Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Ceasefire That Shattered a Myth

Opinion

U.S. President Donald Trump greeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

U.S. President Donald Trump (2R) is welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) at Ben Gurion International Airport on October 13, 2025 in Tel Aviv, Israel. President Trump is visiting the country hours after Hamas released the remaining Israeli hostages captured on Oct. 7, 2023, part of a US-brokered ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza.

Getty Imges, Chip Somodevilla

And then suddenly, there was a ceasefire — as if by divine miracle!

Was the ceasefire declared because Israel had finally accomplished its declared goals?


No.

Was it because Israel was on its knees and could no longer go on with the war?

No.

We have a ceasefire because the United States of America decided that it was time for one. Period.

The next question to ask then is this: If so, then could we have had a ceasefire say six months ago, or a year ago, or even two years ago?

The answer is an emphatic – yes!

We could have had a ceasefire because the U.S. could have declared that it wanted it at any point in time. This is now obvious. But it didn’t until a few days ago.

The New York Times reported on October 9, 2025, that the Trump administration had brokered a “momentous breakthrough” between Israel and Hamas: A 72-hour ceasefire, hostage exchanges, and partial troop withdrawals. Within a day of Washington’s green light, Netanyahu’s cabinet convened, approved the order, and is from all indications halting the bombing. No divine intervention, no complex diplomatic ballet — just an abrupt shift in Washington’s calculus.

In short: The genocide stopped because the U.S. willed it to stop.

So then what is one to make of the widely held notion that the United States government has been helplessly dragged along for the last two years – and in fact, for decades – by an obstinate, ruthless, greedy, ingrate ally, hostage to an all powerful lobby that grips the U.S. government with an iron fist?

As the past two years have shown, the notion of a United States held hostage by Israel is a convenient and useful stubborn myth. The United States has not – and has never – been reluctantly following Israel: It has been directing it, always and all along.

Let’s examine the basic glaring facts: From the onset of the war in October 2023 to this latest ceasefire, American support of Israel’s daily slaughter of the trapped and caged Gazans has been the sine qua non enabling constant of this genocide. Weapons, logistics, and diplomatic cover have flowed with machine-like precision, under both Biden and Trump – even as the whole world, morally shocked, rose up in sustained outrage, even after a warrant for the arrest of the Prime Minister of Israel was issued by the International Criminal Court. Even famine has been policy, it seems, not an accident — enforced starvation signed off by bureaucrats in Washington.

But this pattern – Israel appearing to be doing as it pleases, a tail seeming to be wagging a big dog, until the dog decides that the wagging needs to stop – is not new.

When President George H. W. Bush confronted Yitzhak Shamir in 1991 over settlement construction and threatened to withhold $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, the Israeli government blinked. The White House, in the middle of assembling a coalition for the Gulf War, demanded a halt to settlement expansion and pressed for the Madrid Peace Conference. Israel complied. The American press framed it as a “rare show of backbone” against the Israel lobby. But in truth, it was another reminder of who holds the leash: Washington could squeeze at will, and Israel could only yield.

The pattern repeated two decades later. In November 2012, during Israel’s eight-day assault on Gaza (“Operation Pillar of Defense”), President Barack Obama personally called Netanyahu and demanded that he accept an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire. Netanyahu initially resisted, wanting to continue the operation. But after Obama’s insistence — reinforced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emergency shuttle diplomacy between Jerusalem and Cairo — Israel halted its bombardment within hours. The timing wasn’t moral; it was strategic. Washington wanted calm before the Thanksgiving news cycle and to protect Egypt’s newly installed Morsi government. Israel obeyed. Once again, when the U.S. said stop, it stopped.

Even Obama’s later “tensions” with Netanyahu followed the same script. His brief standoff over settlement freezes, culminating in the 2011 Oval Office dressing-down, was portrayed as proof that the Israeli prime minister could defy a U.S. president and get away with it. Yet by the end of Obama’s term, U.S. military aid had reached record levels, including a $38 billion package — the largest in history. Even in moments of public friction, the underlying hierarchy remained untouched: Israel’s defiance was theater; the dependency was structural.

When one traces the pattern — the timing of truces before G20 summits, escalations before U.N. votes, sudden humanitarian “surges” when cameras are rolling — it becomes clear that Israeli military tempo bends around American diplomatic needs. When Washington needs calm, Israel delivers it. When it needs pressure, the bombs resume. The much-publicized quarrels between Netanyahu and successive U.S. presidents are political pantomime, useful for both sides: Israel plays the defiant underdog; Washington plays the reluctant enabler. Both roles sustain the same imperial arrangement.

Clinging to the “Israel-controls-Washington” narrative has not only become empirically untenable, it also traps advocates for Palestinian rights in a moral cul-de-sac. It transforms Israel into a mythic omnipotent actor while absolving Americans of responsibility. Worse, it exposes critics to accusations of antisemitism (shadowy Jewish control) and disempowers movements that might otherwise target the true seat of policy: The Pentagon, the State Department, and the vast military-industrial bureaucracy that profits from endless war.

Reframing the picture heliocentrically, so to speak — with the United States at the center — reveals Israel not as the master but as a satellite. It acts with aggression, yes, but aggression licensed, funded, and shielded by Washington. Every bomb dropped over Gaza has a congressional signature behind it. Every blockade is underwritten by American taxpayers. Every “rogue” act fits within a strategic perimeter drawn in Virginia and Tampa.

And yet, there is indeed one tail that is wagging a very large dog.

But it’s not Israel wagging America. It’s the tail of the U.S. defense industry, intelligence bureaucracy, and revolving-door officials wagging the American people.

The public, overwhelmingly opposed to war and genocide, is told that their outrage should be directed at a foreign capital rather than at the one that authorizes the planes, the fuel, the billions of dollars – and the silence.

When Washington decided to stop the slaughter, the killing stopped. The simple physics of power could not be clearer. The question that must be asked now is not whether Israel will obey the next order, but whether the American people will finally recognize where the orders originate and why those orders defy, time and again, the basic, declared will of the people.

Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.


Read More

Allies United Holds Cross‑Community Meetings to Protect Civil Rights Across Chicagoland

Fight For Today For A Better Tomorrow sign

Canva

Allies United Holds Cross‑Community Meetings to Protect Civil Rights Across Chicagoland

En español

Operation Midway Blitz outraged much of the Chicagoland community last September when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided neighborhoods, arrested thousands of individuals, and fatally shot Mexican immigrant Silverio Villegas González.

Witnessing these injustices across the country and in Chicago, two local coalitions came together last year to form Allies United, a Chicago-based coalition initially focused on responding to immigration raids, and now prioritizing protecting civil rights and building long-term cross‑community solidarity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Republic at 250: What History Teaches — and What Americans Must Choose
white red and blue textile

A Republic at 250: What History Teaches — and What Americans Must Choose

As the United States approaches both a consequential election cycle and the 250th anniversary of its founding, Americans stand at a crossroads the framers anticipated but hoped we would never reach: a moment when citizens must decide whether to allow the Republic to erode or restore it through vigilance. This is not about left or right. It is about whether we still share a common vision of the country we want to be — and whether we still believe in the same Republic.

The Founders never imagined “the land of the free” as a place dependent on benevolent leaders. They built a system in which the people — not the government — were the safeguards against overreach. James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers…in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,” a reminder that freedom depends on restraint, not trust in any single individual. George Washington pledged that the Constitution would remain “the guide which I will never abandon,” signaling that loyalty to the Republic must always outweigh loyalty to any leader. These were not ceremonial lines. They were instructions — a blueprint for preventing institutional strain, polarization, and distrust we see today.

Keep ReadingShow less
A document representing the Declaration of Independence.

As trust in institutions declines, America’s 250th anniversary offers a chance to rediscover the civic lessons, leadership principles, and democratic values that sustain a republic.

Getty Images

America at 250: Will We Learn from Our Past?

We call it the American Experiment. Yet too often we celebrate it without studying it, invoke it without interrogating it, and inherit it without improving it. A republic designed to learn from experience cannot afford to ignore its own lessons from history.

As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the country faces a deeper question than how to celebrate its founding. Do we still know how to learn from it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign in front of the U.S. capitol that reads, "We The People."

The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries

Getty Images

A Republic Under Strain—And a Choice Ahead

Americans feel something shifting beneath their feet — quieter than crisis but unmistakably a strain. Many live with a steady sense of uncertainty, conflict, and the emotional weight of issues that seem impossible to escape. They feel unheard, unsafe, or unsure whether the Republic they trust is fading. Friends, relatives, and former colleagues say they’ve tried to look away just to cope, hoping the turmoil will pass. And they ask the same thing: if the framers made the people the primary control on government, how will they help set the Republic back on a steadier path?

Understanding the strain Americans are experiencing is essential, but so is recognizing the choice we still have. Madison’s warning offers the answer the framers left us: when trust erodes and power concentrates, the Constitution turns back to the people—not as a slogan, but as a structural reality.

Keep ReadingShow less