If Gazans’ welfare motivated ceasefire advocates, they would devoutly embrace Trump’s plan.
“Ceasefire!”
“Now!”
Why the calls for a ceasefire in the Hamas-Israel war?
To save Gazan lives?
Or to endanger Israeli lives? Have the calls for an immediate ceasefire meant to have both sides cease firing, or only for Israel to do so?
If the intent has been for both sides to cease firing, then where are the decibels from the protesters welcoming the Trump peace plan?
Not heard. At least not as of press time.
Suddenly, when a 20-point plan for the end to the death of Gazans is on the table, shouts for Gazan lives have fallen silent.
If it is Gazan lives that motivate the ceasefire advocates, the Trump plan would spur a ferocious demand of Hamas to accept the Trump plan forthwith.
But so far, silence.
Which prompts the view that the intent behind calls for a ceasefire has been to endanger Israeli lives — to have Israel stop firing so that Hamas could continue to inflicting more atrocities on Israel.
A “ceasefire” connotes a cessation of fire by both sides. However, as early as Oct. 7, 2023 itself, calls for a ceasefire — for a cessation of Israeli military response to the Hamas atrocities — have denoted something else: Israel should not fight back in self-defense against Hamas atrocities; Hamas should be free to continue them. This is what the Cornell University professor meant when he called the Hamas attack on Oct. 7 “exhilarating.” This is what the depraved British physician, Dr. Rameh Aladwan, means when he defends Oct. 7 and says Jew-hatred is “irrelevant.” (Story, page 8.)
“Ceasefire.” Seemingly an equal, two-sided, humanitarian call for an end to dying, regardless of the victim, has lead to different cessation: of the acceptance of the two-sided ceasefire that President Trump has called for.
That Israel has accepted. That seven Arab nations have accepted.
Why haven’t the anti-Israel protesters accepted it?
© IJN 2025
