The GAZA ceasefire: Reasonable peace, or a dictator's diktat?

A NYT news analysis (not paywalled) discusses the ceasefire in Gaza. The analysis quotes a Trump expert, Julian Zelizer (Princeton, history professor), pointing out that whatever good Trump is responsible for is offset by other things: 

“He has a long tendency — he did this in his first term — to overwhelm things that could be good political news for him, because he can’t resist either going after his perceived enemies or just doing controversial things for the sake of dividing and aggravating tensions. .... In the end, I think he believes chaos benefits him. .... I do think the bigger point is no one overwhelms his own positive news the way he can.”

Trump is framing Gaza as another of his consistent efforts to bring peace everywhere. His spokesperson criticizes the NYT for reporting about Trump's militarization of policing and local opposition to it:

“This is another fake angle from the failing New York Times. President Trump is working to end conflicts around the world, just like he is working to quell violence in cities across the country. His efforts both at home and abroad have been successful, the end of the Israel-Hamas war is underway, and cities like Washington, D.C., are thanking him for freeing up resources to bring more justice to victims and hold more criminals accountable.”

That analysis is good as far as it goes. At least the framing arguably is pro-democracy instead of the usual MSM's pro-dictator framing. That is an improvement. Good on you NYT, you are finally starting to get it, a little bit. I think.

Where the NYT analysis disappoints and fails is in ignoring Trump's motives and tactics, and the overall impact of this particular proposed agreement. Although Trump says he is a peace maker, reality says he isn't. The truth is that he is, as always, self-serving, morally bankrupt and brutal. 

Trying to avoid TL/TC/DR territory the failures in the analysis are these (TC = too complicated):

• The proposed agreement is a take-it-or-leave-it dictat [1], not a negotiated peace deal. The deal came after Trump threatened hell breaking loose if the Palestinians rejected his terms. Senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk explicitly acknowledged coercion: "This is a risk, but we trusted President Trump to be the guarantor of all the commitments made. Had there been no commitment from the American president, we would never have agreed to take the risk". The terms that immediately and tangibly benefit the Palestinians are the ceasefire and humanitarian aid. If that happens, it would stop the slaughter and starving of civilians.  

• The deal negotiations completely excluded the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is the main, internationally recognized Palestinian political force. The marginalization of the PA was deliberate to exclude legitimate Palestinian representation. Hamas explicitly acknowledged that they lacked a mandate to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians. That is a significant limit on the legitimacy of any agreement. Thus, the deal was decided almost exclusively between US and Israeli negotiators. Hamas and a few other small armed Palestinian groups made requests through intermediaries who were in indirect contact with negotiators. 

• What Hamas reportedly asked for and "got" was what circumstances would require the US and Israel to concede anyway. Specifically, the ceasefire includes (1) release of about 1,900 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for remaining Israeli hostages (needed to get the Israeli hostages) , (2) 600 trucks of humanitarian aid daily (needed to avoid more condemnation for genocide), and (3) allowing displaced Gazans to return to their homes under continued Israeli military presence (needed because there's nothing else practical to do). Israel vetted the prisoner list and rejected releasing Palestinian politicians it wanted to keep in Israeli prisons. The 600 trucks of aid is the bare minimum necessary for survival.[2] 

• Other major terms of the ceasefire are so ambiguous and fully under subjective Israeli control that they are just illusions. Specifically, Israel keeps control over ~53% of Gaza after an initial troop withdrawal. Later Israel will control 40% of Gaza and eventually 15%. Israeli forces will never fully leave Gaza. There will be a continuation of occupation because Israel gets to unilaterally decide when conditions allow withdrawal of Israeli military forces. If history since 1949 is predictive, withdrawal conditions will never be met by the Palestinians. Only Israel's own choice is at play.

Q: Does this diktat ceasefire make Trump a great peace-maker, or a thug using his power and threats to force a peace settlement, presumably so that he can keep demanding his Nobel Peace Prize, which is his most likely motive? Or is this not a diktat, and is something else, e.g., brilliant diplomacy?

Footnotes:

1. The German term meaning of diktat is "dictated peace". It was arose after World War I to describe the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was imposed without negotiation, forcing Germans to accept terms on a "take-it-or-leave-it basis". The term emphasizes the non-negotiable, harsh nature of the settlement where the loser has little or no voice in the terms. The worst possible outcome is slaughtering all remaining enemy civilians and combatants. Only the tender mercies of the victors make any significant concessions beyond not doing that floor of human possibility. 

2. At present, Palestinians are starving to death. In any ceasefire, Israel would have allowed enough food in to keep most of the population from starving to death. This can be seen as a concession forced by circumstance. And going home assumes a home remains, which will often not be the case. It will often amount to going back to a plie of rubble. 

MAGA unleashes a major attack on the 2026 elections: 2026 elections will be MAGA-subverted

In a terrifying bit of news, the AP reports that a wealthy MAGA elite has bought Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion is a major supplier of voting machines. If the company becomes MAGA-corrupted, it will spell the end of free and fair elections in America. In the 2020 elections, Dominion was the focus of ferocious MAGA attacks and slanders. One of those slanders by MAGA's Fox News led to a massive settlement. On April 18, 2023, Fox agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million to settle Dominion's defamation lawsuit, just as the trial was about to begin with opening statements.

MAGA elites were infuriated by the outcome of the lawsuit. Trump expressed anger with Fox News's settlement, calling it an "insult" to his election claims. He criticized Rupert Murdoch for not defending the election fraud conspiracy theories in court, saying "The election was rigged, and Rupert Murdoch should have talked about it" and "Rupert Murdoch is wrong". 

MAGA's virulent but completely unfounded opposition to free and fair elections is made clear in Project 2025 (P25) at pages 562-563, which includes this:

Reassigning Responsibility for Prosecuting Election-Related Offenses
from the Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division. The Attorney General in the next conservative Administration should reassign responsibility for prosecuting violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241 from the Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division where it belongs. Otherwise, voter registration fraud and unlawful ballot correction will remain federal election offenses that are never appropriately investigated and prosecuted.

Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing, and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law that are inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties.

As one would expect from an authoritarian MAGA manifesto, P25 is flat out lying about the election integrity situation. Its statements falsely claim that "voter registration fraud and unlawful ballot correction...are never appropriately investigated and prosecuted" under Civil Rights Division oversight. But in fact, the Civil Rights Division has a clear history of prosecuting election-related crimes. The DOJ's Election Crimes Branch, which works closely with the Civil Rights Division, has successfully prosecuted numerous cases involving voter registration fraud, ballot tampering, and other election crimes. Federal courts have consistently upheld Section 241 prosecutions for election interference, including cases involving ballot stuffing, vote buying, and registration fraud.

Also, P25 is intentionally misleading. It characterizes ballot curing as potentially fraudulent "unlawful ballot correction." In reality, ballot curing is a legitimate legal process used in about 20 states to allow voters to fix technical errors, typically signature mismatches or missing signatures, on their mail-in ballots. This process does not allow voters to change their votes—it only addresses verification issues to ensure eligible votes are counted. Studies show that ballot curing reduces ballot rejection rates and improves election accuracy rather than enabling fraud.

Q: In view of the evidence summarized here, which is not all of the relevant evidence in the public record, it is reasonable to believe that MAGA will subvert the 2026 elections as claimed in this blog post?

Q: In view of all the publicly available evidence of MAGA's authoritarianism and shameless mendacity, is there good evidence to believe that this move is not part of a major attack on the integrity and validity of the 2026 midterm elections? If so, exactly what is that evidence?

Very Short Story: The Clutch of Trees

Here's another short story-- this one VERY short. It's a sort of contemplative piece, less plot driven than evocative of the relation of human beings to nature around and within. In a time of dire newsflashes, and under-reported political threats, I hope this gives readers a moment to pause and consider the quiet, but profound serenity of nature-- even in the face of danger and loss. With that, I give you The Clutch of Trees.

In the Clutch of Trees

There is a clutch of trees on the edge of the city, where Riverside meets the hush of the river. All summer, their branches hum with birdlife: a living chorus, each song braided into the shimmering air. No other trees nearby are so alive with sound. On the hottest days, even the city's restlessness pauses here, just for a breath.

A boy named Theo—quiet, curious, and slow to speak—begins to linger on the old park bench beneath these trees. At first, he comes simply to escape the sun, but soon, he finds himself listening with a strange new attention. Morning and afternoon, birds arrive and depart. Their chattering, frantic at times, flows around him like wind.

As the hours accumulate, his ears learn more than language. At first, it's only rhythm and pattern: the tumbling rise and fall of trills, the sharp alarm, the gentle call. Then, as days lengthen, he senses something else—a current of meaning, woven beneath the surface. He listens, as children do when no one expects anything of them, until understanding begins to dawn, piecemeal and imperfect, but real.

In late summer, when heat bleaches the sky, Theo sits longer than usual, notebook in hand. The birds' gatherings grow noisier, but a new tone creeps in—edge, urgency, a flicker of unease. He closes his eyes and lets their voices wash through him. Sometimes he feels joy so clean it stings. Sometimes, dread.

By early autumn, the trees shift their scent, and the chorus changes. He hears not just a gathering, but a council. The chattering, once chaotic, is shaped by a gravity he senses as sadness and fear. Into the hubbub, three voices rise, distinct and urgent.

The first: old and heavy, her song dropping like stones into still water—slow, weighted with memory. She seems to mourn aloud, each phrase thick with loss.

The second: brisk, orderly, sharp-eyed—the call staccato and angular, mapping routes and warnings, a blueprint in sound.

The third: darting, anxious, never settling—voice rising in pitch, flickering branch to branch, naming dangers in the shadows.

Theo shivers. For the first time, he feels the frantic burden under their music. He cannot ignore what is being said.

Over days, he wanders the neighborhood on small, invisible errands. He finds the scattered feathers, the quiet remains. He notes the places named in the birds' councils—quiet alleys, overgrown yards. He tallies. He records. In the park one afternoon, he tapes a single note to a lamppost: Please keep cats inside at night. The birds are dying.

By evening, the note is gone—torn or ignored, he cannot say.

He carries his notebook to the Parks Department. The officials are skeptical at first. One woman barely glances up. But a park ranger, Mr. Ramos, listens and follows him through the affected blocks. That evening, patrols are arranged. Signs appear: Keep cats indoors.

Theo feels a seed of hope, brief and fragile.

But the city returns swiftly to indifference. The trees do not.

One cool October day, when the council above is nearly silent, three birds leave their branches and flutter down to the railing near Theo's bench. For a long moment, they regard him—heads cocked, bright eyes sharp with knowing.

He whispers softly, "I tried to help. I wanted you to be safe."

The birds—elderly, ragged, vital—listen. Something almost like gratitude threads through the world between them. The eldest lets fall a muted trill, not of warning or grief, but of acceptance. The strategist chirps once, crisp and final. The anxious bird fluffs and smooths its wings, as if making peace with uncertainty.

Theo smiles, blinking tears, and for the briefest moment, the distance between ground and sky seems very small.

Then, as autumn deepens, the gatherings thin. The birds ready themselves for journeys Theo cannot follow. One dawn, the branches are bare. Only a lone feather spirals to the bench where he once sat, a voiceless reminder.

He visits sometimes, but the trees are silent now. Still, he listens—catching the river's quiet, the whisper of unseen wings far overhead, the memory of a chorus he will never quite understand but will always hear, in some gentler place within himself.

And sometimes, he hears them there more clearly than he ever did in the branches.

Through joy and loss, presence and parting, he has learned—beauty, when listened to with a full heart, is inseparable from its passing

 

Mandate for Democracy 2026: The Rational Promise: Preface

The Democrats are still too scatterbrained to think straight and still blinded to the scope and gravity of the Trump/MAGA authoritarian threat. Clearly, someone needs to do something. Maybe preparing something akin to MAGA's authoritarian-kleptocrat manifesto called Project 2025 could help focus unfocused minds. This a first pass at a preface to a pro-democracy Project 2026 manifesto. Any comments, criticisms?

Project 2025 framing of its authoritarian demagoguery and insulting false narratives:

This work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, is a collective effort of hundreds of volunteers who have banded together in the spirit of advancing positive change for America. Our work is by no means the comprehensive compendium of conservative policies, nor is our group the exclusive cadre of conservative thinkers. The ideas expressed in this volume are not necessarily shared by all. What unites us is the drive to make our country better.

It’s not 1980. In 2023, the game has changed. The long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before. The task at hand to reverse this tide and restore our Republic to its original moorings is too great for any conservative policy shop to spearhead. It requires the collective action of our movement. With the quickening approach of January 2025, we have two years and one chance to get it right.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Mandate for Democracy 2026: The Rational Promise

Preface

This work is a declaration of unflinching support for American representative democracy and the constitutional rule of law. This vision of rational democratic politics is grounded in moral philosophy, legal realism and service to the public interest. The rational promise constitutes a good faith defense of our urgently threatened democracy, rule of law and civil liberties. This mandate is offered in the spirit of positive change for, and defense of, American democracy, democratic institutions and the American people as a whole. 

The rational promise is grounded in a simple moral high ground that most Americans still claim to believe in and try to live by. Most of us still believe in a few clusters of core beliefs. One is the value of America's representative democracy over authoritarianism, with honest, transparent governance desired instead of corruption and unwarranted opacity. Another cluster is a shared belief in the value of facts and truths over lies and false beliefs, and sound, good faith reasoning over partisan spin, deceit and division. Few Americans openly assert that they prefer a true dictatorship over the representative democracy we still have. Few claim to enjoy being lied to or slandered. Most want to see all Americans treated with reasonable respect. All of that is well within the scope of the democratic rational promise.

What is offered here is by no means a comprehensive catalog of rational pro-democracy policy choices. Instead, it focuses on the most serious threats to our precious democracy, rule of law and civil liberties. The rational promise incorporates the public interest and indicia of democracy as elements for respect and consideration. Important democratic indices include reasonable consideration for majority public opinion and reasonable compromise consistent with democratic governance. What inspires this effort is a transparent, good faith desire to make our country better by restoring our representative democracy and the balance of power between the people and elite authoritarian special interests. Those interests include the Republican Party. That party has knowingly shifted major power from the people to the elites. That must be reversed.

The march of radical right authoritarianism through our democratic institutions has now come to pass. Our federal institutions and agencies have been captured and weaponized against the public interest. Our Supreme Court is now radicalized and authoritarian. It has empowered the autocratic ideal of a unitary executive beyond the reach of the rule of law. The federal government's role in vindicating the rule of law and defending our civil liberties has been neutralized and weaponized against American citizens and democratic values. Individual freedoms and democracy itself are under a powerful, ruthless authoritarian onslaught. 

This democratic rationalist effort is not grounded in liberalism, centrism, conservativism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, or Christian or any other religious ideology. This effort is secular and grounded in pro-democracy and rule of law ideology. That ideology amounts to unwavering belief in the moral superiority of politics centered on service to the public interest and representative democracy operating under the principled rule of law and honest, transparent government. In terms of support for this effort to resist American authoritarianism, it does not matter if a person is a liberal, moderate, conservative, or religious. What that matters is support for secular American representative democracy, the principled rule of law, civil liberties, and service to the public interest including honest governance. 

The task at hand is to coalesce public opinion around a common defense against radical right authoritarianism and corruption. The goal is to reverse growing authoritarian power and restore our Republic and democracy to its original moorings in the context of modern social, cultural and economic conditions. Stopping the final conquest of radical right authoritarianism requires the collective action of concerned, informed, well-meaning citizens. With the approach of the November 2026 elections, there is little time left to mount a defense and reverse America's slide into corrupt autocracy. The goal for 2026 elections is to displace radical right authoritarian Republican control of either the House of Representatives of the US Senate. If authoritarian Republican politicians retain control of both chambers of congress after the midterm elections, the chances of our democracy and its benefits decrease drastically.