Full Analysis Summary
U.S. plan for Gaza
President Donald Trump unveiled a U.S.-led "Board of Peace" and an International Stabilization Force (ISF) intended to demilitarize Hamas and oversee Gaza’s reconstruction.
Common Dreams warns the ISF will act not as a neutral peacekeeping mission but as an occupying counterinsurgency force that will "import U.S. counterinsurgency tactics (death squads, night raids, privatized mercenaries)" and reproduce methods used in Vietnam, Latin America, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Haaretz reports many Palestinians in Gaza view the U.S.-led board and stabilization force as "another form of occupation," arguing U.S. complicity and cooperation with the Israeli military during the war lead Palestinians to see the U.S. as effectively the same as Israel.
This framing places the ISF as a continuation of foreign control rather than a sovereign, Palestinian-led transition.
Coverage Differences
Tone and framing
Common Dreams (Western Alternative) frames the plan as a replay of violent U.S. counterinsurgency with explicit historical parallels and alarmist language, while Haaretz (Israeli) reports Palestinian perception that the plan is “another form of occupation,” emphasizing local sentiment and U.S.-Israeli complicity rather than predicting specific counterinsurgency mechanisms.
Claims About Proposed ISF
Common Dreams names U.S. Major General Jasper Jeffers as the ISF's proposed leader and argues the force will rely on JSOC and CIA planners, private military contractors, and recruited local militias to carry out targeted killings and night raids.
The article draws direct parallels to known U.S.-linked programs and figures, citing Phoenix-program-style tactics and historical actors such as James Steele and John Negroponte, and warns those methods produce severe civilian suffering and fuel resistance.
Haaretz does not detail these operational claims but underscores why Palestinians distrust an American force that has worked with Israel's military operations.
Coverage Differences
Narrative detail vs. local perception
Common Dreams (Western Alternative) supplies operational specifics and historical analogies—naming leaders, agencies (JSOC, CIA) and tactics—while Haaretz (Israeli) focuses on Palestinian perception of U.S. complicity without enumerating the same operational mechanisms.
Objections to Gaza deployment
Common Dreams reports that Arab and Muslim states that initially considered contributing troops balked after learning the ISF's likely mandate.
It also reports that Israel objects to some potential contributors, for example, Turkey.
The report points to the practical problem that Israeli control of Gaza's territory complicates any legitimate multinational deployment.
Haaretz's reporting complements this by highlighting how Palestinians' lived experience of U.S.-Israeli cooperation during the war informs their rejection.
Palestinians call the Board and ISF an extension of occupation rather than liberation.
Coverage Differences
Coverage scope
Common Dreams (Western Alternative) emphasizes geopolitical obstacles and specific state reactions (Arab states’ hesitation, Israeli objections to contributors), while Haaretz (Israeli) highlights Palestinian sentiment and the political optics of U.S.-Israeli cooperation; the two sources thus cover complementary but different aspects of opposition.
Accusations and perceptions
Common Dreams accuses backers of the Board and the redevelopment agenda of sidelining Palestinians and of violating the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
It predicts that the ISF’s reliance on aggressive counterinsurgency tactics will replicate past failures and will fuel further resistance and civilian suffering in Gaza.
Haaretz does not echo those legal accusations but reinforces the political reality that Palestinians interpret U.S. involvement as synonymous with Israeli military aims, which undercuts claims that the ISF could act as a neutral, stabilizing force.
Coverage Differences
Legal and moral claims vs. reported perceptions
Common Dreams (Western Alternative) asserts legal violations and echoes a moral condemnation—explicitly accusing the plan of breaching international law and predicting harm—whereas Haaretz (Israeli) reports Palestinian perceptions and distrust without making explicit legal claims in the provided snippet.
Comparing two news sources
The two sources together show both the operational alarm raised by critics and the visceral rejection among Palestinians who see U.S. action as indistinguishable from Israeli military objectives.
Common Dreams offers detailed allegations and historical analogies that Haaretz does not replicate.
Haaretz provides on-the-ground sentiment that Common Dreams uses but does not foreground as primary evidence.
The available reporting is therefore complementary but incomplete.
Independent verification is needed for operational claims, including specific ISF orders, composition, and chain of command, and for broader legal determinations.
Readers should note these gaps and the divergent emphases across outlets.
Coverage Differences
Completeness and emphasis
Common Dreams (Western Alternative) emphasizes historical analogies, operational mechanics, and legal condemnation; Haaretz (Israeli) emphasizes Palestinian perceptions and U.S.-Israeli complicity. Each source influences the narrative: Common Dreams foregrounds threats of counterinsurgency brutality; Haaretz foregrounds Palestinian sentiment that frames the Board as occupation.