by Sammy Stein (October 2025)
If the Gaza war were to end tomorrow, would Israel tolerate a situation in which Hamas retains military control over the Strip, mirroring the way Hezbollah dominated Lebanon prior to its recent war with Israel? This is not a hypothetical scenario. It is a genuine risk. And it is one Israel must resolutely reject, regardless of who proposes it or how diplomatically appealing it may appear.
Hamas’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire stems from more than just obstinacy. It is a calculated strategic choice. The group seeks to emerge from this war bloodied but unbroken, with its terror army intact and its political dominance over Gaza preserved. And to achieve that, it is signalling a willingness to accept the kind of governance facade that until recently enabled Hezbollah to flourish unchecked in Lebanon, a structure where a weak, internationally recognised civilian administration existed merely to placate the global community, while a terrorist militia controls everything that matters.
Such a model would allow Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, to regroup, rearm, and reignite its war against Israel at a time of its choosing. Worse, it would give Hamas the perverse satisfaction of claiming that it committed the most horrific mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust and survived to tell the tale by re-establishing itself as Gaza’s rulers with the approval of the international community.
Despite not having completed its military campaign to dismantle Hamas, Israel is already witnessing proposals for Gaza’s future. Some suggest transferring political control to the Palestinian Authority via a temporary government of technocrats. Others, including some within Israel and the wider international community, promote the idea of a regional Arab coalition assuming control of the Strip. At first glance, these suggestions appear acceptable, but in reality, they carry grave risks.
What all these ideas have in common is their resemblance to the recent Lebanese model, where Hezbollah operated as the real power behind the scenes, rendering the Lebanese government a mere diplomatic fig leaf.
At a summit in Cairo meant to propose alternatives to Donald Trump’s plan for the Gaza Riviera, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi reaffirmed his opposition to displacing Palestinians, voiced support for an independent Palestinian state and proposed the establishment of an administrative committee made up of independent states to temporarily manage Gaza and oversee the flow of international aid, ostensibly until the Palestinian Authority could return.
Egypt also floated a broader vision of an interim governance by a coalition of Arab, Muslim, and Western states. But crucially, it provided no detail on how Hamas would be sidelined, how reconstruction would be funded, or how power would be transferred without strengthening Hamas’s grip.
Unsurprisingly, Hamas has welcomed such proposals. In December 2024, it reportedly accepted an Egyptian initiative to form a joint Palestinian committee to govern Gaza after the current conflict. Hamas claimed to have consulted with Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and other factions, promoting the idea of “Palestinian unity.” In February 2025, Arab media reported that Hamas was prepared to hand formal control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, supposedly under Egyptian pressure and as part of negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage release. Yet Israeli officials swiftly dismissed this as a ploy, with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu declaring that such a scenario is “not going to happen.”
These declarations from Hamas are not signs of moderation or compromise. They are tactical deceptions aimed at retaining power under a different banner. Hamas has no intention of surrendering control over Gaza. It would be only too happy to hide behind a nominally independent administration while it reconstitutes its forces, replenishes its arsenal and resumes preparations for another round of violence.
This strategy closely mirrors that of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Prior to Israel’s recent military campaign, Hezbollah exercised complete dominance over Lebanese security policy, held de facto veto power over the government, ran its own shadow state within Shiite communities and possessed military capabilities far superior to those of the Lebanese Armed Forces. It operated its own command structure, stockpiled weapons with Iran’s assistance and used the Lebanese government as a shield against international pressure.
With Hezbollah’s infrastructure recently seriously damaged by Israel, the Lebanese government has taken tentative steps toward reclaiming sovereignty by confiscating terror-linked funds at Beirut airport and cracking down on suspicious Iranian flights but real control remains elusive.
The danger for Israel is clear. If Hamas will be able to hide behind an internationally endorsed puppet regime, this would leave Israel diplomatically constrained. Any future Israeli action in Gaza, even if targeted at terrorist elements, would provoke international outrage for violating the “sovereignty” of a supposedly legitimate administration. But this sovereignty would be illusory.
The consequences of such an outcome would be catastrophic. Hamas would immediately begin rearming, using the ceasefire to smuggle weapons, rebuild its tunnel networks and re-establish its rocket systems. With Iranian funding and technical support, the group could rapidly recover its military strength under the protective cloak of an internationally approved governing body. This is precisely how Hezbollah built its powerbase in Lebanon, while Israel was left hamstrung by international pressure.
There should be no illusions about Hamas’s intent. Its leaders have repeatedly declared their desire to destroy Israel. They have made clear that they are prepared to sacrifice countless Palestinian lives in pursuit of this objective. Whether 50,000 or 100,000 civilians die as “martyrs” is irrelevant to them. What matters is the jihad against the Jewish state.
Faced with such a threat, Israel has no option but to continue its operations until Hamas’s military and political infrastructure is fully dismantled. Nothing less than total victory will suffice.
Two core objectives must be achieved for any viable post-war plan.
- First, Israel must eliminate Hamas’s command structure, leadership and armed forces. If Hamas survives in any meaningful form, it will continue to rule Gaza, regardless of what title appears on the office door. The people of Gaza will not support any future peaceful vision if Hamas remains a shadow authority, armed and ready to strike again.
- Second, Israel must establish long-term security control over Gaza, including full operational freedom for the IDF. Any post-war governance model must allow Israel to conduct counterterrorism operations across Gaza, without restriction. This would resemble the situation in Area A of the West Bank, where the IDF regularly operates to disrupt terror activity. Only by maintaining full security access, by land, air, and sea, will Israel be able to prevent the resurgence of Hamas or the emergence of other Iranian-backed militias.
Once these objectives are secured, and only then, should Israel and its allies begin exploring models of limited Palestinian autonomy. Ideally, this would involve moderate regional partners such as the Gulf States and be underwritten by U.S. support. But such a solution must be built on ironclad security guarantees for Israel.
Any plan that fails to meet these basic criteria is not a peace plan. It is a recipe for another war.
Table of Contents
Sammy Stein was born a Jewish Palestinian, a description that causes much confusion with people. In 1948, he and all other Jewish Palestinians living in Palestine became Israeli citizens. He now lives in Glasgow and has two daughters, two grandchildren, and is married to Vicci. Sammy is Chair of Glasgow Friends of Israel, which celebrated its tenth anniversary in May 2025.
Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast
7 Responses
My heart breaks reading such an article. It reminds me of my living in Poland in the final years of the communist regime and I read Tony ‘Judt’s Past’ imperfect on how French intellectuals were so enamored with communism they sided with the horrific empire. Macron and company demonstrate at a certain level not much has changed in the country. Unfortunately, they’re not alone in their misguided assertion of where justice lies.
Wise warning words of caution not to jump to conclusions without all the many arrangement to check and verify.
https://justsayingitoutloloud.blogspot.com/2025/09/pallyweid-apartheidgenocide-propaganda.html
Pallyweid (apartheid/genocide) propaganda Arab pro-Nazi roots
Vile Legacy: From Nazi Cheerleaders to Inventors of Anti-Israel Apartheid and Genocide Lies
Vile Legacy: From Nazi Cheerleaders to Inventors of Anti-Israel Apartheid and Genocide Lies
Just as the first PLO chairman, Ahmad Shukeiri—who shockingly justified the Holocaust in 1946
[1] and invented the baseless “apartheid” slur against Israel in 1961
[2]—admitted in his 1969
writings that Arab-Palestinians cheered and prayed for Nazi victory during World War II
[3];
So too, another PLO terror leader, Farouk Qaddoumi, fabricated the “genocide” libel against Israel in 1980
[4] and openly confessed in 2013
that Arab-Palestinians supported the Nazis, viewing Zionism as their mutual enemy
[5].
Back to Shukeiri, classic was his real genocidal “prediction” days before the Six-day war:
“none of them will survive.”
[6]
This pattern reveals the deep-rooted antisemitism and hypocrisy in Arab-Palestinian leadership, where unfounded accusations against the Jewish state originate from those who aligned with history’s greatest perpetrators of genocide, underscoring Israel’s enduring commitment to self-defense and moral integrity in the face of such hatred.
Notes:
[1] Behind the British Conspiracy. B’nai B’rith Messenger, July 12, 1946, p.6.
[link]
“I met Jamal el Husseini, he issued the same warning as Shukeiri (he being Shukeiri’s chief) of playing along with Moscow, and reiterated his justification of the mass murder of six million Jews ‘for Hitler couldn’t be all wrong… you have got to see both sides of a question, my man, both sides of a question…'”
↩︎ Back to text
[2] 1961: Genocidal pro-Nazi Arab leader: Ahmad Shukairy, ‘father’ of ‘Apartheid’ slander. Jun 10, 2011. At Pipes.
[link]
Also: History’s Worst Serial Abusers, The Canadian Jewish News, December 8, 2014.
[link]
‘Ahmad Shukairy, Husseini’s former aide… “We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants, and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them,” Shukairy sermonized in Jerusalem on June 1…’
↩︎ Back to text
[3] Encounter (1972), United Kingdom: Encounter Limited, p.76.
[link]
“Our sympathies were with the Axis countries, headed by Hitler who leads them from victory to victory. With our sympathies, our prayers were for victory for Germany.”
↩︎ Back to text
[4] Larry Coben @LarryCoben:
[link]
Also: The Windsor Star, Jul 23, 1980 – “PLO Condemns Carter In UN.”
[link]
“Once you realize the Palestinian claim is that Israel’s very existence is ‘genocide,’ you will understand why these obscene, false accusations go back at least 57 years.”
↩︎ Back to text
[5] PLO Leader Admits Support for Nazis, Says They Saw Zionism as Common Enemy (VIDEO). The Algemeiner, December 18, 2013.
[link]
“When asked if the PLO was sympathetic with Nazi Germany in World War II, Qaddumi responded that members of the PLO ‘were enthusiastic supporters of Germany.’ … ‘Germany, yes,’ Qaddumi responded. ‘This was common among the Palestinians, especially since our enemy was Zionism…'”
↩︎ Back to text
[6] Lipstadt, D. E. (2016). Holocaust: An American Understanding. United Kingdom: Rutgers University Press, p.77.
[link]
Classic was his real genocidal “prediction” days before the Six-Day War: “none of them will survive.”
↩︎ Back to text
Peace Through Strength: The Conservative Approach to Global Stability.
Conservatives have long championed the principle of “peace through strength,” a doctrine rooted in the belief that a strong, resolute nation deters aggression and fosters stability. This approach, exemplified by leaders like Ronald Reagan and Menachem Begin, prioritizes military readiness, clear moral conviction, and unwavering support for allies to secure peace without capitulation. Unlike policies that rely on appeasement or concessions, conservatives understand that weakness invites conflict, while strength commands respect.
**Ronald Reagan: Defeating the Soviet Threat**
Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, embodied “peace through strength” in his confrontation with the Soviet Union. In the 1980s, Reagan rejected détente’s passive coexistence with communism, instead rebuilding America’s military, investing in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and projecting unapologetic resolve. His bold rhetoric—calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire”—and his massive defense buildup pressured the Kremlin economically and ideologically. By supporting anti-communist movements, such as Solidarity in Poland, and maintaining a robust nuclear arsenal, Reagan forced the Soviets to the negotiating table. The result? The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union collapsed, and millions were freed from tyranny—all without firing a shot in direct conflict. Reagan’s strength didn’t provoke war; it prevented it.
Menachem Begin: Defending Israel’s Right to Exist.
In Israel, Prime Minister Menachem Begin demonstrated how strength secures peace in a volatile region. Facing existential threats from hostile neighbors, Begin authorized the 1981 airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, a decisive act that thwarted Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. Critics decried the move as reckless, but it ensured Israel’s survival and regional stability. Yet Begin also showed strength in diplomacy, signing the 1979 Camp David Accords with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat. Backed by Israel’s ironclad military, Begin negotiated from a position of power, securing a lasting peace treaty with Egypt—proof that strength can pave the way for diplomacy when adversaries know weakness isn’t an option. In fact. (The peace treaty Israel-Egyot, is the longest in the ME).
More Conservative Examples of Peace Through Strength.
– Margaret Thatcher (United Kingdom):
The Iron Lady’s unyielding stance during the Falklands War (1982) reclaimed British territory from Argentine aggression. Her resolve strengthened NATO’s cohesion and deterred further Soviet adventurism in the Cold War. Thatcher’s partnership with Reagan also bolstered Western unity, ensuring peace through collective strength.
– Winston Churchill (United Kingdom): Though before the modern conservative movement, Churchill’s warnings against Nazi appeasement in the 1930s and his leadership in World War II laid the groundwork for conservative foreign policy. His insistence on military preparedness and moral clarity rallied the Allies to victory, proving that strength, not concessions, defeats tyranny.
– Theodore Roosevelt (United States): Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” philosophy epitomized conservative strength. His expansion of the U.S. Navy and bold diplomacy, like mediating the Russo-Japanese War (1905), earned America global respect and averted broader conflicts. [In today’s politics, FDR would be considered a conservative].
The Conservative Difference.
Conservatives reject the naive belief that goodwill alone secures peace. History shows that tyrants and terrorists exploit weakness—whether it’s Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement or modern hesitancy to confront rogue regimes. Leaders like Reagan, Begin, Thatcher, and others understood that peace requires a backbone: a military that overawes adversaries, a foreign policy that rewards allies and punishes aggressors, and a moral clarity that refuses to equivocate on freedom. This is why conservatives invest in defense, support allies like Israel and NATO partners, and confront threats like Iran or China head-on. Strength isn’t the enemy of peace—it’s its foundation.
Sources and Further Reading.
– Reagan’s speeches and SDI policies: National Archives, Reagan Presidential Library.
– Begin’s Osirak strike and Camp David Accords: Israel State Archives, Begin Heritage Center.
– Thatcher’s Falklands War: UK National Archives.
– Churchill’s wartime leadership: Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge.
– Roosevelt’s naval expansion: Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Harvard University.
This conservative approach—rooted in strength, resolve, and principle—remains the surest path to a peaceful world. Weakness tempts chaos; strength ensures order.
Absolutely — here’s a **stronger and more pointed version** that emphasizes bias and poor framing, while maintaining a serious and credible tone:
> On the October 13, 2025 edition of *PBS NewsHour*, Amna Nawaz began the segment by shockingly equating innocent Israeli hostages with the Hamas terrorists who abducted them — a disturbing example of moral relativism that whitewashes terrorism and diminishes the suffering of victims.
Would you like an even more assertive version for a specific context (e.g., op-ed, media watchdog report, social media post)?
Is moral relativism the new or ancient moral negativism, values nihilism, desirable voidism?
Hezbollah and Hamas are symptoms. The disease is Islam, now two billion or more strong. Churchill and Beijing are correct. Islam is a social disease, a persistent political virus. The civilized world should have the same uncompromising strategy for Moslems that the global Ummah has towards Jews.
There is no moral equivalence between Islam and any religion on the planet. Islam is not a religion; Islam is just another version of political fascism.