SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With Trump attempting to fashion a presidential police force of armed soldiers for domestic deployment, while claiming the right to kill anyone he deems a terrorist, the threat to the rule of law in the United States is not just profound but historically unprecedented.
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump threatened to unleash the armed forces on more American cities during a rambling address to top military brass. He told the hundreds of generals and admirals gathered to hear him that some of them would be called upon to take a primary role at a time when his administration has launched occupations of American cities, deployed tens of thousands of troops across the United States, created a framework for targeting domestic enemies, cast his political rivals as subhuman, and asserted his right to wage secret war and summarily execute those he deems terrorists.
Trump used that bizarre speech to take aim at cities he claimed “are run by the radical left Democrats,” including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. “We’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room,” he said. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.” He then added: “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”
Trump has, of course, already deployed the armed forces inside the United States in an unprecedented fashion during the first year of his second term in office. As September began, a federal judge found that his decision to occupy Los Angeles with members of California’s National Guard—under so-called Title 10 or federalized status—against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom was illegal. But just weeks later, Trump followed up by ordering the military occupation of Portland, Oregon, over Gov. Tina Kotek’s objections.
“I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late last month. And he “authoriz[ed] Full Force, if necessary.”
“When military troops police civilians, we have an intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country.”
When a different federal judge blocked him from deploying Oregon National Guardsmen to the city, he ordered in guard members from California and Texas. That judge then promptly blocked his effort to circumvent her order, citing the lack of a legal basis for sending troops into Portland. In response, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act—an 1807 law that grants the president emergency powers to deploy troops on US soil—to “get around” the court rulings blocking his military occupation efforts. “I think that’s all insurrection, really criminal insurrection,” he claimed, in confused remarks from the Oval Office.
Experts say that his increasing use of the armed forces within the United States represents an extraordinary violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That bedrock 19th-century law banning the use of federal troops to execute domestic law enforcement has long been seen as fundamental to America’s democratic tradition. However, the president’s deployments continue to nudge this country ever closer to becoming a genuine police state. They come amid a raft of other Trump administration authoritarian measures designed to undermine the Constitution and weaken democracy. Those include attacks on birthright citizenship and free speech, as well as the exercise of expansive unilateral powers like deporting people without due process and rolling back energy regulations, citing wartime and emergency powers.
US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last month that Trump’s deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles, which began in June, was illegal and harkened back to Britain’s use of soldiers for law enforcement purposes in colonial America. He warned that Trump clearly intends to transform the National Guard into a presidential police force.
“Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the use of the US military to execute domestic law,” Breyer wrote in his 52-page opinion. “Nearly 140 years later, Defendants—President Trump, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and the Department of Defense—deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell a rebellion and ensure that federal immigration law was enforced… Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”
The judge ruled that the Pentagon had systematically used armed soldiers to perform police functions in California in violation of Posse Comitatus and planned to do so elsewhere in America. As he put it, “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country… thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”
In the face of that scathing opinion, the president has nonetheless ramped up his urban military occupations, while threatening to launch yet more of them. “Now we’re in Memphis… and we’re going to Chicago,” Trump told a large crowd of sailors in Norfolk, Virginia, during a celebration of the Navy’s 250th anniversary earlier this month. “And so we send in the National Guard, we… send in whatever’s necessary. People don’t care.”
As October began, Trump had already deployed an unprecedented roughly 35,000 federal troops within the United States, according to my reporting at The Intercept. Those forces, drawn from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and National Guard, have been or will soon be deployed under Title 10 authority, or federal control, in at least seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas—to aid and enforce the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda, while further militarizing America. Other guardsmen, being sent to cities across the country ranging from Memphis to New Orleans, are serving under Title 32 status, which means they will officially be under state control, a measure Trump uses in states with Republican governors.
National Guard forces deployed to Washington, DC as part of Trump’s federal takeover of the district in August are operating under the same Title 32 status. But with no governor to report to, the DC National Guard’s chain of command runs from its commanding general directly to the secretary of the Army, then to Pete Hegseth, and finally to Trump himself.
In September, a long-threatened occupation of Chicago began with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation targeting immigrants in that city, dubbed “Midway Blitz.” A month later, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago sued Trump, seeking to block the imminent deployment of federalized Illinois and Texas National Guard troops to that city. A federal judge in Chicago blocked the deployment of troops in Chicago for at least two weeks. The Justice Department appealed but an appeals court ruled Saturday that while the troops can remain there under federal control, they can’t be deployed.
“They are not conducting missions right now,” a Northern Command spokesperson told TomDispatch on Tuesday, admitting that she didn’t know exactly what the troops were doing.
The president has also threatened to deploy National Guard troops to Baltimore, New York City, Oakland, Saint Louis, San Francisco, and Seattle.
“When military troops police civilians, we have an intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “President Trump may want to normalize armed forces in our cities, but no matter what uniform they wear, federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution and have to respect our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and due process. State and local leaders must stay strong and take all lawful measures to protect residents against this cruel intimidation tactic.”
Trump’s Portland order drew pushback from Oregon’s Democratic lawmakers, local leaders, and outside experts, who said there was no need for federal troops to be deployed to the city. “There is no national security threat in Portland,” Gov. Kotek announced on social media. “Our communities are safe and calm.” Independent reporting corroborated her assessment.
After Kotek conveyed that to Trump in a phone call, the president seemed to briefly question whether he had been misled about an antifa “siege” there and the city being “war-ravaged.” As he recounted, “I spoke to the governor, but I said, ‘Well, wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening? My people tell me different.’”
Days later, despite countless reports that there was neither a war nor a siege underway in Portland, Trump posted on social media that Kotek was “living in a ‘Dream World’” and returned to peddling lies about the city. “Portland is a NEVER-ENDING DISASTER. Many people have been badly hurt and even killed. It is run like a Third World Country,” he wrote on TruthSocial. “We’re only going in because, as American Patriots, WE HAVE NO CHOICE. LAW AND ORDER MUST PREVAIL IN OUR CITIES, AND EVERYWHERE ELSE!”
Judge Karin Immergut of the US District Court in Oregon issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from sending 200 Oregonian National Guard troops for a 60-day deployment in Portland. As she concluded in her opinion, she expected a trial court to agree with the state’s contention that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority.
The Trump administration has also admitted that it’s waging a secret war against undisclosed enemies without the consent of Congress.
Trump immediately took aim at her—despite the fact that he had appointed her to office during his first term—saying that she “ought to be ashamed of herself.” He then claimed, without any basis, that Portland was “burning to the ground.” Trump then made further hyperbolic claims about the city and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act. “Portland is on fire. Portland’s been on fire for years,” he said, describing the situation as “all insurrection.”
The same Northern Command spokesperson told TomDispatch on Tuesday that the federalized troops in Oregon were also in a holding pattern. “They are on standby,” she said.
The president’s Portland order followed a series of authoritarian actions that have pushed the nation ever closer to becoming a genuine police state. In August, reports emerged that the Pentagon was planning to create a Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force that would include two groups of 300 National Guard troops to be kept on standby at military bases in Alabama and Arizona for rapid deployment across the country. (That proposed force would also reportedly operate under Title 32.)
The Pentagon refused to offer further details about the initiative. “The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe,” said a defense official, speaking at the time on the condition of anonymity. “We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.”
Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order claiming to designate antifa—a loose-knit anti-fascist movement—as a “domestic terror organization.” He also issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which directs the Justice Department and elements of the Intelligence Community and national security establishment to target “anti-fascism… movements” and “domestic terrorist organizations.” Such enemies, according to the president, not only espouse “anti-Americanism” and “support for the overthrow of the United States Government,” but also are typified by advocacy of opinions protected by the First Amendment, including “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
After referring to the “war from within” during his address to the military’s top officers, he cast his political rivals as subhuman and claimed that they needed to be dealt with. “We have to take care of this little gnat that’s on our shoulder called the Democrats,” he told the sailors during the Navy’s 250th anniversary celebration.
The Trump administration has also admitted that it’s waging a secret war against undisclosed enemies without the consent of Congress. According to a confidential notice from the Department of War sent to lawmakers, the president has unilaterally decided that the United States is engaged in a declared state of “non-international armed conflict” with “designated terrorist organizations” or DTOs. It described three people killed by US commandos on what was claimed to be a boat carrying drugs in the Caribbean last month as “unlawful combatants,” as if they were soldiers on a battlefield. And that was a significant departure from standard practice in the long-running US war on drugs, in which law enforcement, not the US military, arrests suspected drug dealers rather than summarily executing them.
As Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer and a specialist in counterterrorism issues, as well as the laws of war, pointed out, the White House’s claims that Trump has the authority to use lethal force against anyone he decides is a member of a DTO is extraordinarily “dangerous and destabilizing.” As he put it: “Because there’s no articulated limiting principles, the President could simply use this prerogative to kill any people he labels as terrorists, like antifa. He could use it at home in the United States.”
The Trump administration’s military occupations of American cities, its deployment of tens of thousands of troops across the United States, its emerging framework for designating and targeting domestic enemies, its dehumanization of its political foes, and its assertion that the president has the right to wage secret war and summarily execute those he deems terrorists have left this country on the precipice of authoritarian rule.
With Trump attempting to fashion a presidential police force of armed soldiers for domestic deployment, while claiming the right to kill anyone he deems a terrorist, the threat to the rule of law in the United States is not just profound but historically unprecedented.
If this is how the next generation of GOP leaders talks when they think nobody is listening, then the “jokes” about gas chambers today are warnings about the police state tomorrow.
Just this week, Politico exposed private Telegram chats among Young Republican leaders where they didn’t just flirt with Nazi-style extremism, they reveled in it.
In thousands of leaked messages from across the nation, rising GOP stars praised Adolf Hitler, joked about sending political rivals into gas chambers, and mocked the very idea of human dignity.
One message read, “Everyone who votes no is going to the gas chamber… Great, I love Hitler.” Another sneered, “Can we fix the showers? Gas chambers don’t fit the Hitler aesthetic.”
These weren’t anonymous trolls lurking on the margins of the internet. They included elected officers of Republican youth organizations, embedded in party structures, cultivating power now.
To excuse that as youthful mischief isn’t just a simple lie, it’s an endorsement of literally early Hitler-style fascism.
If this is how the next generation of GOP leaders talks when they think nobody is listening, then the “jokes” about gas chambers today are warnings about the police state tomorrow.
And if you think that’s alarmist, look around. Nearly 60,000 human beings are currently locked away in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers across the United States. Seven out of ten have never been convicted of a crime.
Many were here legally, waiting for hearings, their status still pending. But under President Donald Trump, they are rounded up by masked agents, hustled into vans, and shipped off to secretive detention centers where families and lawyers can lose track of them for weeks, months, or altogether.
This year, hundreds of Venezuelans were quietly disappeared from ICE custody into El Salvador’s massive CECOT prison, a facility known internationally for torture and incommunicado confinement. No charges. No courts. No transparency. That is the textbook definition of enforced disappearance.
And Americans, by and large, are looking away.
History has seen this before. In 1933, long before Hitler launched the extermination camps, the Nazis established hundreds of smaller detention camps scattered across Germany. They called it “protective custody.” It sounded bureaucratic, even benign.
But what it meant was the creation of a parallel system where anyone could be taken, indefinitely, outside the reach of the courts.
At first it was communists and social democrats, then Jews and “asocials,” and eventually anyone who got in the regime’s way. People disappeared into those camps, and good Germans told themselves it wasn’t their business, that “the state must have its reasons.”
By the time they realized what they had normalized, it was too late.
That is the exact pattern we see unfolding here today. Trump’s enforcers don’t call it Schutzhaft. They call it “civil detention.”
And ICE has a $45 billion budget to build hundreds of these “detention centers” all across America. Do you really think they’re just gonna stop at brown people?
They pretend tearing people from their lives without trial is just part of the immigration process.
They pretend spiriting away hundreds of desperate migrants to a foreign dictatorship’s prison is ordinary enforcement.
They pretend masked men grabbing people off American streets are “just following orders.”
But what this really is—and what we must call it without hesitation—is the birth of an unaccountable neofascist American secret police.
This isn’t about whether we want immigration laws enforced; there’s virtually no debate about that. It’s about whether the president can create an authorized, masked secret police force that answers to him rather than the law.
When police are anonymous, when courts are bypassed, when disappearances are tolerated, freedom itself is on the line.
If it can happen to a farmworker in Texas, it can happen to a protester in Portland, a journalist in New York, or a political opponent anywhere in America. It can happen to me, and it can happen to you.
History irrefutably shows us that unaccountable power always expands.
We like to tell ourselves, “It can’t happen here.” But it already is. People are being taken without judicial warrants. Families are left without answers. Courts are being circumvented. Transfers and detentions happen in the dark.
Meanwhile, Americans are being trained to look the other way, just as the “good Germans” did. That is how democracy has died in a nation after nation, from Russia to Egypt to Turkey to Hungary, not with a single dramatic blow, but with the slow normalization of injustice until the unthinkable becomes everyday routine.
And this is why shrugging, shaking our heads, or tweeting our dismay is not enough. History demands more.
The people who stood by in 1930s Germany told themselves it was temporary, or they stayed quiet, or they made excuses. Their silence made tyranny possible.
We must not make the same mistake.
JD Vance brushed off the scandal, telling Americans to “grow up” about the leaked Hitler-loving group chat, calling it “kids doing stupid things.”
As Robert Hubble points out in his excellent Substack newsletter:
The leaders were in their 20s and 30s and held political jobs, including
— Chief of Staff to New York State Assembly member Mike Reilly;
— Staffer for New York State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt
— Communications Assistant for Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach
— Employee at New York State Unified Court System
— Employee at Center for Arizona Policy
— Senior Adviser in the Office of General Counsel, US Small Business Administration (in the Trump administration)
In short, these were not “kids,” nor were they “college students.” They were adults with responsible jobs.
To excuse that as youthful mischief isn’t just a simple lie, it’s an endorsement of literally early Hitler-style fascism. When elected officials defend calls for racially based mass slaughter as harmless immaturity, they tell the country that hate is acceptable, cruelty is normal, and history no longer matters.
Every act of unaccountable state violence must be called out. Every attempt to sideline the courts must be resisted. Every agency twisted into a political weapon must be exposed and reformed.
The Constitution does not protect itself. Democracy does not run on autopilot. Freedom only survives when citizens refuse to accept the unacceptable.
That means showing up at protests, speaking out at meetings, demanding accountability from lawmakers, and refusing to let media normalize secret police tactics in the United States of America.
There was a time in America when Republicans like my father were the ones warning of the dangers of America becoming an oppressive police state. We must reach out to our Republican elected officials and remind them that Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Barry Goldwater would not tolerate this sort of thing.
America is at a turning point. We can let this slide and hope the system rights itself. Or we can recognize that once the precedent of unaccountable detention and disappearance is accepted, it will never stop at immigrants or refugees. It will spread, as it always does, to silence dissent and crush opposition.
Already Trump is publicly going through a new list of people he wants to prosecute. Even Victor Orban hasn’t gone that far; this is pure Putin stuff.
The masked men who today drag away the undocumented will tomorrow drag away the protester, the critic, the rival. That’s how it worked then. That’s how it works now in Russia, the country is Trump is praising and using it as his model.
So I’m asking you, as forcefully as I know how: stand up. Speak out. Call your elected officials, both federal, state, and local, particularly the Republicans.
Show up this Saturday for No King Day and every day after that. Refuse to live in a country where the president commands his own secret police. Refuse to look away when your government disappears human beings into the shadows. Refuse to be a “good German.”
This is still our republic, but only if we defend it. That time is now.
Trump hates being laughed at, so it's a good strategy to show how ridiculous his contention that cities are dangerous hellholes protected by dimwitted blue mayors really is.
Longtime readers of this newsletter will know that, though it’s generally focused on climate and energy, it also concerns itself with organizing: We have to fight for the future we want. This weekend is one of those occasions: No Kings Day 2, when millions upon millions of Americans will gather to say, in one form or another, we don’t like the turn our country has taken in the last nine months, and we’d like our country to head in a very different direction. If you don’t know where to go on Saturday, here’s the handy tool to help you find the rally near you. (Many thanks to my colleagues at Third Act who have worked hard to turn folks out; my guess is that older Americans will be overrepresented, as at past such gatherings!)
I’ll be speaking on the Battle Green in Lexington, where in April of 1775 the American battle against kings arguably began. I grew up there, and my summer job was giving tours for the waves of sightseers who would arrive each day—I got to tell, over and over, the stories of the Minutemen who gave up their lives to a mighty military machine on the principle that they were capable of governing themselves. So it will be mostly a solemn talk, I guess—though I will try not to be over-earnest. Because we actually need a fair amount of good humor in these proceedings.
In fact, I think it’s possible that one of the most effective organizers in this entire cursed year is Seth Todd, a local man who appeared at the small protests outside the Portland Oregon Immigration and Customs Enforcement office a few weeks ago in an inflatable frog costume. He’s been there regularly since—his most viral moment came when ICE officers angry that he was coming to the aid of another protester sprayed mace up his air vent. But he’s been on the news again and again, becoming in the process that most exalted of all humans, a living meme.
Because of the rightly central place that the civil rights movement holds in our history, we tend to think of protest as necessarily somber and dignified. Those were the moods that that intuitive master strategist Dr. King summoned most effectively. They were designed to appeal to the sentiments of the white Americans he was facing, and to give a socially acceptable form to the deep and righteous anger of Black Americans. King understood that one of his tasks was to persuade the American mainstream that segregation—an accustomed practice—was brutal; quiet dignity against ferocious assault helped make the case, and awed onlookers with the bravery—and hence the humanity—of his followers.
If a Black woman in Sunday best presented a messaging problem for Bull Connor in Birmingham, a chubby frog presents a messaging problem for Trump, for different reasons.
We’re in a different moment now, with different needs. President Donald Trump and MAGA represent an aggressive revanchism built on a series of lies, in this case that the country’s cities are dangerous hellholes protected by dimwitted blue mayors. This is easy to disprove statistically—by many measures Portland is among the safest cities in the country; New York is safer than it’s been in at least a quarter century; Boston, which Trump was threatening last week to send troops to, is among the least violent cities America’s ever seen. But statistics have a hard time competing with lurid stories about high-profile murders or (fictitious) out-of-control crime. “I don’t know what could be worse than Portland,” the president said last week. “You don’t even have stores anymore. They don’t even put glass up. They put plywood on their windows.”
As a counter to this, a goofy inflatable frog is pretty powerful; it quickly drives home the message that Portland is more whimsical than dangerous. If a Black woman in Sunday best presented a messaging problem for Bull Connor in Birmingham, a chubby frog presents a messaging problem for Trump, for different reasons. He hates being laughed at, which is a good indication that he recognizes the power of laughter; this is the classic "emperor has no clothes" moment. Or, as Seth the frog put it, “I obviously started a movement of people showing up looking ridiculous, which is the exact point. It’s to show how the narrative that is being pushed with how we are violent extremists is completely ridiculous. Nothing about this screams extremist and violent. So it’s just a ridiculous narrative that the Trump administration wants to put out so they can continue their fascist dictatorship.”
Satire like this is not a novel aspect of protest. Americans will remember Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies—running a pig for president, scattering cash on the floor of the stock exchange. In Serbia, the Otpor movement—operating in what was a police state—used humor extensively. As the website New Tactics in Human Rights explains:
In 2000, before the fall of Slobodan Milosevic, a government initiative to support agriculture involved placing boxes in shops and public places. It asked people to donate one dinar (Serbian currency) for sowing and planting crops. In response, Otpor! arranged its own collection called “Dinar za Smenu” (Dinar for a Change). This initiative was implemented several times and in different places in Serbia. It consisted of a big barrel with a photo of Milosevic. People could donate one dinar, and would then get a stick they could use to hit the barrel. At one point, a sign suggested that if people did not have any money because of Milosevic’s politics, they should hit the barrel twice.
When the police removed the barrel, Otpor! stated in a press release that the police had arrested the barrel. Otpor! claimed that the initiative was a huge success. They had collected enough money for Milosevic’s retirement, and that the police would pass the money on to him.
Hey, and Otpor won—Milosevic was toppled, and many other campaigns have picked up on the strategy around the world. As the Tunisian human rights campaigner Sami Gharbia said, “Making people laugh about dangerous stuff like dictatorship, repression, censorship is a first weapon against those fears… without beating fear you cannot make any change.”
Clearly the frog moment has inspired many here. On Facebook, the Episcopalian church was sharing not just a picture, but an apropos quote from Exodus and the story of Moses against the Pharaoh: “But if you refuse to let them go, I will plague your whole country with frogs… The frogs shall come up on you and on your people and on all your officials.”
Hey, and Moses won too.
Meanwhile, back in Portland, there’s also been a naked bike ride this week to protest ICE. A brass band has been playing outside their headquarters (the clarinetist was arrested while playing the theme from Ghostbusters).
And meanwhile back in DC, the regime is insisting that their opposition is Hamas-loving terrorists. As the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said yesterday, “this crazy No Kings rally this weekend, is gonna be the farthest left, the hardest core, the most unhinged in the Democratic Party, which is a big title.”
We don’t know how Trumpism will fall. We’re in an unprecedented moment in our political history, where the normal checks and balances have failed; it’s unclear if our electoral system will survive intact enough to allow democracy to operate in any way. But for the moment our task is to drive down Trump’s popularity, relentlessly. Their greatest hope is that there will be violence they can exploit; watch out this weekend for agents provocateurs, and pay attention to the people at protests who have been trained in deescalation. But show up—right now that’s our best way to keep building the opposition.
Humor’s far from the only tool. Sometimes the best way to build a movement is to publicize the outrages of the other side: More and more Americans are seeing the images of masked secret police dragging terrified people into unmarked cars and spiriting them away; happily, that’s helping. Here’s Joe Rogan last week: “When you’re just arresting people in front of their kids, and just, normal, regular people who have been here for 20 years. That everybody who has a heart can’t get along with that. Everybody who has a heart sees that and goes, ‘That can’t be right.’”
And sometimes the best way to do it is to dress up as a frog.
Whether Israel actually withdraws from the occupied Gaza Strip and upholds the ceasefire remains in question so long as the Trump administration and US congressional leadership of both parties refuse to condition military aid to Israel.
Israel violated its fragile, days-old ceasefire agreement with Hamas on Tuesday by killing six Palestinians in Gaza City and another near Khan Younis, as reported by Middle East Eye. At least 5 of the 6 victims in Gaza City were killed by an aerial attack while inspecting the ruins of their destroyed homes, as described by local Palestinian Civil Defence personnel. The seventh was the victim of a separate drone strike in al-Fukhari, east of Khan Younis.
Israel’s actions are in clear violation of the October 10 ceasefire agreement, which requires “all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment and targeting operations [to] be suspended.”
A shaky ceasefire is better than an ongoing genocide. The release of the remaining Israeli hostages should be celebrated, along with the freedom for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees—most of whom have been held without charge. And it is a huge step forward that food and medical supplies will now be allowed into Gaza to aid the starved and suffering Palestinian population.
But Israel has already flouted some aspects of the ceasefire agreement. It has failed to allow the amount of humanitarian assistance promised in the ceasefire agreement into Gaza, and announced on Tuesday that it would halve the number of aid trucks being let in down to 300 per day, saying that Hamas not returning the bodies of its deceased hostages quickly enough—though many of these hostages’ remains may be buried under the rubble of buildings bombed by Israel over the course of the two-year-long war. And it continues to bar international media from entering Gaza to report from the ground. So while the first phase of the ceasefire plan seemed likely to be successful, the subsequent parts remain in question.
No plan will lead to a real and permanent peace between Israelis and Palestinians unless it is premised on equal rights for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, either in a viable two-state solution or a single binational state with guaranteed equal rights for both.
Let’s remember that the first phase of the ceasefire agreement in January had been fully implemented when Israel—with the support of the US government—resumed the war two months later. This could happen again in the case of this month’s agreement. Whether Israel actually withdraws from the occupied Gaza Strip and upholds the ceasefire remains in question so long as the Trump administration and US congressional leadership of both parties refuse to condition military aid to Israel or allow the United Nations Security Council to enforce its resolutions.
To make matters worse, Hamas’ delay in releasing the remains of deceased Israeli hostages leaves it with even less leverage in enforcing the terms of the agreement, and Israel is taking advantage of that.
Israel has been noncommittal regarding the full timetable and the extent of the withdrawal thus far. It has also violated its withdrawal agreements in Lebanon and continued its occupation of southern Syria in recent months without objections from the United States, raising questions as to whether Israel will follow through on these commitments.
Among the outstanding issues is Israel’s demand for Hamas’s disarmament. Many Palestinians in Gaza have long resented their unelected militia’s intimidation and violence, and its terrorism and other provocations that have brought misery upon the Palestinian population. At the same time, Hamas has often been the only force capable of maintaining order, as armed gangs—some backed by Israel—have been stealing relief supplies and wreaking havoc in the region. This, in turn, has led to Hamas militia engaging in attacks on its political opponents, including summary executions. Without clearer guarantees from Israel regarding a full withdrawal of its troops from Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, and the establishment of a credible Palestinian administration to maintain order, Hamas will continue to refuse to disarm.
As of now, it is unclear who will rule over what remains of the Gaza Strip in the event of Israel’s withdrawal from the area. While Hamas has agreed to step aside under these circumstances, Israel, with US support, has ruled out allowing the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is recognized by 157 nations as the government of the State of Palestine, to govern Gaza. While the PA is riddled with corruption and dysfunction, it is arguably the most likely entity to provide some level of stability in the region: It has decades of experience governing most urban areas of the West Bank, has recognized Israel’s statehood, is demanding a Palestinian state on only 22% of historic Palestine, and has long renounced the use of violence.
But while the ceasefire agreement calls for the creation of a technocratic Palestinian administration overseen by a “Board of Peace,” the board would be chaired by Donald Trump—who has advocated turning the Gaza Strip into a vast Mediterranean resort—with the involvement of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a key architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Given the history of British colonialism and American neocolonialism in the Middle East, the agreement’s insistence that Palestinians in Gaza live under the control of foreigners in Washington and London, rather than their recognized government in the administrative capital of Ramallah, is not likely to be acceptable to them indefinitely.
What’s more, the costs of reconstruction in Gaza will be astronomical given that nearly 80% of structures in the Gaza Strip had been fully or partly destroyed. And it’s unlikely that the Gulf States will be willing to finance the removal of debris and mass reconstruction so long as there is still a possibility of the war resuming.
And while it should be seen as something of a victory that Trump is no longer talking about razing the entire territory and expelling the population, as he proposed earlier this year, the tragic fact is that he could have stopped the war months ago—and President Joe Biden could have, as well. Indeed, Biden put forward a remarkably similar ceasefire proposal in May 2024, which was accepted by Hamas but rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While previous presidents—including Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan—were willing to pressure Israel to halt military offensives or withdraw from occupied territories by threatening to withhold military aid, Biden refused to adequately utilize his substantial leverage during his presidency.
Similarly, Israeli mediator Gershon Baskin notes that Hamas had agreed to the same terms back in September of last year, and that, as with the current agreement, Netanyahu initially refused to support it. All that was needed to make the agreement a reality was some pressure from the Biden administration against Netanyahu. Last week, Baskin wrote on X that he “met with members of the American negotiating team in October 2024 and they were as frustrated as I was in their inability to convince Biden and Biden’s people to look seriously at the deal on the table.”
What finally led Trump to force Netanyahu to agree? One reason appears to have been that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt—who have long worked to convince Hamas to accept concessions demanded by Israel—pressured Trump to get Israel to compromise as well. Israel’s bombing of Qatar less than a week ago, and the apparent unwillingness by Trump to attempt to stop it, raised the possibility that continued US support for Israel could threaten his close strategic, financial, and personal relationships with the Gulf monarchies.
Another factor was the resistance of Israelis themselves. In August, a group of Israelis numbering into the hundreds of thousands, including ordinary citizens as well as leading military and security officials, gathered in the streets to protest the ongoing war, signaling widespread recognition that continuing the war would have little strategic value and put the lives of the hostages and Israeli soldiers at further risk.
There has also been growing awareness of the international implications of prolonging the war. Over the course of its two-year genocidal campaign in Gaza, Israel has squandered the international outpouring of sympathy following the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas and become an international pariah. Many European countries have now suspended military aid to Israel, and have recently threatened to impose economic sanctions as well.
And much of this pressure and resulting agreement was made possible by the power of global civil society, with massive anti-war demonstrations in cities and universities around the world, as well as the Global Sumud Flotilla, whose members were intercepted by Israel at the beginning of this month and subjected to abuse and torture. Much to the horror of many Israeli citizens, these events have led people around the world to not only challenge Israel’s war and occupation, but to begin questioning the legitimacy of Zionism entirely.
No plan will lead to a real and permanent peace between Israelis and Palestinians unless it is premised on equal rights for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, either in a viable two-state solution or a single binational state with guaranteed equal rights for both. Unfortunately, the United States has been hopelessly biased toward Israel while leading the “peace process”; the United States has used its veto powers to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its resolutions and Washington refuses to condition military aid to Israel to force it to end its occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory. In light of this, while the United States may have taken the lead in making this ceasefire possible, it will be up to global civil society and other governments to take the lead in demanding a fair, just, and lasting peace.