Everywhere Insiders 18: Hamas Negotiations, Human Rights Reports, and Global Politics
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/13
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discuss Hamas’s partial acceptance of Trump’s Gaza plan, highlighting unresolved disputes over disarmament, oversight, and IDF withdrawal. Tsukerman stresses Hamas’s antisemitic stance, propaganda tactics, and declining support in Gaza. The conversation broadens to Human Rights Watch reports on incendiary weapons, raising questions about credibility and enforcement. They also examine Georgia’s October elections amid repression, Moldova’s contrasting trajectory, and Tucker Carlson’s controversial rebranding, including allegations of financial influence. Tsukerman argues that media manipulation, weak enforcement of international law, and political opportunism underscore persistent threats to democratic processes and global security.
Interview conducted on October 3, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, shifting to our news segment: we are here with Irina Tsukerman to discuss Everywhere Insiders and recent political developments. Our sources today include UN News, Reuters, AP News, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Let us begin with an AP report: Hamas has partially accepted President Trump’s Gaza plan, and Trump has told Israel to halt bombing while negotiations proceed. The talks cover governance, humanitarian access, disarmament, and prisoner exchanges. Irina, from an expert angle, where does this stand?
Irina Tsukerman: The headlines oversell the progress. When you examine what Hamas actually accepted and rejected, the picture is less optimistic. Hamas has not agreed to disarm—a central requirement of the plan—and says any disarmament would depend on ending Israel’s occupation. It objects to foreign administration or oversight of Gaza and has raised practical objections to a 72-hour timeline for returning all hostages, noting difficulty locating remains that quickly. It also demands a full, immediate IDF withdrawal, rather than the staged withdrawal envisioned in the plan. In short, Hamas agreed to continue talking and accepted some components, but the most contentious issues remain unresolved.
It is also worth recalling that both Netanyahu and Trump have framed their proposals as “final” offers. Meanwhile, Trump publicly directed Israel to stop bombing to facilitate hostage release and negotiations, even as localized strikes reportedly continued.
Jacobsen: To clarify the diplomatic context: Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by major Western governments—the United States, European Union, Canada, and the United Kingdom—and has faced growing regional censure. The UN General Assembly recently reaffirmed the two-state solution in a vote of roughly 140 nations, which also explicitly condemned Hamas. Several Arab states have echoed calls for Hamas to disarm and cede governance to a technocratic Palestinian body.
Given those facts, is a fair characterization is that Hamas’s stance is both anti-Israel and antisemitic?
Tsukerman: It strategically links those positions. The current “partial acceptance” keeps negotiations alive but does not bridge the central gaps—disarmament, oversight and governance, and withdrawal sequencing. They link the two issues directly. So Hamas has essentially come out and openly stated that they hate Jews and they hate Israel.
It is no longer disguised or couched in careful language. They have essentially admitted that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are linked, and they are not making the rare distinction anymore. They have declared that they hate the State of Israel, everyone who lives there, and Jewish communities worldwide. They want them all gone.
Jacobsen: So to be clear, the overall assessment is that Hamas is anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, and antisemitic. They are labeled a terrorist group and sanctioned by numerous global actors, and they are increasingly isolated—even from those who once could have been allies.
Tsukerman: Their popularity has declined even in Gaza. That does not mean Gazans have let go of their deep hostility toward Israel, but they are holding Hamas accountable for dragging them into a disastrous war, mismanaging the economy, torturing critics, and publicly executing people accused of collaborating with Israel without trial. These abuses have been documented in recent weeks.
Nevertheless, Hamas continues to hold on to power, rejecting proposals supported by the United States, Israel, and regional powers including Saudi Arabia and Egypt—even though Egypt had hoped to promote its own version of a peace plan. For Hamas, every rejection and delay is strategic. They view Trump’s public statements, such as his order to pause bombing, as victories. Any pause in fighting becomes propaganda: proof, in their narrative, that Israel is weak and susceptible to pressure.
In reality, this is a propaganda victory rather than a military one. Based on the available information, I believe Trump did not receive the full details of Hamas’s response. If he had, he might have been far less celebratory and more skeptical of Hamas’s intentions. A deeper issue here is his administration’s close security and financial relationship with Qatar, which has emboldened Hamas to continue its strategy of delay and manipulation.
Jacobsen: Outside of that, Human Rights Watch has urged states to move beyond the weak provisions of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and pursue stronger international rules on incendiary weapons, even suggesting a full ban. This follows reports of their recent use in South Sudan. Human Rights Watch has also reported on incendiary weapons, including alleged uses of white phosphorus. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: At the end of the day, Human Rights Watch has no enforcement mechanisms. Their reports are important for raising awareness, but the organization cannot hold countries accountable when they violate international law. Any law—new, old, or refined—is only as strong as the willingness of states to enforce it. When parties to conflicts ignore agreements, the law itself cannot stop them.
The only way to stop such actors is often overwhelming force, which may require serious weaponry. Some of the examples cited in the Human Rights Watch report are dubious, poorly documented, or based on biased sources. The problem with some of these investigations is that they rely heavily on secondhand narratives, which are impossible to independently verify. That means you are left taking the organization at its word, and its credibility has been compromised in the past.
Human Rights Watch has, on multiple occasions, been accused of fabricating or misreporting incidents. That makes it difficult to distinguish between genuine eyewitness testimony of atrocities and politically convenient narratives. This undermines the credibility of their work. To be clear, incendiary weapons are horrific and destructive, but questionable methodology harms the cause. If the examples cannot be trusted, the scope of the problem is harder to grasp, which reduces the likelihood of effective action.
Jacobsen: Moving to Georgia, international monitors have warned that the October 4 local elections are taking place amid severe reprisals against opposition activists and media. This echoes Associated Press coverage of a sweeping crackdown. Any further thoughts on the Georgia situation?
Tsukerman: We are seeing a troubling trend. On the one hand, Russia continues to interfere in elections. On the other, people are beginning to push back. Moldova is an encouraging example: despite facing many of the same challenges as Georgia, Moldovans chose a different path, likely influenced by Georgia’s struggles.
Unfortunately, in Georgia there is little reason to expect a radically different outcome in the near future. The opposition lacks a clear vision beyond simply being anti-Russian. They also remain closely tied to Mikhail Saakashvili. To be clear, he does not deserve to languish in prison or be subjected to mistreatment, but his legacy is complicated. While in power, he was accused of anti-democratic measures. His decision to return to Georgia was reckless.
Because no new credible leader has emerged to present a different vision, the opposition remains hampered by association with Saakashvili and his successors. This gives the ruling Georgian Dream coalition far more strength than it might otherwise have.
Jacobsen: Shifting to Carlson: Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News anchor, has rebranded as an independent and drawn attention with high-profile interviews, including with Vladimir Putin. He interviewed the Emir of Qatar and appeared to receive financing and pre-written talking points.
Tsukerman: Yes.
Jacobsen: If he claims the mantle of journalism, that is an obvious violation of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics—unless disclosed transparently. To my knowledge, he did not disclose such arrangements.
Tsukerman: His explanation is that payments went to his business venture, not to him personally. But since he owns the business, this is a distinction without a difference. It is nonsense. It strongly suggests he may have had similar arrangements with other parties as well. Carlson has interviewed figures like Vladimir Putin, Alexander Dugin, and others of that sort.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 