OPINION:
For two years, a vocal contingent of activists, politicians and limousine liberals championed a single, urgent demand: a ceasefire in Gaza. Their calls echoed from university campuses to the halls of Congress and across social media, painting a picture of a global movement singularly focused on ending the conflict.
Then, a hypothetical peace deal, brokered by President Trump, became reality. The deal initiated a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops and a phased release of hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Videos showed people taking to the streets, celebrating the new peace with a mixture of relief in Gaza and unbridled joy in Israel.
But from the very circles that had been the loudest, there was a curious quiet.
“I would have expected the streets of European capitals and campuses around the world to burst with joy for the end of what they claimed is ‘genocide,’” said former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. His follow-up question hangs in the air: “Might it be that their goal was never to secure Palestinian lives, but to destroy Israel?”
The silence from prominent figures was conspicuous. In Congress, staunch critics of Israel like hard-left Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Greg Casar offered no immediate public comment. Rep. Ilhan Omar gave a hesitant endorsement, calling the ceasefire “a hopeful step” before quickly pivoting back to calls for accountability and an “end to the occupation,” while also throwing in the word “genocide” — again.
The pattern of reluctant acknowledgment, often immediately caveated with renewed condemnations of Israel, suggests a deeper, more complex motivation than a simple desire for peace.
When New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a prominent critic of Israel, commented, he expressed hope but immediately reverted to denouncing Israel’s “war crimes,” making no mention of the deal’s architect.
The reaction — or lack thereof — raises an uncomfortable question: Was “ceasefire” ever the true end goal? Or was it a convenient, morally righteous banner for a different agenda?
The movement’s most visible proponents in Hollywood, the “Artists for Ceasefire,” were also notably silent. “When the cameras were rolling, they screamed for Gaza. Now that peace is here, they’ve disappeared. No hashtags. No joy for lives saved. No empathy for the freed,” wrote Israeli author Hen Mazzig.
His critique strikes at the heart of the matter: the performative nature of modern activism. “Because it was never about humanity — it was about ego, outrage and belonging to a mob. Silence exposes truth louder than any slogan,” he said.
This deafening silence is revealing. If the goal were simply to stop the fighting and save lives, a ceasefire — no matter who brokered it, even “Bad Orange Man” — should have been cause for unadulterated celebration. Instead, the deal, delivered by a political figure anathema to the left, was met with quiet resentment or grudging acceptance.
The always grudging late-night talk show hosts did their usual schtick. “Credit where credit is due — Donald Trump did something good,” said “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert. He followed with a sad joke about his poor ratings and money-losing show: “Are we still canceled? Are you sure? I tried.”
Jimmy Kimmel did the same on his little late-night show. “He finally did something positive today, and I want to give him credit for it because I know he’s not the type to take credit for himself.” And people wonder why late-night TV is dying.
The jokes — and the silence — all suggest the “ceasefire” movement was less about achieving peace and more about leveraging the conflict to delegitimize Israel. For many, the ideal outcome was not a negotiated truce but a scenario that ended in Israel’s humiliation and isolation on the world stage — a victory for Hamas, regardless of the cost. A ceasefire that dismantled Hamas and created a potential pathway to regional stability was, in fact, a strategic defeat for their cause.
The truth is, left-wing activists are still leftists, and a core tenet of modern leftist ideology is a profound opposition to Israel. The immediate calls for a ceasefire just days after the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre were never about peace; they were about preventing Israel from defending itself and ensuring Hamas could claim a win.
This Trump-brokered deal, which theoretically dismantles the terrorist group and secures Israel’s position, represents a failure for those who wished to see Israel weakened. The muted response from its most ardent critics is not just about their dislike for the dealmaker; it’s the quiet disappointment of seeing their preferred narrative crumble.
The silence we’re witnessing isn’t an oversight. It’s an admission. It tells us that for many, this was never about saving Palestinians. It was about damning Israel. And when peace looks like a victory for their ideological opponent, they have nothing left to say.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.