 12 by Trump during a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin where he stated that “No one’s expelling anyone from Gaza.” 

For some Arab states to actively oppose the only relatively strong Arab position signals that the issue of Arab failures in Palestine goes beyond mere disunity or incompetence — it reflects a much darker and more cynical reality. Some Arabs align their interests with Israel, where a free Palestine isn’t just a non-issue, but a threat.

The same applies to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, which continues to work hand-in-hand with Israel to suppress any form of resistance in the West Bank. Its concern in Gaza is not about ending the genocide, but ensuring the marginalization of its Palestinian rivals, particularly Hamas.

Thus, blaming the PA for mere “weakness,” for “not doing enough,” or for failing to unify the Palestinian ranks is a misreading of the situation. The priorities of Mahmoud Abbas and his PA allies are far different: securing relative power over Palestinians, a power that can only be sustained through Israeli military dominance.

These are difficult, yet critical truths, as they allow us to reframe the conversation, moving away from the false assumption that Arab unity will resolve everything.

The flaw in the unity theory is that it naively assumes Arab regimes inherently reject Israeli occupation and support Palestine.

While some Arab governments are genuinely outraged by Israel’s criminal behavior and growingly frustrated by the U.S.’ irrational policies in the region, others are driven by self-interest: their animosity toward Iran and fear of rising Arab non-state actors. They are equally concerned about instability in the region, which threatens their hold on power amid a rapidly shifting world order.

As solidarity with Palestine has increasingly expanded from the global South to the global majority, Arabs remain largely ineffective, fearing that significant political change in the region could directly challenge their own position. 

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a widely published and translated author, an internationally syndicated columnist and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015), and was a non-resident scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB. Visit his website.

This article is from Z Network, is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/03/28/arab-complicity-in-israels-genocide/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.