作者： admin

In a recent interview with Reuters, Mohammed Nazzal, a prominent member of Hamas’s politburo, revealed that the group is not prepared to commit to disarming immediately. Instead, Hamas is advocating for a ceasefire lasting three to five years to facilitate the reconstruction of Gaza. When questioned about relinquishing arms, Nazzal responded ambiguously, stating, ‘I can’t answer with a yes or no. It depends on the nature of the project.’ He further questioned the logistics of disarmament, asking, ‘To whom will the weapons be handed over?’

Arab diplomats have indicated that mediators are exploring alternatives, such as transferring Hamas’s weapons to Arab peacekeepers or securing long-range missiles rather than destroying them. This approach aligns with US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, which calls for Hamas’s demilitarization and a phased Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, though it lacks a specific timeline.

Nazzal emphasized that Hamas would provide a definitive stance during the second phase of negotiations, contingent on consultations with other Palestinian factions like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Islamic Jihad. He clarified that the proposed ceasefire is aimed at rebuilding Gaza for civilian purposes, not preparing for future conflict. ‘The priority is to return Gaza to normal civilian life,’ he stated.

Trump’s plan excludes Hamas from Gaza’s future governance but offers amnesty to its members. It proposes a technocratic administration overseen by a ‘board of peace’ chaired by Trump, with a vague mention of potential Palestinian statehood. On the ground, Hamas remains well-organized, with its security forces deployed post-ceasefire. While Trump initially supported their presence to curb crime, he later reiterated the need for disarmament.

Nazzal described the current situation as a transitional phase, with Hamas maintaining its presence until Palestinian elections are held. Hamas has governed Gaza since 2007, following a violent split with Fatah, which controls the West Bank. Despite years of reconciliation talks, progress toward unity and fresh elections remains elusive.

In a highly anticipated mayoral debate, New York City assemblyman Zohran Mamdani demonstrated his prowess as a compelling communicator, earning widespread recognition from diverse media outlets, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Politico. At 33, Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, has become a surprising frontrunner in a race that has captured global attention. His ability to articulate his vision on critical issues such as America’s class divide and the Palestinian struggle has set him apart from his competitors, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa. A recent Fox News poll, conducted prior to the debate, revealed Mamdani surpassing the 50 percent threshold among likely voters, solidifying his lead. Cuomo, who resigned in disgrace in 2020 and lost the Democratic primary to Mamdani, re-entered the race as an Independent, positioning himself as a stark contrast to Mamdani’s progressive platform. The debate highlighted their divergent stances on key issues, particularly regarding Israel and Palestine. Cuomo, backed by pro-Israel lobbying groups, accused Mamdani of not adequately denouncing Hamas and controversial statements by figures like Hasan Piker. Mamdani, in turn, criticized Cuomo’s lack of engagement with the Muslim community and his defense of Israeli policies. Mamdani’s campaign, focused on addressing economic inequality and affordable housing, has resonated with many New Yorkers, though it has drawn ire from the city’s wealthiest residents. As the November 4 general election approaches, the race remains highly contentious, with Mamdani positioning himself as a champion for the working class and a formidable opponent to both Cuomo and the potential backlash from former President Donald Trump.

The proposal to deploy an International Stabilisation Force, comprising Arab and Muslim troops, to Gaza has sparked intense debate and raised critical questions about its feasibility and potential repercussions. A key concern is how these forces would respond if confronted with Israeli fire, given the region’s volatile history. This scenario is not merely hypothetical; UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, such as those from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil), have faced Israeli strikes in recent years. While Irish and Italian troops demonstrated restraint in such situations, the response of Egyptian or Jordanian soldiers remains uncertain, despite their countries’ peace treaties with Israel. These agreements are primarily managed by high-ranking officials, as public sentiment and rank-and-file soldiers in these nations harbor deep hostility toward Israel due to its occupation of Palestinian territories. The killing of two Egyptian soldiers during an exchange of fire with Israel in May 2024 underscores the risks involved.