Saed News:With the intensification of clashes in Gaza and Israel's military intervention, Washington, through its indirect support of these attacks, has also taken on certain responsibilities. Israel's policies, aimed at achieving absolute security, have led to an endless cycle of violence, the deprivation of Palestinians, and regional instability.
Saed News Political Service Report:
Fararu, quoting the American think tank "Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft," wrote: The beginning of Israel's attacks on Gaza and the collapse of the January ceasefire were not particularly surprising. Analyses from reputable media outlets had emphasized from the outset that this ceasefire could not be sustained in the long term. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is often influenced by political considerations and personal ambitions on the domestic scene, was never fully committed to implementing this agreement.
In contrast, Hamas adhered to its commitments and repeatedly called for compliance with the terms of the agreement. This agreement not only included a complete cessation of hostilities but also the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. However, Israel repeatedly violated these commitments through armed attacks on Palestinians, continued occupation of areas it had promised to withdraw from, and the prolonged blockade of humanitarian aid. These actions appear to have been deliberately designed to provoke Hamas into a response, providing Israel with a pretext to cancel the agreement.
Netanyahu has strong domestic reasons for continuing the war. His alliance with far-right factions, which is crucial for maintaining his governing coalition and staying in power, has pushed him toward more aggressive decisions. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich opposed the ceasefire from the beginning and called for the resumption of war. Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Minister of National Security, who initially resigned from the government in protest against the ceasefire, has now rejoined the administration following the resumption of airstrikes.
The initial wave of these attacks killed hundreds of Palestinians within just a few hours, signaling Netanyahu's intent to continue this course of action. He has explicitly stated that this is only the "beginning." However, evidence suggests that, like previous military operations, this campaign is unlikely to yield different results. Over the past 15 months, Israel has failed to achieve its declared goal of "destroying Hamas." Similarly, this new cycle of violence is unlikely to achieve its stated objectives or lead to regional stability. Instead, critics view it as a continuation of what many describe as the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.
The Trump administration also played a role in this situation. Despite its involvement in brokering the January ceasefire, the White House indirectly contributed to its collapse. Reports indicate that the Trump administration gave Israel the green light to resume its attacks and even supported these actions in the United Nations Security Council. Additionally, the American envoy who played a key role in facilitating the ceasefire has recently backed a plan that is clearly in Israel’s favor—one that prioritizes securing the release of hostages held by Hamas without addressing a permanent ceasefire or Israeli military withdrawal.
The United States has undeniably played a role in supporting Israeli policies. Since the beginning of Trump's presidency, nearly $12 billion in weapons has been delivered to Israel. The Trump administration even bypassed Congress to expedite these transfers, citing emergency conditions—a justification that critics see as an excuse for accelerating these arms shipments. These transfers, particularly as Israel once again attacks Gaza, highlight America's moral responsibility for the ongoing humanitarian crisis.
The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is just one part of a broader picture that increasingly reflects Israel's expanding aggression in the region, with serious consequences for the United States as well. In the West Bank, Israel’s policies have increasingly followed a pattern that critics refer to as "Gaza-fication"—a process involving mass displacement of Palestinians, systematic home demolitions, and growing pressure from settlers advocating for the complete removal of Palestinians from the area.
Meanwhile, Israel continues one of the most persistent and least-publicized military campaigns in Syria. What was previously defined as limited strikes against Iranian positions has now expanded into near-daily bombings of broader areas and occupations beyond the Golan Heights. In many cases, these operations have occurred without direct provocation or immediate threats. While Israel once benefited from maintaining ties with the Bashar al-Assad regime, it is now actively preventing any fundamental changes in Syria’s political landscape by weakening potential new governments.
These policies completely eliminate any possibility of stability in Syria and increase the risk of confrontation with Turkey, which has its own military involvement in Syria. Meanwhile, Lebanon, which has repeatedly faced Israeli attacks, came under Israeli airstrikes again in October 2024. These attacks were a direct extension of Israel’s strikes on Gaza and appeared to primarily target Hezbollah. While Hezbollah was not interested in launching an all-out war, it fired rockets toward Israel in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.
In November of the same year, a ceasefire agreement was reached, but Israel has violated it almost daily. Similar to the situation in Syria, Israel continues to occupy territories it was supposed to withdraw from according to international agreements. In Gaza, although Israel officially claims to be targeting militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, in practice, civilians have suffered the most casualties, despite already being in a dire humanitarian situation.
Israel's goal with these widespread attacks is to achieve absolute security for itself, even if that goal comes at the cost of complete insecurity for others. The Israeli government justifies its actions by arguing that potential future threats must be eliminated, but in reality, these attacks only deepen grievances and suffering for others. For instance, Israel’s strikes on Syria not only weaken the country’s defense capabilities but also prevent the Syrian government from fully reasserting control over its territory.
Despite the enormous human costs, this strategy has never brought absolute security for Israel. Instead, the repetitive cycle of suffering and violence fuels further retaliatory attacks, ensuring that Israel remains in a constant state of conflict and instability. Meanwhile, the United States has become deeply entangled with Israel, a dependency that carries significant costs for Washington. Israel, which can be seen as a primary instigator of regional suffering through military force, has indirectly fueled public outrage and hostility toward the U.S.—a dynamic that has historically led to violent backlash against American interests.
This deep-seated dependency exposes the United States to an increased risk of being drawn into conflicts caused by Israeli policies. For example, current U.S. airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen are effectively an extension of Israel’s attacks on Gaza. If Israel had not carried out its military operations in Gaza, the Houthis likely would not have attacked Red Sea shipping routes. After the January ceasefire, the Houthis kept their promise to halt attacks, and no new military operations were reported before Trump’s intervention. Their only warning was that they would resume attacks if Israel continued its blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
However, disruptions in Red Sea shipping remain a serious and tangible challenge. When viewed within the broader context of the Gaza crisis, U.S. military involvement in Yemen effectively becomes an indirect endorsement of Israel's objectives—objectives that have led to the displacement of Palestinians from their lands. At the same time, the U.S. finds itself embroiled in a tribal insurgency with no real strategic benefit to Washington.
A more serious concern is that the United States could unintentionally be dragged into war with Iran—something the Netanyahu government has been actively pursuing through a series of overt and covert attacks on Iranian interests. It is clear that Netanyahu wants the U.S. to engage militarily with Iran, as such an escalation would reinforce Israel’s regional security strategy, which frames Middle East stability solely in terms of confronting Iran.
The main justification for this approach is Iran’s nuclear program. However, any military action—whether by Israel or the U.S.—would not only violate the U.N. Charter and international legal principles but would also serve merely as a preemptive measure against the hypothetical possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, both Israel and the U.S. have had nuclear arsenals for years.
