The UN put a stamp of legitimacy on President Trump’s colonialist plan for Gaza. In a Drop Site exclusive, Palestinian resistance leaders assess the state of the war.
Great, in-depth reporting, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Scahill. Thank you. Most westerners are incapable of digesting the true nature of this conflict, so your efforts to delineate the details of this struggle for liberation is invaluable.
Trump can't help himself: He sees the enormous profits of the private prison complex in this country, and with Gaza being the largest open-air prison in world history, he sees the opportunity to turn occupied Palestine into the largest open-air private prison -- his, of course -- in the world's history.
Thank you for this information about the position of Palestinians on the future of their people. We need outlets like Drop Site to actually understand what is happening in the world. It is heartbreaking that the UNSC endorsed Trump's resolution. It is heartbreaking that the bombing of people and destruction of infrastructure continues. It is heartbreaking that that food and other supplies are not allowed to enter Gaza.
We need to think about this and determine what actions we can take to stop this genocide. The wellbeing of the entire world depends on ending the colonial ambitions of the US and Israel
What is to become of the 150+ fighters trapped in the tunnels? What tactics will the sadistic Israeli state employ against them hoping to force a surrender?
And now the Palestinians are going to be under the reconstituted GHF. Sickening.
Thank you for consistently employing the accurate terminology of "genocide" throughout this article. The two cartel parties' elected have neither the ethics nor the courage to stand up to both their Party presidents' following Netanyahu's orders to take away Americans' First Amendment rights and Academic Freedom of American universities.
Practice of First Amendment Rights doesn't mean walking on eggshells for fear an exploitive pack of bribery and deceit is going to try to libel you as "antisemitic" because you spoke truth to pure evil. Democrats and Republicans elected, GROW A SPINE.
I think the term genocide falls short in describing the reality. And with every day, Holocaust is starting to fall short in describing the evil of the zionist entity.
Thank you both a million times over for such excellent journalism. Israel cannot win anymore than the US could in Vietnam. I like the notion "weapons of willpower." And, of course, weapons of principled journalism.
The unforgivable atrocities brought by the US war machine in Palestine... remind us of the defeat of US war machine in Vietnam ...20 years of carpet bombing & napalm. "The people united will never be defeated."
Brainwashing then was "fight them there, so we don't have fight them here." Currently aipac bribes accomplish the brainwashing. The
US vs Them scapegoating has morphed within the US to asylum seekers, migrant, 1st& 2nd gen Latinx, & Muslims while the military industry has exploded into municipal policing, ICE...Along with disrespect for international law...
Essential reading - comprehensive reporting found nowhere else. In the context of willpower, however, there is a risk to killing with words Gazans who actually survived the last two years. Extreme care should be taken to avoid claims - even vague claims - that might exaggerate the number Israel has slaughtered. Thus, "likely magnitudes higher," which literally means 10x or more, should be corrected. Everyone knows that the official mortality count is an undercount and there have been serious efforts to quantify the degree to which it misses the true number. But until the data are much clearer, the official count, which is produced by Gazan public health professionals stretched beyond the breaking point, should be presented as the lower bound. 70,000 people is a horrific number, full stop.
Thank you for pointing this out. I hate these theatrical expressions like “magnitude higher.” For me, using terms like this automatically invalidates everything stated in the article. It is a well written piece, but this kind of wording breaks it completely. It turns solid information into something I do not trust, because it shifts from hard data to emotionalized statements, which is a shame.
Why a very carefully hidden mega-secret of our Nobel Peace Prize candidate?
Out of 2.2++ M prewar Gazans how many survived and are being lovingly “fed and cared for” by Trump’s humanitarian Christian Zionists? Recent Lancet, R. Nader and other estimates range from 500,000 to 750,000 dead Gazans so far…
• Survivors are being “fed” by Trump’s and Huckabee’s humanitarian Christian Zionists. Soon starving Palestinians “will be willing” to relocate to Antarctica in desperation.
• No journalists are allowed to Gaza — about 300++ Palestinian journalists were systematically assassinated to hide the genocide. Now, with Trump’s ceasefire hoax, we have hardly any documentation updates on survivors; journalists are still not allowed.
• What can be done to continue documenting the genocide of Palestinians in Israel?
Scahill’s piece reads more like narrative construction than a realistic assessment of what a viable end-state would require. The framing elevates Hamas and PIJ into coherent diplomatic actors while reducing Israel, the PA, and the U.S. to simplified roles that fit a pre-selected morality tale. Throughout nearly 15,000 words, the article never defines the material terms of any settlement that could actually hold, and it never models the incentives or constraints of all parties involved. If the argument is that one side consistently sabotaged potential agreements, the logical next step is to specify the agreement you believe could survive the incentives of all actors. That never occurs.
A sustainable deal would need to address core issues the piece avoids: Israel’s security requirements after a mass-casualty attack; Hamas’s stated intent to maintain an armed resistance capacity; the lack of a unified Palestinian sovereign authority; and any credible enforcement mechanism once hostages are released. These are not moral dilemmas but structural ones. Instead of engaging them, the article treats factional quotes as dispositive evidence while implying that a just outcome is one where Palestinian factions retain leverage and Israel relinquishes it. That may be rhetorically satisfying, but it is not a strategic blueprint.
The article also collapses major incentive disparities. Hamas leadership abroad, armed groups inside Gaza, average Gazans under direct material pressure, maximalist activists outside the region, and Western media platforms all operate under different time horizons and constraints. People living amid rubble think in days; faction leaders think in years; outside activists can afford absolutist language; and media outlets often gain relevance and subscription revenue from prolonged instability. Treating these groups as having a single aligned “position” is analytically misleading.
The second half of the piece compounds the problem by substituting unverified claims for analysis—fatality numbers, torture allegations, organ removal, casualty estimates, military assessments, and disarmament narratives are all presented without corroboration. Scahill accepts every assertion by resistance figures as fact while applying no evidentiary standards. This is sympathetic stenography, not reporting. At the same time, the article never attempts to model Israeli strategic logic. Everything Israel does is explained through maximalist intent, ideology, or Netanyahu’s personal incentives. Without accounting for strategic logic on both sides, the analysis cannot generate a workable agreement.
The text further constructs a fictional unity among Palestinian factions—Hamas Gaza leadership, Hamas Doha leadership, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, technocrats, Barghouti, and diaspora figures are portrayed as a coherent national council. In reality, these groups have different goals, patrons, time horizons, and tactical doctrines. Presenting them as a unified actor obscures the actual fragmentation any agreement would have to navigate.
Finally, the piece rejects every external enforcement mechanism—UN forces, Arab stabilization missions, foreign trusteeship, PA oversight, Israeli oversight—while also insisting that Gaza cannot be left without external enforcement. It supports permanent resistance capacity while demanding permanent Israeli withdrawal. This produces a structural contradiction: a “ceasefire” with no enforcement and no symmetry. No proposal is offered because any explicit proposal would expose the underlying incompatibilities.
The issue here isn’t about taking a side. It’s about analytical rigor. Durable agreements require constraints, verification, and an incentive structure that both parties can realistically live with. By sidestepping all of that and relying solely on factional testimony, the piece works as a political narrative but not as a serious examination of how any workable settlement could actually be constructed.
They are reporters not diplomats: there job is to report or hold power to account, not propose solutions that are ipso facto meaningless, since journalists have no power: additionally, framing a solution is advocate a position, that even the Palestinians are unsure of
Honestly, this is not reporting, it is a theatrical statement. As pointed out by another comment, using terms like "magnitude higher" automatically invalidates everything factual in the article and shows that it is not a report but a statement. It should be treated as an opinion piece, not a factual report.
It is a shame, because I highly admire Jeremy for his work and his willingness to talk with "Palestinian resistance groups". That is why I am subscribed to a Drop Site.
I take the point that reporters aren’t responsible for producing peace plans. But Scahill has unusually direct access to the key actors shaping events on the ground—access most journalists never get. With that kind of proximity, it’s reasonable to expect some effort to probe what they see as a plausible end-state, even if the details aren’t for publication. He doesn’t need to draft a proposal himself, but he is in a rare position to ask the questions that clarify underlying constraints and intentions. When that layer is missing, the picture ends up shaped more by what people choose to say than by what their incentives allow.
Your narrative is rife with inaccuracies but at a bare minimum, can you not appreciate the nuance and calculations the Resistance has to do when talking with Jeremy, so as not to give away their state secrets to the most evil people that have ever walked the earth (zionists), who will seize on every possible piece of leverage they can get to eradicate the people they have colonized, raped, tortured, dispossessed, dehumanized and murdered for over 100 years?
I get where you’re coming from, and I agree that no movement negotiating under extreme asymmetry is going to reveal operational thinking or anything that could be leveraged against them. That’s unavoidable. My critique wasn’t about expecting disclosures on strategy or vulnerabilities. It was simply about the journalistic layer: when a reporter has rare access, there’s still room to probe the broader political architecture—what a stable end-state would even look like, what governance structure could emerge, how internal constraints shape their negotiating posture. None of that requires giving away sensitive information. It just helps readers understand the structural logic behind the stalemates that Scahill is describing.
I don't think the Gaza conflict can be resolved until the US and the Europeans are willing to recognize the evil role they have played in supporting and arming Israel during this conflict. I suppose that this reluctance stems from the fact that they have supported the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories by Israel since 1948!
Great, in-depth reporting, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Scahill. Thank you. Most westerners are incapable of digesting the true nature of this conflict, so your efforts to delineate the details of this struggle for liberation is invaluable.
Trump can't help himself: He sees the enormous profits of the private prison complex in this country, and with Gaza being the largest open-air prison in world history, he sees the opportunity to turn occupied Palestine into the largest open-air private prison -- his, of course -- in the world's history.
What befalls Gaza will come to us all.
Resistance is essential, not optional.
"What befalls Gaza will come to us all"
That is the truth. Already coming in places like Cop City in Atlanta
Thank you, so much, for your commitment to truth.
Thank you for this information about the position of Palestinians on the future of their people. We need outlets like Drop Site to actually understand what is happening in the world. It is heartbreaking that the UNSC endorsed Trump's resolution. It is heartbreaking that the bombing of people and destruction of infrastructure continues. It is heartbreaking that that food and other supplies are not allowed to enter Gaza.
We need to think about this and determine what actions we can take to stop this genocide. The wellbeing of the entire world depends on ending the colonial ambitions of the US and Israel
What is to become of the 150+ fighters trapped in the tunnels? What tactics will the sadistic Israeli state employ against them hoping to force a surrender?
And now the Palestinians are going to be under the reconstituted GHF. Sickening.
Thank you for consistently employing the accurate terminology of "genocide" throughout this article. The two cartel parties' elected have neither the ethics nor the courage to stand up to both their Party presidents' following Netanyahu's orders to take away Americans' First Amendment rights and Academic Freedom of American universities.
Practice of First Amendment Rights doesn't mean walking on eggshells for fear an exploitive pack of bribery and deceit is going to try to libel you as "antisemitic" because you spoke truth to pure evil. Democrats and Republicans elected, GROW A SPINE.
I think the term genocide falls short in describing the reality. And with every day, Holocaust is starting to fall short in describing the evil of the zionist entity.
And it's not the only one. Genocide can thrive when honest reporting and coverage of it does not happen.
Thank you both a million times over for such excellent journalism. Israel cannot win anymore than the US could in Vietnam. I like the notion "weapons of willpower." And, of course, weapons of principled journalism.
The unforgivable atrocities brought by the US war machine in Palestine... remind us of the defeat of US war machine in Vietnam ...20 years of carpet bombing & napalm. "The people united will never be defeated."
Brainwashing then was "fight them there, so we don't have fight them here." Currently aipac bribes accomplish the brainwashing. The
US vs Them scapegoating has morphed within the US to asylum seekers, migrant, 1st& 2nd gen Latinx, & Muslims while the military industry has exploded into municipal policing, ICE...Along with disrespect for international law...
This was an excellent deep dive into the realities of life on the ground for the negotiators with no good options!
Essential reading - comprehensive reporting found nowhere else. In the context of willpower, however, there is a risk to killing with words Gazans who actually survived the last two years. Extreme care should be taken to avoid claims - even vague claims - that might exaggerate the number Israel has slaughtered. Thus, "likely magnitudes higher," which literally means 10x or more, should be corrected. Everyone knows that the official mortality count is an undercount and there have been serious efforts to quantify the degree to which it misses the true number. But until the data are much clearer, the official count, which is produced by Gazan public health professionals stretched beyond the breaking point, should be presented as the lower bound. 70,000 people is a horrific number, full stop.
Thank you for pointing this out. I hate these theatrical expressions like “magnitude higher.” For me, using terms like this automatically invalidates everything stated in the article. It is a well written piece, but this kind of wording breaks it completely. It turns solid information into something I do not trust, because it shifts from hard data to emotionalized statements, which is a shame.
Disarming the Resistance isn't gonna happen and that's exactly why the zionists wrote it this way.
It's exactly what 'israel' needs to continue to try to justify their enactment of their final solution in Gaza.
It's Oslo on late stage imperial crack.
Exceptional reporting and truth telling. Drop Site is one of the very few.
Why a very carefully hidden mega-secret of our Nobel Peace Prize candidate?
Out of 2.2++ M prewar Gazans how many survived and are being lovingly “fed and cared for” by Trump’s humanitarian Christian Zionists? Recent Lancet, R. Nader and other estimates range from 500,000 to 750,000 dead Gazans so far…
• Survivors are being “fed” by Trump’s and Huckabee’s humanitarian Christian Zionists. Soon starving Palestinians “will be willing” to relocate to Antarctica in desperation.
• No journalists are allowed to Gaza — about 300++ Palestinian journalists were systematically assassinated to hide the genocide. Now, with Trump’s ceasefire hoax, we have hardly any documentation updates on survivors; journalists are still not allowed.
• What can be done to continue documenting the genocide of Palestinians in Israel?
OUTSTANDING – Drivers of Nazi-Ukraine -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etfFSALfbs0
Scahill’s piece reads more like narrative construction than a realistic assessment of what a viable end-state would require. The framing elevates Hamas and PIJ into coherent diplomatic actors while reducing Israel, the PA, and the U.S. to simplified roles that fit a pre-selected morality tale. Throughout nearly 15,000 words, the article never defines the material terms of any settlement that could actually hold, and it never models the incentives or constraints of all parties involved. If the argument is that one side consistently sabotaged potential agreements, the logical next step is to specify the agreement you believe could survive the incentives of all actors. That never occurs.
A sustainable deal would need to address core issues the piece avoids: Israel’s security requirements after a mass-casualty attack; Hamas’s stated intent to maintain an armed resistance capacity; the lack of a unified Palestinian sovereign authority; and any credible enforcement mechanism once hostages are released. These are not moral dilemmas but structural ones. Instead of engaging them, the article treats factional quotes as dispositive evidence while implying that a just outcome is one where Palestinian factions retain leverage and Israel relinquishes it. That may be rhetorically satisfying, but it is not a strategic blueprint.
The article also collapses major incentive disparities. Hamas leadership abroad, armed groups inside Gaza, average Gazans under direct material pressure, maximalist activists outside the region, and Western media platforms all operate under different time horizons and constraints. People living amid rubble think in days; faction leaders think in years; outside activists can afford absolutist language; and media outlets often gain relevance and subscription revenue from prolonged instability. Treating these groups as having a single aligned “position” is analytically misleading.
The second half of the piece compounds the problem by substituting unverified claims for analysis—fatality numbers, torture allegations, organ removal, casualty estimates, military assessments, and disarmament narratives are all presented without corroboration. Scahill accepts every assertion by resistance figures as fact while applying no evidentiary standards. This is sympathetic stenography, not reporting. At the same time, the article never attempts to model Israeli strategic logic. Everything Israel does is explained through maximalist intent, ideology, or Netanyahu’s personal incentives. Without accounting for strategic logic on both sides, the analysis cannot generate a workable agreement.
The text further constructs a fictional unity among Palestinian factions—Hamas Gaza leadership, Hamas Doha leadership, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, technocrats, Barghouti, and diaspora figures are portrayed as a coherent national council. In reality, these groups have different goals, patrons, time horizons, and tactical doctrines. Presenting them as a unified actor obscures the actual fragmentation any agreement would have to navigate.
Finally, the piece rejects every external enforcement mechanism—UN forces, Arab stabilization missions, foreign trusteeship, PA oversight, Israeli oversight—while also insisting that Gaza cannot be left without external enforcement. It supports permanent resistance capacity while demanding permanent Israeli withdrawal. This produces a structural contradiction: a “ceasefire” with no enforcement and no symmetry. No proposal is offered because any explicit proposal would expose the underlying incompatibilities.
The issue here isn’t about taking a side. It’s about analytical rigor. Durable agreements require constraints, verification, and an incentive structure that both parties can realistically live with. By sidestepping all of that and relying solely on factional testimony, the piece works as a political narrative but not as a serious examination of how any workable settlement could actually be constructed.
They are reporters not diplomats: there job is to report or hold power to account, not propose solutions that are ipso facto meaningless, since journalists have no power: additionally, framing a solution is advocate a position, that even the Palestinians are unsure of
Honestly, this is not reporting, it is a theatrical statement. As pointed out by another comment, using terms like "magnitude higher" automatically invalidates everything factual in the article and shows that it is not a report but a statement. It should be treated as an opinion piece, not a factual report.
It is a shame, because I highly admire Jeremy for his work and his willingness to talk with "Palestinian resistance groups". That is why I am subscribed to a Drop Site.
I take the point that reporters aren’t responsible for producing peace plans. But Scahill has unusually direct access to the key actors shaping events on the ground—access most journalists never get. With that kind of proximity, it’s reasonable to expect some effort to probe what they see as a plausible end-state, even if the details aren’t for publication. He doesn’t need to draft a proposal himself, but he is in a rare position to ask the questions that clarify underlying constraints and intentions. When that layer is missing, the picture ends up shaped more by what people choose to say than by what their incentives allow.
Your narrative is rife with inaccuracies but at a bare minimum, can you not appreciate the nuance and calculations the Resistance has to do when talking with Jeremy, so as not to give away their state secrets to the most evil people that have ever walked the earth (zionists), who will seize on every possible piece of leverage they can get to eradicate the people they have colonized, raped, tortured, dispossessed, dehumanized and murdered for over 100 years?
I get where you’re coming from, and I agree that no movement negotiating under extreme asymmetry is going to reveal operational thinking or anything that could be leveraged against them. That’s unavoidable. My critique wasn’t about expecting disclosures on strategy or vulnerabilities. It was simply about the journalistic layer: when a reporter has rare access, there’s still room to probe the broader political architecture—what a stable end-state would even look like, what governance structure could emerge, how internal constraints shape their negotiating posture. None of that requires giving away sensitive information. It just helps readers understand the structural logic behind the stalemates that Scahill is describing.
US teen Mohammed Ibrahim released from Israeli prison after nine months
Happy Thanksgiving!
I don't think the Gaza conflict can be resolved until the US and the Europeans are willing to recognize the evil role they have played in supporting and arming Israel during this conflict. I suppose that this reluctance stems from the fact that they have supported the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories by Israel since 1948!
Great work thank you. Please keep it up, for humanity's sake!