Tuesday, September 30, 2025

Part I

A Serious New Plan to End the Gaza Conflict: President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu Announce Plan to End Gazan War – What Will Hamas Do?

Well, yesterday, the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel held a joint press conference to make an announcement about a breakthrough agreement to achieve peace in Gaza. The first impulse of most people around the world is to say, “Here we go again,” but this is not just the same kind of proposal trotted out once again. It is a game-changer.

What took place yesterday has the potential, at least, to bring a true and lasting, at least intermediate solution for stability in Gaza, and alleviate the suffering of the people there, even as Israel accomplishes its aims in self-protection. What happened yesterday? Well, the president came out and announced what he titled, “The President Donald J. Trump, Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict.” Okay. It’s a very complex document, and it turns out to be stunningly interesting, to tell you the truth. 

Several enumerated points: number one, “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.” Great. Number two, “Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza who have suffered more than enough.” Great moral point. Three, key here, “If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed-upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete stage withdrawal,” and then number four, “Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.” Okay, that’s just four of many points, four absolutely important points as we consider the proposal that was put forth by the president of the United States and the Israeli prime minister. Now, here’s the interesting thing. The president did not say that he had come up with this in negotiation, a conversation with the Israeli prime minister.

No, the president presented this as a White House proposal to all sides in this conflict, and the president came out and said that virtually, all parties of interest had agreed, at least in principle, to these points, with the exception of Hamas. The Israeli prime minister was standing right there, and thus, you had a graphic picture, first of all, of the unity between the United States and Israel, but you also saw the President of the United States say with the prime minister of Israel, standing there, that Israel had agreed to these terms. And so it now all falls upon Hamas. Is Hamas going to take the responsibility and sign this agreement? 

Now, here’s what’s also interesting. I think behind all of this is the assumption that Hamas will do no such thing, and I think that’s why it was so important yesterday that the President came out and said, “Here’s the deal. This agreement is unique because it will go forward even if Hamas refuses to sign.” So if Hamas signs it, well, first of all, we’ll all be surprised, and then there will be the issue of how to make certain Hamas is doing so in any semblance of honesty. But the more likely scenario is that Hamas does not sign it, and then the big issue is, of course, Israel is then given more or less free reign to do what it has to do in military terms to eliminate the threat of Hamas. On the other hand, the proposal also says that even if that happens, even if Hamas does not sign the document, as many people, I think, assume Hamas will not do so, a Islamic terrorist organization that is committed to the elimination of Israel, it’s hard to imagine how they would sign this or do so honestly.

On the other hand, the situation is now that there appears to be a plan to help the people in Gaza, and it also calls for an immediate action by Israel to undertake cooperation in achieving these points. And, of course, it also comes down to the issue of the hostages. And again, so often, I think the Western media play into a false game of moral equivalence, as if you have Hamas here, you have Israel here, you have two opposing sides, and yet, that is not the situation. You have Israel as a democratic nation, and frankly, a bastion of freedom and moral values there in the Middle East, and then you have an Islamic terror organization, that is dedicated to the elimination of Israel. Now, that’s not to say that Israel always acts righteously, it is to say that Israel is a righteously established nation.

And we would have to say the same thing about the United States. The United States does not always act righteously, but it is a righteously established nation. You contrast that with a terrorist organization that has no moral legitimacy because of its aims and its methodology from the beginning. But there is, nonetheless, a moral context in which all parties have to take Hamas seriously, and that’s why Hamas has now presented with the opportunity to agree to this. It would require the immediate release of the hostages.

I go back, no moral equivalence here. We are talking about the taking of hostages, the brutal murder of people. Of course, we’re talking about the October 7 attacks there in Israel that were so incredibly deadly, and we also know this is a part of a long-term plan because Hamas has told us it’s their long-term plan, to lead to the total elimination of Israel. But this plan, the plan that was announced to the White House yesterday, really, really interesting. It calls for a transitional governance plan for Gaza and states explicitly, that it will not be Israel.

Now, this is good for Israel, whether Israel recognizes it or not. I think most people in Israel probably recognize this as a good thing. It would not be a good thing for Israel to administer that territory over any significant period of time. Point nine in the agreement says, “Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee responsible for delivering day-to-day running of public services.” But then it goes on to say, “There will be a Board of Peace, which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including former,” this would be British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Okay, so this is internationalizing the situation. Now, in terms of the way foreign policy is generally conducted, President Trump, he colors outside the lines. Putting his own name on something like this, and making it so personal, that is something most presidential administrations, most presidents have sought to avoid, and it’s because, I mean, there’s an upside, of course, but there’s also a very significant downside if something goes wrong, if something goes sour. President Trump sees himself as a negotiator. He sees himself as a frontline, face-to-face negotiator. He wants to brand this thing with his own personal identity. 

It’s also interesting, we’ve noted this before, President Trump made a fortune in real estate. He sees himself as an expert in real estate, and he cannot get over the fact that Gaza is basically a waterfront property that is being underutilized. And so the president looks at it and says, “Look, you should be able to develop this. This should be, not a disaster and a heap of rubble, this should be a resort. You should be able to capitalize on this.” And it is something of a breakthrough to think that there could be international leadership to help take responsibility for the rebuilding of Gaza, and quite frankly, there are reasons to think that there could be some very significant economic gains for the people there in Gaza, but that requires a stable political leadership. 

We talked yesterday about the fact that there is no functioning government in Gaza, and there could be a functioning government in Gaza, and that requires stability. It requires political cohesion, it requires peace, and it requires, of course, a lot of support in the case of Gaza from the outside. This is a means of bringing that kind of support. The agreement calls for an immediate ceasefire. It calls for immediate aid deliveries massively to be increased there for the people in Gaza. They need food, they need medical care, they need so much. It also calls for the immediate release of the hostages.

And here’s where you’re going to find out a lot morally about Hamas. You’re not going to find out if it’s an evil organization, you know that already. It kills and it takes hostage, real, live human beings, and uses them for its terrorist purposes. But you’re going to find out how desperate Hamas is over the course of the next couple of days. If Hamas agrees to the immediate release of the hostages, then you’re going to know that Hamas is truly in a desperate situation and it understands it has to sign this agreement.

I think what you saw yesterday there at the White House is both the American president and the Israeli Prime Minister, saying, “You know, we’re not going to wait on Hamas. At least in the territory that Israel controls, we’re going to go ahead with this plan.” And you know what? I say more power to him. I think that is exactly the high moral ground here. No one should underestimate the complexity of this. No one should underestimate the fragility of all of this, but 

I do think that, first of all, there had to be enormous diplomatic work behind this. Enormous. I mean, somebody had to talk to Tony Blair. Someone had to talk to the Arab nations. We know that the president’s personal representative, Steve Witkoff and others have been in the area. We know the Secretary of State and other diplomats have been eagerly invested in this, but honestly, the announcement made yesterday is a game-changer. And I say that with hopefulness. Something needs to change that game. It’s a very deadly game. And right now, Israel’s playing what it has to do in order to eliminate Hamas as a threat, but this represents real hope and real concern on the part of the U.S. and allied nations for the health and well-being of the people there in Gaza. That’s a very strong moral statement, and I just can hope the world was watching that yesterday. 

One final note about the demand, and this is one of the reasons why Hamas might not sign it, listen to point 13, “Hamas and other factions agree not to have any role in the governance of Gaza directly, indirectly, or in any form.” Well, it goes on by the way, I just don’t think there’s much of any likelihood that Hamas is going to sign that. Why do I say that? And it is because it’s an asymmetrical warfare going on here. It’s also an asymmetrical moral situation. You have Israel as a nation, responsible to act in a certain way. You have the government of the United States of America and the president of the United States of America, speaking up on behalf of the welfare, the people in Gaza.

Hamas, though it controlled the government in Gaza, it doesn’t function as a government in any sense, that we would understand it as acceptable, and its interest is in its own purposes, not in the people of Gaza. If anything, tragically, that also is going to be made clear in coming days.

Part II

The Game of Government Shutdown: Republicans Make a Clean Proposal – Will Democrats Shut Down the Government?

All right. Now, we need to come back to the United States, and I want to look at the following issue at two different levels. This is the issue of the threatened government shut down. So at the first level, what in the world is it? In the second level, what’s the game being played here? And I assure you this is a game. And that doesn’t mean the game is being played skillfully, especially to the Democrats at this point, but it is very interesting to watch. 

So let’s take level one: what is it? Well, we do have a very dysfunctional budget system in the United States of America, and part of it is because of our budget process, which has to involve Congress, and because Congress is primarily responsible for passing a budget for fiscal affairs, for financing the government. And then, you have a chief executive officer, the President of the United States and the executive branch charged with executing on behalf of the government of the United States, of functioning strong executive leadership, and, of course, you have the judiciary, but all things being healthy, the judiciary isn’t involved at all in the budget process. So let’s just consider you have a face-off here, not between the president and Congress. That happens sometimes, usually when you have congressional majorities, at least in one chamber or the other, opposed to the party of the president, but in this case, you’ve got a Republican president, you have the Republican Senate leader, you have Republican Speaker of the House, so what’s the problem?

The problem is there aren’t enough Republican senators to move a continuing resolution through without 60 votes, and that means some Democrats are going to have to vote. And the Democrats have decided to draw a line in the sand, so let’s watch what’s going on. Okay. So what’s a continuing resolution? I said our budget process isn’t particularly healthy, and we’ve gone years in the United States, functioning on the basis of just continuing resolutions rather than a functional budget, because there’s just no one taking political responsibility to establish a workable budget.

Now, part of that is simply because the United States government is spending more money than it takes in, and so fiscal responsibility is not exactly baked in the cake, but the two parties are both guilty in this, but they’re not equally guilty, and not by a long shot, the Democratic Party would spend the nation into oblivion. And I think the Democratic leaders who showed up at the White House yesterday basically made that point by the ridiculous demands that they made in the middle of negotiations just over a continuing resolution. So the Republicans have simply said, “Look, to fund the government, because the government fiscal spending authorization is going to end with the month of September, and that means tomorrow, then we’re going to have to come up with a way to continue the budget.” So the Republicans decided to do what is, I think brilliant in this case. They just presented what’s called a clean continuing resolution.

So that means everything’s as it is right now. It’s just a continuation for a matter of days of what the government’s doing right now. Clean means no one’s trying to sneak anything in. Okay. And yet, the Democrats have said, “You know, we’re going to stand up against the White House, we’re going to stand up against the Republicans. We’re going to demand negotiations and budget concessions on the part of the Republicans if we’re going to agree to continue to fund the government.” Now, okay, footnote here. What happens if there is a government shutdown? Well, let me just assure you, the government doesn’t completely shut down. There are sections of the government, which are legally defined as essential.

So that would include, say, air traffic control, it would include the Coast Guard and the military obviously, the continuation of government spending. And by the way, there’s not much chance the Congress will not pay itself during this period. But nonetheless, you look at it, large numbers of federal bureaucrats, and workers, and federal agencies will shut down. If it lasts very long, certain things certainly are delayed. Approvals on things, administrative process begins to bog down.

It’s also true that sometimes the government, just to make the point, wants you to be very aware of the fact that this government shutdown is in effect. So for instance, national parks might close, other national sites might close. And that’s very frustrating, of course, to Americans. Just think of taking your family to Washington D.C., just at the time that all the welcome mats are pulled in over a political stunt. But in watching what was taking place yesterday, I have to say, I enjoyed the Republicans using the word, clean, as in a clean proposal.

What does that mean? It means this is just a continuing resolution of what’s happening right now. It’s not a continuing resolution that includes a lot of financial shenanigans, and that’s exactly what the Democrats brought. They said they wanted to stand up for the American people in terms of healthcare and other things. And by the way, some of those issues, including some taxation issues, would also have some Republican support.

But that’s on an ongoing budget conversation, not a debate over a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution is something that just funds the government long enough to keep it going, but it also has a fairly short period, so there’s still political impetus to have to solve, or resolve some of these issues, but it is really interesting to see what’s going on. The Democrats brought some of the most ridiculous spending demands imaginable, and in many ways, pandering to their leftist base. I mean, some of it is just predictable, some of it, frankly, is still kind of shocking. Some of the LGBTQ stuff and other stuff is just thrown into this, in healthcare, regardless of immigration status and things like that. I’ll be honest, I think the Democrats are giving the Republicans a massive gift right now. Both parties might pay if the government actually shuts down, but you know what? Over time, I think it’s been demonstrated, Republicans play this game much better than Democrats, regardless of which side they’re on. Are they in the White House or out of the White House? 

Republicans tend to do better with this, and I want to tell you the reason why. I think it’s because Democrats are seen as the party of big government, and Americans don’t mind hearing big government howl in pain every once in a while. Or to put it another way, the Democratic party is the party absolutely committed to the administrative state, and, I think, most Americans are not sad to see the administrative state, at least put on some kind of notice. And furthermore, as I say, the entire thing is, in one sense, political theater. It’s political nonsense. Americans ought to demand, of our elected officials, that we achieve some kind of true fiscal accountability and make certain that we’re not robbing from our own grandchildren and great-grandchildren when it comes to federal spending.

And honestly, that would be painful for both parties, but not equally painful. I think it would also require the American people to make some very basic decisions about, for instance, how much we really are committed to national defense, understanding the numerous and growing threats to the U.S. post by, for instance, China, North Korea, and expansionist Russia. You go down the list. I think we see right now in Europe what happens when you basically demilitarize, and the cost of that is very, very high. I think that’s a cost Americans can’t afford to pay, and you would think in American history, this nation would’ve learned that.

In terms of social spending, obviously, there’s a level of social spending Americans will support and Americans will even demand, but right now, we need to look at European nations that cannot afford the social promises they have made, and we come to understand that you get into a certain depth of a fiscal or a budget hole or chasm, you’re not going to be able to get out of it.

Part III

The Role of the Media in the Government Shutdown: The New Media Reality Demands Drama

I also want to add at this point, in the nation’s political debate over the so-called budget crisis and the threat of a shutdown, I want to talk about the role of the media in this, because if you look at the cable news networks and other major media, you would think that this is the most important issue facing the world right now. I saw that one of the major news networks had a countdown clock to the moment at which Armageddon is going to happen, and the federal government shuts down, the moment at which all hope is lost and the lights go out. 

So why did they do that? And the answer is they do it for their own purposes. They do it because it serves their purposes. It serves their purposes to say, “You’re going to have to continue to watch this. This is really, really important. We’re going to have another interview coming up in two minutes right after this commercial. This is really, really urgent. The lights are about to go out.”

But it’s a manufactured crisis. Politically, it’s also largely a manufactured crisis in media terms. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, but it is really interesting to see that, well, just say how the people are coming on, making these announcements. They’re dressed up, they’re calm, they look like they’re ready for business. They don’t look like they think that the fiscal world is going to come to an end in the middle of this week. And it’s not. And I’m not saying it’s not important. I’m saying just understand how this works so that you don’t get played, either by politicians or the media, because the fact is they’ll be back with a screaming headline tomorrow. 

And I’m not saying they’re not doing their job. That is part of their job, but one of the downsides of new media reality is that if indeed you’ve got to fill 24 hours with something, and you’re going to call it news, you’re going to have to make a lot of things appear more important than they really are, and that’s just a matter of space, and time, and news. All right, I’ll leave it at that.

Part IV

Worth Noting: A Muslim Writer Wrestles with Erika Kirk’s Act of Forgiveness

But finally, for today, I want to take a look at a very interesting take on contemporary American Christianity, and it’s coming from an Islamic observer. He identifies as Islamic, and that’s Shadi Hamid, an opinion contributor at The Washington Post, and he offered an article just in the last day or so, entitled “Two Versions of Christianity Battle for America’s Soul.” The subhead, “Charlie Kirk’s Memorial Showed How Politics is Reshaping the Faith.”

Okay, so he talks about two versions of Christianity. You have an outsider to Christianity, looking in. And so how did he see that at the memorial service? He says, “Well, number one, there was the Erika Kirk Christianity,” in which she, demonstrating Christian forgiveness, spoke of the killer of her husband, and then spoke to him saying, “That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Jesus did, and is what Charlie would do.”

But then, you also have, as this writer points out, someone like Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, who said at the very same event, “This is not a political war. It’s not even a cultural wars, it’s a spiritual war.” And Hamid goes on to say, “These are not careless remarks from your metaphor. They represent the intentional framing of politics as religious combat in which political opponents are seen as demonic forces requiring defeat rather than conversion.” 

Okay, so let me just clarify a little bit, the fact that that’s not actually what Secretary Hegseth was doing. He didn’t say his political enemies are demonic. He is simply echoing what the Apostle Paul made clear, and that is that behind the warfare, between, say, good and evil, or righteous and unrighteousness, in the nation, what you have behind that are spiritual forces in the heavenly places. And so this is biblical language. It is specifically not identifying your human political enemies as demons.

It is to say there’s something, there’s a spiritual warfare going on that’s bigger than what people see with their own eyes. So that’s just a correction. But the bigger issue here is that he said, he saw two versions of Christianity at the Charlie Kirk memorial service. One version, he says with Erica, forgiving her husband’s killer, and the other, he associates with several speakers, but particularly, with Secretary Hegseth, saying, “That’s a rival vision of Christianity,” calling for basically, fighting out these issues in the political dimension.

Well, let me just state the obvious, you didn’t see two versions of Christianity on display at the Charlie Kirk memorial service. You did see different speakers. And by the way, Erika Kirk invited Secretary Hegseth to make those comments, so she wasn’t inviting a rival vision of Christianity, but what this writer asked about is, “What about turning the cheek?” And actually, what Erika Kirk did is far more powerful even than just turning the other cheek. She instead extended grace and forgiveness to the murderer of her husband, and she did so in the name of Christ, and that was an incredibly powerful moment, an incredible Christian testimony.

But Erika Kirk didn’t say, “Hey, let’s just give up the political battle and let’s not worry about whether our nation kills the unborn in the womb.” She didn’t say that. She didn’t say, “Hey, okay, so we’re going to give all this up in terms of our concern about the moral landscape and the righteous laws of the nation. We’re just going to let politics happen.” That is not at all what she said, and there was no incongruity in this, rightly understood.

Christians are called to be active in the political sphere, insofar as we’re able to be active. So in the Roman Empire, they weren’t very much able to be active. And so the big question is, “Do you bend the knee to Caesar or not?” And we’re now in a situation in which we have far more participation. We have the stewardship of far more participation in government.

We have a hand in crafting the laws, and very faithful Christians have been thinking for a long time about, “What is the Christian responsibility in elections, in looking at choices between candidates, in looking at how to be politically active in terms of seeking righteousness, and justice, and the protection of the innocent?” You just go down the list. There are rival parties in government, there are opposing arguments. In recent years, the chasm has grown deeper between these two worldviews, no doubt about it, and I think it is simply a fact that both sides know we are down to more ultimate issues than have ever been present in American politics. We’re not the Republicans and the Democrats of the ’50s.

This is now a political battle, a cultural battle, a moral battle over some extremely fundamental issues. But I think it’s important to say that what Christ called us to, and I think what you saw so wonderfully, graciously, demonstrated by Erika Kirk is forgiveness towards those who have wronged us, and in her case, unspeakably, almost unthinkably wronged her in killing her husband. That does not mean that Jesus said, “Hey, don’t have anything to do with trying to pass righteous laws.” It’s not like Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek,” and that means you don’t have any stake in legislative, congressional, judicial, electoral matters. That’s not it at all. There’s a stewardship that has been given to us, and that stewardship, I think, goes all the way back to Genesis chapter 1. 

I also want to say with graciousness, that I think it might not be easy for a Muslim writer, looking at this situation, to clear the confusion. I think it’s far sadder, from my perspective, that there are many who think themselves Christians, who seem to be equally or even more confused about these matters. But I also want to end on a hopeful note here. I do think it goes back to the fact that at that memorial service, the word spoken by Erika Kirk of forgiveness to her husband’s killer, I think we can see that it has caused a lot of questions to be asked in the secular culture around us.

“Why would she do that? How could she do that? What does it mean that she did that as a Christian?” We’ll understand there’s going to be a lot of confusion, but I think she achieved a rare moment of gospel clarity, and for that, we need to be very thankful.