The ceasefire in the Israel–Iran war has brought after twelve days an end, for now, to the aerial bombing offensive that killed hundreds of Iranian civilians, as well as to the counter-offensive in which missile strikes claimed the lives of dozens of civilians, across nationalities, in the State of Israel. In the final hours before the ceasefire took effect, further casualties were reported from airstrikes in Iran, and four more residents were killed when a missile struck a residential building in Beersheba in Israel. The state of emergency, which had temporarily assisted both regimes in parallel to suppress the development of protest movements against them, has also been lifted for the time being. However, Israel’s war of annihilation in the Gaza Strip continues at full intensity, trampling also on the fate of the hostages. Meanwhile, both Trump and Netanyahu are indulging in hubristic celebrations of an image of a military victory over the regime in Tehran.
At the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump was greeted with a wave of sycophancy befitting his inflated narcissism. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister, had already declared prior to the ceasefire that in his view, the US airstrikes on Iran on 22 June did not violate international law — something that in any case has never restrained Washington’s military aggression. During the summit, Rutte even referred to Trump as “daddy”, as he flattered Trump who was self-congratulating his intervention in the conflict between the two regimes in the region which he likened to a scuffle between children.
‘World’s Policeman’
The US President, whose brand of right-wing populism included spreading promises to end wars, has thus far failed in his attempt to impose a swift ceasefire in Ukraine, and has instead been drawn into showcase bombing campaigns in Yemen and Iran. Trump, despite his capricious nature, is fundamentally seeking to reassert a ‘unipolar’ dynamic in international relations. The bombing of Iran was intended to signal who is ‘the landlord’ in the Middle East and the global system. A return, ostensibly, to the role of the ‘world policeman’. This, while bolstering and relying on the war machine of Israeli capitalism to bring about a substantial shift in the regional balance of power against the interests of the “Axis of Resistance” alliance led by Tehran, as well as those of the China–Russia imperialist bloc.
Moscow and Beijing could not afford to mount any serious challenge to Washington in defence of their interests in the survival of the regime in Tehran. A scenario of global ‘theatre convergence’ was not on the table. Not coincidentally, the strategic agreement signed between Moscow and Tehran earlier this year did not include a mutual defence clause, unlike the parallel agreement with North Korea. Putin even referred embarrassedly to the absence of military support for Tehran, which has supplied drones for the Russian offensive in Ukraine, claiming that Moscow must remain neutral due to the large Russian-speaking minority in the State of Israel. Earlier, Russian officials stated they had received assurances from the Israeli government that the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, built with Russian investment and under ongoing Russian development, would not be targeted — a strike on the facility could trigger a regional disaster akin to Chernobyl. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in China, held the day after the NATO summit, the defence ministers of Russia and Iran were both present, but no dramatic declarations were made. Beijing, navigating in a weakened position, prefers avoiding renewed escalation of tensions with Washington.
Despite all this, US imperialism, though still the world’s dominant economic and military power, is in a significantly weakened position to where it was at the start of the century, and lacks the capacity to launch and sustain long-term military occupations of the type of Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if the show of force in Iran has revived hopes among European rulers of harnessing renewed US commitment to deterring Russian imperialism and its allies, the announcement of increased military spending in Europe amid inter-imperialist tensions with Moscow is aimed at reducing dependence on US imperialism.
Trump, angered by the spike in oil prices following the military escalation in the Middle East, surprised members of his own administration by declaring, on his privately owned social media platform, upon the announcement of the ceasefire, that “China can now resume buying oil from Iran”. This aligns with the current pause in the trade war with Chinese imperialism, part of a tendency to manoeuvre via zigzags aimed at cushioning the shocks to the US and global economy triggered by his policies.
The Regime in Tehran and the Nuclear Programme
The regime in Tehran, lacking meaningful backing from global powers and without effective military support capacity of its weakened regional allies, exposed a substantial weakness when it discarded all its threats of harsh retaliation. Even a symbolic decision by the Iranian parliament to close the Strait of Hormuz was not implemented, apparently due to fears of entangling consequences, potentially amounting to an existential crisis for the regime. Instead, in a semi-open manner, a token strike on a US base in Qatar was coordinated to provide minimal political justification for agreeing to a ceasefire. Throughout the twelve days of bombings, the regime’s messaging was contradictory, though it did include expressions of willingness to resume negotiations under the condition of a ceasefire.
Nevertheless, and despite reports of renewed talks between Washington and Tehran next week — on a coercive arrangement Trump refers to as “peace” — and despite Iranian President Pezeshkian’s rhetoric now returning to a focus on diplomacy, the ruler Khamenei delivered a victory speech from hiding, claiming that it was the US that had suffered a blow. It was a desperate attempt to shape domestic public opinion and obscure the regime’s significant losses in assets and capabilities at this stage. This, despite that the missile salvos in the counter-offensive, albeit with a limited military effectiveness, managed to breach one of the most developed air defence systems in the world and demonstrated destructive power in urban centres within the State of Israel which generally surpassed long-range barrages launched in earlier stages by Hezbollah and the Houthis. And, despite that for the Iranian regime, mere political survival may be considered a relative victory, allowing for the restoration of capabilities and strategic regrouping. The Iranian parliament has decided to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), citing the fact that Iran was attacked by two nuclear powers, effectively with the IAEA’s acquiescence. The wing within the Iranian regime that advocates for a military nuclear programme as a strategic deterrent, which already saw warning signs in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, received in the attack on Iran further sharp confirmation, reinforcing its premise that only nuclear weapons can deter military aggression.
Trump and Netanyahu have boasted that they completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear programme. Trump even compared the US intervention to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, saying: “That was essentially the same thing… this ended the war”. Reports on the extent of the damage at this stage remain largely contradictory. While an initial assessment by the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) suggested that the strikes on the three nuclear sites caused infrastructural damage that Tehran’s regime could recover from within a few months, the CIA issued a statement claiming it possesses evidence, yet-unpublished, of “severe damage”. It is likely that the unprecedented use of Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busting bombs — currently the most powerful conventional weapon — inflicted significant damage, and the full picture may become clearer in time. Still, the claim of total destruction appears to be an exaggeration for propaganda purposes. Even within the Israeli regime there is recognition that the results of the Israeli and US bombings, including the assassinations of scientific cadre, did not inflict an irreversible situation.
It appears that the bulk of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was concealed and not damaged in the attack. So far, the regime in Tehran has made no concessions in terms of commitments, even implicit rhetorical ones, regarding avoiding a resumption of enrichment. The neighbouring nuclear power to the southeast, Pakistan, which expressed support for the Iranian regime and rhetorically condemned the US bombing — less than 24 hours after announcing it would recommend Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his supposed role in de-escalating tensions with rival nuclear power India — remains heavily dependent on US imperialism. Nonetheless, it may serve as a source of components for the Iranian nuclear programme, as has been alleged in some reports that was done in the past.
Israeli War Minister Israel Katz has instructed the military to formulate an “enforcement plan” for the nuclear and missile production projects in Iran, and threatened that “Operation ‘a People as a Lion’ was just the trailer for a new Israeli policy — after 7 October, immunity is over”. Depending on developments in the coming weeks and months, the Netanyahu government may still decide to assassinate Khamenei. Beyond that, in response to efforts to rebuild the nuclear programme, or at least based on claims of such efforts, it is entirely plausible that the top echelon of the Israeli regime, whether under the current ruling coalition or a future configuration, will launch further ‘rounds’ of bombings in Iran, while being prepared to ‘absorb’ retaliatory actions — meaning, receiving reports from the comfort of atomic bunkers about casualties and injuries among the working class, of all nationalities, in the State of Israel. This would be in addition to a continued proxy conflict between the regimes and a continued ‘cold war’ of sabotage and assassinations. The Israel–Iran conflict, even after a phase of peak confrontation, cannot fundamentally stabilise given the regional dominance ambitions of both regimes.
‘Regime Change’
The governments of Israel and the US played with the idea of ‘regime change’ in Iran. It was clear to both that, despite military superiority, they lack the practical capacity in the short term to impose ‘from above’ a replacement of the regime through a campaign of aerial bombings, and small commando units, and in the absence of a locally organised political force collaborating with them. Nonetheless, there was a deliberate push, particularly by the Israeli government, to promote a vector of destabilisation and ‘regime change’, both rhetorically, through a hypocritical populist appeal to the bombed masses in Iran, and in the selection of certain ‘target bank’ sites — such as the bombing of the Iranian state broadcasting building or the strike on the Basij militia headquarters (regime-loyalist thugs). Seemingly the political logic was that images of the Tehran regime’s humiliation would fuel internal tensions within the regime, ease the path for forces that might rise up against it, and generate sympathy for the Israeli offensive as a supposedly liberating force. Yet the bulk of the masses in Iran, who aspire to democratic and social liberation, see through the manipulative propaganda of the nuclear powers, which seek a regime aligned with their regional interests — akin to the old dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which was a key regional ally of Israeli capitalism.
A succession fight has already begun over the position of Supreme Leader, and with the ceasefire, a renewed power struggle appears to be unfolding between different wings of the regime over recalibrating its strategic course to stabilise its rule. While the wing inclined toward diplomatic flexibility cannot rely on an alliance with US imperialism, the hardline wing is likely to push for the restoration of military capabilities and even retaliatory actions.
The exiled crown prince of the Shah’s former dictatorship, Reza Pahlavi Jr., immediately called on the Trump administration to recognise the need for ‘regime change’, and had already declared prior to the US bombing that “the Islamic Republic has reached its end”. Meanwhile, the France-based National Council of Resistance of Iran — a front organisation for the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) militia, a petty-bourgeois faction of liberal political Islam that considers itself left-wing, opposed the Shah’s regime, and allegedly maintains links with Mossad and the CIA — did not condemn the military onslaught on Iran. It called for ‘regime change’ following the ceasefire, albeit ostensibly by the Iranian people themselves, on the basis of a democratic platform and nuclear disarmament. In contrast, independent workers’ organisations within Iran, who face repression by the regime, issued a clear denunciation of the bombings: “We, as independent workers’ and grassroots organizations in Iran, hold no illusions that the United States or Israel intend to bring freedom, equality, or justice to us, just as we hold no illusions about the repressive, interventionist, warmongering, and anti-worker nature of the Islamic Republic”.
“Now the US will save Netanyahu”
Shortly before the Israeli offensive on Iran, tensions escalated between the White House and Netanyahu’s government, which was perceived as insufficiently obedient to the business and geopolitical interests of US imperialism. In April, Trump even intervened to delay the Israeli bombing plan. Eventually, however, the operation proved ‘smoother’ than Washington had feared, tipping the internal debate within the Trump administration and to acceding to Israeli pressure to shift from massive arms transfers to the Israeli military and deployment of forces in the region, to direct military intervention by air and sea. The euphoria in Netanyahu’s government was briefly dampened when Trump publicly rebuked an attempt at another showcase bombing raid after the ceasefire was supposed to come into effect. Yet the ‘caesar’ in the White House, who appeared to have launched the offensive by his own individual decision, and without congressional approval — in line with the authoritarian shift of the US presidency toward parliamentary Bonapartism — knew how to reward obedience. He issued a public attack on the Israeli state judiciary and called for Netanyahu’s trial to be cancelled, declaring: “It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu”!
During the offensive on Iran, Netanyahu enjoyed wall-to-wall support from the Israeli establishment ‘opposition’ and among the ruling class at large, with full collaboration from the leadership of the General Histadrut trade union federation.. He is now considering snap elections, even though the ‘victory’ propaganda has had limited impact on his polling, and his ruling coalition has never had the direct support of a majority in Israeli public opinion. In fact, a clear majority of 52% still supports his resignation as prime minister. The war scenario with Iran, prepared in full operational detail as early as November, before Trump entered the White House, was arguably Netanyahu’s last remaining political lifeline. But while his political survival was certainly some factor in the dynamic, the Israel–Iran war was not, in essence, a ‘war to rescue Netanyahu’. The broad support it received from his rivals within the Israeli ruling class underscores this.
The Israeli regime is determined to prevent any other regime in the region from acquiring nuclear weapons. For decades, Netanyahu has been a political marker for the ambition of dismantling the Iranian nuclear programme. Yet the last time he attempted to initiate a military offensive — on several occasions between 2010 and 2012, in coordination with then-Defence Minister Ehud Barak — he was isolated within the Israeli regime top, and the plan was obstructed. However, Hamas’s surprise attack on 7 October 2023 was seen not only by Netanyahu’s ‘ultra right-wing’ government but by the Israeli ruling class as a whole as a golden opportunity to demonstrate unprecedented, concentrated military force. This with the aim to fortify Israeli capitalism and its occupation regime imposed over the Palestinians, through inflicting a blood-soaked defeat on the Palestinian people, as well as, as noted, to deliver a regional blow to the “Axis of Resistance” and to Tehran. The turn to a strategic offensive against Tehran was also intended to send a message that the region’s sole nuclear power can serve as a contractor for the interests of Western imperialist powers, and eventually also for the interests of Arab regimes as well — despite the fact that publicly those regimes were compelled to issue blunt condemnations of the Israeli offensive, fearing a military spiral with ground-shaking consequences.
Trump’s Agenda: Normalisation, Ethnic Cleansing, and Annexation
Following the Israel–Iran ceasefire, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, real estate tycoon Steve Witkoff, claimed that additional Arab and Muslim states would soon announce normalised relations with the State of Israel. In effect, he implies an attempt to realise the strategic ‘golden parachute’ scenario long fantasised about by the Israeli ruling class — an exit from the general war crisis, including wrapping up the bulk of the offensive on the Gaza Strip, through resuming the process of Israeli–Arab ‘normalisation’, which Hamas’s 7 October offensive had sought to derail.
According to early reports, Netanyahu, in an “euphoric” phone call with Trump, agreed to pursue a regional deal with the following parameters: an end to military operations in Gaza within two weeks and the deployment of an occupation force comprising Egypt, the UAE, and two other states to assume control over the Gaza Strip; the expulsion of Hamas’s leadership and the release of hostages; a “voluntary” emigration arrangement for Gaza residents; the accession of Saudi Arabia, the al-Sharaa regime in Syria, and other Arab and Muslim states, such as Indonesia, to normalisation under the Abraham Accords; a lip service by the Israeli government, as Netanyahu did in the past, to a ‘future solution’ of “two states”, allegedly contingent upon changes in the Palestinian Authority; and, US government recognition of an official “application of sovereignty” by the State of Israel over parts of the West Bank. In other words: annexation, ethnic cleansing, and normalisation of the occupation and brutal oppression of the Palestinians.
At least part of the far right in Netanyahu’s coalition government, which aspires to entrenching moves of ethnic cleansing and renewed colonisation of the Gaza Strip, will be reluctant to cooperate with any political concessions in the context of any such potential deals. In any case, this is an unpopular ruling coalition that has already entered a countdown to its end, facing mounting pressure for a commission of inquiry and resignation. But even if Netanyahu secures a parliamentary ‘safety net’ from his establishment ‘opposition’ opponents-allies, Trump’s provocative plan is likely to fuel further mass anger toward US imperialism’s role in the region and the Israeli occupation.
Since 7 October, the region-wide mass rage at crimes of genocide and a range of mass atrocities in the Gaza Strip has acted as a key barrier to the Saudi monarchy publicly allying with Israeli capitalism. Although the scale of solidarity protests in the Middle East, under heavy repression — with the exception of the massive rallies organised by the Houthi government in Yemen — was relatively limited compared to Morocco and several other locations across the world, regional rulers remain wary of the potential for that profound mass rage over Gaza, and over the economic situation and political repression, to erupt into mass uprisings.
Efforts to break open anew a path for the normalisation process will face political obstacles and may contribute to a renewed wave of mass protests. Will Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman gamble on a deal with the government most identified with the atrocities in Gaza, in the last months of its existence? Can the unstable Syrian al-Sharaa regime afford to normalise relations, especially in a way that leaves the Golan Heights controlled by the State of Israel? Can Indonesia’s government, already facing mass unrest, withstand popular outrage over openly siding with the Israeli occupation? Will Hamas — which, according to Israeli military estimates, still commands around 26,000 fighters in the Gaza Strip after some 21 months of historic bloodbath — agree to the exile of its leaders, the relinquishing of civilian governance in Gaza, and passively cooperate with a new occupation framework? Beyond Hamas, it is likely that other Palestinian factions in Gaza will, sooner or later, express the accumulated popular frustration at the imposition of new forms of occupation, and challenge the systematic, murderous trampling of millions of Palestinians’ aspirations for national and social liberation and a life of dignity.
Like Six Atom Bombs
Massacres in the Gaza Strip re-escalated during the Israel–Iran war. The occupying power, which is conducting a war of annihilation, has thus far dropped over 100,000 tonnes of explosives on the heads of the besieged and starved population — an aggregate blast yield equivalent to six times the atomic bomb dropped by US imperialism on the population of Hiroshima in 1945. In Gaza, 2,200 families have been wiped out, and the official, conservative death toll stands at 55,000 residents, with thousands still buried beneath rubble, and more mass graves may be discovered. Among the many perished, over 17,000 under the age of 18 and around 9,100 women. Various studies have suggested the actual number of fatalities may be around 100,000, and even significantly higher.
Completely cynically, the Israeli ruling class effectively and systematically stoked existential fears among the Jewish population in Israel to mobilise support for its blood-soaked military campaign locally and regionally. This was particularly evident regarding the bombings in Iran, which garnered around 82% support among the Jewish population, compared to approximately 11% among Palestinian–Arab residents under the Israeli state. 73% of the Jewish population, and even 51% of those considering themselves as ‘left’ — believed the Israeli military should disregard, or mostly disregard, the suffering of Iranian civilians — even worse rates than the blind, chauvinist public attitude nurtured by the Israeli establishment towards the situation of the population in Gaza. However, a clear majority of the general public in Israel — 62% according to polling after the Israel–Iran ceasefire — and of the Jewish population in particular, have in recent months supported ending the military offensive on Gaza. Netanyahu’s campaign for a “total victory” is thus faltering. Still, fear of the Iranian regime remains pronounced — 55% of the general public reported they were “fearful” following the ceasefire.
The fact that even if the regime in Tehran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, it would be deterred by the threat of mutual destruction, the political ramifications of mass Palestinian casualties, and the regional consequences of radioactive fallout, doesn’t rule out extreme scenarios, just as a possibility cannot be excluded that, under conditions of a future extreme crisis, Israeli capitalism might itself initiate the use of nuclear weapons. The reactionary rhetoric of the Iranian regime provides political assistance in itself to the Israeli regime in the maintenance of mass existential fear, further inflamed by the consciousness impact of missile-induced destruction and killing. That existential fear continues to bind the bulk of the working class and poor in the State of Israel, decisively in the Jewish population, to be drawn into supporting wars and destructive policies intended to materialise the political programme of one camp or another of Israeli capital and world imperialist powers.
As an expression of a mass sentiment of helplessness and impasse in the struggle across the region and globally in the face of the monstrous atrocities relentlessly inflicted by the Israeli war machine under Washington’s protection, there were also expressions of relief at the Iranian missile salvos. Yet working-class families were harmed, across nationalities, even though only a fraction in comparison with the magnitude of atrocities inflicted by Israeli capitalism upon the Palestinians and the region. From the standpoint of building a struggle in the interests of the whole of the working class and oppressed masses in the region in root solution to the horrors of the war of extermination in Gaza and the regional war, it would be illusory to assume that the missile salvos of the Iranian military on population centres — despite the fact that military targets are embedded among civilians — played a progressive role.
Moreover, even a greater destructive force, as the Israeli government initially anticipated, would not in itself have been capable of causing millions of Israelis to ‘disillusion’ fundamentally in regards to the propaganda on the war’s objectives. Mass frustration can also be exploited and redirected by hard-right and far-right forces to pursue even more far-reaching ‘military solutions’, with even more catastrophic consequences. Netanyahu, for example, claimed that the hitting of residential buildings by the Iranian missiles only demonstrated how dangerous the Iranian regime would be if it possessed nuclear weapons — which allegedly it was on the cusp of breaking through to obtain. Of course, he does not apply the same logic to the Israeli nuclear power, whose airstrikes on residential buildings in Iran were just one small segment in a whole trail of devastation and bereavement it inflicted across the region.
Even when patience for a prolonged war wears thin, the process by which mass political conclusions are drawn, especially in the absence of a class-based, socialist left as a mass reference point, is necessarily shaped by confusing and contradictory pressures, and it unfolds differently across different social strata in the population under the influence of a complex array of factors. There is no automatic mechanism in reality that drives conclusions leftward in response to ruling-class policies that entail catastrophe for the masses, just as was underscored by the cynical manipulation of the mass shock from Hamas’s 7 October offensive, which included horrific reactionary massacres of civilians. Even now, despite widespread Israeli public opposition to the continuation of the offensive on Gaza, in most cases this does not extend to opposition to the entire offensive from its inception.
A struggle to end the bloodshed and block the nightmare vision of Trump and Netanyahu
In the face of the brutal military aggression of Israeli capitalism, there is undoubtedly a right to self-defensive action, including militarily. But fundamentally, the key to halting the war machine of Israeli capitalism, to closing the gates of hell, lies in building a systematic struggle relying on the independent mobilisation and organisation of the working class and oppressed communities, in striving to shift the balance of forces against all ruling classes fuelling the region’s horrors.
Demonstrations and other steps of struggle must be linked to an agenda of a broad and generalised struggle against the war of annihilation and occupation, against Trump and US imperialism, against austerity in the service of billionaires, against governments and corporate giants sustaining exploitation and poverty — and for the uprooting of the root causes of regional and global power struggles between rival capitalist powers who pit working and impoverished masses against each other, and specifically capitalist regimes founded on oppression, subjugation and inequality. Expanding the political agenda of the protests can also assist in enlarging participation, and also signal the need for independent political organising in opposition to the establishment parties. A systemic capitalist crisis that in the present era is accelerating arms races, wars, and mass atrocities, necessitates an alternative of a cross-border struggle for revolutionary socialist transformation.
Trump and Netanyahu now seek to pivot, ostensibly, from the language of bombs to that of diplomacy under the threat of bombs — “peace through strength”. Their regional ‘peace’ vision points to a dystopia of poverty, repression, occupation, and inevitably, renewed outbreaks of endless bloodshed. While Trump attempts to revive lip service more hollow and caricaturistic than ever to a ‘two-state solution’ for the sake of deal-making with regimes in the region, there is no constellation in which the aspirations of millions of Palestinians for a genuinely independent national state, decent standard of living, and a complete end to the oppression and expulsion, including the plight of the Palestinian refugees, could be fulfilled under Israeli capitalism and US imperialism’s intervention in the region. There is no prospect for regional peace without full liberation and equality for Palestinians, and without the overthrow of all oligarchic regimes in the region, including the Israeli regime and its counterpart in Tehran, through mass epic struggles in a region that has already witnessed some of the largest revolutionary uprisings of the 21st century.
A class-based socialist left emphasises the need to fight for an alternative of democratic, socialist governments rooted in cross-community struggles of working people, aiming to mobilise the region’s vast resources through public ownership and democratic planning to ensure equal welfare for all, end all forms of discrimination, and guarantee full rights to all nations, within a framework of regional cooperation, including forming a socialist confederation on a voluntary and equal basis.
During the military confrontation between Israel and Iran, tens of thousands demonstrated in cities across the world against the war of annihilation in Gaza and the military aggression of Washington and Israeli capitalism. Simultaneously, in the US, millions participated in the largest wave of protest yet against the Trump administration, under the banner “No Kings”. Building the international solidarity protests, alongside actions by organised labour to halt arms shipments — such as the intervention by port workers in Marseille — and sanctions against Israeli capital and against governments and corporations de facto supporting the military campaign, are part of the direction required.
Locally, as a class-based socialist left organisation, we support immediate demands for improved protection and shelters across communities, but as part of the struggle to end the war — we have opposed and participated in the building of the struggle against the war of Netanyahu’s government of death from day one, including advocating protests and strike actions to stop the war machine, as well as acts of refusal (whether declared or not) against military draft orders where relevant.
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran may also ease conditions for renewed development of protests among Palestinians, and in parallel also among sections of the Israeli public — some families of hostages and bereaved Israeli families have called for the ceasefire to be extended to Gaza. With military restrictions on civilian assemblies within the Green Line lifted, which were previously used to suppress small protest vigils, now demonstrations against Netanyahu’s government and to stop the war have begun to regroup, including in Umm al-Fahm. The struggle must be renewed with greater force: to stop the war of annihilation, to bring down Netanyahu’s government of death, and to build a political alternative to the parties of war, occupation, and rule of capital.