Iconos

Iconos
Volcán Popocatépetl

jueves, 18 de junio de 2026

The U.S.–Iran Deal Could Help Transform America’s Mideast Strategy

Washington doesn’t need to be the region’s micromanager.

Eldar Mamedov

Jun 17, 202

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-u-s-iran-deal-could-help-transform-americas-mideast-strategy/

Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED.”

The Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s statement this week confirms a cessation of hostilities between Washington and Tehran, to be formalized on June 19 in Geneva. Vice President J.D. Vance is expected to sign the deal alongside Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—the man with whom he negotiated in Islamabad during the first U.S.–Iran talks at this level since 1979. Intriguingly, both Vance and President Donald Trump on Monday said a deal had already been signed. Military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, will terminate immediately and permanently; the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for the global oil trade, will reopen.

That, at least, is the idea, though the two sides will need to implement the agreement to get Israel’s war in Lebanon ended and the Strait of Hormuz truly open for shipping. Similarly, modalities will have to be found to implement the sanctions relief and unfreezing of Iranian assets reportedly in the agreement. And then comes the even harder part: Once it takes effect, the “memorandum of understanding” will kick off 60 days of discussions on thorny issues related to Iran’s nuclear program—enrichment levels, inspection regimes, and breakout timelines. 

Those negotiations will face spoilers on both sides. In Washington, neoconservatives like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and its CEO Mark Dubowitz will oppose any outcome short of total Iranian capitulation. They have spent decades arguing that only maximum pressure, regime change, and war can suffice to address “the Iranian threat.” 

In Tehran, hardliners associated with the so-called Steadfast Front, who dream essentially of a North Korean model for Iran, view any compromise as a betrayal of the revolution’s principles. Lacking deep political support, they exert pressure on the negotiators through the media and the hardline-dominated parliament.

Then there is Israel, which still has levers to derail any final agreement by escalating violence in Lebanon, despite Trump’s clear preference for ending the war on all fronts.

Amid the intense activity of all these potential spoilers, the agreement could easily collapse before it reaches its second stage. That is the real danger of the coming months.

Yet the deal already agreed—pending its official public signing in Geneva—has far wider geopolitical ramifications than a transactional ceasefire. That is because it reveals the limits of American power and opens a path to a long-overdue U.S. strategic recalibration in the Middle East.

What did the war actually prove? The U.S. entered this conflict believing that conventional military superiority would quickly compel radical changes in the policies of the Iranian government, if not regime change. That was a costly error. Air campaigns, naval interdictions, and strikes against the IRGC and political leadership did not produce capitulation. They produced Iranian entrenchment. The regime remains in place, more emboldened than ever.

Here is the deeper irony: The threat of war had preserved American leverage, and the waging of war destroyed it. So long as the prospect of the use of force remained ambiguous, Iran had to hedge. Once force was actually applied and failed to produce decisive results, Tehran learned that the United States could not achieve its maximalist objectives militarily. That knowledge permanently shifted the bargaining dynamic.

But this outcome need not be seen as catastrophic. It can instead produce a realistic reassessment of American presence and partnerships in the Middle East.

The coalition that helped end the war diplomatically points the way forward. The Pakistani statement identifies the mediators: apart from Pakistan itself, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Some of these states were more involved than others, but all invested diplomatic capital to wind down a conflict that none of them initiated and all recognized as contrary to their interests. They understood that the U.S.–Iran war had destabilized the entire region, and that a widening of that war would devastate it.

Now contrast them with the states that pushed for escalation: Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Both view Iran as an existential threat. Both prefer that the United States bear the costs of containing it. But from a U.S. perspective, their advocacy was not friendly counsel. It was an attempt to outsource their security dilemmas to American forces. This is not to condemn Jerusalem and Abu Dhabi. It simply notes that their interests and American interests are not aligned on the question of war with Iran. In fact, they are fundamentally incompatible.

The strategic opportunity is now visible. The deal allows the United States to do what it should have done a decade ago: recalibrate its regional posture downward while ensuring that no single power—Iranian, Saudi, Turkish, or Israeli—dominates the Gulf.

The framework is straightforward. If the final deal is reached, it would enable the U.S. to sharply reduce its military footprint in the Gulf. The primary responsibility for regional security would likely shift to an alignment of regional powers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, and Egypt. These states have the economic weight, military capacity, and diplomatic relationships with Tehran to manage the regional frameworks without direct American combat involvement.

This is not abandonment. The United States could become the offshore balancer it has long wanted to be, rather than the regional micromanager and onshore garrison it actually became.

Israel and its supporters in Washington would not like any of these developments. But ultimately, Israel’s long-term security depends less on American military guarantees than on its own deterrent capabilities and its eventual accommodation with its neighbors. The United States has demonstrated that it will not fight a major war to fulfill Israel’s maximalist goals. That fact is now evident to both parties. Israel’s best path forward is therefore to adjust its own force posture and pursue regional normalization on terms that do not require American combat power. And that starts with charting a credible path to a viable Palestinian state. That is a harder path, but a more reliable one.

Finally, the implications for American domestic politics are deep. By signing the deal in Geneva, J.D. Vance could become the visible face of America’s Middle East recalibration toward realism. His signature on June 19 would mark a strategic recognition: The U.S. is overextended, the war exposed that overextension, and now the administration is correcting course. Entering the 2028 election cycle, Vance could plausibly claim to have extracted the U.S. from a costly war that had no realistic path to victory. Given the polling data on Americans’ views of the Iran War, that sounds like a good position for the VP to be in.

miércoles, 17 de junio de 2026

Al Arabiya English obtains 14-point draft of US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2026/06/16/al-arabiya-obtains-14point-draft-usiran-deal

Al Arabiya English has obtained a copy of the 14-point agreement expected to be signed on Friday between Washington and Tehran.

1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles.

2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal aairs.

3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.

4. Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States Lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore trac within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the trac of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of trac on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement.

5. Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran.

6. The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days.

7. The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary.

8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.

9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region.

10. The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.

11. The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. These funds, whether held in the master account or transferred, will be used for any final beneficiary payment determined by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will be fully available for use. The United States undertakes to issue all necessary permits and licenses on this basis.

12. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of and future commitment to the Final Agreement.

13. Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, and the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles.

14. The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.

martes, 16 de junio de 2026

The Pro-Israel Lobby Is Trying to Fly Under the Radar

By

Luke Goldstein

Amid widespread public disapproval of Israel’s destruction across the Middle East, pro-Israel donors aligned with AIPAC appear to be resorting to new fundraising vehicles to covertly channel money to favored Democratic candidates.

https://jacobin.com/2026/05/israel-lobby-aipac-democratic-primaries

Amid widespread public disapproval of Israel’s mounting destruction across the Middle East, pro-Israel donors aligned with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) appear to be resorting to new, innocuous-sounding fundraising vehicles to covertly channel money to favored candidates in high-stakes Democratic primaries.

That now includes the Better Blue Fund, a newly formed umbrella group that’s using weakened campaign finance rules to act as a “one-stop shop” for contributions from some of the pro-Israel lobby’s largest longtime donors, albeit with no mention of having a pro-Israel agenda. In less than two months, the fund has amassed more than $250,000 as it backs Democratic candidates already under fire from progressive challengers for supporting military aid to Israel or receiving endorsements from pro-Israel groups.

That list includes former Rep. Ben McAdams in Utah, House incumbents Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman in New York, and Rep. Wesley Bell in Missouri, who are all facing contested primary races where their support for pro-Israel policies has come under scrutiny.

The Better Blue Fund was formed in March as a joint fundraising committee, meaning it allows multiple candidates to band together to raise larger sums than they could individually under campaign finance rules. As the courts and regulators have chipped away at aggregate spending limits, joint fundraising committees have become increasingly popular vehicles for candidates to receive massive sums from high-value donors who may have an interest in their policies.

Along with McAdams, Espaillat, Goldman, and Bell, the Better Blue Fund is currently fundraising for four other Democratic congressional candidates: Rep. Rob Menendez (NJ), Rep. Grace Meng (NY), Rep. Steve Cohen (TN), and Jeremy Moss, a Democratic challenger for Michigan’s Eleventh District. All of the committee’s favored candidates are currently endorsed by pro-Israel groups or have been in the past.

AIPAC and its affiliates have frequently dropped millions of dollars into contested elections and proudly taken credit for knocking their perceived adversaries out of office — including the recent ousting of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). But as voter sympathies shift away from supporting Israel, some of the operations’ donors now appear to be opting for a more low-profile approach by funneling money to outside entities with anodyne-sounding titles.

For example, in the 2020 Utah election cycle, McAdams was publicly endorsed by the Democratic Majority for Israel, a group dedicated to forging a close alliance between Democrats and Israel, and received a $5,000 donation from the group’s PAC in his failed reelection bid.

But this year, Democratic Majority for Israel hasn’t provided McAdams any direct financial support or public endorsement, while the Better Blue Fund is backing his campaign. That may be a tactical decision: McAdams has faced a barrage of attacks in the crowded race, including from progressive candidate Nate Blouin, for his past stances supporting unrestricted US military assistance to Israel.

As a congressman, McAdams voted in lockstep with pro-Israel groups on military funding, condemned boycotts of Israel, and attended congressional delegation trips to the country.

But at a recent debate, he decried, “the atrocities [Benjamin] Netanyahu has committed in Gaza [against] the Palestinian people,” though he suggested the conflict was not ongoing: “That has ended at this point.”

Familiar Donors

The Better Blue Fund has so far raised nearly $300,000 from a roster of pro-Israel donors. That includes $28,000 from financier Jonathan Jacobson, who in 2024 gave $2.5 million to AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, making him the second-largest individual contributor to the group that election cycle. It also includes $24,500 from Rob Stavis, a partner at the venture capital firm Bessemer Venture Partners, who contributed $50,000 to Democratic Majority for Israel in 2024.

So far, Better Blue Fund’s largest single contribution is $31,500 from Eric Mindich, an investor who contributed $250,000 to Democratic Majority for Israel last cycle.

While the Better Blue Fund will eventually be distributing its war chest to the eight Democrats participating in the fundraising committee, the group has not yet reported any disbursements to candidates this quarter. When the fund does so, the donations will appear in candidates’ filings as Better Blue Fund contributions, obscuring the donors behind the spending and their affiliations with pro-Israel groups.

Along with the Better Blue Fund, longtime AIPAC donors have reportedly used other spending vehicles to hide recent spending on behalf of favored candidates.

In the Democratic primary race for Michigan’s Senate seat, a new PAC called the Center for Democratic Priorities, which had no prior campaign history, recently spent $5.3 million on ads boosting Congresswoman Haley Stevens, not long after AIPAC had championed her to donors in a fundraising email. The Center for Democratic Priorities’ registration documents revealed the organization shared the same treasurer as other pro-Israel groups and employed the same strategy firm used by these groups to place the ad buy.

lunes, 15 de junio de 2026

Israeli Ministers Say Israel Isn’t Bound by US-Iran Deal, Won’t Withdraw from Lebanon

Iran reaffirmed that any deal with the US hinges on an end to Israel's war in Lebanon

by Dave DeCamp | June 15, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/06/15/israeli-ministers-say-israel-isnt-bound-by-us-iran-deal-wont-withdraw-from-lebanon/

In the wake of the US and Iran announcing a Memorandum of Understanding to end the conflict between the two nations that includes a ceasefire in Lebanon, Israeli ministers have said Israel isn’t bound by the agreement.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed that the IDF will not withdraw from its so-called “security zones” in southern Lebanon, which include a major swathe of Lebanese territory, and will also continue the occupation in southwest Syria and Gaza.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I are leading a clear policy that determines that the IDF will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, without any time limit, to protect, from there, the border and Israeli communities against jihadist elements,” Katz said.

The Israeli defense minister said that the IDF will continue its destruction campaign in southern Lebanon and its forced displacement of Lebanese civilians. “We oppose an IDF withdrawal from Lebanon, despite all the existing pressures and those that will still come,” he said.

Katz added that Netanyahu “made these points clear to US President Trump and to other senior American officials,” which aligns with a report from Ynet that said Netanyahu told Trump that Israel is not bound by the Lebanon clause of the US-Iran MOU. Katz also said that if Iran strikes Israel over its continued war in Lebanon, Israel will hit Iran “with full force.”

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich slammed the agreement Trump reached with Iran, saying it is “bad for Israel and for the entire free world. Period.” Israeli opposition leaders also attacked Netanyahu, with former Prime Minister Yair Lapid saying there has “never, ever, been a more absolute failure than Netanyahu’s diplomatic failure on the Iranian front.”

Iranian officials on Monday reaffirmed that an end to Israel’s war in Lebanon was key to a lasting deal with the US. “Lebanon and the termination of the war in Lebanon are an inseparable part of the understanding on ending the [US-Israeli] war [on Iran]. We have shown that we are determined in this regard and have proven in practice that we are serious, and we will continue to monitor developments carefully in the future,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei.

“The word Lebanon is used three times in the understanding. It is mentioned that ending the war includes Lebanon and respecting the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity … The United States must honor its commitments and ensure that the Zionist regime fulfills its obligation not to attack Lebanon,” he added.

 

domingo, 14 de junio de 2026

Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained

Another top Iranian official said Washington’s ‘rabid dog’ must be ‘controlled’ following Israel's latest strike on Beirut

News Desk

JUN 14, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-warns-no-point-in-deal-with-us-if-israel-remains-unrestrained

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned in a statement on 14 June that there is “no point” in continuing efforts to reach a deal with Washington if Tel Aviv remains unrestrained, a few hours after a new Israeli attack on Lebanon’s capital. 

"The Zionists' aggression against the southern suburb [of Beirut] once again demonstrated that the US either lacks the will to uphold its commitments or lacks the ability to do so,” Ghalibaf said.

“You cannot gain concessions by giving the [Israeli] regime a green light. The 'good cop, bad cop' game has grown old. If you lack the will and the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no point in speaking about continuing down this path," the parliament speaker added. 

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, deputy commander and deputy inspector of the Iranian military’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said Israel's attack on Beirut's southern suburb will not go unanswered.

“If you seek an agreement or understanding, you must discipline the Zionist regime. If this rabid dog is not controlled, it will bite your leg before the ink is dry on the agreement,” said Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s Foreign Policy and National Security Committee.

The latest Israeli airstrike on the Lebanese capital took place earlier on Sunday afternoon. The attack hit a building in the southern suburb’s Ghobeiry area. 

According to the Lebanese Civil Defense, three people were killed and six others injured.

The Israeli army claimed it bombed a “command center belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organization in Beirut.”

“The targeted command center was being used by Hezbollah operatives to advance terrorist plans against the citizens of the State of Israel,” the Israeli military added, calling its deadly attack on Beirut a “precise strike.”

The new attack on Beirut coincides with intensive Pakistani mediation to secure a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the US and Iran. 

Among Tehran’s terms is a full ceasefire in Lebanon and an end to Israel’s wars, attacks, and occupation across the region. 

Following an Israeli attack on Beirut earlier this month, Iran carried out a ballistic missile attack on an Israeli air base and vowed harsher retaliation in response to any new attacks on the Lebanese capital.

sábado, 13 de junio de 2026

Gaza is not an aberration - Israel planned this genocide decades ago

Jonathan Cook

11 June 2026

In October 2023, Israel found an excuse to breathe new life into an old story of slaughter and expulsion. The chief differences this time have been of scale and duration

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/gaza-not-an-aberration-israels-genocide-gaza-was-planned-decades-ago

The truth slowly comes to light: Israel's genocide in Gaza was planned decades ago.

Listen to the testimonies of four Israeli soldiers who served in Gaza. 

Soldier 1: “Human lives didn’t matter. You could kill, there was no law. No one would say a word to you. But it’s not a good feeling. It mainly kills your humanity.”

Soldier 2: “At first I wasn’t willing to execute Arabs who weren’t resisting [that is, civilians]. Then we came to the conclusion that we had to kill. We went through the process of ceasing to see them as human beings.”

Soldier 3: “We caught guys, lined them up and eliminated them. In retrospect, it looks like murder.”

Soldier 4: “We would roam through refugee camps in Gaza and carry out purges... Every soldier who was there created a ‘concentration camp’, and they didn’t hesitate to kill people who caused a slight disturbance.”

No, these testimonies are not new. The whistleblowers did not serve in Gaza during the current, ongoing genocide there. These accounts are nearly 60 years old, published last week by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz under the headline "We were ordered to kill”. 

Israeli soldiers interviewed shortly after the 1967 war - often referred to as the Six-Day War - not only confessed that they and others routinely committed war crimes but they pointed out that they did so under orders from their commanders. 

The accounts were compiled into a book, The Seventh Day: Soldiers Talk About the Six-Day War, by Avraham Shapira, though many testimonies were not included because they were too shocking.

None of this should be simply of historical interest. These accounts are a vivid reminder that what Israel has been doing during its current, near three-year destruction of Gaza - levelling all homes, hospitals, schools, universities, bakeries and government offices; murdering tens of thousands, more likely hundreds of thousands, of Palestinian civilians; and blocking aid and starving the population - is part of a decades-old pattern of Israeli military conduct. 

Nothing “started” on 7 October 2023, when Hamas broke out for a single day of the Gaza “concentration camp” - the plight of Gaza’s Palestinians noted 59 years ago by Soldier 4. 

Rather, Israel found an excuse that day to breathe new life into an old story, one in which it has been slaughtering and expelling Palestinians for decades. The chief difference this time is simply one of scale and duration. 

Washington and other western capitals have given Israel the time and space to finish in Gaza what, earlier, it had only been able to achieve in part. Israel’s much greater firepower today, provided by modern munitions supplied by the United States, has allowed Israel to realise what before it could only dream of doing: wiping Gaza off the map.

Policy of starvation

The whistleblowing soldiers of 1967 admitted their job was not to “fight the enemy” - or “eradicate the terrorists”, as Israeli leaders now term it. It was to kill and terrorise Palestinian civilians under cover of war. 

Few soldiers were shy of saying why they were committing atrocities. Their task was to create a reign of terror, integral to Israel’s efforts to expel as many Palestinians as possible from the last remaining parts of the Palestinian homeland, the territories captured by the Israeli military in 1967 and then illegally occupied.

This was seen as a new opportunity to complete the ethnic cleansing campaign begun by Zionist militias in earnest in 1947 and 1948 as the British Mandate authorities withdrew from Palestine. By the end of that campaign, some 80 percent of Palestinians had been expelled from their homes inside the borders of the newly declared Jewish state. 

Many ended up in refugee camps in neighbouring states such as Lebanon and Syria. But some fled into the surviving pockets of historic Palestine in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza - the 22 per cent of their homeland that had been shielded from further Israeli advances in 1948 by Jordan and Egypt

The 1967 war was seen by the Israeli leadership as a second bite of the cherry: a chance both to seize and colonise all of historic Palestine through military occupation and the establishment of Jewish militia settlements, and to expand the ethnic cleansing operation to rid historic Palestine of its native inhabitants. 

Weeks after Israel seized the Palestinian territories, the prime minister of the time, Levi Eshkol, told his cabinet where the expulsions must begin. “We are interested in emptying out Gaza first,” he said.

Given international pressures, he was clear that the ethnic cleansing of Gaza would need to proceed by stealth, so as to attract less attention. Foreshadowing Israel’s 16-year siege of Gaza that started in 2007, he proposed that Palestinians could be forced out of Gaza “precisely because of the suffocation and imprisonment” Israel was imposing there.

The ethnic cleansing programme could be hastened, he suggested, by depriving the population of essentials like water. “Perhaps if we don’t give them enough water, they won’t have a choice, because the orchards will yellow and wither.” 

In this spirit, 40 years later, Israel would go on to calculate the minimum number of calories to allow into Gaza so that the people there would grow steadily more malnourished. Or as senior government adviser Dov Weisglass explained in 2006: "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." 

Seventeen years after Gaza was forced on to its “diet”, when Hamas briefly broke out of the enclave, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his generals seized their moment. 

They destroyed those “orchards” and transformed the “diet” into a full-blown starvation blockade - a crime against humanity for which Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, are wanted by the International Criminal Court. 

Targeting innocents

The crimes of 1967 were understood long ago by Palestinian historians, who were, of course, not listened to. Israeli historians took much longer to start piecing together the story as they gained access to parts of Israel’s military archives. 

Haaretz’s new investigation, based on research by the Akevot Institute, provides details of the ruthlessness of the mass expulsions of Palestinians beginning in 1967.

As the paper reports: “The historical inquiry shows that Israel expelled and drove out some 300,000 Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and the [Syrian] Golan Heights. And as in 1948, the expulsion included killing civilians, sowing terror in Arab communities, looting and ultimately, destruction.”

Having managed in 1967 to again expel large numbers of Palestinians, the next task - as in 1948 - was to prevent their return. 

Uri Avnery, a journalist and member of the Israeli parliament, recorded testimonies from soldiers stationed at the borders with Jordan and Egypt, into which Palestinians had been expelled. The soldiers’ job was to murder any Palestinian families trying to get back to their homes.

Here is one soldier’s testimony, reported by Haaretz, that Avnery noted in his autobiography: “We blocked these crossings and received orders to shoot to kill, without prior warning. Indeed, such shots were fired every night at men, women and children, even on moonlit nights when it was possible to identify those crossing. That is, to distinguish between men and women and children. 

“In the morning, we would go out to scan the area, and we would kill, by explicit order of the officer present, those who were alive, including those hiding and the wounded. After the killing was over, we would cover the bodies with dirt until a tractor arrived.”

Today’s Israeli whistleblowers warn that this military doctrine is unchanged. Over the past three years, investigations have repeatedly shown Israel trying to conceal its crimes by secretly bulldozing its civilian victims into mass graves in violation of international law. 

It did so, for example, when troops massacred Palestinians seeking aid a year ago, and again when soldiers executed 15 Palestinian emergency workers in an ambush on ambulances in March 2025. 

Another soldier troubled by the 1967 shoot-to-kill policy recalled a conversation with his commander: “I asked the officer: And if I hear babies crying, should I shoot them too? The answer I received was: Don’t be a girl.”

There is nothing exceptional about this. Israel is known to have killed more than 1,000 babies in Gaza under the age of one since 7 October 2023, not all of them anonymously in strikes from the air. 

The Israeli military allowed a group of five premature babies in al-Nasser hospital to die and decompose in their incubators after its soldiers took over the building in late 2023. 

Israeli commanders also knew that the first to die from a blockade of aid would be the most vulnerable. Babies froze or starved to death as the population was deprived of shelter, baby formula and food, with their mothers lacking sufficient nutrition to produce milk. 

As Soldier 2 noted, Israeli military doctrine encourages soldiers to stop seeing Palestinians, even Palestinian babies, as “human”. Their lives are considered worthless. 

Past familiar

Israeli soldiers murdered another Palestinian baby last week in the West Bank, after they ambushed a car driven by a lecturer from Bethlehem university, Fahd Abu Haikal, in the Palestinian city of Hebron, which is under particularly brutal occupation. 

One of the soldiers fired into the car, as it was slowing to a halt, from only a few metres away, from where he must have been able to see the passengers inside. The bullet killed Abu Haikal’s seventh-month-old baby, Sam, and wounded his wife, who was holding the infant. Abu Haikal’s 11-year-old son, also in the car, watched his baby brother bleed to death.

Israeli soldiers have been murdering Palestinian babies for decades. Yet none of it has roused an ounce of the outrage uniformly expressed by western media and politicians at Israel’s entirely fabricated claim that Hamas killed 40 babies on 7 October 2023. 

In fact, only one Israeli baby was killed that day: nine-month-old Mila Cohen, who, like Sam Abu Haikal, was shot in her mother’s arms. 

Israel’s 1967 campaign of expulsions in Gaza and the West Bank was not improvised, nor was it done on the spur of the moment. According to Haaretz, the policy had been carefully planned many years in advance. 

Since 1948, Israel had been waiting for a moment to carry out additional expulsions and seize the last parts of the Palestinian homeland, the territories it had been denied for the completion of its violent settler colonial project. 

The 1967 war - against Egypt, Syria and Jordan - provided the pretext. 

Ishai Amrami, a senior battalion commander in that war, later admitted: “This thing, which I experienced first hand, was an attempt at massive population transfer.”

As Haaretz observes: “The Palestinians were mere bystanders in this story. Defence Minister Moshe Dayan wrote in his memoirs that the Palestinians residing in the West Bank did not take part in the war, and that it was not their war. Nevertheless, they were the ones who paid its price.”

Israel began the mass destruction of Palestinian communities, as it had done after 1948, so there would be no homes for Palestinians to return to. But as Haaretz notes, Israel became a victim of its own rapid military success. 

“This was one of the rare instances in the history of the conflict where Israel was forced to back down due to heavy international pressure.” 

It hardly needs pointing out that, unlike 1967, such international pressure has been sorely missing over the past three years. The new cast of western leaders, like Britain’s Sir Keir Starmer, once a noted human rights lawyer, have justified Israel’s explicitly exterminationist agenda against the Palestinians of Gaza, terming it “self-defence”. 

Unlike their predecessors in the 1960s, today’s western leaders and their media chose to buy Israel the diplomatic time and space it needed - as well as providing the weapons and intelligence - to destroy Gaza. The genocide would have been impossible without their assistance. 

Buoyed by this impunity, Israel has tried to spread the destruction further afield, with limited success in Iran and much greater success in south Lebanon

As western politicians and media happily forget Gaza, Israel keeps up the relentless pressure and misery there. A so-called “Yellow Line”, demarcating Israeli military control over the destroyed enclave, an area off-limits to Palestinians, has gradually expanded from half the land to 70 percent. 

The people of Gaza are quite literally being squeezed out of the ruins of their homeland, as Israel scrambles to find a third country - Egypt, or perhaps Somaliland - willing to take them in.

Excising context

As the US cosmologist Carl Sagan famously observed: "You have to know the past to understand the present." 

Which is precisely why western politicians and media have been so careful to strip out the past, excising the context and background, such as Israel’s violent ethnic cleansing campaigns of 1948 and 1967, that explain Israel’s behaviour in the present - in Gaza, the West Bank and south Lebanon. 

Western audiences, deprived of the region’s history, have been more easily manipulated into believing that Israeli atrocities are a response - and a supposedly “proportionate” one, at that - to Hamas’ one-day attack on Israel in late 2023. 

An obvious truth has been obscured: that for at least eight decades, Israel has been exploiting any opportunity it could find to expel the Palestinians from their homeland. 

The October 2023 Hamas attack was not a turning-point or a rupture, as it is so often presented in the West. 

In 1967 - that is, 56 years before the Hamas attack - Eshkol advised that unforeseen events might accelerate Israel’s stealthy programme of ethnic cleansing. A moment might arrive in the future - what he called an “unexpected luxury solution” - when Israel could rapidly realise its dream of a Palestinian-free Palestine. 

“Perhaps we can expect another war, and then this problem will be solved. But that’s a type of ‘luxury,’ an unexpected solution,” he explained to the cabinet.

With the missing context added, as Israel’s Haaretz has done with its new article, the story is transformed. 

The events of 7 October 2023 look less like simple savagery and more like a desperate, last-roll-of-the-dice response to decades of Israeli atrocities designed to make conditions for Palestinians so miserable - through pauperisation, confinement, starvation, and murder - that they either flee their homeland or die in situ.

With the missing context added, Israel’s supposed “retaliation” in Gaza - its genocidal rampage - looks like what it actually is: a continuation of its eight-decade ethnic cleansing campaign. In fact, its final instalment. Its denouement. 

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding father, wrote to his son in 1937, 11 years before Israel’s creation: “We must expel the Arabs and take their places.” 

In a diary entry during the mass expulsions of 1948, Ben Gurion summarised the mood among his generals: “If we accuse a family - we need to harm them without mercy. Women and children without mercy. Otherwise this is not an effective reaction. During the operation, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and not guilty.” 

The goal was the weaponisation of fear, making Palestinians too terrified to remain in their homeland. 

Mordechai Maklef, a senior commander in the fledgling Israeli army, noted two years later, in 1950, the logic behind Israel’s policy: “It is impossible to expel 114,000 people who lived in the Galilee without terror.” 

Even if we ignore Palestinian accounts from those times, the small sections of the Israeli archives that have so far been opened to Israeli historians document massacres and systematic rapes of Palestinians in 1948. 

In recent Israeli films such as Tantura - the village where a terrible massacre of Palestinians was carried out - old men who served as Israeli soldiers at the time confirm the archival documents, recounting how they personally witnessed Palestinian girls being raped. 

Let us note that weaponised rape continues to this day - in what the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem calls Israel’s “network of torture camps”.

These rapes - now often using dogs specially trained for the purpose - are so widespread that they have become impossible to conceal. They have even come, very belatedly, to the attention of mainstream media like the New York Times, provoking a cacophony of protest and threats from Netanyahu to sue.

So routine is the sexual abuse of those Israel detains that international peace activists suffered systematic rapes when hundreds of them were seized last month in international waters off Cyprus, as they began their journey to Gaza to break Israel’s genocidal blockade. 

Israel wants the fear to spread, from Palestine itself to anyone who wishes to show solidarity with its people.

Western politicians and the media have barely referred to these horrific crimes against their own citizens. Why? Because to acknowledge those crimes would be to concede that even worse atrocities are being meted out to Palestinians under Israeli rule. 

Prisons of complicity

Gaza is not an aberration. It is fully in accord with an eight-decade-long Israeli military strategy. Westerners aren’t aware of that only because their political and media class have worked strenuously to stop them from learning about it. 

If western publics knew what has really been happening to Palestinians for 80-plus years - first, from the Zionist movement and then from the Israeli state - they might swell further the ranks of the protest marches, making these demonstrations politically impossible to ignore. 

If westerners knew what has really been happening to Palestinians, they might join activists who have been trying to incapacitate Israeli weapons factories, like Elbit Systems, operating quite openly in western countries such as Britain. They might, as a result, manage to smash the supply of drones and other weapons being used to massacre the people of Palestine and Lebanon.

Instead of thousands, there might be tens or hundreds of thousands of people willing to hold up a placard in the UK opposing genocide, and be arrested as a “terrorism supporter”, overwhelming the prison system and making a mockery of Britain’s supposed “justice” system.

Armed with knowledge rather dulled by ignorance, more westerners might board boats, amassing an armada that it would be impossible for the western media to disregard. But most critically of all, were the real context understood - were Israel’s decades-long pattern of murdering, raping, and expelling Palestinians known - western publics might wake up to the fact that their political and media class are not moral actors. They are not upholding the values of a superior civilisation. They are not the guardians of international law and a democratic liberal order.

They are imposters. Or more accurately, they are working within political and financial structures that make it impossible to tell truths that would rock a system of power in the West that enriches a tiny elite through a lucrative war machine used to protect the gargantuan profits of the fossil fuel industries. 

That system of power drives some Palestinians into an early grave, and others into concentration camps, or exile, or penury. 

Meanwhile, it drives us in the West into prisons without physical walls - prisons either of ignorance and complicity, or of knowledge and impotence. 

Either way, like Soldier 1, we find our humanity deadened. Our hearts are hardened or broken. The challenge we face is the same as the Palestinians: to find a path out of our confinement.