Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 30: Welcome to the Gaza protectorate – When surrender is called peace
0Rose mkOctober 07, 2025
The glossy US peace plan masks Gaza’s fate as an American-Israeli vassal –peace in name, domination in practice.
“Diplomacy is the pursuit of war with other means.” (The author).
Time and again, the West, galvanized by its Anglo-Saxon engine, unfurls the same well-worn playbooks to remake the world in its image, crushing foes and claiming foreign lands.
Regime change: Two scripts, one goal
When subtlety is possible, the self-styled free world backs the uprisings of “people’s movements”. When patience runs thin, it turns to bombs and invasions. The methods differ in brutality and transparency, but the ultimate goal – control and domination – remains constant.
From the Rose Revolution in Georgia to the Maidan uprising in Ukraine, from Belgrade to Baghdad, the pattern is unmistakable.
One path towards regime change runs through the streets, with youth mobilized under banners of democracy as Western media proclaim a new dawn.
At the other end of the spectrum, a commanding arc from the skies signals the reshaping of nations – Serbia bombed in the name of “peace,” Iraq shocked and awed in the name of “freedom.”
The success of both approaches varies: Some uprisings bring reform, others collapse into turmoil; some wars topple tyrants, others unleash decades of instability.
Yet the rhythm endures: Regimes crumble and nations splinter, while the West hails each collapse as triumph and proof of its ideals. The “custodians of civilization” remake, others are unmade, and the world foots the bill.
Recall Kabul: US planes lifting off into a bruised sky, allies clinging to their wings, only to be shaken loose into the void as casualties of another liberation – a final image of faith, quite literally, cast from the sky.
Gaza peace plan: A questionable entry in the Anglo-Saxon ledger
The US peace plan is the latest entry in Playbook II – a well-worn script of power, imposed from on high in classic fashion, since Gaza’s people simply cannot be co-opted into a Western-engineered revolt. In effect, they say no to what might be called colonial prostitution: trading sovereignty for favor, autonomy for applause.
Once again, diplomacy arrived not as dialogue but as decree, with dissenting Palestinians recast as obstacles to progress, not agents of their own fate.
The US plan came only after Israel had achieved what it sought through force of arms – sidestepping the ordeal of street-to-street combat while possibly securing all its war aims, from territorial control to the return of hostages – the latter a feat all but unthinkable amid urban warfare. The pattern is unmistakable: What war could not take, dictated “diplomacy” now claims.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s sudden turn as peacemaker – after financing, arming, and shielding Israel as it completed its campaign – strikes critics as the height of hypocrisy: the arsonist selling himself as the fireman.
Even after the unveiling of the so-called “peace” plan, Israel continued its bombardment of Gaza, killing hundreds, while maintaining an unrelenting siege.
Gaza City remains sealed off, all aid blocked for weeks, with no food, water, medicine, or fuel allowed in, leaving the population trapped and suffocating under a punishing blockade.
Israel’s policy is chillingly consistent: Anyone who refuses to flee is branded a terrorist or sympathizer, and thus marked for destruction.
If verified, these actions – indiscriminate bombing, starvation as warfare strategy, and collective punishment – would almost certainly qualify as war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity if proven systematic and deliberate.
Final legal judgment rests with a competent international tribunal after full investigation and due process, but the moral implications are already clear.
The irony is stifling: Israel drops US-supplied bombs while both Jerusalem and Washington claim to be advancing peace. Even amid the wreckage, Washington, in the Gaza plan, calls its own entanglement and the entrenched subjugation under Israel’s yoke “peace” – draping devastation in the language of diplomacy.
Peace, it seems, has been redefined to mean enforced silence under fire. Against this backdrop, critics may say that the so-called peace framework is no blueprint for reconciliation; it is a project of enforced regime change, a bid to break Gaza into submission and remake it after exhaustion and ruin. It is not an agreement, but an ultimatum: Change your rulers, or be annihilated.
In short, the US peace plan cannot stand unexamined; it demands unsparing interrogation through five hard questions – the Five Whys (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Beyond questioning why the US peace plan is cast as an all-inclusive, all-or-nothing ultimatum, skewed, brokered by a self-appointed partial mediator, and blind to the roots of Israel’s war on Gaza, one must ask: Why is the framework nevertheless welcomed by leaders across the globe, even unlikely ones such as Iran, just months after suffering an Israeli attack, or the Palestinian Authority, castigated time and again by Trump and Netanyahu? Odysseus may have had it right: “Nothing feebler does earth nurture than man, of all things that on earth are breathing and moving.”
Why the applause?
Explanations for the Gaza plan’s surprisingly broad embrace run the gamut – from shadowy conspiracies to the interplay of deep-seated structural and psychological forces – each offering a partial lens on a complex reality.
The conspiracist’s account
Conspiracy theorists might point to the so-called Jewish lobby, arguing that its sprawling networks, fundraising clout, knack for strategic advocacy, and media reach allow it to shape narratives, bend policymakers, and advance Israel’s interests on the global stage – ensuring that pro-Israel positions are adopted or celebrated abroad.
In particular, a purported Jewish influence machine has long been constructed as a powerful force in shaping US foreign policy and international attitudes toward Israel – garnering support even for policies that might otherwise provoke skepticism or opposition.
As one supposed piece of corroborating evidence for this line of argument, conspiracists may cite the outsized publicity that Western politicians and media grant to attacks on Jews – as if Jewish life carried more weight than the lives of all others.
Yet even if a powerful Jewish clique existed, it hardly explains the surprising enthusiasm for the US peace plan among regions traditionally little swayed by Israeli influence. As happens so often, conspiracy theories simplify the complex, exaggerating the agency and power of individuals or groups.
Against this backdrop, the Gaza plan’s broad acceptance calls for a deeper, more discerning analysis – one that weighs the convergence of political, economic, diplomatic, and psychological forces, rather than reducing the global current to a single convenient culprit.
Structural reasons
In terms of world stage politics, the fact that the eclectic US Gaza peace plan met with broad acclaim across the political spectrum reflects realpolitik, self-interest, and external pressures, rather than wholehearted endorsement of the blueprint itself.
Leaders and commentators praise it as bold and historic, an ambitious blueprint that signals much-coveted political decisiveness in a long-stalled conflict, while the public is drawn to the narrative of hope and resolution after decades of bloodshed.
Its high-profile presentation, theatrical flair, and the clout of its fronting figurehead lends it credibility and a sense of inevitability. Meanwhile, endorsing it allows governments to align with Washington, secure economic benefits, gain diplomatic leverage to advance their own interests – including in a fractious Middle East – and signal reliability to other regional and global allies alike. Media attention and the perception of a potential breakthrough further amplify support.
Due to these reasons even many Muslim countries, traditionally the standard-bearers of the Palestinian cause and guardians of solidarity with the Palestinian people, rushed to line up in support of the US Gaza peace plan – a strategic calculus rather than genuine conviction and alignment with its content.
By endorsing the plan, Muslim leaders bank credit abroad – normalization with Israel, reinforced by US backing, offering prosperity and security. At home, they smother unease by repurposing the plan’s own language of “stability” and “hope.” Cloaked in this rhetoric, acquiescence passes for vision, and compliance masquerades as courage.
At minimum, Arab pressure on Hamas to release hostages without a concurrent, firmly guaranteed Israeli payout may be read as political theater and cold calculus: the ostensible concession being a staged breakthrough to cast a halo over Trump, nudge the Nobel Committee before its imminent peace prize decision to hand him a spur-of-the-moment prize, and let the Arab orchestrators rack up Trump bonus points. The pledge costs nothing: Once the announcement has landed, Hamas – apparently doomed to be obliterated anyway – could renege freely.
Mingling with diplomacy’s performative rituals, these factors explain why the US Gaza plan has captured international attention and endorsement, producing a chorus of approval blind to fairness or feasibility – convinced it preserves what, in truth, it is undoing.
Psychological reasons
Beneath the surface, a tangle of cognitive biases drives how the US peace plan is seen – and embraced.
The framework’s deliberate vagueness and ambiguity invite competing readings and endless interpretation. In the end, it serves as a mirror – each actor seeing only the reflection of its own ambitions.
Hope, sheer wishful thinking, casts the plan as the only lifeline, while the scarcity of alternatives anchors attention to whatever is on the table. Supporters overestimate its promise, trust in the negotiators’ supposedly noble motives, and frame morally dubious outcomes as just, all reinforced by emotional fatigue from decades of conflict.
Partisan loyalty, selective attention, the magnetic pull of a charismatic leader, and the allure of being on the “winning side” or the “right side of history” further cement approval.
Taken together, these cognitive shortcuts transform a skewed, improbable scheme into a “historic” opportunity, proving that perception often outweighs reality.
Cognitive biases, remarkably, could help partially explain why even Hamas and Iran – its staunch supporter – signaled support for the US Gaza plan.
Both actors might be fixated on favorable cues in the plan in a self-interested manner (selective attention and confirmation bias), while disputing its tougher terms, from disarmament to Gaza’s future rule.
Furthermore, they may seek a positive image (social desirability), fear the costs of rejecting the plan (negative framing and loss aversion, as perceived downsides loom larger than upsides), and align with prevailing views (conformity bias) – neither wanting to be singled out or stigmatized globally as obstacles to peace.
Alas, the beguiling yet toxic mix of realpolitik and bias offers an unsteady, morally thin rationale for endorsing a plan that, on paper, provides scant cause for celebration.
Journalists were barred from asking questions at the 29 September 2025 press event unveiling the Gaza plan – an un-American press blackout, Trump-style.
Otherwise, they might have inquired what makes this date, as Trump proclaimed, “one of the great days ever in civilization” – a breakthrough of epic proportions, destined to transform the world completely.
Does it truly rival humanity’s defining triumphs – the alphabet, Hammurabi’s Code, the Ten Commandments, Marathon, the Parthenon, Christ’s resurrection, paper, the compass, the Edict of Milan, the printing press, Columbus’s voyage, the Declaration of Independence, the moon landing (if true), or the human genome – just to name a few watershed phenomena, some of which unfolded gradually, but culminated in marked discontinuity?
Can 29 September 2025 honestly stand among these milestones? Trump would no doubt thunder, “Absolutely!” To him, being denied the Nobel Peace Prize for the purported triumph of civilization would be nothing short of a profound affront – to his person, and to his nation.
But history will judge differently. The solemn truth is this: He who builds on biased realpolitik builds a house of conflict on sand; he who builds on justice and fair negotiation builds a house of peace on rock.
Peace by other means: Surrender, or be wiped out
A realist might be forgiven for drawing a grimmer historical parallel, casting the 29 September 2025 as a stain on humanity’s record.
In 146 BC, when Rome demanded Carthage’s submission, refusal meant the city was sacked, its walls razed, the population enslaved, and the city itself obliterated. What does this example illustrate? It pairs an unambiguous ultimatum with a stark, catastrophic consequence, leaving compliance – or devastation – as the only choice.
Critics may argue that Israel possesses a core competence in commemorating victimhood and capturing worldwide attention, turning tragedy into global ritual.
Its label for Hamas’s incursion – the “7 October attacks,” in which roughly 1,200 lives were reportedly lost – mimics the mnemonic punch of September 11, letting the Jewish state craft its self-styled response around that comparison.
By contrast, Israel has killed some 70,000 Palestinians in just two years, with the real toll likely far higher – averaging 100 deaths per day. At that rate, a new grim “7 October”-style milestone comes due every twelve days, accumulating to roughly 60 haunting anniversaries over just two years, each a painful reminder of a relentless cascade of loss and devastation.
After all this Palestinian suffering, the US peace plan risks turning Gaza into a de facto protectorate – nominally led by local authorities, yet effectively puppeteered by a foreign power, sidestepping the unseemly label of “colony.” Ultimate authority, hence, would rest not with Gaza’s own people, but in external hands. In a striking inversion of Clausewitz’s famous dictum, this proves that politics is the pursuit of war with other means.
By appointing himself as the head of a “Board of Peace” with overarching control, Trump effectively assumes the powers normally reserved for a sovereign government: setting security policy, supervising administration, and controlling resources.
A quasi-government run by Trump – celebrated by the Jewish state as the “greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House” – and set to include former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair – under whose tenure Iraqi Arabs were tortured at Abu Ghraib – is anything but “technocratic.” It would be unapologetically political, a powerful conduit for US and Israeli ambitions.
Under the US Gaza plan, local authorities would retain little real autonomy, while decisions on governance, economic management, and defense would be dictated or tightly controlled by the external overseer – which, in what could be called the heist of the century, might sell out Gaza to its own constituencies.
In practice, this mirrors historical protectorates: territories nominally independent, yet subordinated to a foreign power wielding real political, fiscal, and military control. Populations are left dependent, their futures dictated from afar, largely powerless to shape their own affairs. Consider post-war West Germany – and its later unified form – a US protectorate in all but name.
One must ask why Palestinians should not lead a transitional government of their homeland from the outset – either through Hamas, which has been democratically elected, or, if the movement declines, the Palestinian Authority, both of which could then call swift elections to confer fresh legitimacy on the future government.
Shockingly, the protectorate represents the “best” case. In the worst-case scenario, Gaza – and the rest of Palestine – could be absorbed as Israeli provinces, with the Jewish state annexing the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and, for the first time, Gaza (Azzah in the Old Testament). In biblical times, Azzah was a stubborn Philistine city-state, never permanently part of the Israelite kingdom, despite its proximity.
Should annexation occur, 29 September 2025 would mark a historic day – not triumph, but tragedy; a grim watershed for the Palestinian people.
────────────────────── ⁂ ──────────────────────
Diplomacy or domination? The verdict is clear. The much-applauded US Gaza plan, far from resolving the Middle East’s deepest conflict, worsens the plight of Palestinians – bombed into submission – while entrenching Israeli-American power.
Peace on paper, domination in practice: The US Gaza framework is a Trojan horse paraded and welcomed as a gift of peace, yet delivering the annihilation of the Palestinian cause and Palestinian statehood. The world should pause – and recognize that this “peace” is war in disguise.
To close, with a classical warning reimagined for our times: Timeo Americanos et dona ferentes – I fear the Americans, even when they bring gifts.
[Part 4 of a series on the 20-point Gaza peace plan. Previous columns in the series:
* Please Don't Spam Here. All the Comments are Reviewed by Admin.
Verify Real Human
Access this article after verification
Join TimeBucks using Google in one click if you want to access this article
TimeBucks is 10 years old trusted earning platform. You can earn money without investment. If you have doubt about TimeBucks you can do your own research.
