Tag:

netanyahu

Global Condemnation of Gaza Actions Coincides with Deep Dive into Volatile US-Iran and Trump-Netanyahu Dynamics Amidst Fragile Ceasefire

by Suro Senen October 27, 2025

written by Suro Senen

Jakarta, Indonesia, October 12, 2025 – A powerful demonstration of international solidarity with Palestine unfolded in Jakarta, as thousands of participants in the "Indonesia Lawan Genosida, Dukung Palestina Merdeka" (Indonesia Fights Genocide, Supports Free Palestine) rally took to the streets. The protest, marked by the symbolic act of stomping on a poster depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vehemently condemned all forms of alleged genocide against the residents of Gaza perpetrated by Israel. Demonstrators vociferously demanded immediate and permanent ceasefire in Palestine and championed the cause of Palestinian independence, reflecting a growing global outrage over the protracted conflict.

This surge of public indignation, however, occurs against a complex geopolitical backdrop, particularly the precarious relationship between Washington and Tehran. After weeks of escalating tensions that brought the Middle East to the brink of wider conflict, a fragile ceasefire has seemingly settled between the United States and Iran. While this period has seen a de-escalation in the intensity of direct and proxy attacks, it has done little to resolve the fundamental drivers of the conflict or chart a clear path forward. Beneath this superficial calm, a more intricate and often volatile dynamic emerges: the relationship between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a partnership that, according to many analysts, propelled both nations towards a confrontation from which neither seemed to have a clear exit strategy.

Reports from British media outlets have offered a distinct lens through which to understand the recent escalations, particularly focusing on the assertion that Prime Minister Netanyahu was not merely a passive partner in the recent American-led push for confrontation, but rather a principal architect. These analyses suggest that Netanyahu’s persistent advocacy for a hardline stance against Iran heavily influenced the Trump administration’s foreign policy, often leading the U.S. down a path of escalating pressure, only for the Trump administration to later grapple with the unforeseen political and strategic ramifications.

The Architect of Escalation: Netanyahu’s Enduring Influence

Ian Perel, writing in The Independent, as quoted by Aljazeera on April 15, 2026, explicitly argues that Benjamin Netanyahu’s role transcended that of a mere collaborator in the recent U.S. escalation against Iran. Perel posits that Netanyahu was, in fact, one of its primary architects. This assessment gains historical weight when examining Netanyahu’s long-standing foreign policy doctrine, which consistently identifies Iran as the paramount threat to regional stability and Israeli security.

Netanyahu’s influence on U.S. foreign policy is not without precedent. The author highlights Netanyahu’s significant role in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time, Netanyahu, then a private citizen and a prominent voice in conservative foreign policy circles, frequently articulated the strategic rationale for the Iraq War as a crucial step towards weakening Iran, thereby neutralizing a major regional adversary. His arguments, presented in various forums and Congressional testimonies, resonated with a segment of U.S. policymakers who viewed regime change in Iraq as a precursor to broader regional transformation. This historical context suggests a consistent pattern in Netanyahu’s strategic thinking: leveraging U.S. military and diplomatic power to counter perceived Iranian expansionism and nuclear ambitions.

Chronology of Escalation: The Trump-Netanyahu Era and Iran

The period spanning Donald Trump’s presidency (2017-2021) and Benjamin Netanyahu’s successive terms as Prime Minister (2009-2021, and again from 2022 onwards) witnessed an unprecedented alignment of U.S. and Israeli policy regarding Iran. This alignment led to a series of events that dramatically ratcheted up tensions in the Middle East:

May 8, 2018: U.S. Withdrawal from JCPOA. Despite pleas from European allies, President Trump, heavily influenced by Netanyahu’s vocal opposition, announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu had long decried the agreement as "a bad deal" that paved Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. This move immediately triggered a "maximum pressure" campaign of renewed and expanded sanctions against Iran.
May-June 2019: Gulf Tanker Attacks. A series of mysterious attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and near the Strait of Hormuz were attributed by the U.S. to Iran. These incidents marked a significant uptick in regional hostilities, with Washington deploying additional military assets to the region.
June 20, 2019: Downing of U.S. Drone. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz, claiming it had violated Iranian airspace. Trump initially authorized retaliatory strikes but called them off at the last minute, citing potential casualties.
September 14, 2019: Saudi Aramco Attacks. Drone and missile attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities, significantly disrupting global oil supplies, were widely blamed on Iran by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, though Iran denied responsibility.
December 27, 2019: Rocket Attack on U.S. Base in Iraq. A rocket attack killed a U.S. contractor at a base in Iraq, prompting U.S. retaliatory airstrikes against Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia facilities.
January 3, 2020: Killing of Qassem Soleimani. A U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC Quds Force, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces. This was a dramatic escalation, justified by the U.S. as a defensive measure against imminent attacks on American personnel. Netanyahu praised Trump for the "bold, strong and swift action."
January 8, 2020: Iranian Retaliation. Iran launched ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, causing traumatic brain injuries to over 100 U.S. service members but no fatalities. Iran stated it considered the retaliation complete.
Subsequent De-escalation Efforts: Following these intense exchanges, a period of more restrained confrontation ensued, characterized by a "fragile ceasefire." While direct military clashes subsided, the underlying ideological and strategic rivalries persisted, manifesting through proxy conflicts and cyber warfare. The absence of major direct engagements did not signify a resolution but rather a precarious balance, maintained by mutual deterrence and a reluctance to trigger an all-out war.

Supporting Data and Analysis: The Unstable Alliance

The relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu was often described as a "bromance," characterized by shared conservative ideologies, a populist appeal, and a common adversary in Iran. This close bond translated into tangible policy shifts that significantly favored Israel and reshaped U.S. engagement in the Middle East:

U.S. Embassy Move to Jerusalem (May 2018): Trump fulfilled a long-standing Israeli request by moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This move was celebrated by Netanyahu but widely condemned by Palestinians and much of the international community.
Recognition of Israeli Sovereignty over the Golan Heights (March 2019): Trump’s decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, territory captured from Syria in 1967, further solidified Netanyahu’s political standing and was seen as another significant diplomatic gift.
"Deal of the Century" (January 2020): The Trump administration unveiled its Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, widely seen as heavily biased towards Israel. The plan offered little to the Palestinians and was immediately rejected by their leadership.
Abraham Accords (August-December 2020): Facilitated by the Trump administration, the normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco) were hailed as a historic diplomatic achievement. While beneficial for Israel, critics argued they sidelined the Palestinian issue and formed a de facto alliance against Iran.

Analysts, like Perel, contend that this deep alignment created a dynamic where Netanyahu’s hawkish stance on Iran found a highly receptive ear in Trump, who, unlike previous U.S. presidents, was willing to discard traditional diplomatic norms and international agreements to pursue a more aggressive posture. The argument that this relationship "drove a war that neither of them seemed to have a clear picture of how to end" speaks to the potential for unintended consequences when ideological conviction overrides strategic foresight. The "maximum pressure" campaign, while undeniably weakening Iran economically, did not achieve its stated goal of forcing Iran back to the negotiating table for a "better deal" and instead pushed Iran closer to developing advanced centrifuges and enriching uranium to higher purities.

Official Responses and Inferred Positions

While specific quotes on the "fragile ceasefire" are inferred for the future date, the historical record provides a clear understanding of the positions held by the involved parties:

U.S. (Trump Administration): Officials consistently stated their actions were aimed at protecting U.S. interests and personnel, deterring Iranian aggression, and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. They maintained that sanctions were effective in curbing Iran’s malign activities and that military actions were proportionate responses. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo frequently articulated the "maximum pressure" strategy, asserting that the U.S. sought a fundamental change in Iran’s behavior, not necessarily regime change.
Israel (Netanyahu Government): Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet consistently emphasized the existential threat posed by Iran, particularly its nuclear program and its network of regional proxies. Israeli officials frequently called for stronger international sanctions and military action against Iran, viewing the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA as a necessary step. They framed their actions and advocacy as essential for Israel’s security and survival in a hostile region.
Iran: Iranian officials vehemently condemned U.S. sanctions as "economic terrorism" and U.S. military actions as acts of aggression. They maintained that their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes and that their regional activities were defensive. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani (during Trump’s tenure) asserted Iran’s right to self-defense and vowed to resist U.S. pressure, often threatening to escalate if their sovereignty was violated. They consistently called for the U.S. to return to the JCPOA and lift sanctions.
International Community: Many European nations, along with Russia and China, expressed deep concern over the escalating tensions, advocating for diplomacy and adherence to the JCPOA. They often criticized the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the deal and urged all parties to de-escalate. United Nations officials frequently called for restraint and dialogue to prevent a wider conflict.

Broader Impact and Implications

The intricate interplay between the US, Israel, and Iran, exacerbated by the Trump-Netanyahu dynamic, has had profound and lasting implications for the Middle East and global security:

Regional Instability: The "fragile ceasefire" does not signify peace. Proxy conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon continue to simmer, fueled by the underlying U.S.-Iran rivalry and Israel’s ongoing security concerns. The absence of a clear diplomatic framework for de-escalation leaves the region vulnerable to renewed flare-ups.
U.S. Foreign Policy Reorientation: The Trump administration’s approach marked a significant departure from previous U.S. foreign policy, prioritizing transactional diplomacy and challenging multilateral agreements. This has left a legacy of diminished trust in U.S. leadership among some allies and a more unpredictable international landscape. Future U.S. administrations face the daunting task of either rebuilding international consensus or continuing a more unilateral path.
Israeli Security and Regional Standing: While the Trump era brought unprecedented diplomatic gains for Israel, particularly the Abraham Accords, it also arguably heightened regional tensions with Iran. Israel’s security posture remains inextricably linked to U.S. policy, and any shift in Washington’s approach could have significant repercussions. The accords also raised questions about the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains largely unresolved and a source of continuous friction, as evidenced by the Jakarta protest.
Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions: The collapse of the JCPOA and the "maximum pressure" campaign pushed Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, accumulating more enriched uranium and deploying more advanced centrifuges. This has shortened Iran’s "breakout time" to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, raising proliferation concerns and creating a more dangerous scenario than before the U.S. withdrawal.
The Gaza Conflict and Global Opinion: The ongoing conflict in Gaza, which prompted the "Indonesia Lawan Genosida" protest in October 2025, underscores the enduring human cost of unresolved geopolitical tensions. The widespread condemnation of Israeli actions, particularly allegations of genocide, reflects a growing global impatience with the humanitarian crisis and a demand for accountability and a just resolution to the Palestinian question. The symbolic act of trampling Netanyahu’s image highlights the depth of anger and frustration felt by a significant portion of the international community.

The current "fragile ceasefire" between Washington and Tehran, therefore, represents a temporary lull rather than a fundamental shift towards peace. It is a testament to the intricate and often perilous dance between powerful actors, where historical grievances, strategic ambitions, and volatile personal relationships continue to shape the destiny of a region perpetually on the brink. The global outcry emanating from Jakarta serves as a stark reminder that while diplomatic maneuvers unfold at the highest levels, the humanitarian consequences of these conflicts reverberate far and wide, demanding a more comprehensive and sustainable path to peace.

October 27, 2025 0 comment

Islamic and Religious Life

Mahkamah Agung Israel Sidangkan Pemberhentian Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu Bela Mati-matian

by Pevita Pearce September 17, 2025

written by Pevita Pearce

TEL AVIV – Israel’s Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, commenced a landmark hearing on petitions seeking the dismissal of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir from his high-profile position. The proceedings, which have captivated national attention, center on allegations of the minister’s purported unlawful interference in the operational affairs of the Israel Police, a charge that strikes at the heart of the country’s democratic principles and the independence of its law enforcement agencies. The court’s decision to hear the petitions privately, though with a live broadcast to mitigate potential public unrest, underscores the extreme sensitivity and volatile nature of the case, which many observers believe could precipitate an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

The move by the Supreme Court to consider removing a sitting minister is exceedingly rare and reflects the profound legal and political tensions gripping Israel. Minister Ben-Gvir, a controversial figure from the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, has been under intense scrutiny since assuming his role in late 2022. His tenure has been marked by a series of provocative statements and actions that critics argue have systematically eroded the professional autonomy of the police force and undermined the rule of law.

The Genesis of the Controversy: Allegations of Ministerial Overreach

The core of the legal challenge against Ben-Gvir revolves around the fundamental principle of police independence. In democratic systems, law enforcement agencies are expected to operate free from direct political manipulation, ensuring impartial application of the law. Petitioners, including various civil society organizations and legal watchdog groups, contend that Ben-Gvir has repeatedly crossed this line, issuing direct operational directives to police officers, influencing appointments, and commenting on ongoing investigations.

Among the specific allegations cited in the petitions are claims that Ben-Gvir:

Directed police actions during protests: There have been reports and public statements where Ben-Gvir appeared to issue direct orders regarding the handling of demonstrations, particularly those involving Palestinian citizens or ultra-Orthodox communities, often advocating for a harsher response than police commanders deemed appropriate or lawful.
Attempted to influence personnel decisions: Critics allege he sought to appoint individuals loyal to his political agenda to key positions within the police force or to remove officers who resisted his directives.
Made public comments on ongoing investigations: Such remarks are seen as an attempt to exert undue pressure on law enforcement and judicial processes, potentially prejudicing outcomes.
Changed police rules of engagement: There were reports of Ben-Gvir pushing for more aggressive rules of engagement, particularly concerning interactions with Palestinian youth, which raised significant human rights concerns and warnings from legal experts.

These actions, the petitioners argue, constitute an abuse of power and a direct threat to the integrity of the police force, transforming it from a professional body serving the public into a political tool of the minister.

Ben-Gvir’s Defiance and the Mandate Argument

Outside the Supreme Court building, dozens of Ben-Gvir’s supporters rallied, holding banners denouncing what they termed "judicial dictatorship" and demanding an end to judicial overreach. The minister himself addressed the crowd, adopting a defiant stance. "Government Legal Adviser Gali Baharav-Miara claims that I changed policy and policing, and interfered in appointments to implement my policy. She is right," Ben-Gvir declared, doubling down on the very actions that form the basis of the legal challenge.

He asserted that his actions were a direct fulfillment of his electoral mandate. "More than half a million voters chose us to bring real change. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to dismiss me and there will be no coup." This statement directly challenges the court’s jurisdiction and power of judicial review, an essential component of Israel’s democratic checks and balances, especially in the absence of a formal constitution. Ben-Gvir further warned the Supreme Court, stating, "Do not drag Israel into a constitutional crisis, division, or polarization. Democracy will not collapse. The legal dictatorship will collapse." This rhetoric mirrors the broader narrative promoted by elements within the current governing coalition, which has consistently accused the judiciary of overstepping its bounds.

The Role of the Government Legal Adviser and the Supreme Court’s "Reasonableness Standard"

The Government Legal Adviser, Gali Baharav-Miara, plays a pivotal role in this unfolding drama. As the chief legal counsel to the government, her opinion carries significant weight and is generally considered binding on government ministers. Baharav-Miara has consistently advised against Ben-Gvir’s alleged interventions, asserting that they exceed his legal authority and infringe upon the operational independence of the police. Her official legal opinion, which likely forms a significant part of the petitioners’ case, is critical because it represents the government’s own legal watchdog flagging potential illegality within the executive branch.

The Supreme Court’s authority to intervene in such matters often relies on the "reasonableness standard" – a legal doctrine allowing the court to strike down administrative decisions by government officials or ministers if they are deemed "unreasonable in the extreme." This standard, while a cornerstone of Israeli administrative law, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing judicial overhaul debate. Critics of the judiciary, including Ben-Gvir and his allies, argue that the "reasonableness standard" grants the court excessive power to substitute its judgment for that of elected officials, thereby undermining democratic governance.

Broader Context: The Judicial Overhaul Debate

The current hearing is not an isolated event but rather a direct consequence of a deeply entrenched and highly polarized debate over the future of Israel’s judiciary. Since its formation in late 2022, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which includes Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party, has pursued a controversial agenda aimed at significantly curbing the powers of the Supreme Court. Proposals have included limiting the court’s ability to strike down laws, changing the composition of the judicial selection committee, and abolishing the "reasonableness standard."

These proposed reforms triggered unprecedented mass protests across Israel throughout 2023 and 2024, with hundreds of thousands demonstrating weekly against what they perceived as an assault on democracy and the rule of law. The current hearing involving Ben-Gvir is seen by many as a practical manifestation of this ideological struggle: the judiciary asserting its existing powers in the face of a government that seeks to diminish them, and a minister actively challenging the very premise of judicial oversight. The outcome of this case could therefore set a crucial precedent for the balance of power between Israel’s executive and judicial branches.

The UNRWA Controversy: A Precedent of Ben-Gvir’s Actions

Further illustrating the contentious nature of Minister Ben-Gvir’s approach to his role, an earlier incident from January 20, 2026, serves as a significant backdrop. On that date, Ben-Gvir was observed overseeing an Israeli bulldozer demolishing a portion of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) headquarters in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem.

This action was highly controversial for several reasons. UNRWA is a UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees, and its facilities generally hold protected status under international law. The demolition, reportedly undertaken without full coordination or legal justification acceptable to the UN, sparked international condemnation and highlighted Israel’s often-strained relationship with international bodies, particularly concerning East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories. For critics, Ben-Gvir’s presence and apparent approval of such an action underscored a pattern of behavior characterized by aggressive unilateralism and a disregard for established norms or international protocols. This incident, while distinct from the police interference allegations, contributes to the broader perception of Ben-Gvir as a minister willing to push boundaries and challenge existing frameworks, both domestically and internationally.

The Minister of Justice’s Intervention and the Specter of a Constitutional Crisis

Adding another layer of complexity and potential escalation, Minister of Justice Yariv Levin, a key architect of the judicial overhaul proposals and a prominent member of the ruling Likud party, publicly stated that any decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss Ben-Gvir would not be implemented. This declaration is highly inflammatory and represents a direct challenge to the authority and legitimacy of the judicial branch.

Should the Supreme Court rule to remove Ben-Gvir and the government, supported by Levin’s stance, refuse to comply, Israel would plunge into an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Such a scenario would entail:

A direct clash between branches of government: The executive (government) would be openly defying the judiciary (Supreme Court), severely undermining the principle of separation of powers.
Erosion of the rule of law: If court rulings can be selectively disregarded by the government, the very foundation of legal order and democratic governance is imperiled.
Impact on public trust: Such defiance would likely deepen societal divisions and further erode public trust in state institutions.
International repercussions: A constitutional crisis of this magnitude would draw significant international criticism, raising concerns about Israel’s democratic health and its adherence to fundamental democratic norms.
Uncertainty for police and civil servants: Law enforcement and civil service professionals would face an impossible dilemma: whom to obey – the minister who directs them or the court that rules on the minister’s legality.

Implications and Future Outlook

The Supreme Court hearing on Itamar Ben-Gvir’s dismissal is more than just a legal case; it is a profound test for Israel’s democratic institutions and its constitutional framework. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for:

Police independence: A ruling against Ben-Gvir, if enforced, could reaffirm the professional autonomy of the police. Conversely, a failure to dismiss him, or defiance of such a ruling, could further politicize law enforcement.
The power of judicial review: The case will clarify the limits of ministerial authority versus the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and protecting democratic norms.
Government stability: A dismissal could destabilize the already fragile governing coalition, potentially leading to early elections. Conversely, a victory for Ben-Gvir could embolden the government in its judicial overhaul agenda.
Public discourse and polarization: The intense public and political reactions underscore the deep ideological rifts within Israeli society, which are likely to intensify regardless of the ruling.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches with bated breath. The decision, expected in the coming weeks or months, will not only determine the political fate of Itamar Ben-Gvir but also cast a long shadow over the future of Israel’s democratic character and the enduring strength of its constitutional checks and balances. The stakes could not be higher for a nation already grappling with profound internal divisions and external challenges.

September 17, 2025 0 comment