With phase one of the Gaza ceasefire’s lapse on Saturday, Israel has cut off goods and supplies from entering Gaza in a move an Israeli source said was “coordinated with the Trump administration."
Israel’s Sunday supplies halt is intended to pressure Hamas into accepting a last-minute proposal it says was engineered by Trump envoy Steve Witkoff. The Trump administration has yet to confirm it’s behind such a proposal, though it’s said it will back whatever actions Israel takes.
In a video announcing the move, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked President Trump for supporting Israel, including its new goods and supplies halt. He also suggested “further steps” could be taken if Hamas doesn’t release the hostages.
“Israel has decided to stop letting goods and supplies into Gaza, something we've done for the past 42 days. We've done that because Hamas steals the supplies and prevents the people of Gaza from getting them,” Netanyahu alleged. “We will take further steps if Hamas continues to hold our hostages. And throughout this, Israel knows that America and President Trump have our back.”
“Thank you again, President Trump!”
Netanyahu said Hamas rejected the new, allegedly U.S. engineered, proposal. But while the original plan called for both sides to negotiate an exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, the new proposal does not mention a release of Palestinian prisoners by Israel. Further, a Hamas official told Drop Site News that Israel’s aid halt announcement came before the group could be briefed about the alleged Witkoff proposal.
Hamas called the move “cheap blackmail, a war crime and a blatant coup against the agreement” in a Sunday statement. Oxfam also called the supplies cut a “a reckless act of collective punishment.”
Hamas says Israel must abide by the original ceasefire terms and start phase two negotiations, which would facilitate an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a final end to the war if successful.
In contrast, Israel has chosen to maintain IDF presence in a Egypt-Gaza border region it calls the Philadelphi corridor, in violation of the original ceasefire agreement which dictated that a corridor pull-out would have begun Saturday. According to Hamas, Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire with various attacks in Gaza, reportedly killing 116 Palestinians during what should be a truce.
Meanwhile, with the ceasefire and related negotiations on thin ice, the Trump administration expedited $4 billion in military aid to Israel over the weekend.
Stavroula Pabst is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft.
Top image credit: Steve Witkoff, the special envoy to the Middle East, makes an appearance moments before President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 4, 2025. (Photo by Joshua Sukoff/MNS/Sipa USA)
Several members of Trump’s own party in Congress have expressed frustration with his language and tactics surrounding the Ukraine-Russia peace process.
The president was elected with a mandate to end the conflict, and he repeatedly promised to do so, even initially promising an end it within “24 hours.” However, some of his comments on Ukraine’s role in the conflict, calling President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a "dictator" who started the war, and musing whether the United States will continue to support Ukraine, has emboldened critics, including Republicans who were already skeptical of Trump’s insistence on moving quickly to a diplomatic strategy to end the war.
Republican senators also became outspoken after the United States voted against a United Nations resolution this week to condemn Russian aggression.
“Yesterday’s vote by the U.S. against the U.N. resolution was shameful,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), referring to the United States’ vote against the U.N. resolution condemning Russian aggression.
“We all want this senseless war to end, but ending it on Russia’s terms would be a devastating mistake that plays right into Putin’s bloody hands,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) piled on. “I can imagine this was a strategic vote in order to negotiate a hasty and expeditious outcome to a horrible war,” he said. “I agree that Russia is the aggressor. I’m acknowledging it, and so many members of Congress are acknowledging that.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has traveled extensively to Ukraine and has been in support of prolonging the fighting to ensure Ukrainian victory over Russia, said the U.N. vote had gone too far. “I think Russia is the aggressor. I don't care about the U.N. resolution,” he said.
Over in the House, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) criticized the vote. “An independent Ukraine aligned with the West is a game changer for the United States and Europe, so it is in our interest to ensure that Ukraine prevails,” he told C-SPAN on Thursday. “It’s a black-and-white issue: Putin invaded, he wants to restore his old borders from the Soviet Union.”
Indeed, Anatol Lieven, Director of the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia Program, wrote in an RS piece this week that Trump’s rhetoric this week might be unhelpful because “it allows opponents of Trump and enemies of the peace process to denounce (process) as ‘surrender’ to Russia motivated by personal and ideological amity between Trump and Putin, rather than a necessary step to end a destructive war, eliminate grave dangers to the world and costs to the U.S., and respect the will of a large majority of the international community.”
Zelenskyy and Trump are meeting Friday reportedly to sign a deal granting the United States access to Ukraine’s mineral mining market. It is unknown whether the deal will include explicit security guarantees.
The New York Times reports that North Korea is sending an additional 3,000 troops to fight for Moscow in Ukraine. According to the Times, close to 11,000 North Koreans were previously fighting in Ukraine and Ukrainian-controlled Kursk, but they were withdrawn after suffering heavy losses.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with President Trump in the White House on Thursday. The Guardian reports that Starmer promised to raise the UK’s defense spending to 2.5% of its GDP by 2027 and 3% by 2030. President Trump also indicated that American troops likely wouldn’t be needed as part of a security deal in Ukraine but that the United States would “help” the UK if its forces were attacked during a peacekeeping mission.
According to Bloomberg, Turkey has indicated it is open to providing peacekeeping troops if needed in Ukraine. Anonymous sources indicated that Turkish President Recep Erdogan agreed to lend soldiers from his army in separate meetings with Zelenskyy and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. France and the United Kingdom have also said they would provide Ukraine troops as part of a security package.
The Washington Postreports on Ukraine’s increasingly dire birth rates and population loss, with the population dropping from around 50 million in 1991 to around 36 million (including Russian-occupied territory) today.
The decrease is primarily due to a low birth rate, war casualties, and Ukrainians fleeing the country. The U.N. Population Fund reported in 2024 that the Ukrainian birth rate had dipped below 1.0 from 2.1 in 2001. The Post says that if these trends aren't reversed, Ukraine’s population will drop to around 25 million by 2050 and 15 million by 2100.
There were no State Department press briefings this week
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Producers of best picture winner "Argo" (L-R) Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney arrive to pose with their Oscars at the 85th Academy Awards in Hollywood, California February 24, 2013 REUTERS/ Mike Blake (UNITED STATES TAGS:ENTERTAINMENT) (OSCARS-BACKSTAGE)
This Sunday millions will tune in to watch Hollywood’s premier awards ceremony, the Oscars. All eyes will be on the red carpet to see who is wearing what and viewers will be anxiously waiting to see if any drama unfolds–like a Will Smith slap or accidentally awarding the Best Picture Oscar to the wrong film. What won’t be mentioned is the fact that many of the movies vying for Oscar wins wouldn’t have made it to the big screen without help from the U.S. military.
From Goldfinger (1964) to Captain Marvel (2019), the Pentagon has assisted in the making of more than 2,500 war-themed movies and television series and continues to contribute to an average of seven feature film projects and over 90 smaller film and TV projects every year.
Roger Stahl, who heads University of Georgia’s Communications Studies Department and author of Militainment Inc. and the documentary “Theaters of War,” suspects that a third to a half of all blockbuster films substantially featuring the military have received military support. “The Oscars have honored a few security state-sponsored productions over the years,” he wrote in an email exchange with Responsible Statecraft.
As reported by Stahl, The Hurt Locker, which won Best Picture in 2010, had DoD help for half of its production before the relationship soured. Argo and its CIA “co-producers” won Best Picture in 2013, and the Navy’sTop Gun: Maverick boasted nine nominations in 2023.
Documents pertaining to the production of this year's films aren’t available yet, as they are often only accessible through time-intensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. But, according to Stahl, “if there was an Oscar category for most likely to do business with the security state, the nominees would be the new offerings in franchises that have done it before: Godzilla, Mission: Impossible, Planet of the Apes, and Captain America.”
The Costs of War’s new Consuming War research series, unveiled earlier this week, highlights the many ways in which “Americans are inundated with cultural projects promoting militarism.” The series’s first paper, “The Militarization of Movies and Television,” provides a timely review of the Pentagon’s influence over the movie and television industry. And it turns out that U.S. taxpayer money is going directly to Hollywood subsidies.
Tanner Mirrlees, the author of the report and Associate Professor of Communication and Digital Media Studies at Ontario Tech University, illustrates how Americans are unwittingly helping finance military propaganda disguised as commercial entertainment. A typical war movie budget may range between $50 million and $150 million.
Meanwhile, a single F-35 fighter costs over $80 million. Thus, the cost of acquiring and operating jets, tanks and aircraft carriers would make such weapons inaccessible to movie makers without extensive DoD subsidization. Partnering with the Pentagon gives studios access to technologies and the personnel to operate them, military locations to film at, and U.S. officers who can double as taxpayer-funded extras.
This partnership comes at a price. In exchange for the use of military personnel and equipment, movie producers must abide by the Pentagon’s strict entertainment policy that grants the DoD final say over a movie’s script. These collaborations frequently require changes to the screenplay that amount to historical revisionism. Spy Culture, the “world's leading resource on government involvement in Hollywood,” has utilized FOIA requests to collect tens of thousands of annotated drafts of film scripts which provide a firsthand glimpse at the breadth of the Pentagon’s influence over the movies we know and love.
The script for Godzilla (2014), for example, was dramatically transformed from a movie meant to criticize the U.S. military’s use of nuclear weapons into one in which Godzilla, a monstrous allegory for U.S. atomic bombing, is strengthened by a nuclear missile and later assisted in battle by the U.S. military. The original script’s references to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also removed by the producers after the Pentagon threatened to withdraw its assistance from the film.
Godzilla is one of many movies fashioned by the militainment industry in order to help the Pentagon procure a whitewashed, idealized image of itself. Both Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper exalt the military and U.S. intelligence agencies while stereotyping and minimizing the humanity of the Afghan and Iraqi peoples harmed by American black ops. As Mirlees puts it, these movies “frame U.S. wars as necessary and glorious, downplaying or ignoring the human, social and environmental devastation war causes, particularly for civilians.”
The Pentagon also has a habit of withholding assistance from movies that examine the human cost of U.S. warfare or depict war crimes committed by American military personnel, such as Jarhead, Platoon, Redacted and In the Valley of Elah, which was nominated for an Oscar in 2008.
“One of my main concerns with DoD-backed Hollywood entertainment” explained Mirlees in an email to Responsible Statecraft, “is its role in sustaining an ideological environment where a purposeful questioning of defense spending—and the interests served beyond just “defense” or “security”—is politically fraught, often framed as unpatriotic or un-American.”
With a proposed budget of $850 billion and a seventh failed audit, the Pentagon is in desperate need of public scrutiny. Yet the silver screen continues to paint a romanticized picture of the military and its equipment. The DoD’s lackluster F-35 fighter jet, which has enjoyed its fair share of the lime light in the Transformers, Superman, and Godzilla franchises, for example, is projected to cost taxpayers more than $1.7 trillion.
When it comes to its embedded role in feature films, the Pentagon does its best to keep its relationship with Hollywood off-screen. “The problem is lack of transparency," said Stahl. “As researchers file more information requests, we have seen the military become more protective and tight-lipped.” Filmmakers too, often obscure the full extent of their collaboration with the Pentagon while actively pitching movie concepts with the Pentagon’s values in mind.
The FCC mandates that all public broadcasts must include a notice of all commercial sponsorships and product usage, which could be used as a framework for legislation that would require a public disclosure of cooperation between the Pentagon and film studios, thus providing the American public with the transparency it deserves. As it stands now, however, any acknowledgement of military involvement with a Hollywood film is buried deep in the credits, only available to viewers after they’ve consumed a movie whose script has been approved by the Pentagon.
While a deeper understanding of the Pentagon’s behind-the-scenes influence on the film industry is needed, Hollywood is just the beginning of the Pentagon's efforts to win the hearts and minds of U.S. taxpayers. From videogames and music to fashion and toys, Consuming War reports will continue to investigate the military’s influence on American cultural life.
So, as you're watching the Oscars this Sunday, just remember that you're not only watching the stars; you're watching the militainment industry hard at work.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., wearing his Israeli Defense Forces uniform, on Capitol Hill, Oct. 13, 2023. (X post)
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast (R-Fl.) has instructed GOP committee staffers to refer to the West Bank by its Hebrew name, Judea and Samaria.
Heading one of Washington’s most powerful committees, Mast sent a memo outlining the language change to the nearly 50 Republican Foreign Affairs Committee staffers on Tuesday; Democratic staffers did not receive the request. Mast’s Washington.-based office confirmed the validity of Axios’ reporting in a phone call to RS; the memo sent to staffers has subsequently circulated on social media.
Critically, the memo repeatedly emphasizes Israelis’ right to the West Bank, a territory it occupies illegally, as their homeland.
"In recognition of our unbreakable bond with Israel and the inherent right of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland, the House Foreign Affairs committee will, from here forward, refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria in formal correspondence, communication and documentation,” Mast’s memo said.
“As a committee and as representatives of the American people, we must do our part to stem this reprehensible tide of antisemitism and recognize Israel’s rightful claim to the cradle of Jewish civilization.”
Mast’s language change push comes amid a major Israeli offensive on the West Bank, where about 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced in the last month, and a shaky ceasefire in Gaza, in place after Israeli forces killed at least 46,000 Palestinians and wounded 110,000 more in an extended onslaught of the strip, though some death toll estimates are much higher.
Mast’s motion is not the first of its kind. Rather, Sen. Tom Cotton (R.-Ariz) and Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) introduced congressional legislation for the same West Bank name swap last year.
And congressional calls to recognize the West Bank as Israeli are gaining steam in tandem. Tenney asked Trump to recognize the West Bank as Israeli territory in a letter early this week; Reps. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Randy Weber (R-Texas), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Barry Moore (R-Ala.), and Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) signed it.
Trump has said he’ll announce his position on the West Bank’s jurisdiction soon. In the meantime, he’s repeatedly floated a controversial riviera plan for Gaza where “the U.S. will take over the Gaza strip” and Palestinians would have to leave, perhaps temporarily or permanently.
A former soldier for the Israel Defense Forces, Mast is one of Israel’s staunchest advocates in Congress. "Over his career, Rep. Brian Mast has received almost $700,000 from AIPAC, according to OpenSecrets.org,” says Dr. Annelle Sheline, Research Fellow in the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
“He served in the Israeli Defense Forces and wore an Israeli military uniform to Congress,” Dr. Sheline said, citing Mast’s IDF post-October 7 uniform stunt at Capitol Hill. “I hope his constituents are asking themselves whose interests he's really committed to: theirs, or Netanyahu's?"
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.