Middle East Press On: Anti-Israel Populism, Defence, Gaza, Hezbollah: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
25 April 2025
Sirens In Israel Wake Us Up To Who We Are And What We Face
Will Australia Succumb To Anti-Israel Populism As Elections Near?
Türkiye’s Regional Strength And Iran’s Diminishing Hand
From Policy To Action: Türkiye’s Evolving Approach To Defence Framework
Israel Faces Surge Of Petitions To End Gaza War
‘Voluntary Migration’ Doesn’t Disguise Israel’s Forced Displacement Campaign In Gaza Amid Deafening International Silence
Lebanon’s Strong Civil Society Model Should Be Preserved
Can Hezbollah Be Persuaded To Peacefully Disarm?
-----
Sirens In Israel Wake Us Up To Who We Are And What We Face
By Jpost Editorial
April 25, 2025
Sirens have come to mean different things in Israel.
They have always rung out, like they did on Thursday morning, to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day – and like they’ll do twice next week as the nation mourns the fallen on Remembrance Day.
But we’ve also gotten used to the piercing sirens that signal an imminent rocket or missile attack (or at least we’ve gotten accustomed to them – it’s never something one gets used to): whether originating in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran or Yemen.
It’s a sound the residents of Israel’s South have internalized for nearly two decades as Hamas launched wave after wave of rockets, and in the North, where Hezbollah made the lives of residents there a bundle of nerves for years.
One Israeli posted on X/Twitter trying to explain the difference in Thursday’s siren for those who perished at the hands of the Nazis.
“I was preparing my kids for today’s siren, explaining that it wasn’t an air raid siren and they didn’t have to go to a bomb shelter – that it was to remember when something bad happened to the Jews,” he wrote.
Thursday’s siren was to remember something bad that happened to Jews; the other sirens are alerts to prevent something bad from happening to the Jews. That’s one critical element that has changed since Israel was founded.
Another thing the siren we heard on Thursday is designed to do, like the shofar that is blown on Yom Kippur, is to wake us up, shake us out of our complacency, and encourage us to examine what we might be doing wrong and to then take action.
Anyone following the public discourse since well before October 7, 2023, knows that the country is in a crisis that could lead to a civil war. Since Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel, and the continued captivity of the remaining hostages, the level of vitriol and incitement on both sides of the political spectrum has only intensified.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid warned earlier this week that another political assassination is in the offing, like the one that gutted the country in 1995 when prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was gunned down. Although he blamed the government for creating the environment that makes such a disaster ripe, everyone is to blame.
President Isaac Herzog related to the deep fracture in Israeli society on Wednesday night at the official state ceremony for Holocaust Remembrance Day at Yad Vashem. The situation has become so bad that he prefaced his speech, which is supposed to focus solely on the atrocities of the Holocaust, with an urgent appeal to all citizens of the country:
“My sisters and brothers, citizens of Israel: as the voice of those heroic Holocaust survivors, and of a vast public terrified by the polarization and division tearing us apart – I appeal to you from the depths of my heart: Let us unite, all the House of Israel,” he implored.
“Let us transform these days – from now until Independence Day, the Ten Days of Sanctity – into a historic moment of national responsibility. Let us lower the flames. Let us mend our hearts... Let us mourn together, yearn together; let us hurt together – and yes, today as well, let us stand tall – together,” he continued, adding that nobody should rest until all of the hostages have been returned to Israel.
Letting the sirens in Israel have the same affect as the shofar
Like the period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur – the ten days of repentance – we echo Herzog’s call. Let the days between Holocaust Remembrance Day and our national Remembrance Day – followed immediately by Independence Day – become “ten days of sanctity,” where the flames are lowered, and the realization that Israel is only as strong as the unity of its people becomes apparent.
Let the sirens that we heard on Thursday and that we’ll hear next week twice on Remembrance Day have the same effect as the shofar on Yom Kippur – to wake us up to the tragedy that could potentially take place.
And just as importantly, we should realize that a siren that prevents something bad from happening to the Jews – instead of one that recalls bad things that happened to the Jews – is never something to be taken for granted.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851430
----
Will Australia Succumb To Anti-Israel Populism As Elections Near?
By Romy Leibler/The Media Line
April 25, 2025
Australia goes to the polls on May 3. For the Jewish community, the stakes are high. Since October 7, 2023, it has experienced an outburst of antisemitism which is directly attributable to its long-standing support and solidarity with Israel.
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
The ruling Australian Labor Party government, spearheaded by its prime minister, Anthony Albanese, and foreign minister, Penny Wong, has overseen a dramatic shift where Australia has abandoned its traditional support for Israel and adopted pro-Palestinian positions.
In addition, it has appeared weak and inept regarding the need to tackle the antisemitism that the extreme left, the extreme right, and the radical Islamists have unleashed.
Australia politicians seek Muslim vote
In the forthcoming election, the incumbent Labor party is offering more of the same as it looks to appease the Muslim vote. The Liberal-National Coalition, under the leadership of Peter Dutton has promised to return Australia to its traditional support for Israel, as well as taking action to confront the scourge of antisemitism.
While Australia’s electoral landscape has long been dominated by the two major parties, general discontent over the years has led to the emergence of minority parties and independents who have managed to achieve success in various electorates.
Most prominent among the minor parties are the Greens. While its roots lie in promoting policies to save the environment, it has become consumed with the Middle East and have adopted extremely hostile policies condemning Israel for committing genocide and being at the vanguard of the pro Palestine demonstrations where the chanting of “intifada” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” has been incessant.
Alongside the Greens are the Teal independents, who were funded by wealthy businesspeople led by Simon Holmes à Court. They successfully targeted wealthy inner suburban electorates that were once considered blue ribbon Liberal. Their emphasis on the environment appealed to inner suburban elites and young people. They tend to support policies advocated by the left.
Australia, under a Labor-led government, has suffered economically with high inflation, poor economic performance, and a general failure of most of its policies. In particular, its environmental policies to close down coal mines and eliminate fossil fuels, and replace them with renewable energy, have been a colossal failure.
In Australia’s election history, it is very rare for a government in its first term of power, after being in opposition, to be defeated. Yet, so poor has been the performance of the Albanese-led Labor government that polls two months ago showed a narrow majority for the Liberals to return to power.
Now, in the middle of the election campaign, the picture that is emerging is murky. One of Australia’s most prominent commentators, Greg Sheridan, recently described the situation as follows:
“This is a government that plainly deserves to lose against an opposition that plainly doesn’t deserve to win.”
Reflected in recent polling, this translates into a scenario where neither party will achieve a majority, meaning that either party will need to seek the support of minority parties, such as the Greens and the Teals, to form a government.
Australia’s electoral process is based on preferences, as opposed to a simple first-past-the-post system. This makes voters’ second and or third preferred selection critical in deciding the outcome of an election for a seat. It also results in deals made between parties to secure majorities based on the allocation of such preferences.
To the chagrin of the Jewish community, in many hotly contested seats, including the seat held by Labor’s Jewish attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, the Labor party is entering into deals with the Greens party to exchange preferences, thereby demonstrating its pursuit of power at all costs.
In the likely event that no party achieves an outright majority, it is expected that the Labor party will form a minority government with the support of the Greens. This will involve Labor making concessions on economic policy, which will cause major damage. In addition, the Greens’ obsession with Israel, where they have called for boycotts and embargoes, may also be used to leverage their support.
Reminiscent of what occurred in the recent UK elections, there is the emergence of the Muslim vote where radical Muslims are challenging the incumbent Labor members in six electorates in western Sydney, where Muslims comprise up to 30% of the said electorates. Notwithstanding that the incumbent Labor MPs have been among the vociferous supporters of the Labor party’s shift away from its support of Israel, the campaign by the Muslim extremists is based on the singular issue of Palestine, where they are demanding that Australia sever all ties with the Jewish state.
The prospect of a minority Labor government supported by the Greens is causing extreme consternation and foreboding within the Jewish community and will generate much discussion as to whether Jews have a long-term future in Australia. The same kind of fear that Jews face in the UK, France, and Canada is evident in Australia, too.
Australia’s foreign policy will never influence events in the Middle East. However, its shift away from its traditional support for Israel serves as a major bellwether for Israel’s standing on the international stage.
If countries like Australia can succumb to the moral abyss of the global campaign to delegitimise Israel, who is next?
The United States? It came close under the previous Democratic administration, and current indications are that the Democrats’ trajectory to the left is continuing. Elections now hold huge importance in determining the future of Western civilization.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851482#google_vignette
---
Türkiye’s Regional Strength And Iran’s Diminishing Hand
By Cüneyd Er
Apr 25, 2025
In the changing landscape of the Middle East and South Caucasus, one fact is becoming hard to deny: Türkiye is steadily gaining ground, while Iran appears to be slipping into strategic fatigue. From Syria to the Caucasus, recent shifts have revealed Tehran’s shrinking influence and Ankara’s growing command over regional developments.
Azerbaijan’s military gains in 2020 and 2023, both backed by Türkiye, redrew not only borders but alliances. With Türkiye providing equipment, intelligence and coordination, Azerbaijan reclaimed its internationally recognized territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which had been under Armenian occupation since the early 1990s despite multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions. This disrupted the existing order and weakened Iran’s long-favored partner, Armenia. For Tehran, which aligned itself with Yerevan despite cultural and religious mismatch, the outcome has been difficult to manage.
It was already a curious position in the 1990s, when during the first Karabakh war, Iran supported Christian Armenia over Shiite Muslim Azerbaijan. That decision has lingered as a contradiction in its claims of pan-Shiite unity. Today, its regional calculations still baffle even internal observers.
At the center of present tensions is the proposed Zangezur Corridor, a land link between mainland Azerbaijan and its exclave Nakhchivan, running through southern Armenia. For Türkiye and Azerbaijan, this project offers regional connectivity and strategic depth. For Iran, it threatens the loss of its only direct land route to Armenia. From a legal standpoint, the corridor builds upon Azerbaijan’s right to access its own exclave through peaceful and cooperative transit. While Armenia retains sovereign control, international law supports negotiated transit arrangements that promote regional stability and lawful access between non-contiguous parts of a state.
Iran’s response has lacked clarity. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s trip to Yerevan seemed more performative than solution-oriented. Tehran is struggling to stay relevant in a game others are already shaping. Meanwhile, Türkiye and Azerbaijan continue to define the region’s logistics future.
Shared past, divided present
Beyond diplomatic setbacks, Iran faces a deeper challenge: its internal demographics. Independent estimates suggest Turkic-speaking populations, including those of Azerbaijani origin, make up 25 to 30% of Iran’s population. Some believe the actual figure is even higher. While Tehran avoids ethnic-based censuses, the Turkic presence is significant and rising.
Despite their numbers, these citizens remain sidelined in public life. Even with a president of Azerbaijani background, little has changed. Symbolism, many argue, substitutes for meaningful representation. Longstanding demands for mother-tongue education and fairer access to public institutions remain unmet.
Türkiye’s influence among these groups is undeniable. In cities like Tabriz and Urmia, Turkish media and language resonate strongly. This soft power, built through shared heritage rather than pressure, is gradually reshaping Iran’s northwest cultural identity. Other Turkic groups, such as the ones in Khorasan, add to this picture. Around Mashhad, their population is estimated at over 800,000. Though less politically vocal, they strengthen Türkiye’s cultural reach inside Iran.
This influence is rooted in both cultural ties and historical continuity. Modern Iran’s territory served as a key passage and settlement zone during the westward migration of Turkic peoples. The Seljuks and Ottomans, though Central Asian in origin, passed through the Iranian plateau en route to Anatolia. That memory still resonates, especially among Iranian Turks who view themselves as part of a larger civilizational story. In today’s Iran, especially during times of political strain, individuals of Azerbaijani origin are not only part of the system but often take on roles seen as stabilizing its core.
Law, power, legitimacy
From a legal perspective, current shifts in the South Caucasus reflect core international law principles. Türkiye’s support for Azerbaijan, its engagement with Armenia and its corridor initiatives remain broadly consistent with sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-intervention. These efforts rest on mutual consent and respect for borders. Regional actors unable to adapt to this legal structure risk not just strategic isolation but normative ambiguity.
Iran’s weakness is not only in the South Caucasus. In recent nuclear talks with the U.S., it has suggested steps it once rejected, like sending enriched uranium to another country or sharing control of its nuclear sites.
Türkiye stands out through a purpose-driven strategy. Ankara grounds its foreign policy in diplomacy, transit integration and regional partnerships. Iran, in contrast, clings to outdated alignments and ideological language, expecting past tactics to remain effective.
In Nagorno-Karabakh, Türkiye aligned diplomacy with military coordination, gaining outcomes on both fronts. It is now open to engagement with Armenia, conditional on Baku’s approval and Yerevan’s sincerity. These are not gestures, but forward steps toward regional normalization.
Iran, meanwhile, failed to act when its partner needed it. It failed to halt the Zangezur plan. It continues to lose diplomatic standing and credibility. While Türkiye advances corridors and promotes dialogue, Iran issues warnings with limited impact.
Armenia is adjusting. It has signed new agreements with the U.S. and enhanced its relations with the EU. The shift in Yerevan’s tone is noticeable, and Türkiye, rather than Tehran, is increasingly viewed as part of the region’s future. This is not just policy evolution; it marks realignment.
Tehran’s critics warn of Turkish dominance. But what Türkiye is constructing is pragmatic: regional trade, infrastructure and diplomatic weight built on action, not ideology. Iran still speaks a language many in the region no longer prioritize.
Its greater challenge may be internal. Iran’s Turkic population is young, sizable and increasingly aware of its distinct identity. This trend suggests not only social friction but also potential transformation. Ignoring it won’t make it disappear. Türkiye doesn’t need to provoke; its cultural influence is already in motion.
The bottom line is this: Türkiye is delivering on both diplomatic and strategic fronts. Iran, in contrast, shows neither the flexibility nor initiative required in today’s geopolitical climate. Influence no longer rests in slogans but in results. Türkiye appears to understand this. Iran remains stalled in the habits of a past that no longer commands the region’s future.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/turkiyes-regional-strength-and-irans-diminishing-hand
----
From Policy To Action: Türkiye’s Evolving Approach To Defence Framework
By Cenay Babaoğlu
Apr 25, 2025
In the context of evolving global dynamics, the digital realm has become an increasingly critical arena of power competition, prompting states to adopt a range of strategies to address its growing implications. As we look ahead to 2025, it is heartening to see the notable institutional and legislative steps taken by Türkiye in the digital sphere, which signify a significant turning point for its cybersecurity architecture.
On Jan.8, 2025, the Cybersecurity Directorate was established under the authority of the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye. This was followed by the enactment of the Cybersecurity Law on March 19, 2025. In recent weeks, the Digital Transformation Office of the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye (CBDDO) was dissolved, with a significant portion of its responsibilities transferred to the newly formed Cybersecurity Directorate. These developments may signal a new phase in Türkiye's cybersecurity policies. In this context, a historical overview may be a helpful way to understand how Türkiye's cybersecurity policies have evolved to date and where they might be headed in the future.
1990s: Genesis of policies
Türkiye’s journey in cybersecurity policy began in earnest in the 1990s, spurred by the civilian adoption of network technologies. Initially focused on military applications, the field rapidly gained strategic importance as internet usage expanded and cyber threats became more prevalent. A critical step came in 1991, when cybercrimes were incorporated into the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) – an early legislative attempt to address emerging digital risks. In 1996, the Security Working Group drafted a preliminary framework, although it could not be materialized into a formal legislative proposal.
In 1999, the Ministry of Transport released Türkiye’s National Information Infrastructure Master Plan (TUENA), the first official document aimed at strengthening IT infrastructure. Institutionally, organizations such as the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBITAK), particularly its Informatics and Information Security Research Center (BILGEM), played formative roles in early cybersecurity research. Throughout the 1990s, cybersecurity was viewed as a secondary issue within the broader context of technological advancement. However, the rapid digital transformations of the 2000s led to a growing recognition of the need for more robust policy responses.
2000s: Emergence of cybersecurity
The 2000s marked the beginning of a more structured legal and institutional approach to cybersecurity in Türkiye. Although a draft law on the Nnational Information Security Organization and its duties was introduced in 2000, followed by another draft on national information security in 2002, neither was enacted. It is nevertheless encouraging to see that cybersecurity is beginning to feature in national planning documents. The 2002 e-Türkiye Initiative Action Plan included information security as a subcomponent. In a similar vein, the 2003 e-Transformation Türkiye Project and the 2003-2004 Short-Term Action Plan addressed the subject of information security, while Prime Ministry Circular No. 2003/10 outlined guiding principles for information systems security.
During this period, legal milestones such as the Electronic Signature Law (Law No. 5070) and the revised TCK (Law No. 5237), both enacted in 2004, which addressed legal dimensions of cyberspace. The National Information Systems Security Program was launched in 2006 and cybersecurity measures were also integrated into the 2006-2010 Information Society Strategy and Action Plan.
Further legal groundwork was established with Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Using Such Publications (“The Internet Law”) (2007), followed by the Electronic Communications Law No. 5809 (2008). Meanwhile, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) began to assume a regulatory role in cybersecurity, and Türkiye conducted its first national cybersecurity exercise. As the decade drew to a close, a Draft Law on e-government and the Information Society was prepared. In parallel with NATO’s prioritization of cybersecurity, Türkiye formulated its own National Cybersecurity Policy Document in this term.
2010-2018: National strategies
The period from 2010 to 2018 marked a significant turning point in Türkiye’s cybersecurity policies. For the first time, the Constitution was amended to include provisions on the protection of personal data, and cyber threats were explicitly acknowledged in the National Security Council Declaration. In addition, Türkiye signed the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime.
In 2012, the BTK was given the mandate to coordinate national cybersecurity efforts. TÜBITAK BILGEM’s Cybersecurity Institute emerged as a key actor in developing technologies and providing specialized training. During this period, crucial institutions were established, including the Cybersecurity Board, the Computer Emergency Response Team of the Republic of Türkiye (TR-CERT), the National Cybercrime Department of the Turkish National Police and the Turkish Armed Forces Cyber Defense Command.
The 2013-2014 National Cybersecurity Strategy and Action Plan was followed by the AFAD’s 2014-2023 Road Map for the Protection of Critical Infrastructures. The 2015-2018 Information Society Strategy and Action Plan featured information security as a core theme. The National Cybersecurity Strategy and Action Plan was updated in 2016. That same year, the Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 6698) was passed. In 2017, the Personal Data Protection Authority was established. The 2010s saw a growing recognition of cybersecurity as a key element of national security, accompanied by a rapid institutionalization.
2018-2025: Integration in cybersecurity
With Türkiye’s transition to a presidential system in 2018, the establishment of the CBDDO marked a significant organizational shift. National cybersecurity coordination was entrusted to the CBDDO’s newly formed Cybersecurity Department, while the Cybersecurity Board was dissolved. During this phase, key documents were published, including the Decree on Information and Communication Security Measures, the Information and Communication Security Guide, the 2020-2023 National Cybersecurity Strategy and Action Plan and the National Cybersecurity Governance Analysis Report.
This period also saw significant educational advances: Türkiye’s first cybersecurity high school, vocational college and cybersecurity engineering program were launched, and the National Cybersecurity Workshop was held. The National Cybersecurity Strategy and Action Plan was updated again in 2024 for the 2024-2028 term. During this period, policy priorities centered on mitigating cyber threats, strengthening national capabilities, safeguarding critical infrastructure and promoting international cooperation. Additionally, efforts have been made to nurture the cybersecurity ecosystem through education, awareness-building, and technological development.
Post-2025: A new era
In recent years, Türkiye has experienced notable developments in its digitalization and cybersecurity landscape. The enactment of the Cybersecurity Law in early 2025, along with the establishment of the Cybersecurity Directorate and Cybersecurity Council, appears to signal a move toward a more centralized and comprehensive approach to countering cyber threats. The new law introduces harsh penalties for data breaches and cyberattacks and strengthens oversight of critical infrastructure.
The Cybersecurity Directorate is poised to take a central role in implementing the law. Its duties include fostering inter-agency coordination, maintaining data inventories, conducting risk assessments, and enforcing security protocols. On March 28, 2025, the CBDDO was officially dissolved, and its responsibilities were transferred to the new Cybersecurity Directorate. This body is not only tasked with defending against cyber threats, but also plays a broader role in guiding public sector digital transformation, enhancing e-government services and promoting the adoption of artificial intelligence.
This development underscores a paradigm shift: Cybersecurity is no longer viewed merely as a defense mechanism, but as a core pillar of the digital ecosystem. It could be seen as marking a new phase in Türkiye's cybersecurity trajectory – one that may require a proactive, inclusive and adaptable approach to address evolving threats. It is thought that a framework of this kind could potentially contribute to national security and enhance Türkiye's international competitiveness. As a presidential centralized entity, the Cybersecurity Directorate is strategically positioned to assume a critical role in coordinating cohesive and impactful cybersecurity policies. This new role reflects the dynamic evolution of the digital sphere, which is progressively more recognized not merely as a domain of security but also as an arena for fostering innovation, enhancing governance, and advancing public service delivery.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/from-policy-to-action-turkiyes-evolving-approach-to-defense-framework
-------
Israel Faces Surge Of Petitions To End Gaza War
By Aziz Mustafa
April 24, 2025
As the bloody assault on Gaza continues, Israel is witnessing an unprecedented surge in petitions, letters and public statements signed by hundreds and thousands from various sectors and disciplines, all circulated widely to the public. These appeals share a single, unified demand: end the war — now, not later. The mounting pressure has pushed the government and its leader into a frenzied response, launching verbal attacks against the petitioners and demanding that the army’s leadership discharge any military personnel involved in the campaign.
For weeks, Israel has seen a snowballing movement centred around the goal of bringing the captives home and stopping the war on Gaza. It began with a petition signed by a thousand Air Force reservists, followed by members of various combat and security units, union members, lawyers, legal experts, academics and eventually, the families of fallen soldiers. The momentum shows no signs of slowing, and its final reach remains unknown.
A common message across the petitions from military units is a shared call to save lives and return the captives home without delay — even if that means an immediate end to the war in Gaza. The petitions argue that the continuation of the war serves political and personal interests, not security needs.
At the time of writing, over 120,000 Israelis have signed these petitions — a number unprecedented in the history of protest against previous wars. This marks a significant shift in the growing opposition to the ongoing war in Gaza, spanning two major groups in Israeli society. The first is civilian: including the families of soldiers killed in Gaza, academics, university staff, teachers and lawyers. The second is military and security-related: including military school students, paratroopers, infantry soldiers, Mossad and Shin Bet officers, National Security Council members, Air Force crews, armoured corps soldiers, army medical personnel, special forces units, spokesperson unit staff, surveillance teams, offensive cyber units, reservists, combat unit members, navy captains, Golani Brigade officers, artillery soldiers, the elite Unit 8200, and the General Staff’s elite unit.
Over the course of nearly 600 days of Gaza’s annihilation, Israel has witnessed ongoing protests, weekly demonstrations and mass sit-ins. Yet the current wave of petitions stands out as a significant and exceptional event, drawing intense national attention. This helps explain the volume and nature of both supportive and opposing responses, with growing speculation that these petitions may prompt more military branches to issue similar demands to halt the war — a trend already underway as this article is written. This lends weight and credibility to the possibility that this movement could successfully rein in the war’s continuation.
The petitions quickly mobilised opposition parties, who expressed support and accused the government of targeting what they described as the “spearhead” of the military — namely, the Air Force. This is the same group of pilots who, in the months before the Gaza war, signed similar petitions against judicial overhaul efforts and refused to participate in military operations serving a right-wing government. Their stance previously raised serious concerns within the military about leaving the state vulnerable should the Air Force become non-operational. The government’s approach to these petitions is now seen as dangerous and unethical, as it undermines the army, threatens national security and steers the state toward moral and strategic ruin.
The petition signatories emphasise that Israeli soldiers have paid a high price in the war, and they are now calling for an end to it. They argue that military force will not bring back the captives — only political solutions can. Every day the war continues represents a moral loss. They ask: why continue sacrificing the lives of soldiers and civilians in Gaza?
In contrast, the government’s response has been one of anger and escalation, culminating in a particularly incendiary statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who crossed all lines by labelling the signatories as a “chaotic, evil, and noisy mob” whose “propaganda lies” the public no longer believes. He described them as a fringe “weed-like” group, directed by foreign-funded NGOs bent on toppling the right-wing government.
Other ministers joined in, accusing the signatories of an “unacceptable attempt to undermine the war’s legitimacy in Gaza” and calling for severe punishment. Initially, Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi ordered the dismissal of petition signatories, but as the campaign gained momentum and more officers joined, he reconsidered and instead opened dialogue with them — a move seen as a victory for the protestors over military and governmental leadership.
The army’s leadership fears further protests by more military personnel, which could compound the challenges it faces, especially amid growing threats from multiple fronts. Adding a domestic front to these burdens risks pouring fuel on an already burning internal crisis.
The protest petitions coincided with a noticeable drop in reserve enlistment rates. Although reserve enlistment had reached 130 per cent in the early months of the war, recent figures show a sharp decline to 60–70 per cent, reflecting the increasing difficulty in recruiting additional reservists and amplifying calls to end the war.
There are many reasons behind these petitions — beyond the goal of retrieving the captives. Chief among them is the recognition that pursuing “the last fighter, last rocket, and last tunnel” in Gaza only leads to endless war. The societal and military cost has become unbearable. Signs of institutional decay are increasingly visible, military doctrines appear outdated, and the army is showing alarming signs of exhaustion and deterioration. The reckless drain on resources in Gaza has yielded consequences too glaring to conceal.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250424-israel-faces-surge-of-petitions-to-end-gaza-war/
-----
‘Voluntary Migration’ Doesn’t Disguise Israel’s Forced Displacement Campaign In Gaza Amid Deafening International Silence
April 24, 2025
Israel is no longer concealing its intention to forcibly displace Palestinians from their homeland, as it now announces this plan more openly than ever before through official rhetoric at the highest levels, said Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor in a report issued today.
Through actions on the ground and institutional measures designed to reframe the crime as “voluntary migration”, explained Euro-Med Monitor, Israel has attempted to implement its displacement campaign by exploiting the international community’s near-total silence, which has enabled the continuation of the crime and Israeli impunity despite the unprecedented nature of humanity’s first livestreamed genocide.
“Israel is now attempting to carry out the final phase of its crime, and its original goal: the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, specifically from the Gaza Strip. For a year and a half, Israel has carried out acts of genocide, killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people, erasing entire cities, dismantling the Strip’s infrastructure, and systematically displacing its population within the enclave. These actions aim to eliminate the Palestinian people as a community and as a collective presence.”
The current plans for forced displacement, said the Geneva-based rights group, are a direct extension of Israel’s long-standing, settler-colonial project, aimed at erasing Palestinian existence and seizing land. What distinguishes this stage, it added, is its unprecedented scale and brutality.
“Israel is targeting over two million people who have endured a full-scale genocide and have been stripped of even the most basic human rights, under coercive, inhumane conditions that make living any sort of a normal life impossible. Israel’s deliberate objective is to pressure Palestinians into leaving by making it their only means of survival.”
Having succeeded in revealing the weak principles of international law, such as protections for civilians based on their perceived racial superiority or lack thereof, Israel is now reshaping the narrative once again.
“Armed with overwhelming force and emboldened by the international community’s abandonment of legal and moral responsibilities, Israel seeks to portray the mass expulsion of Palestinians as ‘voluntary migration’,” said the group. “This is a blatant attempt to rebrand ethnic cleansing and forced displacement using dishonest language — like ‘humanitarian considerations’ and ‘individual choice’ — and is a direct contradiction of legal facts and the reality on the ground.”
“Coercion, in the context of Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip, goes beyond military force. It includes the creation of unbearable conditions that render remaining in one’s home practically impossible or life-threatening.” A coercive environment includes fear of violence, persecution, arrest, intimidation, starvation or other forms of hardship that strip individuals of free will and force them to flee.
“Israel has already committed the crime of forced displacement against Gaza’s population, having driven them into internal displacement without legal grounds and in conditions that violate international legal exceptions, which only permit evacuation temporarily and under imperative military necessity, while ensuring safe areas with minimum standards of human dignity,” said Lima Bustami, Director of Euro-Med Monitor’s Legal Department.
“None of these standards have been met. In fact, Israel has used this widespread and repeated pattern of displacement as a tool of genocide, aimed at destroying and subjecting the population to deadly living conditions.”
Bustami added that although the legal elements of the crime are already fulfilled, Israel is further escalating it to a more lethal level against the Palestinian people, manifesting its settler-colonial vision of expulsion and replacement. “Now it is attempting to market the second phase of forced displacement — beyond Gaza’s borders — as ‘voluntary migration’: a transparent deception that only a complicit international community — one that chooses silence over accountability — would accept.”
Today, the people of the Gaza Strip endure catastrophic conditions that are unprecedented in recent history, said Euro-Med Monitor. “Israel has obliterated all forms of normal life; there is no electricity or infrastructure, and there are no homes, no essential services, no functioning healthcare or education systems, and no clean water services.”
Indeed, the group’s report notes that around 2.3 million Palestinians are confined to less than 34 per cent of the Strip’s 365 square kilometres. Approximately 66 per cent of the territory has been turned into so-called “buffer zones”, or areas that are completely off-limits to Palestinians and/or that have been forcibly depopulated through Israeli bombings and displacement orders. “Most of the population is now living in tattered tents amid the spread of famine, disease and epidemics and an accumulation of waste, conditions symptomatic of the near-complete collapse of the humanitarian system.”
“These conditions in place are not the result of a natural disaster,” the Euro-Med report says pointedly. “They have been deliberately engineered by Israel as a coercive tool to pressure the population into leaving the Gaza Strip. The absence of any genuine, voluntary alternative for Palestinians in the enclave renders this situation a textbook case of forcible transfer, as defined under international law and affirmed by relevant jurisprudence.”
According to Bustami, “While population transfers may be permitted in certain humanitarian contexts under international law, any such justification collapses if the humanitarian crisis is the direct consequence of unlawful acts committed by the same party enforcing the transfer. It is impermissible to use forced displacement as a response to a disaster one has created, a principle clearly upheld by international tribunals, particularly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.”
Framing this imposed reality as a “voluntary” migration and an option not only constitutes a gross distortion of truth, said Euro-Med Monitor, but also undermines the legal foundations of the international system, erodes the principle of accountability, and transforms impunity from a failure of justice into a deliberate mechanism for perpetuating grave crimes and entrenching the outcomes of such crimes.
“Repeated public statements from the highest levels of Israel’s political and security leadership have escalated in intensity over the past year and a half, and expose a clear, coordinated intent to displace the population of the Gaza Strip. In a blatant bid to enforce a demographic transformation serving Israel’s colonial-settler agenda, senior Israeli officials — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — have publicly called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Strip and for the settlement of Jewish Israelis in their place.”
Netanyahu expressed full support in February 2025 for US President Donald Trump’s plan to resettle Palestinians outside of the Gaza Strip, describing it as “the only viable solution for enabling a different future” for the region. Likewise, Smotrich announced in March that the Israeli government would back the establishment of a new “migration authority” to coordinate what he termed a “massive logistical operation” to remove Palestinians from the Strip.
The human rights organisation referred to the 23 March decision of the Israeli Security Cabinet to establish a dedicated directorate within the Ministry of Defence, to manage what it calls the “voluntary relocation” of the Gaza Strip’s residents to third countries. “This is evidence that this displacement is not a by-product of destruction or political rhetoric, but an official policy,” it noted. “This policy is being implemented through institutional mechanisms, directed from within Israel’s own security apparatus, with full operational powers, executive structures, and strategic goals.”
Furthermore, current Defence Minister Israel Katz’s statement on the new directorate confirmed that it would “prepare for and enable safe and controlled passage of Gaza residents for their voluntary departure to third countries, including securing movement, establishing movement routes, checking pedestrians at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip, as well as coordinating the provision of infrastructure that will enable passage by land, sea and air to the destination countries.”
The true danger of establishing such a directorate, said Euro-Med Monitor, lies not only in its institutionalisation of forced transfer, but in the new legal and political reality it seeks to impose. “It rebrands displacement as an ‘optional’ administrative service while stripping civilians of their ability to make free, informed decisions, therefore cloaking a war crime in a veneer of bureaucratic legitimacy.”
Any departure from the Gaza Strip under current circumstances cannot be considered “voluntary”, it added, but rather constitutes, in legal terms, forcible transfer, which is strictly prohibited under international law. “All individuals compelled to leave the Strip retain their inalienable right to return to their land and property immediately and unconditionally. They also have the full right to seek compensation for all damages and losses incurred as a result of Israeli crimes and rights violations, including the destruction of homes and property, physical and psychological harm, the assault on human dignity, and the denial of livelihood and basic rights.”
The rules of international law, particularly customary international law and the Geneva Conventions, require all states not to recognise any situation arising from the crime of forcible transfer and to treat it as null and void. States are also obligated to withhold all material, political and diplomatic support that would contribute to the entrenchment of such a situation.
“International responsibility goes beyond mere non-recognition,” said the rights group. “It includes a legal duty for states to take urgent effective steps to halt the crime, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. This includes ensuring the safe, voluntary return of all displaced persons from the Gaza Strip, and providing full reparations for the harm and violations they have suffered. Any failure to act in this regard constitutes a direct breach of international law and complicity that could subject states to legal accountability.”
Euro-Med Monitor said that the international community must move beyond deafening silence and abandon paltry rhetorical condemnations, which have come to represent the maximum response it dares to make in the face of the livestreamed genocide unfolding before its eyes. “It must act swiftly and effectively to halt Israel’s ongoing project of mass displacement in the Gaza Strip and prevent it from becoming an entrenched reality. This action must be based on international legal norms, a commitment to justice and accountability, and an honest reckoning with the root structural cause of the crimes: Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967.”
Endorsing or remaining silent about Israeli plans to forcibly transfer Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip not only exonerates Israel but rewards it for its illegal conduct by granting it gains secured through mass killing, destruction, blockade, and starvation, said the organisation. “This is not just a series of war crimes or crimes against humanity, it embodies the legal definition of genocide, as established by the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”
This includes taking immediate, effective steps to protect Palestinian civilians and to prevent the implementation of the US-Israeli crime of forcible transfer that is openly threatening the Strip’s population.
“The international community must impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel for its systematic and grave violations of international law. This includes halting arms imports and exports; ending all forms of political, financial and military support; freezing the financial assets of officials involved in crimes against Palestinians; imposing travel bans; and suspending trade privileges and bilateral agreements that offer Israel economic advantages that sustain its capacity to commit further crimes.”
The rights group insisted that states must also hold complicit governments accountable — chief among them the United States — for their role in enabling Israeli crimes through various forms of support, including military and intelligence cooperation, financial aid and political or legal backing.
“The ethnic cleansing and genocide taking place right now in the Gaza Strip would not be possible without Israel’s decades-long unlawful colonial presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This is the root structural cause of the violence, oppression, and destruction in the besieged enclave,” concluded Euro-Med Monitor. “Any meaningful response to the escalating crisis in the Strip must begin with dismantling this colonial reality, recognising the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and securing their freedom and sovereignty over their national territory.
“As Israel and its allies must be compelled to abide by the law, international intervention is the only path to ending the genocide, halting all forms of individual and collective forcible transfer, dismantling the apartheid regime, and establishing a credible framework for justice, accountability, and the preservation of human dignity.”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250424-voluntary-migration-doesnt-disguise-israels-forced-displacement-campaign-in-gaza-amid-deafening-international-silence/
----
Lebanon’s Strong Civil Society Model Should Be Preserved
Nadim Shehadi
April 24, 2025
This time it is not our fault. We cannot take the blame for Donald Trump’s funding freeze or EU aid cuts. But these will affect Lebanon more than other countries because of the strength of the nongovernmental organizations sector and its dependence on aid. It is chaotic out there in the NGO and civil society world — many risk closure and were not even aware that their grants were originally part of a chain of US Agency for International Development subcontracts. Thousands of lives will be affected and it seems to have happened almost overnight, with little warning.
It is not ideal, but the Lebanese have long since had no choice but to learn how to manage with a weak, absent, hijacked or paralyzed state, especially since the civil war. They have done so through civil society, communal and nongovernmental bodies, and the private sector. It has worked for them because it builds on existing traditions and age-old associations. While it is crucial to restore a functioning state, it is even more urgent to rescue society’s homegrown institutions. It is not a zero-sum game between the state and civil society — they have learned to work together.
To illustrate this, consider the aftermath of the Beirut Port blast of August 2020. The government was in complete paralysis and had actually just resigned, while the banking sector was in collapse mode after the state declared its bankruptcy and defaulted on loan payments. Major hospitals were partly destroyed by the blast and were overwhelmed with casualties. Someday, an admirable story will be told of how society mobilized to help clear up and rebuild and rehouse, feed and care for itself, while no politician even dared show up to face the angry crowds.
Lebanon mostly skipped the 20th century, which in other countries of the region was characterized by secular nationalism and strong states. Its politics are a continuation of the Ottoman Empire’s system of millets, which was based on recognized semi-autonomous religious communities. This was how the empire managed its diversity, by allowing each community to manage its own affairs, such as education, personal status laws and other services. Lebanese communities had their own schools, hospitals and tribunals and a model gradually evolved in which NGOs worked in partnership with the ministries but sometimes competed with state institutions.
The system has many critics, especially when communal services are also tied to politicians who use them for votes and clientelism. Defenders of the system argue that religious institutions and even sectarian parties have direct and easier access to recipients and are mostly open to everybody, rather than exclusively being for their constituents. The system can become more equitable with proper state regulation.
Over time, large secular NGOs like arcenciel, which helps people with disabilities, created a model to mitigate some of the disadvantages. This formula is based on the principles of rights and access, with the state playing the role of regulator and consumers having a choice of which supplier to go to. This also creates healthy competition that improves quality. The model has even been copied and used by donors in places like Palestine, Algeria and Mozambique.
Pierre Issa, the co-founder of arcenciel, explained to me that the name, which is French for rainbow, is written all in lower case because its members do not use capital letters as a sign of humility. Activists of his generation were influenced by Bishop Gregoire Haddad, who once explained to me that social work should be promoted in order to create a responsible society. He said that this intangible outcome was more important to him than the aid itself and that it created a culture of humanity.
Smaller NGOs like Skoun Lebanese Addictions Center are in danger of closing down because of both the banking crisis and the international funding crisis. If Skoun were to close, it would mean the loss of 22 years of experience in the field, which would be difficult to replace. The founder of an independent media NGO also told me it had lost 90 percent of its funding and was running a skeleton staff in a bid to avoid closure.
The funding crisis has many components, in addition to the sudden and unexpected USAID freeze. USAID was founded in 1961 by the Kennedy administration. This was the beginning of what became known as the development decade, which also saw states in Western Europe join in with the objectives of eradicating poverty, promoting democratic values and, at the time, fighting communism.
The proportion of spending on aid increased as military spending decreased with the end of the Cold War and the declaration of a “new world order” by President George H.W. Bush. Even the World Bank, which normally dealt only with governments, opened a civil society program around that time.
The trend continued with increased support for democratization, as well as humanitarian support, and it peaked in the early 2000s. Both the US and the EU had policies to promote democratization and development as a way to combat both immigration and terrorism. But this started to reverse after 2015, with another increase in military spending and decrease in aid.
There may be some benefits from a reset triggered by the USAID freeze and the European squeeze. The sector, as it grew, became too bureaucratized and inefficient, if not with a certain degree of corruption. One extreme example is where layer upon layer of subcontracting meant that less than 10 percent of the original funding reached actual beneficiaries.
The USAID slogan of “From the American People” had less to do with the American people and more to do with its bureaucrats and taxes. Government aid, which distributes compulsory taxes, also decreases the social responsibility and empathy element that is achieved through voluntary charitable donations. An example of this came in the aftermath of the First World War, when Near East Relief was created to help Armenian and Greek refugees from Turkiye. It raised $110 million, equivalent to $1.25 billion today, from some half a million small donations, all organized by volunteers in the days of snail mail. That was real aid from the American people and the voluntary element was as valuable in terms of international goodwill as the material aid itself.
Lebanon is unique in the region for having independent institutions that collaborate efficiently with ministries. It is also almost unique globally for having maintained a strong civil society despite the post-Second World War trend of greater dependence on the role of the state. In fact, that system of state provision has proven to be unsustainable, as the new generation pays far more in taxes for far fewer services.
We are hopefully entering a new era in the region with less conflict, but a great deal of work is also needed to repair the damage in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen. This should not all be done by governments and state institutions. The Lebanese model of collaboration between state and society helps with the healing of both physical and psychological wounds and it should be preserved. It is proof that wars and hardship can bring out the best in people, as well as the worst.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2598301
--------
Can Hezbollah Be Persuaded To Peacefully Disarm?
Khaled Abou Zahr
April 24, 2025
Will Hezbollah agree to peacefully disarm through dialogue is the main question everyone is asking in Lebanon. President Joseph Aoun last week reaffirmed his desire to disarm Hezbollah this year. Understandably, his preferred option is to go through this process via a national dialogue.
This situation cannot be isolated from the broader shifts in the region. The bigger dialogue is now taking place between Iran and the US. This places the next steps for the Lebanese state in a quandary. There is no doubt that the final decision on Hezbollah’s disarmament will be taken in Tehran, as the group is an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps tool of terror. This was confirmed when the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon took to X last week to describe the planned disarmament, among other criticisms, as “a clear conspiracy against nations.”
It is a positive step that the Iranian ambassador was reportedly summoned over his remarks, as they represented a blatant interference in state affairs. Yet, what is Hezbollah today besides an interference tool in Lebanon?
It is a good sign of the will of the Lebanese state that it is striving for its sovereignty. This would not have been possible only a year ago. The reality is that Hezbollah has been reduced to rubble by Israel’s military campaign. And with the political change in Syria, the Iranian proxy has lost the logistics support from Iran that was essential to its operations. This is a huge difference that has helped the Lebanese state to enhance its sovereign voice. But this does not mean Hezbollah no longer has the capacity and power to destroy Lebanon or target its opponents in the country.
If the regime in Tehran were to push Hezbollah into a confrontation, it would have a single outcome: Hezbollah’s defeat and Tehran’s humiliation. Tehran knows it, Hezbollah knows it. And the Iranian ambassador’s posts on X underline this weakness. Simply because, in the past, the Lebanese president would have been summoned by a low-level intelligence officer to keep quiet about disarmament. Regardless, the Iranian regime has an opportunity to allow not only Lebanon to flourish, but also its own country and the region. Hezbollah’s disarmament should be an important point in the dialogue with the US over the Iranian nuclear file, as it is a similar tool.
But I would call on the people of Lebanon to show stronger support for this disarmament. It is important to show that, beyond any regional agreement, it is the will of the people that the state has a monopoly on weapons. Aoun is remaining cautious in his approach as he understands very well that Hezbollah remains a military power that can be dangerous for the future of Lebanon. This is why there needs to be popular support for this historical transformation.
Hezbollah’s disarmament could be the starting point for a new Lebanon. The starting point for a real and sustainable reconstruction. The starting point of a Lebanese renaissance. It offers a historic opportunity that cannot and should not be missed. This is why the Lebanese need to rally and push for this transformation, regardless of the outcome of the broader regional dialogues.
In this context, it is also important to build solid trust with the Shiite community and repeat until we lose our voices that Hezbollah should not represent them. Just as any armed militia never protected any community. The people must find ways to engage and convey this solidarity among all Lebanese communities. This would also offer much-needed support for the president’s initiative. Any popular support should convey that disarming Hezbollah is not an action against the Shiite community, but salvation for all Lebanese. We also need hope and wishful thinking.
It is important to convey that, just as it was proven that Hezbollah is an artificial power annihilated by Israel in a split second, it is also an artificial protector, just like the regime in Tehran. Not a single community in Lebanon should need protection from a foreign power — protection should be guaranteed. Rights and duties should be the same for all. I also believe, and I indeed keep losing my voice on this, that federalism is the best way forward. But for now, we need greater trust among communities and this should also be reflected within social media exchanges. Paid voices should be silenced on both sides.
The solution proposed for Hezbollah members is to join the Lebanese army, but not as a separate unit. This would only take place after a peaceful agreement to disarm, which is not yet guaranteed. But if this were to happen, there would have to be a serious vetting process and those who are ideologically loyal to the regime in Tehran or who have committed terror crimes should be excluded from joining the Lebanese army. After all its actions, Hezbollah also should not be allowed to participate in any elections. Loyalty should be exclusive to Lebanon and the Lebanese Armed Forces. I believe Lebanon can learn from other countries that have gone through the same process.
A change in how Tehran deals with Lebanon and its neighbors will also be crucial. Respecting a pledge of noninterference, abandoning any foreign military disruption and opting exclusively for state-to-state collaboration would be the silver bullet. This is what the US administration should aim for in its dialogue. Putting an end to the offensive activities of the Iranian regime is as important as the nuclear issue, if not more so. This would align with the aspirations of the region and the Lebanese people, for once converging regional goals with domestic ones.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2598297
-------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/anti-israel-populism-defence-gaza-hezbollah/d/135298
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism