Hala Jaber
10 Oct 2025 , 11:11 am .
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, on July 7, in London (Photo: Getty Images)
Conceptual illustration: Gaza's future redesigned under foreign control, echoes of the colonial partition of a century ago.
One hundred years ago, Western powers established borders in West Asia with rulers and mandates, and they divided up the land while marginalizing the people who lived there. In 1993, Yasser Arafat stood on the White House lawn, shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin, and the world applauded as the leaders spoke in grandiloquent language, promising a Palestinian state.
Thirty years later, Arafat is dead, Rabin was assassinated, and there is no Palestinian state, while its people face dispossession, a blockade, and a catastrophic war. But once again, Washington presents a new "peace plan." Donald Trump hailed its launch as "one of the greatest days in civilization" and even boasted of bringing "eternal peace to the Middle East." The rhetoric is theatrical; the reality is coercive.
Trump and Netanyahu at the White House unveiling the Gaza "peace plan." Trump called it "one of the greatest days of civilization."
And the irony is profound. The same England that issued the Balfour Declaration, which led to 75 years of Palestinian dispossession, is now sending one of its sons, Tony Blair, to "save" Gaza. From the country that helped create the problem comes the man tasked with recolonizing it.
Trump 's " general plan " : promises for headlines
The White House produced a 20-point "Comprehensive Plan to End the Conflict in Gaza." Its key elements are stark and dramatic:
An immediate ceasefire if accepted by both parties; Israel withdraws to the agreed lines and suspends bombing.
A hostage/prisoner exchange: Within 72 hours, all hostages—living and deceased—will be returned; Israel will release 250 prisoners serving life sentences and approximately 1,700 Gazans detained since October 7, 2023. For each Israeli body returned, Israel will hand over the remains of 15 Gazans.
Hamas fighters who disarm and commit to "peaceful coexistence" will be granted amnesty; those who decide to leave Gaza will be offered safe passage and exile.
Immediate humanitarian assistance flows: restoration of power, water, hospitals, bakeries; debris removal; and logistics for reconstruction, distributed through the United Nations and the Red Crescent.
Governance: Gaza will be temporarily administered by a Palestinian technocratic committee overseen by an international "peace board"—announced as being chaired by Donald Trump, with Tony Blair included. The committee will oversee reconstruction and redevelopment until the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) "completes reforms" and is deemed fit to resume control.
Economy: Gaza reimagined as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), with preferential tariffs, investment incentives, and an international panel of experts to rebuild the Strip as a "miracle city" in a donor-led effort.
Security: Gaza will be demilitarized under international supervision. Israel will retain an undefined security perimeter and control over certain crossings, including the Philadelphia Corridor along the Egyptian border.
On the surface, the plan promises rapid relief and a mechanism for hostage release. But the mechanics and context reveal something else: a blueprint for an administered Gaza that lacks Palestinian consent, safeguards, or a credible path to sovereignty.
"Incomplete" without Hamas and presented under threat
The plan is empty without Hamas's acquiescence. But the political choreography is descriptive: the document appears to have been circulated among Israel, donor states, and regional capitals, then publicly revealed by the White House, complete with a threatening ultimatum.
During the press conference, Trump stated in simple terms:
"If Hamas doesn't accept, Israel has my full support to finish the job of destroying the Hamas threat. Bibi, you'll have our full support to do whatever you need to do."
That statement isn't mere rhetoric; it's explicit US support for an open end to Israeli military action. And, crucially, only after Trump's public unveiling, after the plan had been presented as accepted by Israel and the Arab states, did the Qatari and Egyptian mediators deliver the text to Hamas. The movement's delegation said it would "responsibly study the proposal," but the sequence is unmistakable: Hamas was given the agreement after it had become a public fait accompli and under the shadow of a televised ultimatum.
This is coercion disguised as diplomacy. The plan's viability depends on Palestinian acceptance; the reality was that the agreement was presented to the Palestinians only after a public deadline and the implicit threat of annihilation.
Amnesty, exile, and the bureaucratic path to dispossession
Two of the most morally difficult elements are the amnesty and exile clauses. The plan offers amnesty to Hamas fighters if they renounce violence and, alternatively, safe passage out of Gaza. Asking militants to accept exile is asking people to abandon their homeland. It is a policy framed as mercy but functionally resembling another iteration of ethnic cleansing: removing the backbone of Palestinian armed resistance, incentivizing departure, and rewarding those who remain with foreign-managed reconstruction.
Meanwhile, the logic of "voluntary departure," already present in Blair's draft plan, risks bureaucratizing displacement. Departures could be disguised with paperwork and records, but certificates do not replace homes, nor can administrative safeguards be substituted for the right of return.
The West Bank is absent; the State is a vague promise
Note what the plan doesn't do. It is closely tied to Gaza. It makes no serious mention of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the settlements, or the fundamental questions surrounding the occupation. White House language vaguely hints at a future "credible path" to Palestinian self-determination if Gaza's redevelopment moves forward and the PA completes its reforms, but there is no timeline, no binding mechanisms, and no mention of the pre-1967 borders. Statehood is left aspirational and conditional, contingent on foreign approval rather than Palestinian self-determination.
No timelines, no guarantees, and the inevitable humiliation
Perhaps the most damning aspect is what the plan deliberately leaves undefined. There is no timeline for the transition in Gaza. There is no scale for what "reconstruction" means, no guarantee that Israel will not continue its killings and attacks under the guise of security.
The Palestinian Authority is not just being displaced, but humiliated. Both Netanyahu and Trump spoke of a future handover to the PA only if it "meets the conditions" set by others. These conditions were not explained, but the logic is clear: the Palestinians can only govern themselves if Israel and the United States certify that they are fit.
The proposal reads like an ultimatum from a father to his son: behave yourself and perhaps we'll grant you privileges. But these aren't privileges; they're the foundations of life: security, home, citizenship, the future of a people. Demanding submission from people whose land has been destroyed and then declaring that you'll "allow" them self-government only under inspection is a profound moral inversion. Bombing victims are being told to be patient, obedient, and grateful, or else they'll see.
An action plan for permanent occupation
Viewed as a whole, the plan reads like a roadmap for a light permanent occupancy arrangement:
Gaza's governance outsourced to technocrats under an external junta.
Israel retains a permanent security perimeter—the Philadelphia Corridor and other compression zones—and veto power over any rearmament.
Reconstruction is donor-driven and investor-led, a decision that embeds foreign economic control.
The PA is promised eventual handover, but only after reforms that may never be credibly verified, leaving Gaza in an indefinite transitional limbo.
That limbo is the strategic objective: to relieve Israel of day-to-day governance while maintaining its security goals intact, and to relieve Arab and Gulf capitals of the domestic burden of the Palestinian issue so they can proceed with normalization on their own terms.
What is absent
Note what is not there:
There is no Palestinian State.
There is no two-state solution.
There is no mention of the 1967 borders.
No role for East Jerusalem or the West Bank.
There is no guarantee that Israel will stop its killings or attacks once the hostages are released.
Instead, Netanyahu even demanded that the Palestinians stop "media incitement" and end "lawfare" at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. In other words: zero criticism, zero accountability under international law.
The big picture
The Trump-Blair plan solves Israel's problem, not Palestine's. Israel doesn't want to rule Gaza directly, but it doesn't want Hamas or the Palestinian Authority to rule it either. This plan installs an externally directed authority to administer Gaza while Israel maintains the military and political advantage.
It is a foreign administration masked as a transition.
Europe relegated
The recent European recognition of Palestine by Spain, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and others was hailed as a breakthrough. But the Trump plan renders all those gestures null and void. It wipes sovereignty off the table entirely. Trump himself mocked the act of recognition as ridiculous, underscoring how little weight Washington and Tel Aviv attach to it. The timing is no accident; this launch also sends a message to Europe: its statements mean nothing in the face of the US-Israeli conflict.
The Gulf's reward : normalization by omission
This political product has beneficiaries beyond Washington and Jerusalem. By outsourcing Gaza to a transitional authority, the Gulf states and other Arab capitals are relieved of the political and popular pressure of the Palestinian issue. Normalization with Israel was paused by the war; the Blair-Trump construct clears the way for Arab states to complete that process while the fate of Gaza is being managed by foreigners. In short, the plan is one of regional convenience, a way to resolve the "Palestinian headache" and resume economic and diplomatic ties with Israel.
When leaders of countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Egypt, and others sign a statement endorsing the framework, they implicitly hand Gaza over to Israel and its international administrators on a platter. This is neither altruism nor a strategy for Palestinian well-being; it's a geopolitical sacrifice. Another silent victory for Israel.
International actors, Erdogan and the strange chorus of consensus
The public rollout of the plan features a chorus of support: Western donors, Arab capitals, and even unexpected voices praising the initiative. A joint statement by the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt explicitly welcomed Trump's proposal, expressing "confidence in his ability to find a path to peace," and vowed to work with Washington to finalize and implement it. The statement reaffirmed their willingness to support "a comprehensive agreement that ends the war, prevents the displacement of Palestinians, rebuilds Gaza, and paves the way for a just peace."
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also joined in, praising Trump's "efforts and leadership" aimed at "stopping the bloodshed in Gaza and achieving a ceasefire," and pledging Turkey's contribution to a "just, lasting, and mutually acceptable peace."
But this public display of consensus barely addresses a moral truth: the negotiation over Gaza's future proceeded largely without the participation of the Palestinians whose lives will be shaped. Presenting a plan to Hamas and other factions only after it has been internationally agreed upon isn't diplomacy; it's coercion disguised as consensus.
Palestinian voices reject custody
Palestinian leaders and activists have been categorical. Husam Badran, a member of Hamas's political bureau, framed the proposal as a denial of Palestinian agency:
"The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, as recognized in international law. We are not minors in need of guardianship. Decisions about Gaza or the West Bank are internal Palestinian matters that should be resolved by national consensus, not imposed by foreign powers. Any plan linked to Blair is a bad omen."
This rejection matters. You can't build lasting peace by ignoring the people whose lives are being governed by the arrangement. International actors can produce all the road maps and hold all the press conferences; legitimacy won't come automatically.
Rejection of the other factions in Gaza
It's not only Hamas that views the proposal as illegitimate. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the second-largest armed faction in Gaza and a key ally in the current war, issued a categorical rejection. PIJ described the Trump plan as "a political cover for the continuation of the war of extermination against our people," designed to liquidate the Palestinian cause under the guise of reconstruction and security.
The statement was blunt: no Palestinian faction, they said, has the right to renounce resistance in writing or surrender its national rights. This rejection underscores a central reality: even if Hamas is coerced into considering the plan, its implementation is virtually impossible when the other major forces in Gaza label it illegitimate. Indeed, Trump's roadmap rests not only on Palestinian acquiescence but on the silencing of every form of armed resistance organization.
Lawfare, media control and the erasure of responsibility
At the press conference, Netanyahu conveyed another objective: reducing criticism and legal liability. He spoke of "stopping media incitement" and "ending lawfare against Israel at the ICC and the ICJ." These are not minor footnotes. They are an attempt to criminalize dissent and shield actions from international scrutiny. In practice, they amount to demands for absolute impunity: Palestinians must accept a managed future while losing the ability to correct, or even criticize.
Trump limited his appreciation of Netanyahu with a line intended as flattery: "This will be the crowning achievement." The rhetorical flourish obscures the price: Palestinian sovereignty, accountability, and dignity.
Conclusion: A Century of Repackaged Control
This framework is more of a rebranding of control than a peace plan. It borrows from the language of "transition," "stabilization," and "reform" while reintroducing the colonial logic of foreign mandate. The historical echo is damning: the same capitals that promised a Palestinian state three decades ago now present a deal that replaces sovereignty with fiduciary control, rights with registration, and justice through investment.
The irony is stark. The Balfour Declaration, dictated by London a century ago, led Palestine down the path of dispossession. Today, another Briton, Tony Blair, returns under the banner of the savior with the task of "managing" Gaza. Colonialism hasn't gone away; it's been repackaged. From the country that created the catastrophe comes a man proposing to preside over its continuation.
If the people of Gaza are to survive and rebuild with agency and dignity, any agreement must be based on genuine Palestinian consensus, meaningful timelines toward sovereignty, and guarantees that legal and political responsibilities will remain intact. Anything less is not a peace agreement; it is a managed occupation, a colonial consortium disguised in the language of technocracy and humanitarianism.
And at its core is humiliation: Palestinians reduced to children before the eyes of their occupiers, told to "behave" before being allowed the most basic right of all: to decide their own future.
Hala Jaber is a prominent Anglo-Lebanese journalist who has covered and specialized in reporting on conflicts in West Asia, has received numerous awards, is the author of several books, and has contributed to various media outlets for over two decades.
Originally published in English on September 30th on its Substack page, the translation for Misión Verdad was done by Diego Sequera.
https://misionverdad.com/traducciones/e ... -no-la-paz
Google Translator
******
Trump’s “Peace Deal” Mirage: Distraction As Escalation in Zionist War on Gaza & Region Continues
Posted by Internationalist 360° on October 10, 2025
Vanessa Beeley and Fiorella Isabel
A critical analysis of how theatrical diplomacy, manipulated narratives, and global complicity are paving the way for a wider regional conflict, while the genocide in Gaza continues unabated.
The Cyclical Distraction In Alternative Media
Vanessa and I dive into another episode of Critical Perspectives laying out the many failures and trends distracting current mainstream alternative media and the entire social media landscape, which is saturated with distracting narratives and the management of these for purposes that mostly benefit a global elite.
The multitude of theories on how Charlie Kirk died whether Israel, U.S. intel or establishment narrative has provided endless tweets, podcasts, and money streams for many influencers and media figures seeking content or taking cues from the endless social media posts discussing this. Clearly this has been the perfect distraction and noise to deliberately divert public attention from the very vital and real war we are all facing, as well as the ongoing, brutal genocide in Gaza which has entered its second shameful year.
This cycle of distraction prevents people from seeing the reality on the ground and the ominous signs of impending escalation, such as Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran and coming escalations in Iraq. The focus on these theatrical displays, including a supposed rift between Trump and Netanyahu (yet again), serves to obscure the fundamental and unwavering complicity of the United States and other world powers in the Zionist project, aiming to paint Trump as a victim and Washington as simply captured rather than entirely in-cahoots with the Final Solution.
The Trump “Peace Plan” as a Psychological Operation
We deconstruct the much-hyped Trump administration “peace plan,” as deeply skeptical, viewing it not as a genuine effort for peace but as a sophisticated form of psychological warfare and public relations. Its primary purposes are seen as pacifying growing global disdain for Israel, creating false hope to make activists take their “foot off the accelerator,” and providing plausible deniability for the U.S., again by portraying it as a victim of Israel rather than a complicit partner—indicating this is reformable via electoralism or a hero to save America.
The plan’s demand for Hamas to disarm is viewed as an insidious trap, designed to weaken the Palestinian resistance ahead of a more devastating attack, drawing parallels to Trump’s past tactics of luring adversaries like General Soleimani into false negotiations. Hamas and the Resistance appear to be well-aware of this attempt and much of the media have reported incorrect information painting Hamas and resistance factions as weak or speaking for them instead of looking at more regional and reliable sources.
We touch on Russia and China’s pragmatic approach more so driven by their own economic and strategic interests., rather than the ideological desires of defeating western hegemony placed on them by many analysts and activists, looking for the two powerful states to save the world from the evil Western axis. Evidence cited includes Putin’s praise for Trump’s peace plan, Russia’s and China’s continued trade and diplomatic relations with Israel, their recognition of the Saudi-backed puppet government in Yemen over the Ansarullah-led Resistance, and Russia’s red-carpet treatment of Takfiri leaders in Syria. The conclusion is that no powerful state is acting on a moral imperative to stop the genocide, shattering the illusion that external “saviors” will intervene.
The Looming Threat of a Wider, More Lethal War
Alarming indicators suggest the current “peace talk” charade is a prelude to a significant escalation. Netanyahu’s confident and hubristic demeanor in interviews, combined with his specific warnings about Iranian threats to U.S. cities, can be interpreted as a potential setup for a false flag operation. Furthermore, the reality is the very terrifying prospect that Israel, backed by its historical development of chemical and biological weapons, may be preparing to escalate beyond conventional warfare. The sudden withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Syria can be seen as a worrying sign that the battlefield is being cleared for a potentially more devastating, multi-front conflict that could involve the use of banned weapons; as Washington has notoriously only cleared one conflict to put it in another theater.
Ultimately, we are advocating for a sober, realistic understanding of global politics, urging listeners to abandon the “hopium” of looking for heroic states or politicians to solve the crisis, a tendency they attribute to a Western mindset of seeking saviors. The Palestinian and regional resistance forces themselves hold a pragmatic view of powers like Russia and China, engaging with them out of necessity and diplomacy but not relying on them, understanding their role and accepting it. The ultimate message is one of self-reliance: liberation will not come from any government but from the sustained, on-the-ground resistance of the Palestinian people, their supporters who understand the true nature of the conflict, free from the distortions of theatrical diplomacy and narrative management, and the people as a whole collective.
The Trump “peace” trap, Syria’s sham elections and Netanyahu’s war against the region
Vanessa Beeley
My three reports for UK Column News on Wednesday 8th October. I dig deep into the sordid reality of the Trump (Nobel) Peace trap and unpack the so called “democratic” elections in Syria, brought to you by Tony Blair and the Zionist bloc. Finally I look at the recent sycophantic conversation between Ben Shapiro and Netanyahu – the potential for false flags and the expansion of a regional war by the Zionist entity.
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/10/ ... continues/
******
Trump’s plan, Blair’s hand
Lorenzo Maria Pacini
October 12, 2025
The plan once again highlighted the usual hypocrisy and colonial mentality of Washington, London, and, more generally, the West.
Those who don’t die will meet again
There is an old saying that goes, “Those who don’t die will meet again,” which somehow fits politicians perfectly, because sooner or later, they all reappear on the political scene.
In fact, shortly after the announcement of the formal recognition of Palestine as a state, the United Kingdom sent former Prime Minister Tony Blair with the task of hindering the Palestinian self-determination process, in accordance with the so-called “Peace Agreement” of then-US President Donald Trump. A truly masterful move.
This decision once again highlighted the usual hypocrisy and colonial mentality of Washington, London, and, more generally, the West.
Who remembers Tony Blair?
It is worth giving a brief summary, because his presence is by no means a random choice.
The Middle East knows Blair well, especially for his infamous conduct during the 2003 Iraq War, alongside then-US President George W. Bush, leader of the so-called “war on terror.” On the strength of false accusations about weapons of mass destruction, Blair dragged Britain into a conflict that caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, earning himself a well-deserved reputation as a war criminal. Nothing new, you might say, since the United Kingdom has been an imperialist entity for a long time.
This confirms that Blair is the last person who should appear in an organization called the “Peace Council.”
While Bush retired to a quiet life painting dogs and portraits of Vladimir Putin, Blair continued to make himself indispensable in the Middle East—and to reap considerable profits from it. After resigning as prime minister in 2007, he was appointed special envoy of the international “Quartet” – composed of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – officially committed to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. A coincidence? No, not at all: the choice of an emissary with close ties to Israel made any progress towards genuine peace impossible, which shows us how much it was in the interests of the Western powers to maintain a certain tension in the region. At the same time, Blair’s diplomatic activities were intertwined with a network of extremely lucrative business deals in the region: consulting for Arab governments and private assignments, such as the one he took on in 2008 as senior advisor to the American investment bank JP Morgan, which paid him over $1 million a year.
No philanthropy, no spirit of humanitarian aid. When Blair attended meetings in the Middle East, no one knew which Tony Blair they were dealing with: the Quartet envoy, the founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, or the head of the consulting firm Tony Blair Associates.
On the other hand, the beauty of conflicts of interest is that they always pay off well.
For example, in 2009, he obtained radio frequencies from Israel to create a mobile phone network in the West Bank, in exchange for a commitment from the Palestinian leadership not to bring accusations of Israeli war crimes to the UN for Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in December 2008, during which approximately 1,400 Palestinians were killed in 22 days. Blair had private economic interests linked to that agreement: both Wataniya and JP Morgan had a lot to gain from the opening of the telecommunications market in the West Bank.
It is therefore easy to imagine that Blair will also have a certain interest in Trump’s plan for Palestine, perhaps with his Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, committed to “changing the world,” perhaps by helping Israel and the United States build the infamous 5-star resort that businessman Donald Trump has long dreamed of, as if capitalism and the tyranny of foreign investors could suffice for the Palestinians in place of freedom and security.
It therefore seems that the West’s “brilliant idea” (sic!) is once again to entrust the fate of Gaza to international war criminals. Not bad, right?
Today, Blair appears not simply as an “advisor,” but as an official charged with protecting the joint interests of Israel and the West in Gaza and managing the post-war transition phase.
Tony Blair’s experience in Iraq is a clear sign of his unreliability on the Palestinian question.
During the US invasion in 2003, thousands of civilians were killed and entire cities were destroyed. Blair, who convinced President Bush to wage that war, admitted years later that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the military campaign had been based on falsified intelligence reports.
Despite these admissions, no international court has ever tried him for the serious violations of international law he committed.
Today, paradoxically, the same person is being proposed as a key figure in the “reconstruction” of Gaza, based on a supposed peace plan that in fact only protects Israeli interests.
Who stands to gain the most?
Blair has openly expressed his support for a plan that aims to transform Gaza into a kind of “Riviera” and a regional commercial center, modeled on the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv. And this is a first clear sign of how much the agreement could benefit Westerners. America, in the midst of a terrible economic crisis, stands to gain, as does the British crown, in the midst of a political and ethnic crisis. Israel obviously stands to gain, as it will only have to worry about changing its prime minister, perhaps passing the baton to someone less compromised. But the game remains the same, and no one really cares about the will of the Palestinians.
The American plan aims to open Gaza to Western investors. We already know how these “peace projects” dedicated to free capital end up. And capital does not care about the opinions and rights of the Palestinians.
Trump deliberately ignored Israeli attacks on Hamas negotiators in Doha, while denying Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a visa to attend the United Nations ceremony. This move was directed not so much against Abbas’s leadership, which is already unrepresentative of Gaza, as against the entire Palestinian people. Ask in Palestine what they think of Abbas and the answer you hear will be explanatory enough. And ask yourself what Abbas has done in the two years since that famous October 7, 2023.
Trump effectively deprived the Palestinians of the right to decide their own destiny, and immediately afterwards announced a so-called peace plan that completely excluded them. The dispatch of Tony Blair appears to be a further sign of this ruthless hypocrisy.
His responsibility for the massacres in Iraq and his self-definition as an “evangelical Jew” reinforce the idea that his actual role is to minimize Palestinian autonomy and ensure the implementation of US and Israeli policy.
Blair could be the one to bring peace to the eastern part of the country, or rather to the anti-Russian forces operating within it.
Blair’s Institute had already received substantial funding in previous years from Moshe Kantor, a multi-billionaire industrial entrepreneur and the largest shareholder in the fertilizer company Acron.
Blair’s previous relationship with the oligarch had also earned him a prestigious position on the European Council for Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), founded by Kantor, who appointed the former Labour leader as its president in 2015. The ECTR was one of the main financial backers of the Tony Blair Institute, but the collaboration ended in April after Kantor was added to the UK sanctions list along with seven other oligarchs.
Originally from Moscow, Kantor now has British citizenship. In recent years, he has organized several meetings with the Russian president in his capacity as president of the European Jewish Congress. The Russian tycoon has long built strong relationships with politicians and prominent figures in the British establishment, including members of the royal family.
Tony’s wife, Charlie Blair, has not been idle either. In 2024, she represented Ukrainian billionaire Mikhail Fridman in court in a lawsuit against the state’s decision to freeze his assets following the SMO in 2022. The 60-year-old—pictured with Blair in 2003 during the signing of an agreement with BP—accuses Luxembourg of participating in a kind of “arbitrary witch hunt” against wealthy Russian businessmen with investments in the EU, masking it as the application of economic sanctions. Fridman also claims that this conduct violated an agreement between Luxembourg and the former Soviet Union aimed at protecting investors from the risk of expropriation or nationalization of their assets. But that is not the point.
Lady Blair, a lawyer since 1976, and her law firm Omnia Strategy are among the lawyers appointed to represent Fridman, who fled Israel after October 7, 2023, and took refuge in Moscow, where he continues to do business with London. It is curious that Fridman condemned the Special Operation in Ukraine and declared that he would transfer $10 million to Ukrainian refugees through a personal charity fund. His investment company, LetterOne, announced in March 2022 that it would donate $150 million to the “victims of the war in Ukraine,” but these generous gestures did not save the billionaire from EU and UK sanctions. Meanwhile, he continues to do business with… good old Tony (and who knows how many others in the network of fake supporters of Russia, who are actually Western agents). What is certain is that Blair brings the Zionist bloc together, in the West as in the East.
Trump’s plan will bring large investments to Gaza, which will benefit all Western players (Trump himself, let’s not forget, is a....
Blair’s governorship would allow the UK to maintain its dominance, as well as Israel to reprogram its activity of total conquest and realization of the Greater Israel project.
All this seasoned with international “blessings.”
Meanwhile, the Arab states—pushed to accept the idea that “an unjust peace is better than war”—are moving within the limits imposed by this strategy to end the tragedy in Gaza.
Over a century ago, in 1917, British Minister Arthur Balfour signed the Declaration promising “a national home for the Jewish people,” laying the foundation for the birth of Israel. Today, the United States and Israel seem to be proposing a new “Balfour moment.”
https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... airs-hand/
NEW: Reuters confirms all 1,966 Palestinian captives and forcibly disappeared from Gaza set for release have boarded buses at Israeli prisons.
Forcibly disappeared journalist Nidal al-Wahidi is alive, according to freed Palestinian hostage and journalist Shadi Abu Sido. During his captivity, Abu Sido learned from other hostages that Nidal’s name was heard during interrogations at an Ashkelon interrogation center,… pic.twitter.com/3TIjYkBYwd
“All of them need to be freed, so their suffering stops!” said freed Palestinian photojournalist Shadi Abu Sido, describing the unimaginable torment he and others endured inside Israeli occupation prisons.
