By Steve Bell
The catastrophe endured by the Palestinian people since 2023 can best be understood within the framework of the growing ferocity of US imperialism in its era of “Hyper-imperialism”. (1) Today, the global situation is dominated by successive US government attempts to reverse economic decline by military and coercive measures, especially sanctions.
According to the IMF, using the most accurate measure, purchasing parity prices, at the end of 2025 the Chinese economy is $10.4 trillion larger than the US. Continuing a sustained trend, China grew more than twice as fast as the US in the past year – recording a growth of 5%, compared to 2.1% for the US.
Nor are the prospects for 2026, and the medium term, any better for the US. In 2026 China launches its 15th Five Year Plan. According to the IMF’s projections, over this period, China will make the largest contribution to world growth. The IMF forecasts that over the Plan’s duration, China will expand by $13.1 trillion, compared to $6.2 trillion for the US.
“These economic setbacks for the United States have led some, particularly in a few circles in the West, to believe that the defeat of the United States is inevitable or has already occurred. A similar view has been expressed by a small number of people in China who take the view that China’s comprehensive strength has already overtaken that of the United States. These views are incorrect. They forget, in V.I.Lenin’s famous words, that “Politics must take precedence over economics, that is the ABC of Marxism,” and, regarding politics, that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” in the famous dictum of Chairman Mao. The fact that the United States is losing its economic superiority does not mean that it will simply allow this economic trend to peacefully continue: to presume that this is the case would be to make the mistake of placing economics before politics. On the contrary, the fact that the United States is losing ground economically both to China and to other countries is pushing it toward military and military-related political means to overcome the consequences of its economic defeats.” (2)
In this, the key obstacle is the continuing strength of the Chinese economy, and the workers’ state led by the Communist Party of China. The most important military obstacle is the Russian Federation’s bourgeois state extensive nuclear arsenal. At least since the 2008 economic crisis, and Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”, the priority has been to block Chinese economic development. The other priority has been to advance NATO forces towards the border of the Russian Federation, aiming to place nuclear weapons as close to Moscow as possible, preferably in Ukraine.
These policies have been pursued, in a bipartisan manner, by US administrations of both bourgeois parties. The general trend has been an acceleration of the military and coercive edge from President to President.
Trump’s recently published “National Security Strategy” reinforces the main trends. In no way does it represent a retreat from hegemonic ambitions, or even from regional interventions. “The choice all countries should face is whether they want to live in an American-led world of sovereign countries and free economies or in a parallel one in which they are influenced by countries on the other side of the world.” (3) Let us pass over the fact that such arrogance even precludes a recognition that for the majority of the planet the US is actually “the other side of the world.”
West Asia under the cosh of Hyper-imperialism
In this context it is possible to better understand the ferocious assault upon the peoples of West Asia, and especially the Palestinians. Israeli operations against Gaza since 2008 have invariably been supported by US governments. No substantial initiatives have been undertaken to implement the formal US policy of securing the “Peace Process” and negotiations over the establishment of a Palestinian state.
For US imperialism, Israel is their most dependable ally, and instrument, in the region. In the age of hyper-imperialism this inevitably means a growth of military activity and preoccupations by the Israeli state. On actual per capita military spending, the US is ranking first in the world at 12.6 times the world average; Israel is ranking second with 7.2 times the world average. (4) Here the Israeli state is uniquely well equipped to support US interests through its connections within US and NATO networks of intelligence, logistical and equipment interoperability.
But it is not their only regional ally. The US continually attempts to marshal the interests of the Israeli state with those of its favoured Arab regimes – Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. This leads the US to restrain the Israeli government whenever the Arab regimes express concern over the impact upon their domestic populations of Israeli initiatives. Hence Israeli assaults since Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9 have been relatively short in duration, under US pressure.
The shock of the Ukrainian setback for imperialism
However, the situation began to change from February 2022. In the preceding months, negotiations on security arrangements around Ukraine the US and European allies had displayed scant regard for Russian security concerns. The assumption appeared to be that the Russian government would not act if Ukraine were absorbed into NATO. After all, the Russian government had opposed but not acted against the entry of NATO into other East European countries. Equally, it appeared likely that Russia would not act if the Kyiv government overrode the Minsk Accords and sent its army into the Donbass. After all, the Russian government had not recognised the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk since their founding in 2014.
In mid-February, the international Monitors reported on thousands of breaches of the Minsk Accords by Kyiv government armed forces. An invasion of Donetsk and Luhansk was imminent.
The assumptions made by the US and allies were wrong. The Russian government moved against the growing provocations. On February 21, the Russian government recognised the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. On February 24, the Russian special military operation began to protect its borders from NATO’s entry into Ukraine, and to defend the Russian-speaking national minority from Kyiv’s assimilationist policy.
The initial calculation of the US government, and its European allies, was that the Russians would become bogged down and demoralised. The Russian state would be weakened, and NATO’s eastward expansion continue.
However, over the course of 2022, it became clear that the Ukrainian armed forces were in difficulty. This became evident from spring/summer 2023 when the “Spring Offensive” was launched. Despite considerable NATO weapon transfers, the offensive was a failure. By the end of 2023, it was hard to hide the fact that the Ukrainians were losing.
The other key development in 2022 was the return of Netanyahu to government, in December of that year. His return in a coalition with the religious right, and the most pro-settler right, meant that his government represented the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. It also appeared as the culmination of an expanding influence of the settler movement in Israeli society.
This government’s programme accelerated the seizure of Palestinian land and property in the West Bank; aimed to weaken the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and the West Bank; and attempt to demoralise the Palestinians by the takeover of sacred sites, including the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, and Al Aqsa in Jerusalem. Of course, such a programme assumed an absolute block on any moves towards a Palestinian state.
The Biden administration was more distant from Netanyahu than the first Trump administration. Biden’s policy was not greatly different from Trump’s, except for Biden not engaging with Trump’s Deal of the Century fantasy, relying upon the perpetual routine of the Oslo “process.” But Biden continued with Trump’s Abraham Accord initiative, expending serious effort to persuade the Saudi regime to embark on negotiations around a security agreement – with a quid pro quo of US protection in return for recognition of Israel.
Biden doubles-down on Palestine
In these conditions it was inevitable that there would be a response from the Palestinians. The timing, scope and audacity of the action was a surprise. October 7th, 2023, was a tremendous shock to Israeli society. The grumbling constitutional crisis over the Prime Minister’s alleged criminality receded, as the most extensive war on Gaza was launched, with the full backing of the US and the European allies.
The initial weeks of the war were widely perceived to be for a short campaign. Gallant, the Israeli Defence Minister, indicated that he expected the campaign to last “one, two, three months.” Biden cautioned the Israeli government on the need to end it in the New Year/Spring.
Netanyahu and the hard right in the government regarded the issue of hostages as entirely secondary to taking the fullest opportunity to eliminate substantial number of Palestinians, return to directly occupying Gaza, and inflicting the most complete destruction of the Palestinian resistance. Hence the determination of Netanyahu not to be forced to further extend the initial ceasefire promoted by Biden’s team in November 2023.
However, the mostly rhetorical restraints that Biden imposed on Israel were loosened as the growing problems for the US in Ukraine became clear. By early 2024 it was evident that the Ukrainian “offensive” had failed, and that the war was being lost from a US/NATO perspective. The Biden administration in a thoroughly lethargic fashion, allowed Netanyahu to cross all its successive redlines – against excessive civilian casualties, for more humanitarian aid, against an invasion of Rafah, against extending the war into Lebanon, for a resumption of the ceasefire, etc.
It was one thing to lose to a nuclear-armed Russia. But US imperialism could not allow a defeat in Gaza. US military power, here exercised through Israeli forces, had to appear overwhelming to any state in the Global South.
Biden wanted a settlement which integrated the Arab allies into a new framework with a secure Israel. This was for Netanyahu irrelevant in comparison to the prize of a huge blow to the Palestinian national movement. But for Biden this difference of war aims was less important than demonstrating the lethal power of the US and its Israeli client. Biden doubled down on the Palestinians because of the US setback in Ukraine. This laid the basis for the first genocide of the digital age.
The significance of the general spread of digital media for Gaza was that it gave Palestinians the means to bring the people’s suffering directly to the attention of the mass of the world’s population. This genocide could not be conducted out of sight. Despite their agony, Palestinian voices and images reached into the hearts of countless millions. This laid the basis for the most extraordinary development of the international solidarity movement.
Definitely genocide
Under the Geneva Convention: “…genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part:
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” (5)
There is overwhelming evidence on at least four of these criteria being broken by the Israeli government, armed and supported by the US and allies.
Typical of the complicit governments’ denial of the genocide was David Lammy’s comments that it is only genocide when “millions” are involved. Actually, millions of Palestinians have been impacted by the genocide. Further, taking the most conservative casualty figures – ten per cent of the Gaza population killed or injured – a comparable figure in Britain would involve 6.5 million casualties. But, regardless, the convention deals with the quality of the offence, not the quantity of the victims.
Nor is it genocide only when all the population is affected. It is “in whole or in part” – and substantial parts of the Palestinian nation have been killed or subjected to other genocidal measures.
In January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that there was a plausible case of Israel breaking the Geneva Convention, and made orders upon the Israeli state to desist, which have not been complied with. The case grinds on slowly, with more countries joining in support of the original South African submission in December 2023. The Israeli government is due to present a Counter-Memorial by March 2026.
Since May 2024, the International Criminal Court has been investigating war crimes in Gaza, with arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and Gallant, and Hamas leaders Sinwar, Daif and Haniyeh – all of whom have been subsequently killed. This also proceeds slowly, with the most recent attempt of the Israeli government to get the case dismissed failing in December 2025. Both ICJ and ICC personnel have been placed under sanctions by the US.
Among the international organisations supporting the definition of genocide are the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the UN Human Rights Council, FIDM – International Federation for Human Rights, Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights, JURDI – Jurists for the Defence of International Law, Centre for Constitutional Rights (US), and The Elders (founded by Nelson Mandela). Among the Israeli and Palestinian organisations are B’Tselem, Al Haq, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Mezan Centre, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and Palestinian Human Rights Council. Among the NGOs are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Medicins Sans Frontieres, War on Want, and Oxfam.
It must be clearly registered that the position of US allies – EU governments, Britain, Canada, and Japan – was to support, arm and assist the Israeli government throughout the war. There have been many instances of unease at US and Israeli policy. There have been individual actions against the policy, although these were mostly symbolic, e.g. Recognition of Palestine, or partial arms embargos.
But, overall, the balance is clear. The US and Israeli policy did not encounter any major obstacle from their allies and benefitted from their practical support. This confirms another significant feature of Hyper-Imperialism: “The contradictions between the imperialist powers are now non-antagonistic and secondary. Germany, Japan, France, and all other imperialist powers must subordinate their short term and medium-term interests to the fundamental interests of the United States.” (6)
From genocide to breaking the Axis of Resistance
Biden’s doubling down on Palestine was not confined to Gaza. Once the momentum of the Gaza genocide was unleashed, it became the opportunity to reassert US power most widely across West Asia. In this, despite his customary hesitations, Biden found common ground with Netanyahu. Having secured US backing in Gaza, the Israel government moved to secure US support for extending, and if possible, directly fighting a war against the “Axis of Resistance” – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, the Iranian government, the Popular Mobilisation Units in Iraq, and Ansarallah in Yemen.
The first notable extension of the war came when the US, with British support, attacked Ansarallah in January 2024. The US acted after the Israeli government indicated it was going to strike if the US did not. The rational offered was to maintain the freedom of navigation. But it was directly to assist Israel whose sole port on the Red Sea, Eilat, experienced a complete collapse of trade due to the blockade. The general volume of trade using the Red Sea and Suez fell by more than two-thirds, according to the IMF’s Portwatch. Egyptian President al-Sisi told the WEF in Davos that Egypt had lost around $9 billion in direct revenues from the Suez Canal over the two years of war,
There were constraints upon the assault upon Yemen. It was not possible to launch an invasion, as was to occur in Lebanon and Syria. This was not just because it was distant from Israeli territory. It was because such an invasion faced great hazards In Yemen. Ansarallah emerged the victor after seven years of relentless war from the Saudi/UAE led coalition – despite the coalition’s complete domination in the air. Consequently, Biden settled for performative action, while Trump registered the limits of an aerial campaign by securing a peace agreement with Ansarallah for US shipping (but not covering Israeli shipping).
Lebanon
The war with Lebanon was for a whole period confined to cross border attacks, with 7,000 such attacks registered between October 2023 and June 2024. Hezbollah linked its actions to the demand for a ceasefire in Gaza. Matters escalated in September 2024 when Israel detonated explosives in pagers, resulting in significant casualties, both to Hezbollah activists and civilians. As Israeli intelligence has access to US and NATO intelligence services it is likely they were used – certainly, the US was aware of the action.
Further escalation came later in September with the decapitation strikes on Hassan Nasrallah, and other leaders. This destroyed the leader with the most capacity to secure a diplomatic outcome to the war in Lebanon, and with the standing sufficient to aid a regional peace process. A full-scale invasion and occupation began on 1 October 2024. By the time of the November 2024 ceasefire, severe damage had been inflicted upon Hezbollah’s leadership, fighters, and military arsenal. This was endorsed by the US government. The destruction to villages and cities in southern Lebanon was ignored, along with the civilian victims. The seriousness of this setback is illustrated by the continuing Israeli occupation and military action in Lebanon at the time of writing – despite the support of Hezbollah and the Lebanese government for continuing the ceasefire.
Syria
The most significant achievement in the extension of the war against the resistance was the destruction of the Arab nationalist state under Assad. Whatever the limitations of the regime, the Arab Republic had held onto a sovereign polity against US imperialism and its Israeli client. The overturn is a significant defeat, as the nationalist state is replaced by a helpless vassal regime dependent upon Türkiye for its victory, and the US for its survival. The Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) regime is being whitewashed into a non-sectarian force by imperialist politicians. But its’ first year in power has been characterised by sectarian assaults upon minority communities.
The collapse of the Assad regime on 8 December 2024 was quickly followed by a mass bombardment by Israel on the 16December. The strikes destroyed the Syrian air force, the Syrian army’s heavy weaponry, and sunk the Syrian navy’s fleet. The US directly aided and participated in the strikes. This was followed by an Israeli ground invasion which seized all the UN buffer zone and acquired an area larger than Gaza. Subsequently the Israeli government established control of the sky over southern Syria – not allowing any military entry by Syrian regular or irregular forces.
The goal of imperialism was to guarantee that the incoming government could not defend the state or pose any threat to US and Israeli interests. To reinforce the message, Israel has bombed Syria 600 times since the HTS regime came to power.
The overturn was an enormous loss for the Palestinian cause. The new government immediately closed Palestinian training camps, and Palestinian militias were disarmed. The thoroughfare for weapons transfers to Hezbollah was closed, and Hezbollah was characterised as “an enemy” by President Sharaa. The new regime made it clear that it was prepared to come to an agreement with Israel, and that it regarded Iran as an enemy – ending any Syrian involvement in resisting US imperialism and Israel.
Despite its “non-sectarian” stance, the new regime is absolutely dominated by HTS members. Waves of sectarian conflict have inevitably followed. In March 2025, attacks by government aligned forces resulted in 1,400 civilian deaths in the Alawite community. In April 2025, Druze majority areas in Damascus were attacked. From July to August 2025, government forces attacked the Druze community in Suwayda and in Damascus universities. This prompted an intervention by the Israelis who bombed government forces, posing as the protectors of the Druze.
Yearlong negotiations on integrating the Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) broke down in December 2025. Here the decisive issue was the shift in the US position. The US had since the early part of the war from 2011 posed as the Kurds protector/ally, now they insisted the SDF should submit to the HTS government. Military clashes are still underway at the time of writing. But it is evident that the Kurds have suffered a rout – losing control of two of the three provinces they controlled and losing control of the oil and gas fields.
The US is promoting a process of regime consolidation. The Foreign Terrorist Organisation characterisation of HTS has been removed, as have US sanctions on Syria. Around 1.8 million internally displaced persons have returned to their home areas, and one million overseas refugees have returned. After thirteen years of imperialist sustained proxy war inside Syria, the estimated cost of reconstruction is $1 trillion.
Imperialism is not concerned about the type of government being established. The US special envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, stated that for the region: “what has worked best is a benevolent monarchy”, and that the US must “allow them to form the kind of government and inclusive regime that they, the Syrians, wish to establish.” (7) Providing, of course, that the Syrians do not challenge the interests of the US or Israel.
The overturning of the last Arab nationalist regime adjacent to Israel is one of the most serious defeats in the region since 1967.
Iran
The destruction of Iran’s sovereignty lies at the centre of Netanyahu’s projected “New Middle East.” US imperialism likewise regards the Iranian state as the central obstacle to the maintenance of US hegemony in West Asia. For Netanyahu, the imminent threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon was the casus belli over the past twenty years. For US imperialism the priority was restricting Iran’s development, including its nuclear development, hence the permanent resort to sanctions.
Trump, in his first term, attempted to harden the edge of US policy by withdrawing from the JCPOA (Nuclear Agreement). Through more systematic sanctions a “maximum pressure” was to be applied. Coming to office, Biden recognised the failure of this policy to bring the regime to breakdown. He resumed desultory efforts to gain concessions from Iran under the manoeuvre of the US “returning” to the JCPOA.
After October 2023 there is no evidence that any real effort was made to carry through the official policy of returning to the JCPOA. Contacts remained active through indirect talks mediated by Oman. The priority was enforcing sanctions, in line with Trump’s policy.
Inevitably, the dynamics of the Gaza war prompted a more active imperialist policy. On October 26 2023, the US conducted air strikes on two “Iran backed” facilities in Iraq and Syria. This was followed by eighty-five strikes on “Iran affiliated” facilities in the same countries on February 2 2024.
On April 1, an Israeli air strike hit the Iranian consular building in Damascus. Iran responded with a demonstrative strike later in April. On July 31, Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Iran launched its largest strike composed or around 180 missiles and drones on October 24 as a response to the assassination of leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the IRGC. Israel replied with its most extensive strikes to date targeting Iranian aerial defences and missile sites. Biden stated that this needed to be an end of “escalation,” while increasing sanctions on oil and petrochemical industries in Iran.
Trump’s return to office saw an immediate reassertion of “maximum pressure” by imposing further sanctions. Yet a diplomatic track was also opened. The first direct talks between the US and Iran were held since the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. Israel opposed this, but Trump’s administration was exploring options, not entirely precluding military action.
US pressure was exerted upon the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to find Iran in default of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US also pressed the E3 governments – Britain, France, and Germany – towards impose “snap back” (i.e. multilateral sanctions lifted by the signing of JCPOA in 2015), for alleged breach of the JCPOA.
As Iran prepared for the sixth round of negotiations with the US, on June 12 the IAEA declared Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations, for the first time in twenty years. The following day Israel launched multiple military strikes across Iran, attacking military sites, military and security leaders, scientists, and civilians in an unprovoked attack.
According to Netanyahu, this was “a last effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” Supported by the US, the irony of two nuclear armed states striking a state without nuclear weapons in the name of opposing nuclear proliferation was not lost on large parts of the Global South.
Iran’s speedy reorganisation after the trauma of its serious losses demonstrated the sturdiness of the Iranian state. The effectiveness of the counter strikes, breaching Israeli air defences, was a major shock for the Israeli government and Israeli society.
The US now had to directly take part in the war as its proxy had failed to definitively knock out Iran’s enrichment facilities. Trump became the first US President to attack another country’s civilian nuclear programme. Having done so, he declared a ceasefire to extract Israel from an inconvenient situation. This was hardly the “unconditional surrender” Trump had earlier demanded.
Following the ceasefire, Iran limited cooperation with the IAEA, refusing its inspectors access to the sites bombed by the imperialists. A regular series of speculative reports followed in the months after June concerning whether negotiations would resume between the US and Iran. But no serious initiative emerged.
Relations again became heated following the outbreak of demonstrations on cost-of-living issues in Iran, at the end of 2025, and start of 2026. The E3 governments had got UN sanctions reimposed under the terms of the JCPOA, at the end of September. The was purportedly because of Iranian non-compliance with the JCPOA. The vile hypocrisy of this argument was that the US had withdrawn from the agreement entirely. For their part, the E3 governments had utterly failed in their responsibilities to the JCPOA when they supported illegal US secondary sanctions resulting in the collapse of EU/Iranian trade. The impact of the reimposition of UN sanctions was a major weakening of the Iranian economy, and particularly a collapse in the value, and therefore the purchasing power, of the Iranian rial currency.
The demonstrations were a legitimate expression of civil society’s suffering under imperialist sanctions. The regime appeared to understand this legitimacy and attempts were made to establish dialogue between the regime and the movement.
But for imperialism every expression of opposition inside Iran is also an opportunity to prompt regime change. The US and allied governments are cutting the living standards of their own citizens to fund the military initiatives of hyper-imperialism. Yet supposedly the US and cronies care about the living standards of Iranians whose plight is a direct result of the sanctions they have imposed.
The turning point came on January 8th when peaceful protests were marked by extensive outbreaks of violence. All the evidence, including statements in Israeli media and a statement by former US CIA director and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo point to CIA/Mossad mobilisation in the events.
However, conditions are not as favourable for such actions as in the 1953 coup. The US and allies do not have the same capacity inside the Iranian state, and society, to organise a systematic move against the regime. They did display the capacity to cause many deaths and much destruction. But the pro-regime mobilisations and repression against imperialist agents created a failure for the US and Israel.
In summary, imperialism has made considerable progress in Lebanon and Syria. But it has clearly been unable to change the position in Yemen. Indeed, the recent expulsion of the UAE from Yemen has further weakened the most pro-US/Israel forces. In Iran we are witnessing an extended period of direct assault upon the one regime which imperialism regards as the most substantial counterforce to its Israeli client. The inconclusive war of June 2025, and the failed attempt at regime change in January 2026 are certainly precursors to further kinetic efforts to end the independence and sovereignty of the Iranian people and state. In the next period a new combination of an “Axis of Resistance” or alliance of oppressed peoples against US imperialism and Israel will emerge.
Phase I of the internationalisation of the Palestinian “question”
Under the Phase I Ceasefire of Trump’s Plan, Israel continues to add to the toll of the genocide, even if at a reduced rate compared to prior to the truce. 483 Palestinians have been killed since the October 10, 2025, ceasefire, with 1,294 injured. 1,298 violations of the ceasefire by Israel have taken place. 26,111 aid trucks were allowed entry, compared to 60,000 at an agreed entry rate of six hundred per day. (8)
Cumulative deaths for the whole war stand at 71,562 according to the Gaza Ministry of Health, with injuries at 171,379. These are deaths certified by receipt at hospitals in Gaza, completely excluding those still buried under rubble. It also excludes war related, but indirect, deaths. These would include those linked to the loss of capacity in health and humanitarian services, hunger and malnutrition, diseases, exposure, etc. At the time of writing, a virulent strain of flu is further weakening the population, who in the vast majority are exposed, without efficient shelter.
The Israeli government dismisses the Ministry of Health figures. But former Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi, who led the war for the first seventeen months, stated in September 2025, that more than 10% of Gaza’s population had been killed or injured – “more than 200,000 people.” Israeli intelligence data in May 2025 suggested that more than 80% of the dead were civilians.
More substantial estimates of the death toll have been made. The Max Planck Institute study estimated that conflict related deaths exceeded 100,000 by October 2025, with a loss of life expectancy by 44% in 2023, and by 47% in 2024. Zeina Jamaluddine’s study in The Lancet, found a 41% underestimate of deaths up to June 2024. Rasha Khatib, et al, suggest an estimate of “four indirect deaths per one direct death” in The Lancet of July 2024. Michael Spagat, et al, in the study “Violent and Nonviolent Death Tolls for the Gaza War,” estimate a 35% undercount up to July 2025. The Harvard University Study, authored by Israeli Professor Yaakov Garb, estimates that 377,000 Palestinians were unaccounted for, based on IDF figures, in June 2025. The largest projected total is 680,000, including 380,000 deaths of children under five – this in a study by Richard Hil and Gideon Polya. (9)
What is evident is that a “part” of the Palestinian nation has been killed – the vast majority of whom were civilians, with a substantial proportion being children.
The current living conditions in Gaza are dominated by the collapse of the economy and the destruction of the infrastructure. According to a report by the UN Conference on Trade and Development at the end of 2025 the enclave had suffered an 87% drop in GDP over the two war years. GDP per capita had fallen to $161 dollars, placing it amongst the lowest in the world. Government estimates in Gaza suggest 90% of all sectors have been wiped out. Total losses are approximately $70 billion.
Other key indicators include ninety-two percent of homes being damaged or destroyed. Eighty-five percent of water and sanitation facilities are damaged or destroyed.
In the West Bank, the Israeli government has been extending the process of dispossession and demolitions at an alarming rate since October 2023. 1103 Palestinians have been killed, over 11,000 injured, with 21,000 being detained.
Airstrikes have become routine, although previously rarely used. There is a widespread deployment of armoured vehicles. Settler violence against Palestinians, aided and protected by the IDF and government, reached record levels in 2025.
Whole refugee camps have been subjected to destruction – houses demolished, roads torn up, essential services destroyed. This happened in Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarem. Many Bedouin and rural villages have been violently emptied. Settlements have been authorised at an accelerating rate. One project authorised in early January 2026 will absorb 3% of West Bank territory.
As Dr Ramzy Baroud writes: “Yet the most violent period of Israeli aggression in the West Bank since the Second Intifada has been largely overlooked, in part because of the sheer scale and horror of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The annihilation of Gaza has rendered the violence in the West Bank seemingly secondary in the global imagination, despite the fact that its long-term consequences may prove just as devastating.” (10)
Phase II
In phase I the Israeli government was supposed to withdraw behind an agreed “yellow line” to a “Green Zone,” while the “Red Zone” would contain most of Gaza’s population. In fact, the Israelis have extended the yellow line into the Red Zone, beyond that agreed in the truce.
In the Green Zone, and up to the yellow line, Israel is systematically destroying the remaining buildings and removing rubble for recycling. The intention to reconstruct the Green Zone under Israeli direction is clear. Reports indicate that reconstruction will be prioritised here rather than in the Red Zone. Palestinians wishing to return and live in the Green Zone will be vetted and live under an Israeli security regime.
Under the Trump plan this separation within Gaza will be supplemented with a three-fold governance/security framework. Overall, will be the Board of Peace – nominally chaired by the US President. This will be responsible for international efforts in reconstruction and overseeing other elements of governance. An Executive Committee (EC) will function as the directing body for developments inside Gaza, this includes representatives from four Arab regimes. In parallel another Executive Board will deal with portfolios on the ground; this has no Arab involvement. There will be a committee of Palestinian technocrats to function as a direct link with daily life in Palestine, titled National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). Security will be provided by an international stabilisation force (ISF), made up of troop contingents from yet unspecified third countries. This will be further supplemented by a new Palestinian police force – some of which are already subject to a training programme in Egypt. These are interim arrangements for two years, according to UN Resolution 2803. After “reforms,” the Palestinian Authority will receive the authority vested in the NCAG at the end of its two-year mandate.
There are no Palestinians on any of the bodies directing the overall reconstruction of the economy and governance of Gaza. Netanyahu has agreed to join the Board of Peace, a perch in a gilded cage for him. But there is no Israeli presence in the other structures, apart from the Israeli Cypriot businessperson Yakir Gabaya on the EC. The next period in Gaza will be under the domination of the US government.
The struggle over implementation
The whole initiative is a neo-colonial programme for the US to direct Gaza towards submission.
In negotiations prior to the October 10 ceasefire, no section of the Palestinian leadership placed itself in principled opposition and rejection. This expresses the terrible defeat that imperialism imposed upon the people over the course of the main body of the genocide.
Yes, the Palestinian people survived – despite Israel’s attempt to remove it. Yes, the Palestinian leadership of Hamas and Islamic Jihad survived – despite terrible losses in cadres, military capacity and the governance of Gaza. And, correctly understood “existence is resistance” – Palestinian steadfastness is the guarantee of ultimate victory. But imperialism has fundamentally weakened the Palestinian people, and its regional allies. It will be a process of recuperation, rebuilding, and rejuvenation for the Palestinian people to resume progress towards liberation.
Now, the situation is dominated by a hotly contested international struggle over the interpretation of the plan. Here the contending forces seek to amend the plan in its actual implementation.
Hamas and allied forces, and the Palestinian Authority, differently agree to the Plan on the assumption that the Palestinians will regain control of Gaza – in some manner which allows for a continuation of national access and rights for Palestinians. The Arab regimes endorse such an approach, with lesser or greater understanding of how this plan opens a “pathway” to a Palestinian state. All will attempt to bend the implementation of Phase II towards their aims, rather than those of the US or Israel.
For US imperialism, and Trump especially, the Plan offers the prospect of stabilising the position of Israel as secure from any existential threat by its immediate neighbours, and all Arab regimes. This is a “peace” – where Israel will be free to intervene against any neighbour, including the Palestinians, whenever it believes necessary. Its neighbours will be disarmed or armed by the US below the technical edge guaranteed for Israel. Comprehensive recognition and normalisation of Arab and Palestinian relations with the Israeli state will be the end point. The history of resistance by Palestinians and Arab states will be relegated to history past. This is Trump’s vision of the Plan ending “thousands of years” of fighting.
Trump’s vision is acceptable to Israel, but the ambitions for a Greater Israel will continue to animate Israeli society – with the borders of the Israeli state still to be decided. Any option for a Palestinian state will continue to be rejected. If the expulsion of the body of the Palestinians cannot be achieved, then at least the Plan offers for Israel a framework for continuing the de facto annexation of remaining Palestinian territories. The Israeli government will continue to manoeuvre through Phase II, pressing for US concessions towards Greater Israel and the further seizure of Palestinian territory.
For US imperialism such tensions are extremely difficult to resolve. Trump’s plan assumes the reconstruction of Gaza will be largely funded by Gulf investors. This requires the US to guarantee that those investments will not be later obliterated by Israeli bombs. Equally, there will have to be a retreat from direct Israeli intervention if any Palestinian authority is to command the allegiance of Palestinians inside and outside Gaza. Any solution which involves a complete Israeli withdrawal will signal a mortal blow to the current Israeli coalition. Maybe not even “a very stable genius” can solve such contradictions!
Early tensions
The struggles over implementation have begun with the formal announcement of the composition of the governing bodies.
The invitation to heads of state to participate in the Board of Peace included a charter which makes evident the US intention to use this body against the formal structures of the UN. The charter does not refer to Gaza – despite the UNSC resolution 2803 (2025) specifically referring to the Board as linked to Gaza. Trump has made it clear he sees the Board addressing other wars/conflicts. This makes it difficult for pro-UN governments to take part in the Board. Also difficult is Trump’s position as Chair for life, possessing a veto on decisions, and whose term in office is self-defined. (11) States wishing to maintain their position must pay $1 billion in cash in the first year of the Board. Of course, a path outside the UN will not refer to the many UN resolutions opposing the occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, supporting the rights of refugees to return, opposing the separation wall, and supporting national rights in the form of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as a joint capital.
Also notable has been the impact in Israel of the composition of the Executive Committee (EC) – which is to directly oversee the work of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) – the Palestinian committee of technocrats which is to deal with daily life in Gaza. The EC includes representatives from Egypt, Qatar, Türkiye and UAE. The inclusion of Qatar and Türkiye was against the expressed wishes of Israel.
Netanyahu criticised the committee when it was announced, stating that its composition: “was not coordinated with Israel and is contrary to its policy.” The EC has an overwhelming majority of staunch advocates for Israel. But the fact that two governments which have supported the Palestinians, and to some degree Hamas, has renewed the crisis threatening Netanyahu’s government.
Across the opposition there was condemnation. For Yair Lapid (from Yesh Atid) this was: “…a diplomatic failure for Israel… Turkey is in, Qatar is in, and according to the IDF, Hamas still has 30,000 armed men in Gaza”. For Gadi Eisenkot (ex MK for Blue and White); “Netanyahu has lost the reins, other countries are the ones managing Gaza over Israel’s head.” For Yair Golan (Democrats): “…the Netanyahu-Smotrich government repeatedly chooses ‘Hamas is an asset’.” The split inside the government is also reopened. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir stated that Hamas must be: “…destroyed, alongside massive voluntary emigration… order the IDF to prepare for a return to war.” Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich: “…the countries that breathed life into Hamas cannot be the ones to replace it… [the Israeli government] must establish military rule there, to encourage immigration and settlement.” (12)
The Israeli government is constrained by Trump’s insistence. The opposition to this inclusion will require nuance. But some forms of obstruction are inevitable, one of which was the immediate decision of the Israeli government to refuse admission to NCAG entry into Gaza.
In conclusion
The Palestinians have endured a particularly savage offensive of imperialism. Their allies in the region have been seriously weakened. While resistance will continue, it will be in extremely difficult circumstances. The task of the international solidarity movement is to remain on duty.
Imperialist politicians and the bourgeois media will present the matter as being resolved. However, despite the grandiose projects of Jared Kushner, the Palestinians and their allies will not be removed or silenced. The shape of Gaza’s future, and the destiny of the Palestinian nation will also be decided by the popular resistance – not some perfect US blueprint. In this protracted struggle the imperialists believe they own the momentum and initiative. Yet the oppressed people of West Asia will find ways to change that equation.
As part of the international solidarity movement, it is vital that every effort is made in Britain to promote the next national demonstrations on January 31st and May 16th. It is also vital to oppose attempts to criminalise leading figures in the solidarity movement. The protest outside the court at the trial of Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham on February 23 must be built, as should any action around the subsequent trial of Sophie Bolt and Alex Kenny. Ending British state complicity in genocide and the oppression of the Palestinians remains a central task of the labour and progressive movement in Britain.
On Thursday 22 January, Palestinians inside the Israeli state held a general strike to protest spiralling violence and organised crime against Palestinian communities. Under the most arduous and horrifying conditions the Palestinian people demonstrate their irrepressible determination to be free. We must take inspiration from their breathtaking courage, intelligence, and stamina.
Notes
(1) “Hyper-Imperialism: A Dangerous Decadent New Stage”, Tricontinental Institute for Social Research, January 2024
(2) “What Is Propelling the United States into Increasing International Military Aggression?”, John Ross, in “The United States Is Waging a New Cold War: A Socialist Perspective”, Tricontinental, No Cold War & Monthly Review publication, September 2022, Pages 17-18
(3) “National Security Strategy of the United States of America”, November 2025, Page 18
(4) “Hyper-Imperialism”, Figure 4, Page 18
(5) “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, Article II, UN General Assembly resolution 260 A (III), 9 December 1948
(6) “Hyper-Imperialism”, Page 34
(7) “US: Tom Barrack says, “benevolent monarchs” work best in the Middle East”, Middle East Eye, December 8 2025
(8) Figures up to January 20 2026 – “100 Days of Ceasefire Violations in Gaza – Hamas Lists Nine Demands to Mediators”, The Palestine Chronicle, January 21 2026
(9) This figure is strongly challenged in a valuable overview article, “What is the True Death Toll in Gaza?”, Nicolas Sawaya, CounterPunch, January 16 2026
(10) “Israel’s shock and awe campaign in the West Bank”, Dr Ramzy Baroud, The Arab News, January 12 2026
(11) “Full test: Charter of Trump’s Board of Peace”, Jacob Majid, The Times of Israel, January 18, 2026
(12) All quotes from “Diplomatic Failure for Israel”, Tobias Holcman, Jerusalem Post, 17 January 2026