IMRA Middle East News Updates

Weekly Commentary: The Gaza Roadmap Betrays Trump’s Demilitarization Plan: Israel Must Reject It Now

Wed, 05 Aug 2026 15:53:03 -0400

Weekly Commentary: The Gaza Roadmap Betrays Trump’s Demilitarization Plan: Israel Must Reject It Now

Dr. Aaron Lerner 5 August, 2026

Someone appears to be telling President Trump that Israel’s acceptance of his September 2025 20-point plan obligates it to accept the July 2026 Roadmap.

It does not.

The Roadmap does not implement President Trump’s plan. It rewrites its core security provisions.

President Trump’s 20-point plan required the destruction of all military, terrorist and offensive infrastructure - including tunnels and weapons-production facilities - and that weapons be rendered permanently unusable under independent monitoring. In practice, that means destroying them or removing them from Gaza. That was the deal.

The July 2026 Roadmap says something fundamentally different.

Instead of destruction, heavy weapons, weapons-production facilities, depots and tunnels are to be “decommissioned and stored.” At the end of the process, only the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) “shall hold, store or control weapons in Gaza.” Nothing is transferred to Israel or some other responsible country outside of Gaza. The weapons and the means to produce them remain inside Gaza under a new Palestinian authority.

That is not implementation of President Trump’s plan. It is a material rewrite of its central security provisions.

Responsibility for this dilution does not rest with President Trump. He is busy running the United States. The body established to implement his plan - the Board of Peace and its associated mechanisms - appears to have pursued an agreement with Hamas at almost any price. In doing so, it accepted terms that leave both the weapons and the means to manufacture them inside Gaza under Palestinian institutional control.

If President Trump is fully briefed on how far the Roadmap departs from his original 20-point plan, there is every reason to believe he would support Israel’s rejection of these provisions. The difference between destroying weapons-production facilities and storing them under NCAG is not a drafting detail. It is the difference between genuine demilitarization and managed rearmament under a different name.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has often handled difficult American initiatives by buying time, hoping that the initiative would ultimately self-destruct. Waiting until after the November midterm elections may seem tactically attractive. It would be a mistake.

The architects of the Roadmap are already working to create facts on the ground in Gaza, including preparations for the deployment of international forces and other measures that will be difficult to reverse. Once those arrangements are in place, replacing this diluted version with the original terms of President Trump’s plan will become far more difficult.

Israel should make its position clear - and now. It accepted President Trump’s September 2025 plan. It did not accept a later document that replaces destruction with storage and leaves the instruments of war inside Gaza.

A buyer confronted with a bait-and-switch does not accept the rewritten contract. Neither should Israel.

Trump’s 2025 Plan Demilitarized Gaza The 2026 Roadmap Doesn’t

Sun, 02 Aug 2026 00:32:32 -0400

Trump’s 2025 Plan Demilitarized Gaza The 2026 Roadmap Doesn’t
Dr. Aaron Lerner 1 August 2026

President Trump’s September 29, 2025 “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” provided for the “demilitarization of Gaza “ with the DESTRUCTION of “All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities” and “placing weapons permanently beyond use”.

But instead of the “demilitarization of Gaza “ , the “Roadmap” announced July 31, 2026 provides for a new Palestinian group in Gaza to KEEP ALL THE WEAPONS and weapon production facilities.

Don’t’ be fooled by the talk about “disarming Hamas”.

The goal was always demilitarizing Gaza.

And shifting the weapons from one Palestinian group to another in the Gaza Strip is NOT demilitarizing Gaza.

I am frankly frustrated that the leaders, journalists and commentators discussing the Roadmap seem to have failed to spend the three minutes it takes to actually read the Roadmap and the original Plan.

Because if they did, I am confident that they would also be talking about the abandonment of the goal of demilitarizing Gaza.

Don’t have three minutes?

Then these two excerpts should suffice:

White House Press Release - President Donald J. Trump's Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict
September 29, 2025
13. … All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors.

A Roadmap for Completing the Implementation of President Trump’s Comprehensive Peace Plan in Gaza
Published July 31, 2026

Principles:
1. … Upon the completion of the timetable and implementation mechanisms, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) shall enter the Strip and start to assume its responsibilities. ….

8. A process to decommission and store heavy weapons, military production sites, depots of weapons, and tunnels… shall be administered and implemented by NCAG … no weapons shall be transferred or handed to Israel or non-Palestinian parties. At the end of the process mentioned in articles 7 – 10 of this Roadmap, only NCAG shall hold, store or control weapons in Gaza. …
_______________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Weekly Commentary: A Disarmed Gaza Strip Can’t Have Armories!

Thu, 30 Jul 2026 22:17:38 -0400

Weekly Commentary: A Disarmed Gaza Strip Can’t Have Armories!
Dr. Aaron Lerner 31 July 2026

It appears that the “monumental” deal President Trump announced tonight has the huge stockpile of weapons now held by Hamas and the other terrorist organizations STORED IN GAZA.

But there is absolutely no justification to leave open the possibility that ANY authority in the Gaza Strip ever takes possession of those weapons.

The United States, Russia, Egypt Jordan, Norway and the European Union witnessed Oslo II which provided for 7,000 light personal weapons and 120 machine guns with limited caliber exclusively for the use of the Palestinian Police.

No rockets, missiles, mortars, etc.

99% of the weapons in the Gaza Strip today are in violation of Oslo II.

There may be some logic to store the Oslo II weapons for the day that there is a reliable Palestinian Police force.

I am not embracing the logic – just saying that there might be some logic.

But there is absolutely no justification for storing weapons in the Gaza Strip which are in violation of the deal which the United States, Russia, Egypt Jordan, Norway and the European Union witnessed.

________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Trump’s Missed Opportunity on the Kurdish Front

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 11:01:13 -0400

Trump’s Missed Opportunity on the Kurdish Front
Dr. Aaron Lerner 26 July 2026

President Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the option of using Iranian Kurdish forces against Tehran was a strategic mistake.
And it was a mistake which could have been avoided.

Early in the campaign, reports indicated that both the Trump administration and Israel saw considerable potential in arming and coordinating with Iranian Kurdish groups to increase the pressure on the regime from within.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan objected to any movement by the Kurdish forces.

President Trump did not have to choose between abandoning the Kurdish option and ignoring Turkey’s security concerns.

He could have told Erdogan:

“We and the Israelis will respect your ‘red zone,’ and the Kurds have strict instructions not to enter it.

“The Kurds also understand that if they dare to enter that red zone, they will be entering a killing field without American or Israeli protection.

“On the other hand, if you make the mistake of attacking the Kurdish forces outside the red zone, remember that NATO membership would not oblige the alliance to protect Turkish forces conducting unilateral military operations inside Iran.
“And any such Turkish action would have serious consequences.”

Such a formulation would have directly addressed Turkey’s legitimate security concerns while preserving the Kurdish option against Iran.

It would have treated Erdogan as a serious partner without granting him veto power over American and Israeli strategy.

Would Erdogan have been furious?

Certainly.

But history strongly suggests that he would have ultimately accepted the reality.

Turkey’s trade with the European Union is approximately five times its trade with Russia.

Its defense industry depends heavily on Western components, technology and export markets.

And the Russian S-400 system has become such a political and technical liability that Ankara is now trying to find a way to neutralize the problem in the hope of regaining access to advanced Western weapons systems.

Erdogan’s pattern is clear.

He threatens.

He escalates.

He extracts whatever concessions he can.

But he does not lightly burn the bridges connecting Turkey to NATO, American technology and European capital.

Six months after such an exchange, Turkey would almost certainly still have been inside NATO, still dependent on the West and still negotiating with Washington.

And the Kurdish option against Tehran would still have been available.

There is, however, another important question:

Did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his team propose such an approach to the White House?

The Israelis certainly understood that the Kurdish issue posed serious domestic and strategic problems for Erdogan.

They may also have explained how Washington could respect Turkey’s red zone without surrendering the Kurdish card entirely.

If Israel proposed such a calibrated response and President Trump nevertheless chose to defer to Erdogan, then the missed opportunity was even more consequential.

A single firm but respectful conversation could have protected Turkey’s legitimate security interests while preserving a powerful additional front against the Iranian regime.

Instead, Erdogan demanded that the Kurdish forces not move at all - and Washington removed the Kurdish card from the table

Weekly Commentary: Israel Returns To Zionist Response To Arab Terror

Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:08:23 -0400

Weekly Commentary: Israel Returns To Zionist Response To Arab Terror
Dr. Aaron Lerner 24 July 2026

Here is a move which is a long time coming.

In response to an Arab terrorist attack, PM Netanyahu and DM Katz announced,
"Accelerating the legalization of farm outposts and establishment of new
ones."

For the terrorists, death means going to Paradise surrounded by 72 beautiful
virgins and their families celebrate..

If their family's home is demolished it will ultimately be rebuilt - better
than ever.

And any security measures temporarily imposed will be just that: temporary.

But land is something altogether different.

When the Jews establish a new presence on land that isn't a loss for a day,
a month or a year.

That's a genuine loss.

This is a message that the terrorists and their supporters can understand.

This isn't the first time there's been a "Zionist response" to terrorist
attacks.

But we haven't been consistent.

And this lack of consistency weakens the message.

I fervently hope that today is the last terrorist attack.

But if it turns out that the terror doesn't end, this powerful Zionist
response should be the standard - not the exception.
###

Joint Statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister
Israel Katz

(Translated from Hebrew)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have,
today (Friday, 24 July 2026), instructed the IDF, following consultations
with members of the Security Cabinet and the heads of the security
establishment, on a series of steps in response to the terrorist attacks
over the past 24 hours:

* Demolition of the home of the terrorist behind this morning's attack near
the village of Tell.

* Forceful action in villages acting as terrorist hubs, including arms
confiscation, revocation of work permits, and additional measures.

* Reinforcement of units throughout Judea and Samaria.

* Separation of traffic routes and checkpoints.

* Accelerating the legalization of farm outposts and establishment of new
ones.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Katz offer their condolences
to the Mellet family, whose son Benayahu was murdered this morning in the
heinous attack, wish a full recovery to the injured, and stand by the
security forces and the residents in their steadfast stand against
terrorism.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense emphasize that the security
forces must be allowed to operate freely and with full force against
terrorism, and call to refrain from any action that could harm their
operations or divert them from their primary mission of protecting the
citizens of Israel and defeating terrorism.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Dr. Michal Yaari: Israel will not bear responsibility if no Palestinian State results from embracing a “political horizon”

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:58:00 -0400

Dr. Michal Yaari: Israel will not bear responsibility if no Palestinian
State results from embracing a “political horizon”

Dr. Michal Yaari is an academic faculty member in the Department of Middle
East Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and a recognized expert
and lecturer on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states (with additional teaching
affiliations at other Israeli universities).
[Translation of Hebrew]

From: Dr. Aaron Lerner
Sent: Wednesda, July 22, 2026
To: Dr. Michal Yaari
Subject: Potential Risks Inherent in the Use of a “Political Horizon”
vis-à-vis Arab States

Hello Dr. Yaari,

My name is Dr. Aaron Lerner, editor of IMRA (Independent Media Review &
Analysis).

I wish to raise an analytical question concerning the use of the concept of
a “political horizon” within the framework of relations with Arab states
(particularly Saudi Arabia).

This question does not concern whether the establishment of a sovereign
Palestinian state serves Israel’s national interest. I explicitly request
that we refrain from entering into that discussion.

My question is as follows:

When Israel enters into a relationship with an Arab state on the basis of a
commitment (or a strong implication) to a “political horizon” understood as
a pathway that ultimately leads to a sovereign Palestinian state - does
there exist a tangible risk that, should such a state not be established in
the future, frustration and a sense of “breach of commitment” will arise on
the Arab side, potentially producing a more adverse outcome than if Israel
had never indicated such a pathway from the outset?

In other words: What considerations ought a policymaker to weigh in
conducting a cost-benefit analysis of employing a “political horizon” as a
diplomatic instrument, irrespective of his or her principled position on the
question of a Palestinian state?

I would be most grateful if you could address this question.

Should you agree, I would be pleased to share your response with the
readership of IMRA (citing your name and with your consent).

With thanks in advance,
Dr. Aaron Lerner

From: Dr. Michal Yaari
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026
To: Dr. Aaron Lerner
Subject: Potential Risks Inherent in the Use of a “Political Horizon”
vis-à-vis Arab States

Hello Aaron,
It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

The Israeli and Saudi interests are identical: not the establishment of a
Palestinian state under any circumstances, but rather the establishment of a
Palestinian state only when pragmatic and effective leadership exists that
is both capable and competent to construct a viable state, accompanied by
economic and other forms of assistance from the United States and Arab
states, foremost among them the Gulf states.

The objective is not the creation of a Palestinian state destined to fail,
but rather a state headed by a leadership that is able to function
effectively.

Israel will not bear responsibility should this project ultimately fail.

Michal

________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il