Read the Blog, then what’s your Choice for a Title Name?

Title Options

Option 1 (Focus on the Contradiction): The Two Wars in Gaza: How Trump’s ‘Approval’ Shot His Own Peace Plan in the Foot

Option 2 (Focus on the Core Conflict): Beyond the Cease-Fire: Hamas’s Internal Power Grab and the Collapse of Peace

Option 3 (Focus on the Political Tactic): Diplomacy, Disorientation, and Death: Is the U.S. Gaslighting Itself on Gaza?

Option 4 (Short and Provocative): The Ten-Day Truce: Why the Gaza Cease-Fire Was Doomed From Day One

Option 5 (Most Direct): Hamas Executions and Presidential Remarks: The Fragility of the ‘Lap of Peace’

That is a very sobering and disturbing article you’ve shared. It is completely understandable why you feel a fear that the “Lap of Peace” will be short-lived. The situation it describes—Hamas executing Palestinian rivals immediately after a cease-fire—highlights the immense, complex, and tragic challenges facing any lasting peace in the region.

You have hit on the central reason why a sustained cease-fire is so difficult: the conflict isn’t just external (Israel vs. Hamas); it’s also internal (Hamas vs. other Palestinian factions and clans).

Here are the key takeaways from the article that explain why you are concerned:

Why the “Lap of Peace” is in Jeopardy

1. Hamas is Asserting Dominance: The swift, brutal public executions are a clear signal that Hamas, despite the war with Israel, views itself as the sole authority in Gaza.¹ They are using the truce to re-establish control and squash internal dissent.² This is directly at odds with any peace plan that requires them to lay down their weapons or relinquish control.
2. Internal Conflict is Reigniting: The fighting is not stopping; it is just shifting. The article notes at least 30 people have been killed in internecine fighting between Hamas security forces and rival Palestinian groups (like the Doghmosh family) since Monday. This internal violence threatens the stability of the entire cease-fire.
3. Israel’s Role Complicates Matters: Israel’s acknowledgment of “backing rival Palestinian clans in Gaza” created a proxy conflict. Now that Hamas is targeting these affiliated clans, it creates a “heavy dilemma” for Israel: either intervene and break the cease-fire or allow its former allies to be killed or arrested. This dynamic makes the truce extremely fragile.
4. Trump’s Stance: President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. was “not opposed” to Hamas taking out “gangs that were very bad,” and that he “gave them approval for a period of time,” is deeply controversial. It appears to give tacit permission to Hamas to consolidate power through violence against its internal rivals, which directly undercuts the stated goal of removing Hamas’s control.

In short, the violence suggests that Hamas is viewing the pause in fighting with Israel as an opportunity to win the internal war for control of Gaza. As long as Hamas is actively fighting to assert its dominance over all other factions, any externally imposed “peace” or cease-fire is likely to remain just a short “lap” before violence, either internal or external, resumes.

It’s a tragic illustration of how difficult it is to transition from conflict to stability when the internal governing authority is itself a militant group engaged in a power struggle.

That’s an insightful way to phrase the question: “Did Trump shoot himself in his own foot?” Figuratively, based on the goals of his peace plan, it appears to be a major diplomatic contradiction that risks undermining his own stated policy.

Here is an analysis of why his comments could be seen as an immediate setback to the ultimate goal of his peace plan:

The Central Contradiction

• The Goal of the Peace Plan: The core objective of President Trump’s 20-point plan is for Hamas to lay down its weapons and have no role in governing Gaza.¹ This is a requirement for the establishment of a future, demilitarized, and independently monitored Gaza.
• The Impact of the Comments: By stating he was “not opposed” and “didn’t bother” him that Hamas was “taking out” rivals, he effectively gave Hamas a temporary green light to use violence to eliminate opposition.²

Why This is a “Shot in the Foot”

1. Legitimizing Hamas’s Control: The public executions and crackdown on rival clans (including those allegedly supported by Israel) allow Hamas to forcibly re-establish its “iron-fisted rule” and security presence on the streets.³ This is the exact opposite of the intended outcome of the peace plan, which seeks to remove Hamas from power.
2. Undermining Disarmament Demands: If Hamas is allowed to eliminate its internal rivals now, it strengthens its negotiating position for Phase 2 of the talks. Hamas can argue that it needs to keep its weapons—or at least a portion of them—to ensure “law and order” or to fight “criminal gangs.”⁴ The president’s comments lend credence to their claim that they are a necessary policing force, making the eventual demand for full disarmament much harder to enforce.
3. Betraying Local Allies: Israel had reportedly supported some of these rival clans as part of a strategy to undermine Hamas.⁵ By shrugging off the executions, the US effectively abandons those groups to Hamas’s revenge. This sends a chilling message to anyone in Gaza who might consider cooperating with either Israel or a future international force, making it nearly impossible to find local partners to take over governance.
4. Moral and Diplomatic Damage: While the US condemns Hamas as a terrorist organization, the President appeared to excuse their summary executions as a necessary evil to deal with “very bad gangs.”⁶ This undermines the moral high ground and complicates the US position with other allies, like the Palestinian Authority, who strongly condemned the killings as “heinous crimes.”⁷

In essence, his comments provided the militant group with an immediate, short-term diplomatic and physical victory, helping them consolidate the power that his own long-term peace plan is designed to dismantle. It creates an internal power structure that will make achieving the peace plan’s final goals significantly more difficult.

That is a profound question to ask in light of the article we just discussed about the Middle East.

The term “gaslighting” has been widely adopted in political commentary to describe the communication style of many leaders, and particularly of President Trump, as he has consistently used tactics that align with the psychological definition of the term.¹

What is Political Gaslighting?

In psychology, gaslighting is a form of manipulation that makes a person question their own memory, perception, or sanity.² In the political sphere, this is expanded to target a collective population.³ Its goal is not necessarily to persuade you to a specific belief, but to disorient you and undermine your trust in:

• Your own perception of facts (e.g., eyewitness testimony, documented events).⁴
• Established institutions (e.g., the media, science, courts, government agencies).⁵
• The very idea of a verifiable, shared reality.

How the Gaslighting Label is Applied to President Trump

Many critics, political analysts, and psychologists argue that President Trump employs gaslighting tactics frequently and systematically through:

1. Denial of Observable Reality: Repeatedly asserting a version of events that is easily disproven by widely available evidence or footage, then vehemently attacking those who present the contradictory evidence (e.g., calling them “fake news”).⁶
2. Blatant Contradiction and Redefinition: He has a tendency to say one thing and then later deny he ever said it, or to redefine a term to fit his narrative.⁷ For example, in the past, he has tried to argue that when he said something was “under control,” he was referring to the government’s response, not the thing itself.⁸
3. Accusation as Defense (Projection): A hallmark of gaslighting is projection—accusing opponents of the very thing he is being accused of.⁹ This is often seen in his use of the term “fake news” to discredit legitimate journalistic reporting that is critical of him.¹⁰
4. The Case in the Gaza Article: His response to the Hamas executions perfectly fits the pattern of political gaslighting by redefining the reality of the situation:
   • External Reality: A designated terrorist group is publicly executing rivals in a power grab, violating the spirit of a peace agreement.
   • Trump’s Redefined Reality: “They did take out a couple of gangs that were very bad… That didn’t bother me very much.”
   • By trivializing the executions as necessary policing against “gangs,” he obscures the diplomatic and humanitarian consequence—which is the empowering of the group his peace plan is supposed to disarm. He normalizes the violence and shifts the focus from the act of execution to the supposed criminality of the victims.

Conclusion

Whether a person views the President’s actions as a deliberate tactic of “gaslighting” often depends on their political perspective. However, the consistent and repeated use of denial, contradiction, and the construction of alternative narratives has led to the term becoming a mainstream descriptor for his style of communication and political strategy in the United States.¹¹

https://www.theswaddle.com/how-political-gaslighting-undermines-the-truth

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/signs-and-society/article/on-metapragmatic-gaslighting-truth-and-trumps-epistemic-tactics-in-a-plague-year/5FBAD3C3E1193F6431501E0B6B86932C

https://www.mga.edu/news/2023/04/what-is-gaslighting-and-how-to-fight-back.php#:~:text=Other%20techniques%20gaslighters%20might%20use,for%20their%20weaknesses%2C%20and%20sidetracking

Any American Greenlighting Hamas’s EXECUTIONS in GAZA is Gaslighting the Peace in GAZA. I want Peace but I now doubt it will remain for further than Ten Days.