🔴 Washington Directs the Aggression: Martyr Sayyed Nasrallah Debunks the Illusion of the American “Peace Dove”

📰 Sayyed Martyr Hassan Nasrallah said, on the occasion of Martyrs’ Day nearly two years ago:
“The only party capable of stopping the aggression on Gaza is the United States of America, because it is the one managing and directing this war.”

🤔 “Power in the Israeli entity lies in the hands of a group of reckless individuals driven by personal interests, such as Netanyahu and Gallant, while the actual decision-making rests with the American administration, which supports and shapes the course of the battle.”

🌕“All forms of condemnation, political, popular, and regional pressure must be directed toward the United States, as it holds the first and final decision in continuing or halting this aggression.”


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and Steve Witkoff, real estate investor and Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, are in Cairo to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza.

🔴The Gaza Peace Plan: A Mirage of Relief or a Strategic Trap?

Introduction: A Ceasefire Cloaked in Strategy

On October 9, 2025, the world watched as Israel and Hamas signed the first phase of a U.S.-brokered peace agreement, hailed by President Donald Trump as a “Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.” The deal promises a ceasefire, the release of hostages, withdrawal of Israeli troops, and humanitarian aid. But beneath the celebratory headlines lies a geopolitical maneuver that demands scrutiny—not applause.

This is not just a peace plan. It’s a blueprint for control, reconstruction, and redefinition of Palestinian agency. And at the heart of it stands Jared Kushner, the architect of past Middle East deals, now resurrected to shape Gaza’s future.

Kushner’s Return: The Deal-Maker or the Deal-Breaker?

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former senior advisor, reemerges as a key strategist behind the Gaza peace framework. His legacy includes the 2020 Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states while sidelining Palestinian demands. Kushner’s approach has always favored economic incentives over political justice, offering “peace through prosperity” while ignoring the root causes of occupation and displacement.

Why was he chosen again?

Because Kushner represents a model of diplomacy that prioritizes optics and transactional outcomes. His role in the current Gaza plan is reportedly tied to the proposed “Board of Peace”—a transitional governance body that he may co-chair alongside foreign leaders like Tony Blair.

This board, not elected by Palestinians, would oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and political transition. In essence, Kushner is positioned not as a mediator, but as a manager of Palestinian futures.

The Gaps and Traps in the Peace Plan

While the ceasefire and prisoner exchange offer immediate relief, the deeper layers of the plan raise red flags:

• Disarmament of Hamas: The plan demands Hamas lay down arms without guaranteeing long-term protection for Gaza. This leaves the territory vulnerable to future incursions or internal instability

• Foreign-Led Governance: The transitional authority proposed is not Palestinian-led. It risks replicating colonial models of imposed rule, undermining self-determination.

• Ambiguous Withdrawal: Israel’s “agreed-upon line” for troop withdrawal is undefined. Without clear borders, this could allow Israel to maintain strategic control over key areas.

• Aid as Leverage: Humanitarian aid is tied to compliance. This weaponizes relief, turning basic survival into a bargaining chip.

• No Accountability Mechanism: The plan lacks enforcement tools to hold Israel accountable if it reneges on commitments. Past ceasefires have collapsed under similar conditions.




Strategic Optics vs. Structural Justice

The peace plan is being sold as a diplomatic triumph. But it’s a triumph of narrative, not justice. The U.S. and Israel have framed the deal as a humanitarian breakthrough while embedding mechanisms of control. Kushner’s involvement signals a continuation of the “deal-making” ethos that treats Palestine as a project—not a people.

This is not a roadmap to freedom. It’s a corridor of containment.



Conclusion: Palestinians Deserve More Than Managed Peace

Palestinians in Gaza have endured two years of relentless bombardment, displacement, and loss. They deserve a peace rooted in dignity, sovereignty, and accountability—not a plan that trades hostages for silence and reconstruction for submission.

The international community must demand transparency, Palestinian-led governance, and enforceable protections. Otherwise, this “peace” will be remembered not as an end to war—but as the beginning of a new form of domination.



🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Iraq Today: A State Under Stress



⚪️Institutional Fragility and Governance Failure


👋Recent media interviews and statements underscore what many observers long suspected: Iraq remains deeply misgoverned. For example, Abdullah al-Dardi, Assistant Secretary‑General of the UN, is reported to have described Iraq as “administratively failed,” noting that despite having two great rivers, the country “suffers thirst,” while being awash in oil revenues and yet forced to import electricity. One striking claim is that Iraq employs eight million people in its public sector, contrasted with only 2.5 million in a state the size of the U.S.—a signal of bloated bureaucracy and patronage.

👋Taken at face value, such assessments capture a core contradiction: Iraq is still, in effect, “floating on oil” (i.e. dependent on hydrocarbon revenues) while offering minimal public services, low institutional capacity, endemic corruption, and little ability to respond to shocks.


⚪️Economic Outlook: A Precarious Dependence


✌The macroeconomic data reveal the depth of Iraq’s structural dependency on oil and its risks:

💬In 2025, the IMF’s Article IV consultation flagged that while Iraq has maintained nominal stability, its non-oil economy slowed sharply (growth in non-oil GDP dropped from ~13.8 % in 2023 to about 2.5 % in 2024).  
The IMF also warned that without urgent reforms — raising non-oil revenues, curbing the wage bill, reprioritizing capital spending — fiscal and external accounts will deteriorate further.  
Concurrently, falling oil prices as of mid‑2025 are further sapping revenues and tightening financing constraints.  
According to analyses by Coface, Iraq’s fiscal position is under growing pressure: oil revenues made up 91 % of the federal budget in early 2025, and public debt is projected to rise above 55 % of GDP by end‑2026, reversing earlier consolidation gains.  
The domestic debt burden is already at record levels. Analysts estimate that Iraq’s domestic debt exceeded 90 trillion dinars in 2025, with debt servicing costs crowding out productive investment and starving private-sector credit.  
Yet, ironically, early reports in 2025 suggest Iraq ran a fiscal surplus (~USD 4.5 billion) in the first half, largely driven by elevated oil exports.  
This surplus, however, is fragile: it depends heavily on oil price volatility and may not redress the long-term structural malaise.


✌In short, Iraq is caught between two contradictory imperatives: high recurrent spending (especially salaries and pensions) which it cannot sustain under depressed oil revenues, and the urgent need for structural reform — which it lacks both the political will and institutional capacity to execute.


⚪️Political Landscape: The Reemergence of Old Forces



🌕A- The Shadow of Baathism


✌One often-overlooked dimension of Iraq’s post-2003 landscape is the persistence of residual Baath networks. After the U.S.-led invasion, the Baath Party was formally banned and key members purged under a policy of “de-Baathification.”  The 2008 Accountability and Justice Act modified de-Baathification by restoring some pensions and allowing low-level Baathists to be re-employed. 

✌Though the Baath Party is formally outlawed, fragmentation and clandestine reorganization mean that former Baathists sometimes operate under new banners, infiltrate institutions, or exert influence via proxy parties. Some analysts argue that, particularly in Sunni-majority areas, Baathist networks remain a subterranean force. (Though solid public evidence is limited, the narrative of Baath resurgence retains symbolic resonance.)

✌In the current 329‑seat Iraqi parliament, explicit Baathist representation is rare (given legal bans). Nevertheless, in practice:

✌Co-optation of technocrats: Many former Baath-affiliated civil servants or technocrats were gradually reintegrated into ministries or agencies under new party labels or independent status, but still retain old networks of patronage and patron-client loyalty.

✌Proxy alignments: Some Sunni or Arab nationalist parties may quietly accommodate or affiliate with Baathist values or personnel—less in the open but more behind the scenes.
Accusatory politics: The label “Baathist” itself is sometimes weaponized—with opponents accusing others of Baath sympathies as a rhetorical strategy, which keeps the idea alive in political discourse.


✌Hence, even if the Baath Party does not openly field its own lists, its ethos, symbols, and networks continue to color Iraqi politics. This residual influence helps explain why “old guard” approaches to power (strong state control, clientelism, patronage, security dominance) still dominate political culture.


⚪️B- The Dominance of Military ( factions ) -Linked Politics


🗒If Baathist influence is covert, the influence of Iraq’s military factions —especially those tied to the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and aligned with Iran—has become overt and institutionalized. The creation of the Muhandis General Company is perhaps the clearest emblem of this dynamic.

🚪The Muhandis Company, inaugurated in late 2022, is a wide-ranging conglomerate with mandates spanning construction, agriculture, industrial contracting, real estate, and more.  
Its charter and operating privileges are exceptional: it receives preferential treatment in government tenders, is exempted (or largely so) from normal collateral or audit requirements, and is shielded from standard oversight.  
The company also has been granted vast parcels of land (in al‑Muthanna and elsewhere) on terms that defy standard legal process, as well as a capital endowment mostly in-kind (90 % government asset transfers, 10 % cash)  
The parallel (and implicit) ambition is to create an Iraqi analog of Iran’s Khatam al-Anbia—the IRGC construction conglomerate that itself is deeply enmeshed in Iran’s political and economic control apparatus.  
In March 2024, the Muhandis Company signed a memorandum of understanding with China’s CMEC to collaborate across multiple sectors (construction, energy, trade).  


🙌In effect, military faction-linked actors are no longer external to the state—they are embedding themselves inside it and transforming its economic structure from within.

🙌Some believe that his dynamic sidelines traditional parties, weakens state institutions, and preempts genuine accountability. In parliamentary terms, these military-aligned blocs (e.g. Fatah bloc, Badr Organization, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq affiliates) maintain outsized influence, thus constraining reformist or secular governments.




🙌The Sanctions on Muhandis: Legal Faust or Covert Sanctioning?



🙌The Rationale and Legal Basis


📄In October 2025, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added Muhandis General Company (and its affiliate Baladna) to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list under Executive Order 13224 (counterterrorism sanctions).  The stated grounds:

👍Muhandis “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technical support or goods or services in support of Kata’ib Hezbollah and the IRGC‑Qods Force.”  
It is controlled or directed by Kata’ib Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization.  
The Treasury claims Muhandis diverts Iraqi government contracts to contractors in exchange for illicit revenue.  
Baladna, as an affiliate, is designated for being a front facilitating weapons smuggling or funds in support of Muhandis and IRGC proxies.  


👍Proponents of the sanctions argue that embedding a militia-run firm inside the Iraqi state is a malign strategy to entrench Iran-backed influence, erode sovereignty, bypass oversight, and cultivate illicit revenue streams.

👍From a legal standpoint, the U.S. acts under its domestic authority (EO 13224) rather than any multilateral UN vote. That means the measures depend on U.S. unilateral declarations of “support for terrorism.” Whether that is binding on Iraq’s sovereignty is a separate question.

⚪️Was It Legally Justified?


🌕From a strict international law lens, the unilateral sanction is arguable but debatable:
Sovereignty concerns:

🔢 Iraq is a sovereign state. Forcing sanctions on an Iraqi state-linked company arguably violates principles of non-intervention and external economic compulsion. The U.S. action effectively imposes extraterritorial control over Iraq’s domestic economy.
Due process: The designation was made unilaterally, with no adjudicative hearing or Iraqi counter­argument. That raises questions about transparency and procedural fairness.

🔢 Evidence standard: While the U.S. cites diversion of contracts and support to terrorist groups, much of the underlying evidence is classified, inaccessible to public scrutiny or Iraqi oversight—raising concerns about accountability and potential political overreach.

🔢Domestic overlap: Because Muhandis is integrated into Iraqi government structures and sometimes acts under cabinet authorization, the designation forces conflict between U.S. policy and Iraq’s internal law. Is Iraq permitted to continue contracts with Muhandis? If it does, that could expose partners (international or Iraqi) to secondary U.S. sanctions.


✌In short, the U.S. move sits in a grey zone: legally permissible under U.S. domestic law, but contested in terms of international legality, sovereignty, and accountability.


⚪️Impacts on Iraqis: Collateral Damage and Systemic Risks


🔹The sanctions against Muhandis, even if well-intentioned, risk imposing significant costs on ordinary Iraqis:

1⃣ Disruption of reconstruction and services:
Muhandis plays a major role in infrastructure projects and public works. Sanctioning it could delay or halt ongoing projects (roads, utilities, housing), with ripple effects in public services. That exacerbates deficits in electricity, water, and municipal services.
Economic contraction and unemployment Many Iraqis likely depend (directly or indirectly) on Muhandis contracts—either as subcontractors, suppliers, laborers, or service providers. Sanctions may collapse these supply chains, increasing unemployment and informal precarity.

2⃣ Exacerbating fiscal stress: Iraq risks losing control over revenue flows and state contracts, reducing budget flexibility. In a fiscal squeeze already reliant on oil, limiting state contracting tools removes a lever for stimulus. Government may be forced to cut public spending elsewhere—affecting schools, healthcare, or wage payments.

3⃣ Political backlash and nationalist resentment :
Iraqis are likely to perceive sanctions as an external assault on their sovereignty. That can fuel anti-American resentment, empower populist or militia-aligned parties, and erode trust in central government institutions.

4⃣ Punishing the innocent, empowering the corrupt:
Because Muhandis is deeply intertwined with state institutions, sanctions are blunt instruments. They risk hurting legitimate Iraqi entities and citizens caught in the crossfire—even as elite insiders may siphon residual resources into black markets or alternative channels.


🤲In sum, the sanction risks doing more harm to Iraq’s governance and citizens than to the military factions networks it targets, unless tightly calibrated with Iraqi cooperation and safeguards.

🔹Concluding Reflections: Trapped in a Strategic Straitjacket


👌Iraq today is caught in a trap of its own making — a rentier economy, a weak institutional core, and a political system overrun by military logic and legacy networks (Baathist or otherwise).

👌Western and U.S. interventions, however well-intentioned in some parts, often amplify rather than correct the dysfunction.

👌The formal ban on the Baath Party after 2003 did not eliminate Baathist influence, but drove it underground, mixing it with post‑Saddam politics. Those networks now quietly reassert themselves through technocratic infiltration, indirectly sustaining the old hierarchical state logic.
The Muhandis episode is a microcosm of a larger problem: when militias capture the state, the very definition of “government” changes.

👌Sanctioning them may be defensible from a counterterrorism lens—but it shifts the burden onto a state that is structurally weak, and onto citizens least able to bear the cost.
Without a genuine national reform program — institutional rebuilding, de-militarization of the economy, accountability of political actors, diversification beyond oil, and re-legitimation of democratic processes — Iraq remains vulnerable to cycles of collapse, foreign intervention, and internal fragmentation.


👌Unless the international community respects Iraqi sovereignty, supports capacity-building (not just coercive measures), and assists Iraqis themselves in rethinking their political economy, the deeper fault lines will only worsen—and the costs will fall first and foremost on the people.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Martyrdom of Journalist Saleh Al-Ja’frawi
Journalist Saleh Al-Ja’frawi, one of Gaza’s courageous and dedicated media voices, was martyred after being assassinated in the Al-Sabra neighborhood of Gaza City.
He now joins the ranks of more than two hundred journalists who have sacrificed their lives while documenting the suffering and resilience of the Palestinian people during the ongoing war on Gaza.
According to local sources, the assassination was carried out by groups suspected of collaborating with the Israeli occupation forces.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

✍ Journalist Ali Abu Rizq

🔴 The assassination of Saleh Al-Ja’afrawi in this manner signals a dangerous Israeli plan for the day after the war:

🔢 The primary goal of the plan is to continue the chain of assassinations—those whom Israeli security forces couldn’t target by airstrikes are now being pursued through its agents and collaborators.

🔢 Framing the internal conflict in Gaza as a struggle for infleence and territorial control, so that Palestinians become preoccupied with this issue, prioritizing internal security over governance, politics, and reconstruction.

🔢 Undermining the moral narrative of the Palestinian cause in general, and the struggle of Gaza’s people in particular—portraying it, after all these sacrifices, as a civil war rather than a national liberation movement.

🔢 Pushing the Palestinian resistance into making mistakes and broadcasting them, to validate previous Israeli and American claims that these are militias, not a national liberation movement—a narrative that some Arab parties, incidentally, have adopted.

🔢 The plan aims to destroy any viability for life in Gaza after the war and eliminate any possibility of reconstruction or return, making internal chaos and security breakdown the dominant features.

🔢 The plan also has a strong intelligence and surveillance dimension: Israeli aircraft continue to hover overhead, recording and filming the movements of units like Sahem and Rad’e, to facilitate monitoring and directing agents toward them.

🔰 May God grant victory to Gaza and its men, and may the eyes of the cowardly traitors never find rest…!

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

Scenes of the arrival of the first group of Palestinian prisoners in Ramallah a short while ago, as part of the exchange operation with the Palestinian resistance.

🔴 Prisoner Exchange Deal Between Hamas and Israel: A Turning Point in the Gaza Conflict

🗒On October 13, 2025, a landmark prisoner exchange took place between Hamas and Israel, marking the first major implementation step of the Trump-brokered ceasefire plan aimed at ending the two-year war in Gaza. The deal, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, involved the release of 20 Israeli captives held by Hamas in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails

🌕 The Terms of the Agreement

🚪The exchange is part of the first phase of the peace initiative announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, which includes:

👋 A full ceasefire across Gaza.
👋 The release of all surviving Israeli hostages.
👋 The freeing of thousands of Palestinian detainees.
👋 Immediate humanitarian aid access to Gaza, which has suffered famine and infrastructural collapse


🤔 According to Israeli sources, the 20 Israeli captives were handed over to the Red Cross and transported in coordinated convoys. The Israeli government confirmed that these were the only surviving hostages among the 48 initially held

🇵🇸 Hamas Statement: Resistance and Redemption

🔰 In a press release issued by Hamas’s military wing, the Qassam Brigades, the movement framed the release of Israeli captives as a strategic victory for Palestinian resistance. The statement emphasized:

👌 The release as part of the Trump plan’s first phase.
👌 Commitment to honoring the terms of the agreement.
👌 The liberation of Palestinian prisoners, including those with life sentences, as a triumph of steadfastness and sacrifice.
👌 A condemnation of Israeli military actions over the past two years, described as a “war of extermination.”
👌 A vow to prioritize the issue of Palestinian prisoners until the last detainee is freed【source: Hamas official statement】.


👌Hamas also claimed it had made efforts to preserve the lives of Israeli captives despite alleged attempts by the Israeli military to target them during operations【source: Hamas official statement】.

🌕 Israeli Response and Political Impact

🔹Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged the deal as a necessary step, stating that military efforts had failed to retrieve the hostages and that negotiation was the only viable path forward

🔹The release of Palestinian prisoners—many of whom had been incarcerated for decades—sparked scenes of celebration across the West Bank and Gaza. Families reunited with loved ones, while others mourned those who had died in captivity

👥 Who Was Freed?

💳According to the Times of Israel and AJC reports:

🫶 The 250 Palestinian prisoners released in the first wave included minors, women, and long-term detainees.
🫶 Many had been convicted of security-related offenses, while others were held under administrative detention without trial.


🪪Israel published the full list of names ahead of the release, prompting both relief and controversy within Israeli society.

🔴 International Reactions

🔼The international community largely welcomed the exchange as a step toward de-escalation. Trump’s visit to Israel and his upcoming summit in Egypt signal continued diplomatic engagement. However, questions remain about the long-term governance of Gaza and whether Hamas will disarm as part of future phases of the peace plan



🔼This exchange, while fraught with political tension and emotional weight, represents a rare moment of convergence between opposing sides. Whether it leads to lasting peace or merely a pause in hostilities remains to be seen—but for the families reunited, it is a moment of profound relief.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Sharm El-Sheikh Summit: Diplomacy as Spectacle, Justice as Casualty

In October 2025, the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh hosted a high-profile summit co-chaired by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and U.S. President Donald Trump. Marketed as a breakthrough for peace, the summit brought together over 20 world leaders to witness the signing of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. But beneath the polished optics and diplomatic fanfare, the event exposed the contradictions of modern statecraft—where performance often replaces accountability, and peace is repackaged without justice.


The Missing Players: A Ceasefire Without Consent

While the agreement was formally signed by Israeli and Palestinian representatives, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Hamas leadership attended the summit in person. Hamas, the dominant political and military force in Gaza, was notably absent from the stage, despite reports of indirect involvement through backchannel negotiations. This absence raised serious questions about the legitimacy and durability of the agreement. Can peace be brokered without the full participation of those most affected?



Trump’s Spotlight and the Politics of Provocation

President Trump delivered three major speeches during the summit and surrounding events—including one at the Israeli Knesset. His remarks were a mix of self-congratulation, geopolitical bravado, and controversial praise. He lauded Netanyahu—who faces war crimes charges at the ICC—and even urged Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon him for domestic corruption allegations.

In his summit address, Trump encouraged more Arab states to join the Abraham Accords, despite widespread regional opposition. He congratulated Netanyahu for choosing “victory” over prolonged warfare, stating:

“If you would have gone on for three, four more years – keep fighting, fighting, fighting – it was getting bad. It was getting heated… Bibi, you’re going to be remembered for this far more than if you kept this thing going, going, going – kill, kill, kill.”

He also recounted how Netanyahu frequently requested advanced weaponry:

“We make the best weapons in the world… Bibi would call me so many times – ‘Can you get me this weapon, that weapon?’ Some of them, I never heard of.”

These comments, while framed as diplomatic anecdotes, underscored the depth of U.S. military support for Israel—support that has helped turn much of Gaza into rubble. Over the past two years, Washington has provided more than $21 billion in aid to its Middle East ally.



Washington’s War, Tel Aviv’s Guns

The war on Gaza, though executed by Israeli forces, bore the unmistakable fingerprints of American strategy. The U.S. supplied weapons, intelligence, and diplomatic cover, including repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council that blocked ceasefire resolutions. Trump’s peace roadmap, unveiled earlier in the year, demanded the disarmament of Palestinian resistance and prioritized Israeli security guarantees—effectively sidelining Palestinian sovereignty.



Humanitarian Rhetoric vs. Structural Violence

“A new and beautiful day is rising and now the rebuilding begins,”

Trump declared, praising regional leaders for helping cement the truce. But his optimism clashed with the grim reality on the ground. Gaza remains devastated—its infrastructure shattered, its population displaced, and its future uncertain.

The summit’s humanitarian language—“restoring dignity,” “rebuilding Gaza,” “ensuring stability”—rang hollow. UN agencies were present, but their role was largely logistical. The political framing remained in the hands of those who had either enabled or ignored the violence.



Regional Rejection: The Audience Isn’t Buying It

Across the Arab world, reactions to the summit ranged from skepticism to outright rejection. Many saw it as a theatrical attempt to whitewash a war that had already claimed thousands of lives. The Palestinian cause, long treated as a bargaining chip in regional politics, was once again reduced to a backdrop for international posturing.

⚪️From Headlines to Rubble: The Cost of Spectacle

The Sharm El-Sheikh summit may have produced headlines, but it did not produce justice. It revealed the widening gap between diplomatic performance and lived reality. While leaders shook hands and declared victory, the people of Gaza returned to the ruins—reminded once again that peace without justice is just another form of violence.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

📍Title: “Gaza’s Shadow Armies: How Abu Shabab and Israel’s Mercenaries Became Predators in the Ruins”
 
Introduction
When the bombs dim and the ceasefire is inked, few will write the names of the mercenary militias that emerged in Gaza’s ruins. But those shadow forces — led by Abu Shabab and organized around local clans and private contractors — left scars deeper than shattered buildings. They fought Hamas, looted aid, tortured Palestinians, and enriched themselves on the suffering. Behind the spectacle of war, they became spoilers of any peace. This article goes deep, citing direct testimony and documents, to trace who they are, how they operated, and what might become of them in the fragile postwar order.
 
Origins: From Clan Networks to Armed Factions
Abu Shabab — the Bedouin Smuggler Turned Militia Leader
Yasser “Abu Shabab” is perhaps the most visible face of Gaza’s insurgent internecine warfare. He hails from the Bedouin communities around Rafah and is said to have roots in smuggling, clan patronage, and the local network of tunnels that long linked Gaza, Egypt, and Sinai. Over the course of 2024, as Hamas was weakened by Israeli operations, Abu Shabab’s group recruited fighters by offering salaries and presenting itself as a “restorative” force against Hamas’ brutality (Aawsat).¹
Abu Shabab denies direct collaboration with the Israeli army, yet multiple reports allege that his forces operate in areas under Israeli control, carrying out tasks that align with Israel’s tactical interests.² His militia is often called the Popular Forces or Fuerzas Populares in some Spanish-language media, estimated to number a few hundred fighters inside eastern Rafah and adjacent zones (Fuerzas Populares wiki).³
The Clan Militias and Criminal Networks
Behind Abu Shabab stand families and clans long embedded in Gaza’s social structure. Among the most powerful:
• Doghmush clan — one of Gaza’s most notorious and heavily armed families. Its networks have been affiliated variably with Fatah, Hamas, Islamist groups and criminal enterprises over time.⁴
• Al-Majayda (Astal/Majayda) — in Khan Younis, known for smuggling influence and local muscle.
• Hilles (aka Helles / Khalas) — historically aligned with Fatah, with recruiting and neighborhood influence in Gaza City and Shuja‘iyya.⁵
• Various collaborator cells and informant networks scattered across Gaza, often overlapping with these clans.
These clans had experience in arms, checkpoints, criminal trade and smuggling long before the war. What changed is that the intensity of war gave them space to expand into semi-state security actors.
 
Funding, Arms & Alleged Sponsorship
Self-financing Through Chaos
One of the more verifiable sources of funding was the diversion and theft of humanitarian aid, fuel, medical supplies and food convoys. In a shattered environment with minimal policing, armed groups could intercept trucks or checkpoints and extract value. Aid workers and local civilians repeatedly testified to this phenomenon. A World Central Kitchen employee said: “When the supplies arrive, they try to steal.”⁶
Those revenues allowed these groups to pay fighters, buy weapons on the black market, and maintain logistics.
Accusations of Israeli Arms, Support and Toleration
Investigative media and humanitarian analysts claim that Israel, while publicly denying involvement, has in some zones allowed — and in certain cases enabled — the operations of these militias as local proxies. For instance:
• Under the argument that “aid must be secured better,” Israel supported the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a private entity that used for-profit security firms in aid logistics. Critics say that-control over aid channels gave leverage to armed actors.⁷
• Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly defended arming anti-Hamas Palestinian clans, including what reporters called Abu Shabab’s group, as a way to reduce Israeli casualties.⁸
• Some armed groups allegedly received radios, communications gear and protection for movements in areas where the IDF still held dominance.

📍However, the Israeli government has formally denied systematic support for mercenary forces, and no publicly confirmed official record has emerged of large arms shipments under state sanction. The real relationship is opaque and likely clandestine.
The USAID Internal Report: Casting Doubt on the “Hamas stole all the aid” Narrative
In July 2025, Reuters published findings of an internal U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) analysis. In 156 reported incidents of lost or stolen U.S.-funded aid supplies (between October 2023 and May 2025), “no reports alleging Hamas benefited”were found (Reuters).⁹ The report noted that at least 44 of those incidents were “either directly or indirectly” caused by Israeli military operations, and the majority could not be reliably attributed to any actor (Reuters).¹⁰
This matters greatly: the claim that “Hamas steals all the aid” has been one of the key justifications used to legitimize militarized aid channels and proxy groups. The USAID study complicates the narrative by emphasizing that some diversion may stem from armed predators in the aid chain itself or from conflict conditions induced by Israeli actions.
 
Wartime Role: Aid Theft, Fighting Hamas, Price Graft & Torture
Controlling Aid Routes & Checkpoints
Abu Shabab’s men and allied clan militias occupied key junctions and border-adjacent corridors, demanding “security fees” or authority to examine and reroute convoys. Their presence at crossings and along main supply lines allowed them to intercept, delay or siphon shipments. Humanitarian organizations repeatedly warned that the mere presence of armed actors near aid routes increases the risk of diversion.
 
Looting & Diversion of Aid
Multiple reports (including from U.N. and NGOs) document cases in which trucks were looted, supplies were taken to local warehouses, and food and medicine redistributed via armed intermediaries. Some trucks never reached their intended recipients. Investigative journalists have tied certain high-volume thefts to powerful clans allied with Abu Shabab. The United Nations has described some of these acts as “systematic looting.”¹¹
Fighting Hamas & Rival Clashes
These militias did not merely opportunistically loot. In contested zones they clashed with Hamas fighters, arrested suspected Hamas operatives, and attempted to carve out zones of influence. In certain sectors where Israel withdrew or held partial control, local militias acted as auxiliary security forces. The internal split led to violent confrontations: for example, after the ceasefire Hamas forces killed 32 members of a “gang” in Gaza City in a crackdown on armed groups seen as destabilizing rivals (Reuters).¹² Hamas claimed the gang was not part of Abu Shabab’s network, but such operations reflect the internal power struggle.¹³
Extortion, Price Inflation & Black Market Control
By controlling chokepoints of fuel, food and medicine, armed groups could impose steep markups and gatekeeping fees — further impoverishing an already desperate population. The smaller the supply, the higher the desperation, and the greater the leverage of whoever controlled the channel.
Torture, Detention, Killings
Credible local testimonies and humanitarian sources accuse Abu Shabab’s forces and allied groups of arbitrary arrests, beatings and torture — especially of those suspected of collaborating with Hamas or resisting their rule. In contested neighborhoods, locals speak of night raids, secret detention sites, and interrogations overseen by militias.¹⁴
Perhaps more damning is the fact that when Hamas regained contested areas, it too carried out public executions and reprisals against alleged collaborators (among them members of these militias). But that does not exonerate the militia abuses; rather, it reveals how brutal and personalized this war became inside Gaza.
 
Weapons & Firepower
These militias relied mostly on small arms and light weapons:
• Assault rifles (AK derivatives, automatic rifles)
• Machine guns and PK-type general-purpose machine guns

📍 RPGs and anti-tank launchers mounted on pickup trucks (“technical” style)
• Light mortars and grenade launchers
• Communications gear, radios, and improvised armor in some cases
They generally did not field large-scale artillery or heavy armored vehicles like tanks, which remain in the domain of state militaries. Still, their arsenal was enough to contest control of neighborhoods and hold checkpoints against diminished or dispersed Hamas cadres.
There are multiple allegations of Israeli tolerance — and even indirect supply — of heavier gear to these groups. But definitive, publicly verified records of direct Israeli arms provision are sparse. The ambiguity is part of the strategy.
 
Post-Ceasefire Prospects: Integration, Expulsion, or Extermination?
Hamas Retribution and Reassertion
From the very first hours of the ceasefire, Hamas security forces launched operations to kill or neutralize rival militias. Authorities report killing 32 members of a “gang” in Gaza City as part of their push to reestablish order (Reuters).¹² The regime is showing it intends to forcibly eliminate those it considers traitors or spoilers.¹³
Hamas has also reportedly targeted senior associates of Abu Shabab: one senior aide was “liquidated” during the post-ceasefire campaign, and the hunt for Abu Shabab continues (Reuters).¹²
Integration or Controlled Disarmament
Some militia members may seek or be offered integration into reconstituted security forces — police roles, local enforcement jobs or shadowing Hamas structures — but this depends heavily on political bargains, accountability mechanisms, and the balance of power. Some lower-level fighters might be offered leniency in exchange for disarmament.
Flight, Refuge or Asylum
One open question is whether Abu Shabab and his forces will be allowed to flee into Israel or to Israeli-controlled zones. Some collaborated elements may try to seek refuge, bargaining their utility to Israeli intelligence or military planners. But granting them sanctuary is politically toxic. Local reporting suggests some factions have already retreated eastward alongside withdrawing Israeli forces.¹⁵
It is unlikely – though not impossible – that the militias will remain intact and unassailable inside Gaza. Their staying power depends on external backing, local alliances, and Israel’s continued tolerance.
The Danger of Frozen Militias
If neither full purge nor integration takes place, these militias might ossify into perpetual spoilers — controlling black markets, imposing predatory taxes and undermining institutions. A fragile reconstruction process under such shadow power brokers would struggle to build legitimacy or stable governance.
 
Conclusion

In the rubble and terror of Gaza’s war, Abu Shabab and his network of mercenaries stand as a dark mirror: not merely as opponents of Hamas, but as scavengers of chaos. They fought, looted, tortured, and graded their profits on the suffering of civilians. The alliances that tolerated and perhaps enabled them — whether local, regional or even Israeli — will bear a heavy historical burden.
The post-ceasefire period is a dangerous turning point. If Hamas fails to decisively dismantle these militias, or if Israel continues to shield them, the next Gaza may not be one rebuilt from scratch but one ruled by a new class of warlords. In a land already emptied of stability, the shadows may outlast the ceasefire.
 

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴What Happened After the Truce?

Following the partial truce agreement in 2023, the UAE began relocating some mercenaries to camps in Eritrea and along the African coast.
Others remained in Yemen, especially in oil-rich coastal areas.
Today, reports suggest the UAE is preparing to use them to protect future projects in Bab al-Mandeb and Socotra Island.

“Abu Dhabi doesn’t intend to abandon its mercenaries, but is repurposing them for long-term security and commercial missions.”
— Middle East Eye, 2024

Meanwhile, the fate of hundreds of African mercenaries used as “war fuel” remains unknown—they haven’t returned to their countries nor received their dues.

Conclusion

The war in Yemen wasn’t just a political or sectarian conflict—it became a profitable business.

While Yemenis starved, mercenary firms made profits, and sponsoring states built influence on the blood of innocents.
The war turned into an open market for paid killing, run by nations that buy blood and sell slogans.

“Mercenaries in Yemen are not just tools of war, but a mirror of how far the world has sunk when armies are rented to kill the poor.”

— Le Monde Diplomatique, 2023

Erik Prince’s residency visa for the UAE, showing that he was, at the time, employed by Assurance Management Consultancy. Some personal information has been redacted for privacy.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

#Iran

🔰 America is a major partner in the Gaza war… and you are the terrorists

📍 The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution this morning in his meeting with the heroes who won medals and winners in international scientific Olympiads

🔢 Trump’s visit to occupied Palestine:
👌 He tried with some empty words and comical actions to raise the morale of the desperate Zionists, but they are already desperate. The 12-day war dealt them a slap they did not expect.
✌️ His going was only to try to raise their morale, and his words were directed at desperate officials.

🔢 America and its partnership in the war on Gaza:
👌 He himself admitted: “We worked together in Gaza.” Their resources and capabilities were put in service of the Zionist entity to drop them on the heads of the defenseless people of Gaza.
✌️ They say they are fighting terrorism, but more than 20,000 children, infants, and newborns were martyred. These were not terrorists.
🫶 You are the ones who produced ISIS and kept it to use later. Real terrorism is America itself.

🔢 Assassinations and nuclear bombing:
👌 They boast about assassinating Iranian scientists like Tehranchī and Abbasi, but their knowledge cannot be assassinated.
👋 They claim to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear industry, but this is just an illusion.
✌ Their interventions in Iran’s nuclear industry are rejected, wrong, tyrannical and unjust.

🔢 Deal or coercion?
👌 Trump says he is a supporter of the Iranian people and wants to negotiate, but he is lying. American sanctions against the Iranian people are not support, but clear hostility.
✌️ Any deal imposed by force is not a deal, but coercion. The Iranian people will not submit to dictates and will not be subjected to the will of others.

🔢 Message to the United States:
👌 If you are really capable, go and calm the streets in your country, where millions came out chanting against Trump, and return them to their homes.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Ashes of Arrogance: Israel Revives the History of Desecrating Corpses by Burning Yahya al-Sinwar’s Body

🗂When reports surfaced suggesting that Israel was considering burning the body of Yahya al-Sinwar — the Hamas leader it claims to have killed — the human conscience was shaken before the political sphere even reacted. The idea is not only a blatant religious violation but also an act of deliberate humiliation — an attempt to degrade the enemy even after death.

💳In Islam, burning the body is not merely a religious crime; it is an effort to erase dignity, identity, and faith all at once.

📄Today, Israel repeats these same practices as it continues to withhold al-Sinwar’s body, refusing to release it even during the most recent prisoner exchange negotiations, as reported by Al Jazeera and The Guardian (2025). Israeli officials have hinted at the possibility of burning his remains to prevent the establishment of a “symbolic shrine,” revealing a deep-seated impulse to humiliate the Other through his dead body.

⚪️A Historical Precedent in Corpse Desecration

👌Islamic and modern history alike provide many examples of authorities attempting to erase symbols of opposition by defiling their remains.

👋In the 8th century, Zayd ibn Ali — the grandson of Imam Husayn — faced a similar fate after his revolt against the Umayyad regime. Yusuf ibn Umar al-Thaqafi, then governor of Iraq, ordered his exhumed body to be crucified for four years. Under Caliph Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, historical accounts indicate that Zayd’s corpse was burned and his ashes scattered in the Euphrates River, all to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine symbolizing resistance and steadfastness.

👌What Israel is doing today is nothing more than the repetition of tyrants’ tactics throughout history — those who believed they could erase memory by burning bodies. Just as the Umayyads failed to erase Zayd ibn Ali’s legacy, Israel will fail to erase the symbolic power of Yahya al-Sinwar, who has become a lasting emblem of Palestinian resistance even in death.

⚪️Modern Examples

🤔This act recalls numerous cases in modern history where regimes sought to obliterate traces of their opponents, fearing that their graves might become symbols of defiance and endurance:
🌕 In Bolivia, the army, under CIA direction, secretly buried the body of Ernesto “Che” Guevara near an airstrip alongside his executed comrades.
🌕 In Chile, after the military coup, the authorities threw the corpses of dissidents from aircraft or buried them in remote locations to conceal their fate.
🌕 In Iraq during the Ba‘ath regime, the government used even more brutal methods, such as dissolving opponents in acid or burying them in secret mass graves.
Notable examples include:
🌕 Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, the great Shi‘a scholar, who was buried secretly in Najaf. The body of his sister Amina al-Sadr (Bint al-Huda), executed alongside him, was never found.
• Muhammad Hadi al-Sabiti, a prominent leader of the Islamic Da‘wa Party, who was kidnapped in Beirut; reports indicate Saddam Hussein’s regime dissolved his body in acid to conceal all traces.
🌕 Abd al-Karim Qasim, the Iraqi leader whose remains were never recovered after his execution was broadcast on state television.
🌕 In more recent times, the United States adopted a similar method in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered the body of Osama bin Laden to be dumped at sea, claiming it was done “in accordance with Islamic traditions.”
In truth, Islam neither throws bodies into the sea nor erases their traces. It mandates burial with dignity — even for enemies. Whether Obama intended to conceal the truth or humiliate the Muslim world, the message was the same: some bodies are deemed unworthy of burial, and some faiths are not respected.

⚪️The Symbolic Case of Yahya al-Sinwar

✌After his death, the Israeli army reportedly severed al-Sinwar’s index finger under the pretext of conducting DNA tests to verify his identity — despite hair or nail samples being sufficient.