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

American flag

Analysis of concentrated power in the U.S. political economy, examining inequality, institutional trust, executive authority, and the need for equal access and competitive markets.

Chalermpon Poungpeth/EyeEm/Getty Images

America: What We Want, What We Have, What We Need

Equal Access in an Age of Concentrated Power

The American constitutional system was designed to restrain power, not to pursue a single national mission. Authority was divided across branches, diffused among states, and slowed by deliberate friction. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, ambition was meant to counteract ambition. The design assumed competing interests would prevent domination.

For more than two centuries, that architecture has endured. The United States remains the world’s largest economy by nominal GDP, according to the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, with deep capital markets and a formidable innovation system.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Disconsent of the Governed

The U.S. Capitol is shown on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Disconsent of the Governed

President Trump’s administration and Congress have not paid much attention to what legislators call “the normal order” in matters related to codifying laws and implementing programs and policies that are supposed to help mind the public’s business or satisfy petitioners looking for attention and relief. This has been partly by design and partly not.

A serious consequence of our leaders not following “normal order” has been to encourage many of us who aren’t in government to use more polarizing rhetoric and to act out more than usual. While there may be little we would consider “normal” about how our national government has been working recently or how people have risen to support or challenge it, we would be mistaken and doing ourselves a great disservice if we were to dismiss or condemn the agitated steps everyday Americans are taking as unhinged or “the work of domestic terrorists.” Their words and actions may be on the other side of normal, but there’s nothing crazy about them.

Keep ReadingShow less
A tragedy in Mali, West Africa is a reminder of solidarity across difference and the work needed at home in the United States

Map highlighting Mali over Mali flag

AI-generated image

A tragedy in Mali, West Africa is a reminder of solidarity across difference and the work needed at home in the United States

This fall, I got a phone call from a longtime friend in Mali, West Africa. I could hear the familiar hum of insects in the background, even as I heard the audible strain in his voice. A tragedy had just unfolded - innocent people were being displaced, villages destroyed, and people killed in the name of religion and political extremism. Even though it has been over two decades since I last visited, Mali is a place I grew to know and love - and for over 25 years, I’ve been blessed with a close friendship with my host family, with whom I lived during my time in the U.S. Peace Corps. I had been one of just over 2,500 volunteers who had served in the country until security concerns forced the closure of Mali’s Peace Corps program in 2015. And now, the village where I lived had been burned down, and my friends and host family were refugees on the run.

It was a reminder about how quickly things can change. One day, you wake up to the familiar path of sunlight across mud brick walls and the large baobab trees that frame the dirt path leading from the main road. Another day, you wake up to a worst nightmare - a country in chaos, extremism on the loose, and the very real force of violence right at your doorstep. It was also a reminder that political unrest can strike close to home, to the places and people I know and love, and that political instability and violent, polarizing rhetoric takes its toll.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person's hand holding a stamp above a vote deposit box.

A woman casts her vote on the day of the presidential election on May 18, 2025 in Bucharest, Romania. Today's was a second-round vote after a first round on May 4th.

Getty Images, Andrei Pungovsch

When Rivals Converge: Electoral Influence Beyond the Cold War

A recent report issued by Republican staff members on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which focused on alleged European censorship practices, cited Romania as a case study of aggressive EU overreach, referencing investigations into the far-right candidate’s campaign financing and the annulment decision. In doing so, elements within the U.S. political system appeared to align rhetorically with Moscow’s framing of the episode as an example of EU elite suppression rather than Russian interference.

This does not constitute evidence of coordination between Russia and the United States. There is no public proof of joint strategy or operational cooperation. But it does suggest something more subtle: narrative convergence in support of the same political force abroad and in opposition to pro-European institutional actors.

Keep ReadingShow less