📸 This Picture Is Real. The Consent Was Fake. How Trump Lied To The World About the Plan to End the Genocide.

Trump unveiled a “joint” Gaza plan—after letting Netanyahu rewrite it. Arab/Muslim leaders did not approve that text. Trump then publicly pretended they did.

✊🏽 Family — before we begin

This work only survives because you sustain it. No ads. No billionaire owners. If you want clean, receipt-driven reporting that won’t be quietly deleted tomorrow, click here to join (monthly, annual, or founding). We are now 77 members away from our goal of 3,000! Every new member keeps this coverage free for everyone who needs it.

I need to explain a massive con-job that Trump just pulled on a group of leaders - and really on the world.

The picture you see above was taken, rather proudly, by a group of Arab and Muslim leaders, including several Heads of State, during last week’s United Nations Conference. They had all agreed to a very meticulous ceasefire document with Donald Trump - that had many concessions that they gave up, but they felt like it was the best possible path forward.

They took the photo.
Trump then gave the plan to Netanyahu.
Netanyahu then made massive changes.
Trump then presented the Israeli plan to the public.
And told the world the men in this photo all agreed to it.
They didn’t.

That is the heart of this story. Trump met with a group of Arab and Muslim leaders, took the optics he wanted, handed the draft to Netanyahu, let him rewrite core terms, and then stood at the podium and sold the edited version as if the original authors had approved it. They had not. This is the Israeli plan—rebranded by Trump—and it should be rejected.

Receipts block

Fact: The plan Trump presented “contained significant changes requested by [Israeli PM] Benjamin Netanyahu” and “the deal now before Hamas is significantly different than the one the U.S. and a group of Arab and Muslim countries had previously agreed on, due to Netanyahu’s intervention.” Qatar pleaded with the White House not to release the edited plan on Monday “due to those objections.” The White House released it anyway, then pushed Arab/Muslim capitals to back it.
Source: Barak Ravid, Axios (He is an Israeli insider and would know the truth.)

That’s the point: consent cannot be retrofitted. You don’t photograph leaders, let a third party revise their terms, and then claim their blessing. “Broadly welcoming” an announcement is not the same as endorsing the specific text Netanyahu altered.

What changed—and why it matters

According to Axios’ reporting, Netanyahu secured edits that tie any Israeli withdrawal to milestones Israel itself can police; the text gives Israel an effective veto over the process; and even if all phases are completed, Israel would remain inside Gaza on an open-ended “security perimeter.” In plain language: those edits convert a regional framework into an Israeli-controlled timetable with an Israeli lock on the door—and an Israeli footprint left inside Gaza indefinitely. That is not the plan Arab and Muslim leaders worked on. This is why I’m calling it what it is: a photo-op coup.

Meanwhile, the White House’s messaging treated the edits and the optics as interchangeable. They are not. Consent is the whole ballgame in diplomacy. If you torch it to score a headline, you poison everything that follows.

Objection & Answer (A new section where I address opposition head-on.)

Objection: “Arab officials welcomed Trump’s announcement—Abbas even praised the effort. Doesn’t that show buy-in?”
Answer: Welcoming an announcement ≠ consenting to the edited text. Axios reports Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey were furious about the changes; Qatar asked the White House not to release the document; the “joint statement” eight countries issued did not express full support—it was a placeholder while capitals sought clarification.

What the evidence shows: Trump misrepresented the source of consent. The baseline plan was shaped with Arab/Muslim leaders; the released plan reflected Israeli edits (conditional withdrawal, an Israeli veto, and an open-ended “security perimeter”). A picture with leaders is not a signature on text.

Say it plainly—and publicly

Each leader who was photographed should say so publicly: we did not approve the Netanyahu-edited text. If this process is going to have any legitimacy, it needs written consent from the actual authors—after any changes—circulated in full and on the record. Anything less is theater.

And for those who will try the “it still has good elements” line: good elements inside a consent-theft are PR fig leaves. If consent is faked, the “good” is there to sell the con.

---

What I’m asking of you, right now

If you want this kind of precise, spine-straight reporting—naming the edits, separating the photo from the text, refusing to launder consent—help keep it public. We are 2,922 members on our way to 3,000 • 78 to go • deadline: midnight tomorrow. If 39 of us step in today and 39 tomorrow, we cross the line together.
👉 Click here to join now (monthly, annual, or founding). It takes 20 seconds and keeps this work free for everyone who needs it.

Love and appreciate each of you.
Your friend and brother,
Shaun

Here are 3 free articles with NO PAYWALL for you: