Hundreds of former Israeli security officials urge Donald Trump to help end Gaza war
'It is our professional judgment that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel,' the former officials wrote in an open letter, shared with the media on Monday.
'At first this war was a just war, a defensive war, but when we achieved all military objectives, this war ceased to be a just war,' said Ami Ayalon, former director of the Shin Bet security service.
The war, nearing its 23rd month, 'is leading the state of Israel to lose its security and identity', Mr Ayalon warned in a video released to accompany the letter.
Signed by 550 people, including former chiefs of Shin Bet and the Mossad spy agency, the letter called on Mr Trump to 'steer' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu towards a ceasefire.
Israel launched its war on Gaza in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israeli communities, in which militants killed about 1,200 people and abducted about 240.
The Israeli army has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians − mostly children and women − and caused starvation by using aid as a weapon.
In recent weeks, Israel has come under increasing international pressure to agree to a ceasefire that could see the remaining Israeli hostages held in Gaza released and UN agencies distribute humanitarian aid. But some in Israel, including ministers in Mr Netanyahu's coalition government, are instead pushing for Israeli troops to push on and for Gaza to be occupied in whole or in part.
Three former Mossad leaders signed the letter. Other signatories include five former leaders of Shin Bet and three former military chiefs of staff.
The letter argued that the Israeli army 'has long accomplished the two objectives that could be achieved by force: dismantling Hamas's military formations and governance'.
'The third, and most important, can only be achieved through a deal: bringing all the hostages home,' it added. 'Chasing remaining senior Hamas operatives can be done later,' the letter said.
In the letter, the former officials tell Mr Trump that he has credibility with the majority of Israelis and can put pressure on Mr Netanyahu to end the war and return the hostages.
After a ceasefire, the signatories argue, Mr Trump could force a regional coalition to support a reformed Palestinian Authority to take charge of Gaza as an alternative to Hamas rule.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Will a new UK left party back mass movements or bow to the establishment?
The pregnancy of the African elephant lasts nearly two years, but that is a blink of an eye compared with how long those in the UK wanting the birth of a new left party have had to wait. For many months, closed meetings involving survivors of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's leadership team and others have been formulating schemes, but no agreed plan has emerged. Now, at least, the objective of forming a new party has been announced by Corbyn and the Coventry MP Zarah Sultana, although no programme, policies, name or structure accompanied that declaration. Indeed, even the bare announcement of co-leadership was an agreement not easily reached. Fortunately, the level of rank-and-file enthusiasm for such a project has, for the moment, carried it forward and covered for the lack of agreement among its core promoters. And, again for the moment, there seems to be no difficulty the left can get itself into that Prime Minister Keir Starmer is not capable of helping it to overcome. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters His recent decision to remove the whip from four more dissident Labour MPs over their successful rebellion against welfare cuts reminded even the most jaundiced leftist of how necessary a new party has become. The removal of the whip (for a second time) from Diane Abbott shows that Starmer's hatred of the left is visceral to the point of self-harm. International vision Despite the difficulties attending its birth, the new party has been warmly welcomed by the wider world with over 600,000 signing up as supporters in a few days. There will, of course, be many challenges, both political and organisational, ahead. But one of the most pressing will be establishing an international policy that resonates with millions of voters. This might seem like one of the easier challenges. After all, four independent MPs and Corbyn himself were elected on a pro-Palestine ticket at the last election. Israel's ever-expanding war in the Middle East raises more issues than headline support for Palestinians They succeeded because there is already widespread pro-Palestinian sentiment in the population - a view that has virtually no other expression in electoral politics. But even so, Israel's ever-expanding war in the Middle East raises more issues than headline support for Palestinians. What of the attack on Iran - less popular to oppose than the Israeli offensive in Gaza? What stance will the new party take on the actions of the Houthis? Or of Hezbollah, a proscribed organisation under UK law? These questions may be resolved relatively easily because Israel has so degraded its own international standing that opposition to its war-mongering is quickly becoming widespread, at least among that section of the electorate likely to vote for a new left party. Beyond Gaza Still, beyond Gaza lie more difficult issues, and they are just as central to the politics of this country. A European-wide rearmament programme is now in full swing, intimately connected to a propaganda war against Russia and the actual war in Ukraine. There is no avoiding this. It is a defining feature of the Starmer government's political profile and a major justification for its austerity measures. A major "patriotic" propaganda campaign of "National Endeavour", spelt out in the latest Strategic Defence Review, is aimed - in Starmer's words - at putting the country in a condition of "war-fighting readiness". Some military figures go further, insisting that "we" will be fighting a war with Russia within "five years". Starmer's 'all guns, no butter' policy will cost him dearly Read More » Opposing this war drive will mean flying directly in the face of the interests of the military-industrial complex, an entrenched media consensus, and the agreed tripartisan positions of Labour, the Conservatives and Reform. Corbyn has been through this fire before. Few will forget his live TV grilling over nuclear weapons during the election campaign when he was Labour leader. When he resisted that pressure, he drew on a lifetime of organised relationships with the anti-war movement, especially the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the Stop the War Coalition. Sultana does not yet have those links to the same degree. It would be advantageous if they were strengthened. This would help re-establish connections broken when Starmer forced MPs to sever links with Stop the War over a statement opposing the Ukraine war. Few of Corbyn's advisers had a direct practical engagement with the anti-war movement, and that showed when they, not Corbyn himself, collapsed over the IHRA definition of antisemitism when it was adopted by the Labour NEC, then dominated by leftists. It was the single most disastrous decision of the Corbyn leadership, with the most long-lasting consequences. Servants or bosses? Such episodes are not minor or incidental - they go to the heart of how any new party views its relationship with extra-parliamentary mobilisation. There are two broad models: one is the traditional model, which claims to combine parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggle - a formulation much used by the late Tony Benn. The other puts extra-parliamentary struggle at the centre, viewing electoral politics as a tool to support, rather than lead, mass movements. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of Israel's war on Gaza The traditional model, however, is an algebraic equation in which much rests on the values one attributes to its terms. Even for Benn, the balance shifted from the time he held cabinet office to his later, much closer, identification with extra-parliamentary struggle. In that, he was virtually unique. So the questions remain: is extra-parliamentary struggle simply a supporting chorus for electoral activity? Do would-be elected representatives view it as a means to an end, or the main motor of social change? Is the local council chamber and the chamber of the House of Commons "where the real power lies"? Or does decisive change come from the streets and workplaces? Are elected representatives the servants of the social movements or their bosses? These are not merely theoretical concerns. A new left party in the UK will hardly be the first attempt to create an alternative to mainstream social democracy. Syriza in Greece, Rifondazione in Italy, Podemos in Spain, and Die Linke in Germany have all preceded it - and failed, often splitting over just these issues. This should be a radical and robust socialist project, with the strengthening of extra-parliamentary struggle as its primary goal Reinventing left social democracy, which then becomes right social democracy, only to disappoint and fail, is not an attractive option. From the outset, this should be a more radical and robust socialist project, with the amplification and strengthening of extra-parliamentary struggle as its primary goal. In any case, the depth of the current social and political crisis necessitates the most radical measures to effect even the most marginal improvements in working people's lives. International relations are not marginal to voters' concerns. In the UK, the greatest mass movements of the last generation have been over international questions: the Iraq War and Palestine. The upcoming political crisis will centre on rearmament, in all its global and domestic aspects. A new left party will be judged on whether it helps or hinders mass mobilisations for peace. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Armenia and Azerbaijan to ink peace memorandum under Trump mediation
Azerbaijan and Armenia are expected to sign a memorandum of understanding in Washington on Friday, committing to the pursuit of peace, according to regional sources familiar with the matter who spoke to Middle East Eye. The sources said that US President Donald Trump will host Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan at the White House for the signing ceremony. Although Armenia and Azerbaijan reached consensus on a draft peace agreement in March, Baku continues to insist on several additional conditions before finalising the deal. Chief among Azerbaijan's demands is that Yerevan amend its constitution to remove references to Azerbaijani territory, a step that would require a national referendum in Armenia. The anticipated White House summit follows a meeting between the two leaders in Abu Dhabi in July. Following the meeting, Aliyev said both countries could finalise the text of the agreement, or at least its main principles, within a few months and then initial them. 'Reaching an agreement on the basic principles, initialing them, and then working on the text can be an option,' Aliyev said, emphasising that such an approach hinges on Armenia amending its constitution. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Sources added that the two leaders are expected to sign a 'letter of intent' rather than a draft peace agreement, providing Trump with a diplomatic achievement he has been seeking in the region since last month. Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov called his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan on Monday to inform him about the summit, a third regional source told MEE. Turkish foreign ministry sources said that Fidan discussed bilateral and regional issues with Bayramov. MEE has reached out to both Armenian and Azerbaijani governments for comment. Why Trump is trying to put his seal on an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal Read More » One of the main sticking points remains the so-called Zangezur Corridor, which would link mainland Azerbaijan to its exclave, Nakhchivan, through Armenian territory. Armenia rejects the term Zangezur Corridor, arguing that it carries irredentist implications for its sovereign territory, known as Syunik. Last month, US Ambassador Thomas Barrack officially proposed that an American company could lease and operate the corridor for 100 years, aiming to address the concerns of both sides over security and reliability of the transport route. However, Armenia rejected the proposal, stating it would not lease its sovereign territory to any third country. A regional source familiar with the negotiations told MEE that Turkey initially suggested the idea of a private company, approved by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, managing the corridor. 'However, the Armenian side demanded that the company also operate on the Nakhchivan side of the corridor, which was unacceptable to Baku,' the source explained. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan dates back to the 1993 Nagorno-Karabakh war, when Armenian forces seized the disputed enclave - recognised by the United Nations as Azerbaijani territory, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. After a bloody six-week war in late 2020, Azerbaijan launched a military operation in September 2023 to retake Nagorno-Karabakh, resulting in a ceasefire agreement. Most ethnic Armenians fled, and the breakaway region was officially dissolved on 1 January 2024.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Ex-security chiefs warn Gaza war threatens Israel's future
At least 18 former leaders of Israel's intelligence and security apparatus, including ex-chiefs of Mossad, Shin Bet, the military and police, have jointly urged the government to halt its war on Gaza. In a video released online, the group condemned the offensive as a strategic and moral failure, saying it had achieved little while inflicting deep damage on Israel's standing and identity. 'This war stopped being a just war. This is leading the state of Israel to the loss of its security and its identity,' said Ami Ayalon, former Shin Bet head. Tamir Pardo, who once led Mossad, warned, 'We are on the precipice of defeat. No matter how good the army is, a war with no political goal is a guarantee of defeat.' Amos Malka, a former military intelligence commander, argued that Israel passed the point of decisive action over a year ago. 'We could have ended the war with a sufficient operational achievement,' he said. Instead, ex-Shin Bet director Nadav Argaman added, 'We are now mostly offsetting losses.' The remarks mark one of the most high-profile internal rebukes of the war effort, coming from the very figures once responsible for Israel's security doctrine.
