American News
360 Views of Trump’s Peace Plan
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : President Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan is simple in intention but complex in execution. It envisions a staged ceasefire tied to the release of all hostages, a phased Israeli withdrawal linked to verifiable benchmarks, the deployment of an international stabilization force, and governance reforms that transition Gaza toward a reconstituted Palestinian authority supported by technocrats. It concludes with a pathway—deliberately flexible in language—toward Palestinian self-determination and eventual statehood. For Hamas, the red lines are disarmament and exclusion from governance; for Israel, they are credible security guarantees and an avoidance of steps that appear to reward an armed adversary. Between these lines lies a narrow diplomatic corridor where progress must move swiftly or collapse under mistrust.
Hamas’s reaction is a tactical acceptance laced with strategic reservations. Its negotiators abroad signal readiness for a full hostage exchange and a willingness to cede administrative control to an interim Palestinian body, but they resist unconditional disarmament and permanent exclusion from politics. Inside Gaza, command structures are fractured; senior military cadres are depleted; field units operate semi-independently. Leaders willing to compromise must still gauge whether they can enforce any agreement among fighters radicalized by devastation and grief. Hence, the idea of surrendering heavy weapons to third-party custodians while retaining light arms as a “defensive dignity” measure—symbolically vital to Hamas but unacceptable to Israel without intrusive verification.
Israel’s stance is equally ambivalent. Strategically, the plan offers what Israel has long demanded: the return of hostages, demilitarization of Gaza, and an international mechanism to assume day-to-day responsibilities while blocking rearmament. Politically, however, it forces the ruling coalition to digest hard realities: staged withdrawals under international supervision, re-empowerment of a reformed Palestinian Authority, and text that implicitly gestures toward a future Palestinian state. For an Israeli leadership dominated by hard-liners, this feels like concessions under fire and risks coalition fracture. Hence, Jerusalem insists on strict benchmarks, real-time monitoring, and a conditional, performance-based path to statehood—not one dictated by dates.
Iran’s posture is obstructionist yet calculated. A low-intensity conflict serves its interest by keeping Israel and the U.S. occupied while Iran restores deterrence and influence. It will quietly encourage factions to brand disarmament as betrayal and redirect loyalty to splinter groups. Still, Tehran recognizes that a united Arab-Western front behind a ceasefire could shrink its diplomatic space. Expect it to question verification mechanisms and sovereignty provisions while retaining leverage through militant proxies capable of derailing peace at will.
Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt form the indispensable mediating triangle. Ankara frames Hamas’s partial acceptance as a “constructive step” and demands Israel halt military operations. Doha, central to past negotiations, supports the swap framework and advocates timelines that preserve face for both parties. Egypt, the gatekeeper of Rafah, emphasizes sequencing—ceasefire first, synchronized exchanges of hostages and prisoners, and gradual transfer of governance under Arab oversight. Their combined credibility will determine whether enforcement mechanisms succeed or unravel.
The Palestinian Authority welcomes the plan but insists that Gaza’s sovereignty lies with the State of Palestine, unified with the West Bank under one civil and security framework. Yet its legitimacy deficit is glaring. Reforms must be real—transparent appointments, credible policing, and efficient public services—to regain Gazan trust. Jordan and other Arab states condition their support on those very reforms and on tangible progress toward the two-state horizon.
Europe, the U.K., Canada, and other Western partners view the plan as the first viable diplomatic track in months. Their priorities converge: secure a ceasefire, free all hostages, restore humanitarian lifelines, and cautiously advance a two-state endgame. They will bankroll stabilization and reconstruction but only under strict oversight. France and Germany call it “the best chance for peace”; Spain and Ireland demand stronger civilian protections; EU institutions emphasize timelines and enforceable humanitarian guarantees.
Pakistan, Malaysia, and the wider Global South call the plan imperfect but necessary to end the siege and save lives. They urge a complete ceasefire, unrestricted aid access, and firm guarantees against annexation or forced displacement. Their support will be critical in lending legitimacy to any multinational peace force that must not appear Western-controlled.
Yet Trump’s plan, while pragmatic, misses a critical element: justice. Peace without accountability is fragile, and reconstruction funded by neutral donors ignores moral responsibility. It was Israel that unleashed overwhelming destruction—flattening neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, and mosques, killing thousands of civilians, and turning Gaza into ruins. Therefore, the financial and moral burden of rebuilding Gaza must not fall upon the Arab world or the international community, but squarely upon those who caused the devastation—Israel and its allies, principally the United States. They must finance reconstruction, compensate victims, and fund the restoration of homes, infrastructure, and livelihoods. Anything less would legitimize impunity and perpetuate the cycle of destruction.
Equally, Hamas cannot escape scrutiny for its October 7 attack that killed and abducted civilians. Justice must be even-handed: a transparent, international investigation under UN auspices should probe alleged war crimes, genocide, and ethnic cleansing by both Hamas and Israel. Those who ordered or executed attacks on civilians, destroyed civilian infrastructure, or used starvation and displacement as tools of war must face the law. Impunity—whether for militants or states—cannot coexist with lasting peace.
A just and sustainable settlement would thus require three compacts added to Trump’s architecture. First, a clarity compact—public, enforceable annexes specifying who verifies compliance, how violations are penalized, and when corrective mechanisms activate. Second, a sequencing compact—a 30-60-90 day ladder of actions tied to verifiable outcomes: immediate ceasefire and aid corridors; phased withdrawals; transfer of civil governance; and reconstruction monitored by auditors from neutral states. Third, a dignity compact—addressing not only arms but human dignity: mobility, jobs, municipal elections within a year, and a binding roadmap toward statehood linked to measurable governance performance.
To this must be added a justice compact—a moral and legal foundation ensuring accountability. An independent tribunal, perhaps modeled on the International Criminal Court but regionally backed, should document atrocities, assign blame, and impose reparations. This would transform peace from a political bargain into a moral restoration, proving that even in geopolitics, justice is not optional.
Arab and Western partners must move from mediation to stewardship—deploying peacekeepers, engineers, and funds not as charity, but as custodians of shared responsibility. Moreover, the reconstruction of Gaza must be sponsored and fully financed by Israel—the power that devastated those neighborhoods—and by any allies whose military or material support enabled that destruction. This is not punitive grandstanding; it is deterrence by consequence: any nation or actor that resorts to ethnic cleansing, mass starvation, or genocidal tactics must know it will bear the full financial, legal and moral costs of rebuilding, reparations, and accountability.
The alternative is a replay of history: more funerals, deeper resentment, and another generation growing amid rubble. Flexibility on process is not weakness; it is maturity. If disarmament becomes verifiable, withdrawal becomes milestone-driven, governance becomes transparent, and accountability becomes universal, then the guns can fall silent, Gaza can rebuild, and the Middle East can finally begin to heal.
American News
Trump celebrates as Democrats face fallout from end of shutdown
After 43 days, the longest US government shutdown in history is coming to an end.
Federal workers will start receiving pay again. National Parks will reopen. Government services that had been curtailed or suspended entirely will resume. Air travel, which had become a nightmare for many Americans, will return to being merely frustrating.
After the dust settles and the ink from President Donald Trump’s signature on the funding bill dries, what has this record-setting shutdown accomplished? And what has it cost?
Senate Democrats, through their use of the parliamentary filibuster, were able to trigger the shutdown despite being a minority in the chamber by refusing to go along with a Republican measure to temporarily fund the government.
They drew a line in the sand, demanding that the Republicans agree to extend health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans that are set to expire at the end of the year.
When a handful of Democrats broke ranks to vote to reopen the government on Sunday, they received next to nothing in return – a promise of a vote in the Senate on the subsidies, but no guarantees of Republican support or even a necessary vote in the House of Representatives.
Since then, members of the party’s left flank have been furious.
They’ve accused Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer – who didn’t vote for the funding bill – of being secretly complicit in the reopening plan or simply incompetent. They’ve felt like their party folded even after off-year election success showed they had the upper hand. They feared that the shutdown sacrifices had been for nothing.
Even more mainstream Democrats, like California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, called the shutdown deal “pathetic” and a “surrender”.
“I’m not coming in to punch anybody in the face,” he told the Associated Press, “but I’m not pleased that, in the face of this invasive species that is Donald Trump, who’s completely changed the rules of the game, that we’re still playing by the old rules of the game.”
Newsom has 2028 presidential ambitions and can be a good barometer for the mood of the party. He was a loyal supporter of Joe Biden who turned out to defend the then-president even after his disastrous June debate performance against Trump.
If he is running for the pitchforks, it’s not a good sign for Democratic leaders.
For Trump, in the days since the Senate deadlock broke on Sunday, his mood has gone from cautious optimism to celebration.
On Tuesday, he congratulated congressional Republicans and called the vote to reopen the government “a very big victory”.
“We’re opening up our country,” he said at a Veteran’s Day commemoration at Arlington Cemetery. “It should have never been closed.”
Trump, perhaps sensing the Democratic anger toward Schumer, joined the pile-on during a Fox News interview on Monday night.
“He thought he could break the Republican Party, and the Republicans broke him,” Trump said of the Senate Democrat.
Although there were times when Trump appeared to be buckling – last week he berated Senate Republicans for refusing to scrap the filibuster to reopen the government – he ultimately emerged from the shutdown having made little in the way of substantive concessions.
While his poll numbers have declined over the last 40 days, there’s still a year before Republicans have to face voters in the midterms. And, barring some kind of constitutional rewrite, Trump never has to worry about standing for election again.
With the end of the shutdown, Congress will get back to its regularly scheduled programming. Although the House of Representatives has effectively been on ice for more than a month, Republicans still hope they can pass some substantive legislation before next year’s election cycle kicks in.
While several government departments will be funded until September in the shutdown-ending agreement, Congress will have to approve spending for the rest of the government by the end of January to avoid another shutdown.
Democrats, licking their wounds, may be hankering for another chance to fight.
Meanwhile, the issue they fought over – healthcare subsidies – could become a pressing concern for tens of millions of Americans who will see their insurance costs double or triple at the end of the year. Republicans ignore addressing such voter pain at their own political peril.
And that isn’t the only peril facing Trump and the Republicans. A day that was supposed to be highlighted by the House government-funding vote was spent dwelling on the latest revelations surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Later on Wednesday, Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in to her congressional seat and became the 218th and final signatory on a petition that will force the House of Representatives to hold a vote ordering the justice department to release all its files on the Epstein case.
It was enough to prompt Trump to complain, on his Truth Social website, that his government-funding success was being eclipsed.
“The Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects,” he wrote.
It was all a very clear reminder that the best-laid plans and political strategies can be derailed in a flash.
American News
BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit
The BBC was accused of a misleading edit of Donald Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech two years before the Panorama sequence that led to the resignation of the director-general.
The clip aired on Newsnight in 2022, and a guest on the live programme challenged the way it had been cut together, the Daily Telegraph reported.
On Monday the BBC apologised for an “error of judgement” over an edited portion of the same speech that aired last year on Panorama.
The fallout saw the resignations of the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, and a legal threat from the US President.
Lawyers for Trump have written to the BBC saying he will sue for $1bn (£759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him for the Panorama broadcast.
In response to Thursday’s story in the Telegraph, a BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now looking into it.”
In Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021, he said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”
In the Panorama programme, the clip shows him as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”
In the Newsnight programme the edit is a little different.
He is shown as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”
This was followed by a voiceover from presenter Kirsty Wark saying “and fight they did” over footage from the Capitol riots.
Responding to the clip on the same programme, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who quit a diplomatic post and became a critic of Trump after describing the 6 January riots as an “attempted coup”, said the video had “spliced together” Trump’s speech.
“That line about ‘we fight and fight like hell’ is actually later in the speech and yet your video makes it look like those two things came together,” he said.
The Telegraph also reported that a whistleblower told the newspaper that a further discussion the following day was also shut down.
Last week, a leaked internal BBC memo claimed Panorama had misled viewers by splicing two parts of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech together, making it appear as though he was explicitly urging people to attack the US Capitol after his election defeat.
The documentary aired days before the US presidential election in November 2024.
Speaking to Fox News, Trump said his 6 January 2021 speech had been “butchered” and the way it was presented had “defrauded” viewers.
American News
President Donald Trump is asking the US Supreme Court to review the $5m (£3.6m) civil case that found he defamed and sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll.
He has repeatedly claimed that the judge who oversaw the civil trial, Lewis Kaplan, improperly allowed evidence to be presented that hurt how the jury viewed Trump.
A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said Kaplan did not make errors that would warrant a new trial.
A New York jury awarded Ms Carroll damages over her civil claim that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, and then branded the incident a hoax on social media. He denied the allegations.
The Supreme Court is now Trump’s last hope of overturning the unanimous jury’s verdict. Whether the top US court will take the case up is unclear.
A federal appeals court declined to rehear Trump’s challenge to it in June.
Trump’s comments about the jury’s findings in the case led a separate jury to order him to pay Ms Carroll $83m for defaming her. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal of that decision in September, and Trump has now taken the next step in trying to have it overturned by asking the full bench of judges at a federal appeals court to review the case.
In the petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued Kaplan should not have let jurors see the 2005 Access Hollywood tape that showed the president saying he groped and kissed women.
“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” they wrote about Ms Carroll’s allegations.
“Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”
Roberta Kaplan, Ms Carroll’s attorney, told the BBC she had no comment on the Supreme Court appeal.
While Trump was found to have defamed and sexually abused Ms Carroll, the jury rejected her claim of rape as defined in New York’s penal code.
Ms Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 81, sued Trump for attacking her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. The defamation stemmed from Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform in 2022 denying her claim.
Trump has said Ms Carroll was “not my type” and that she lied.
-
Europe News9 months agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News8 months agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News8 months agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
American News9 months agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture8 months agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture8 months agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Politics9 months agoUS cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’
-
Politics8 months agoWorst violence in Syria since Assad fall as dozens killed in clashes
