Middle East Press on: Democracy, Hamas, Judaism, ICC, Genocide: New Age Islam's Selection, 26 November 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
26 November 2024
Can Israel Navigate Dissenting Voices Without Undermining Democracy?
How Israel Can Fight Back Against ICC's Arrest Warrants For Its Leaders
ICC Arrest Warrants: Iran’s Hidden Hand In Targeting Israel
How Israeli Women Balanced Heroism And Home During The Israel-Hamas War
ICC's Arrest Warrants: A Global Assault On Judaism And Israel’s Leadershipc
Israel’s Path To Victory: Dismantling Khamenei’s Regime By 2040
‘I Used To Like Winter, But I Don’t Like It Now’
World Must Pressure Israel Over Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
The Roadmap To A Just Peace In Palestine
Lebanon … And ‘The Day After’
------
Can Israel Navigate Dissenting Voices Without Undermining Democracy?
By Jpost Editorial
November 26, 2024
In the tumult of the wars against Hamas and Hezbollah, the discourse around media freedoms and the government’s relationship with news outlets has sparked intense debate.
At the heart of this lies the legal and moral question: Should a government penalize a publication for its editorial stance, even if it diverges sharply from mainstream national sentiment?
Recently, Haaretz, the left-leaning newspaper, faced backlash over comments by publisher Amos Schocken to label Palestinian terrorists as “freedom fighters” and Israel’s governance in the West Bank as that of a “cruel apartheid regime.” Even Leonid Nevzlin, co-owner of Haaretz, publicly expressed his strong disagreement with the statements.
For The Jerusalem Post, the term “freedom fighters” is an affront to the harrowing loss of life and the brutality experienced at the hands of Palestinian terrorism, amplified even more so since October 7. The fallout from Schocken’s comments has extended to government bodies and private companies halting advertising agreements with the newspaper. These decisions are legally permissible, but their implications for democracy warrant scrutiny.
Israel’s democracy allows for diverse, even controversial, perspectives to be published without fear of legal retribution. This is one of its greatest strengths of being the only democracy in a region often characterized by media repression.
Freedom of expression has consequences
However, free expression is not without consequences. Advertisers and government agencies have the right to align their partnerships with entities that reflect their values, just as readers can choose to support or boycott media outlets. The law provides space for this interplay between free press and free choice, underscoring the delicate balance of rights in a vibrant democracy.
The government unanimously approved at its weekly meeting on Sunday a proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi that all government bodies or those funded by it will “cease to engage with the newspaper Haaretz in any way and not publish any advertisements in it.”
Yet, this approach carries risks. Government withdrawal from media collaborations over ideological disagreements, while legally valid, can create the perception of censorship. Even in cases where no formal suppression occurs, the optics of state disengagement from critical press can embolden accusations of intolerance or authoritarianism. Israel today is navigating one of its most existential crises. The October 7 massacre and the ongoing war have profoundly impacted the national psyche. Understandably, the public is sensitive to narratives that seem to undermine the legitimacy of Israel’s struggle against terrorism. However, democratic resilience is tested not in times of peace but during periods of acute stress.
To embrace true democracy is to accept the discomfort of dissenting voices. Labelling this editorial choice as distasteful is fair and justified, but attempting to silence it through indirect economic pressure could lead to unintended consequences, including the erosion of public trust in media and governance.
A more constructive approach might involve public dialogue rather than financial disengagement. The government and civil society should challenge problematic narratives through debate and evidence rather than punitive measures. This is democracy manifest: the free exchange of ideas, even those that provoke anger or frustration, and the strength to counter them in the marketplace of public discourse.
It is essential to remember that the fabric of Israel’s democracy is built not only on the right to speak but also on the maturity to listen – even when it hurts. In this sense, the government and its critics share a responsibility to uphold the principles of free speech and accountability.
By navigating this issue with sensitivity and principle, Israel can reaffirm its democratic identity amidst the chaos. This is not only a matter of immediate political strategy but also of setting an enduring example for future generations. The message must be clear: Democracy is messy, but it is also resilient – and it is this resilience that will carry Israel through its darkest hours.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830714
-----
How Israel Can Fight Back Against ICC's Arrest Warrants For Its Leaders
By Eytan Gilboa
November 26, 2024
The arrest warrants which the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant are ridiculous, absurd and baseless.
They stem from the law fare and diplomatic campaigns the Palestinians have been waging against Israel for the past two decades, and from the ICC’s clear-cut anti-Israel bias.
The legal debate on the warrants is too narrow. Israel should employ political, diplomatic and economic tools to cancel them. There are several steps that the Israeli government must take, both in the international and the domestic arenas, and there are some that must be avoided.
What to do in the international arena: In light of the ongoing bias in the ICC’s activity – which rejected all the Israeli claims before it, made a shocking parallel between Israel’s leaders and the Hamas terrorist leaders, and after their assassination, did not see fit to indict any of their heirs – there is no room to cooperate with the Court, or to appeal the warrants before ICC’s higher chamber.
Israel should mount a worldwide aggressive delegitimisation campaign against the ICC and its flawed practices. The appropriate model is the struggle against the 1975 UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism. Israel damaged the reputation of the UN, until it abolished the infamous resolution in 1991.
Necessary actions
First, Israel should produce a legal document that will refute every claim the prosecutor made, and the dubious and false “evidence” on which he relied.
Second, based on this document, Israel should persuade states to suspend their membership in the Rome Statute that established the ICC, thereby exempting them from the obligation to detain Israelis; or alternatively, to announce, as Hungary did, that they had no intention of enforcing the orders.
Third, coordinate with the incoming Trump administration to impose harsh personal sanctions against the ICC’s prosecutor, aides, and judges.
During his first term, president-elect Donald Trump imposed such sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who was determined to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the United States in Afghanistan. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham announced that he intends to bring legislation to Congress that would also impose economic sanctions on any state that announces its intention to enforce the warrants.
ON THE domestic front: According to its charter, the ICC is a “last resort” in the absence of an independent judiciary in a country accused of war crimes. It is the “principle of complementarity” which states that the court may only exercise jurisdiction when national legal systems fail to do so, when it is demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
The systematic weakening of the judicial system in Israel, and the attempts to undermine its independence, played into the hands of the hostile ICC.
Ministers and Knesset members of the coalition must immediately cease their unbridled attacks on the Supreme Court and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara. At the same time, the government should soon establish a “State commission of inquiry” to investigate the October 7 massacre, as well as the entire conduct of the government and the military during the war against Hamas. Such a move would strengthen the “principle of complementarity,” and help to nullify the legitimacy of the arrest warrants.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar made a mistake by cancelling the visit in Israel this week of Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp. Sa’ar took this action in retaliation for Veldkamp’s hasty statement that Holland will obey the warrants and arrest Netanyahu or Gallant, should they land in the Scandinavian country.
Instead, Israel could have used the opportunity to present its case against the ICC and ask Veldkamp to demand an explanation from the court before deciding whether to obey the warrants.
Since there is a reasonable possibility that the ICC has already issued secret arrest warrants for senior Israeli government officials or military officers, the Knesset should enact a law like the August 2002 “American Service-Members’ Protection Act,” which authorizes the US president to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.”
This authorization was nicknamed “The Hague Invasion Act,” because it authorizes the use of force, such as an invasion of The Hague where the ICC is located. Subsection (b) of the act specifies that this authority shall extend to American allies including Israel.
By enacting its own similar law, Israel will declare that it has no intention of abandoning Israeli elected and appointed officials or military officers should they be arrested anywhere in the world. A robust combination of all the aforementioned tools is likely to create heavy pressure on the ICC to revoke its unfounded and outrageous arrest warrants.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830712
-----
ICC’s Arrest Warrants: Iran’s Hidden Hand In Targeting Israel
By Aviram Bellaishe
November 26, 2024
Commentators affiliated with the Iranian regime describe the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants against the prime minister and former defense minister of Israel as a “legal storm” that will severely affect global public opinion toward Israel.
Israel, they say, has cultivated an image as “a developed Western democracy—the only one in the dictatorial and Eastern Middle East” while portraying itself, particularly in the Western world, as a victim of antisemitism. The prolonged Iron Swords War, however, has indeed led to a dramatic decline in support for Israel, causing irreversible damage to its image, while support for the Palestinian narrative, especially in Western societies, is on the rise.
As a result, the arrest warrants pose a difficult dilemma for Israel’s allies regarding implementing the decision, possible extraditions, suspending arms supplies, or even supporting Israel. According to the Iranian commentators, the damage has been done, and “Netanyahu will no longer be able to move freely around the world, while they wait to see how many of the 120 member states will comply with the ruling.”
Netanyahu and Gallant, they say, have only two real options: surrendering to the ICC to defend themselves against the accusations, or doing so in Israel’s Supreme Court. However, these analysts consider both scenarios unlikely.
Iran’s satisfaction with this development stems from the fact that it orchestrated it. Even if it will be hard to find a smoking gun or prove a direct legal connection to the regime—known for its expertise in concealment and proxy operations—the narratives Iran has constructed over the years reveal its intentions.
Untrue, harmful rhetoric
For years, Khamenei has referred to Israel as “the occupying regime,” used the term “racism” in connection to the killing of innocents, and now labels the Iron Swords War in Gaza as “genocide,” declaring that Israel must be put on trial.
Iranians draw a connection between the historical anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the Palestinian struggle. Iranian leaders and officials label Israel as an “apartheid state” in speeches and statements, asserting that “Iran views Hamas as a liberation movement against occupation and apartheid.”
On the legal front, already on October 7, 2023, Iranian officials declared the need for an international body of jurists from the Islamic world and the international arena to advocate for Palestinian children, and called for a comprehensive, multistage media effort to highlight alleged Israeli crimes.
About two months before South Africa filed its complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Iran’s foreign minister, standing alongside South Africa’s foreign minister in Tehran, stated that Nelson Mandela was “a symbol of the fight against apartheid, especially today when the world witnesses the genocide of the Israeli apartheid regime.”
Iran and South Africa, in other words, were in sync on that issue. The South African foreign minister confirmed the two countries’ shared goals and said her country wanted to boost economic cooperation with Iran.
Indeed, according to the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), was on the verge of bankruptcy, but its debts were mysteriously covered shortly after it announced its intention to file the complaint.
“Given the high costs of pursuing a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, not to mention the expenses of a prolonged trial, legitimate questions remain about how South Africa could finance such actions,” ISGAP said. “This leads many to conclude that it received significant financial support from external sources.”
Discernible here are the fingerprints of Iran, an expert in proxy methods, putting South Africa in an economic chokehold to set the international legal system against Israel by leveraging “the Palestinian issue.” That would dovetail with the Palestinian strategy of exploiting the ICJ’s and ICC’s authority as a weapon against Israel.
As Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated, “Palestine’s acceptance into the UN will pave the way to internationalize the conflict as a legal, not merely political, matter. It will also pave the way for us to file complaints against Israel at the UN, with human rights bodies, and at the International Court of Justice.”
This is not only a strategy for the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank but also for Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has expressed its support for the PA’s efforts to join the ICC.
The implementation of this strategy became evident after the massacre of October 7, 2023, when Hamas—a terror organization, it should be noted—called on the ICC “to fulfil its responsibility and prosecute senior Israeli officials for the killings and atrocities in the Gaza Strip.”
This Iranian strategy to make use of the international legal system is not, of course, investigated by international institutions, and international media outlets do not cover it. Not only do Iran and its leaders – accused by human rights organizations of arbitrary arrests, torture, executions, severe violations of women’s rights, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, forced disappearances, and more – go uninvestigated by the ICC, but in November 2023, Iran was elected to chair the Social Forum of the UN Human Rights Council. Iran has indeed had much success in channelling the system in its favour.
ISRAEL’S ABILITY to contend with ostensibly international organizations that act against it politically depends crucially on the incoming Trump administration.
It is worth recalling that in November 2017, the previous ICC prosecutor announced her intention to launch an investigation of alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan, requesting approval from the panel of three judges to proceed. The same prosecutor enabled the Palestinian Authority’s accession to the ICC with UN backing, arguing that the 2012 General Assembly resolution granting the PA non-member observer state status validated its accession to the Rome Statute.
Some have claimed that the prosecutor overstepped her bounds by collaborating with Palestinian organizations and directly advising them on how to approach the ICC while, at the same time, focusing on prosecuting Israel. The American administration harshly criticized her, revoked her visa to the United States, and threatened to prosecute her, her staff, and ICC judges in American courts and seize their assets.
The administration further warned that if the ICC dared to detain any American citizen, the United States would use force to secure their release. Trump, Pompeo, and other administration officials declared that the ICC was political, corrupt, irresponsible, lacking in transparency, and hence illegitimate.
This understanding of the ICC’s bias and politicization was not adopted by the Biden administration, which did not act to prevent current prosecutor Karim Khan from issuing the warrants. Khan’s timing most likely reflects his awareness that the United States would not stop him.
A Wall Street Journal report also suggested a link between his efforts to promote the arrest warrants and his desire to divert attention from the severe sexual-harassment allegations against him.
John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, stated that “the ICC cannot continue to survive long without American support, and America must stop giving it oxygen.” Israel, in its struggle against Iran’s manipulation of the international legal system and the global danger inherent in exploiting the court’s politicization and bias against Israel, must await the second Trump administration.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830710
----
How Israeli Women Balanced Heroism And Home During The Israel-Hamas War
By Liat Kulik
November 26, 2024
The Iron Swords War revealed the strength and heroism of Israeli women across various fields. Women are taking on essential roles—some on the battlefield as paramedics, ground fighters, and combat fighters, while others are on the home front, managing domestic and economic challenges. The complexity of balancing family life with the need to fulfill key roles in responding to economic demands poses numerous challenges, particularly for women whose partners have been called to combat duty.
Two studies I conducted on women in the home front during the Iron Swords War provide a nuanced picture of the coping mechanisms, mental resilience, and survival strategies employed by women in Israel during this time.
The first study, conducted in the fifth week of the war with Dr. Dan Ramon, focused on women whose partners are not combatants and do not live in areas close to the fighting—specifically, women outside the direct circle of vulnerability. Nevertheless, even for them, coping with the new situation was highly challenging.
Managing the household was particularly difficult as parts of the education system were suspended, and they often found themselves filling in for mobilized men and women—all while fulfilling the demanding role of motherhood against the backdrop of a national trauma affecting all areas of life.
Coping strategies
Findings from the study highlight the importance of “realistic optimism” as an effective coping strategy. Women who did not settle for merely maintaining an optimistic perspective but used it as a motivation for daily action to preserve a routine were those who exhibited higher resilience and better adaptation to the situation, despite the challenges posed by the war.
In other words, those who viewed this emergency situation as an opportunity for action rather than just a crisis managed to maintain a greater sense of efficacy in their work, reflecting their adaptation to the challenges the war presented in its early phase.
The second study, conducted with Anita Zorhcinsky, took place about five months after the war began, during a period referred to as “wartime routine,” and focused on women in the first circle of vulnerability—the partners of combatants. This research revealed an interesting paradox regarding communication between the women and their partners at the front.
Although communication was generally rated positively by the women and included expressions of love, longing, and emotional support, it was not directly linked to the women’s mental health.
It can be assumed that, alongside the comfort derived from managing positive communication with their fighting partners (via electronic means such as mobile phones and WhatsApp), feelings of longing and increased awareness of absence and loneliness were also heightened.
For some women, the conclusion of an emotional conversation—especially one filled with expressions of love—triggered feelings of lack of intimacy and highlighted the absence of their partner’s physical presence. This phenomenon may have contributed to the absence of the expected connection between positive communication and improvements in the women’s mental health, meaning that good communication did not necessarily benefit the partners.
Another finding revealed that about a fifth of the women reported a deterioration in communication with their partner when he returned home on leave, compared to the period before the war. It is possible that the pressures accompanying the war, combat experiences, and the stresses of coping on the home front contributed to heightened tensions in the marital relationship.
Additionally, it was found that religious women reported better mental health than secular women, perhaps due to the community and spiritual support structures that religion provides. I also found that mothers rated their communication with their fighting partner as less satisfactory than women who are not mothers.
This may be due to mothers’ high expectations for support from their partners, given the challenges of managing childcare under the trauma of war—support that the combatant may not always be able to provide—leading to a perception of inadequate communication quality. However, despite this, mothers expressed greater mental health than women without children, likely due to the strength that motherhood provides, reflected in their mobilization, efficiency, and effective management of mental energy despite difficulties.
Overall, the findings underscore the need to establish mental health support systems for the partners of combatants, tailored to address the emotional and social complexities they experience. Furthermore, data indicating a deterioration in marital communication highlights the necessity for the involvement of professionals in couple therapy to develop short-term intervention programs that can provide swift and targeted responses to relationship issues, which, like other aspects of our lives, may have been strained during the war.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830707
-----
ICC's Arrest Warrants: A Global Assault On Judaism And Israel’s Leadership
By Gol Kalev
November 26, 2024
We are in the midst of a large-scale multi-front attempt to negate the idea of Judaism. Last week’s International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants against the leaders of the Jewish state resemble efforts of previous European assaults on Judaism. But what was alarmingly different this time was the immediate commitment made by Western governments to collaborate.
This included Canada, the EU, the Netherlands, and indeed France, which for the second time in 80 years pledged to arrest Jews, should it be asked to do so.
The ICC made clear in its November 21 warrant that its aim goes far beyond Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant. The war crimes they are accused of committing, such as starvation and murder of the Palestinian population, are committed “jointly with others,” the ICC declared.
The alleged crimes are committed by Israeli soldiers, as well as those who support them. Indeed, in recent months, the ICC and International Criminal Court (ICJ) have been preparing the legal groundwork for the mass arrest of Israeli Jews.
The mere threat of mass arrests could paralyze travel and cripple the Israeli economy. What Israeli would risk traveling to, or through, Europe?
An attack on the values of the American Revolution
But the ICC did not just target the Jewish state last week. As discussed in a previous column article, the West’s assault on Judaism is also a threat to US national security.
Israel is viewed by top military experts as the most moral army in the world. Therefore, the ICC “starting” with Israel sets a low bar for what could come after. Indeed, without much fanfare, the ICC last week appointed itself to the role of deciding “who will live and who will die.”
Conceptually, the ICC is defying the American motto of “One nation under God” and replacing it with “One world under the ICC.” The precedent and template have been set last week. It was fully endorsed by France, Canada, the EU and many others. Now it is up to the ICC to decide who is next.
Former South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor, who is at the forefront of the ICC attack, has already made it clear: “America is next,” she affirmed.
In a sense, the ICC drafted de facto “shadow arrest warrants” boilerplates that can be used against former US presidents and government officials, which the ICC has already attempted to investigate for alleged war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
France’s collaboration pledge also threatens the US in a more immediate way: If President Obama or President Bush wish to visit France, this now likely requires a higher level of security assessment. One just needs to connect the dots: The ICC wishes to investigate the US for war crimes, arrest warrants are issued without notice, and France is on the record that it will comply with such arrest warrants – even if issued against former or current Heads of State.
Travel paralysis warfare is not just “in theory”. Last week, Australia denied entry to former Israeli justice minister Ayelet Shaked, reportedly due to her opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state – a position held by the majority of Israeli Jews on the Left and Right alike.
Speaking with The Jerusalem Post, Shaked called Australia’s decision “a hostile antisemitic act” that does not just target Israel but is also “an affront to the [Australia’s] Jewish community,” who invited her to support them at their hour of need.
‘Bigots and war criminals – out!’
Security experts around the world oppose the ludicrous idea to reward the October 7 atrocities with a state, as it sends a clear message to groups in Europe and around the world seeking independence about the optimal path to statehood. Yet, after a year of indoctrination, support for a Palestinian state is becoming widespread in certain Western circles.
Senator Chuck Schumer even went as far as to suggest that Israelis who oppose the idea of a Palestinian state are “bigots.”
Should Israeli Jews therefore be worried that they too could be denied entry to Australia and other Western countries? After all, what country should allow bigots and war criminals in? Following last week’s stance of France, Canada, Holland, the EU, and Australia, this question became closer and closer to being synonymous with: what country should allow [Israeli] Jews in?
Let us not forget that many countries – including England, France, and Spain – had enacted laws in the past that made them Jew-free for centuries, and as French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lectured us last week, laws must be obeyed.
Indeed, the contemporary assault on Judaism is expanding rapidly – week after week, arena after arena. In this new column and in my book, I offer strategies and policy recommendations to counter it, but the most basic step is yet to happen: to acknowledge it exists and understand the depth and imminent danger it poses.
This is not intuitive, since unlike last century’s assault, today’s assault on Judaism is nuanced and is carried out by friends as well as foes. Therefore, it requires complex strategies and not just slogans and feel-good committees.
With that in mind, the United States should not only impose crippling sanctions against the ICC but also hold accountable those who pledge to collaborate and partake in the expanding assault on Judaism – a proxy for an assault on America and a growing threat to global stability.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830706
----
Israel’s Path To Victory: Dismantling Khamenei’s Regime By 2040
By Mark Dubowitz, Jacob Nagel
November 25, 2024
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has a clear mission: destroy Israel by 2040. The supreme leader has shown that Israel’s pursuit of deterrence can only delay his aggression, not stop it. So Israel now finds itself in a seven-front war against Tehran and its terror proxies.
To provide security for Israel, it is not enough to work harder at deterrence. Khamenei’s deadline, the year 2040, demands a bold counter-strategy: dismantle his regime. Israel must redefine its mission as not just surviving Khamenei’s threats but neutralizing their source.
Ending Khameni’s dictatorship is not a fantasy but a clear and achievable objective. Despite its aggression, the clerical regime is brittle. The Iranian people loathe Khamenei and his minions because they have driven the economy into the ground but made themselves wealthy with corruption. Those who dissent find themselves in prison, subject to rape and torture. Those who protest risk their lives against security forces using live ammunition. But the protests continue, and the people still chant, “Not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran.”
It is possible the people will overthrow the regime on their own. Yet Khamenei has learned from Bashar al-Assad how to put down a revolution: torture, kill, and gas both the peaceful and the violent opposition. However, help from abroad can tip the balance of power against the regime.
Aiding the opposition is not cost-free, but it can eliminate an array of threats that have forced Israel to spend great sums, year after year, on defense. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the most prolific state sponsor of terrorism, with Israel as its principal target. It is a destabilizing force across the Middle East, working to derail the Abraham Accords and the desire for peace with Israel. It has encircled Israel with a ring of fire of terrorist armies. It trained, funded, and equipped Hamas to murder Israelis on October 7. And it is approaching the brink of nuclear weapons capability, enabling Khamenei to achieve his genocidal objective.
Toppling the regime is fully consistent with a continuing campaign against the Iranian nuclear program. The Israel Air Force (IAF) has shown it can destroy Iran’s supposedly formidable strategic air defenses. Israel’s covert operations have demonstrated an ability to eliminate thousands of Hezbollah personnel at once or just a single Hamas leader in Tehran. These victories demonstrate an ability to overcome entrenched adversaries with precise intelligence, advanced technologies, and impressive air operations. The IAF already struck one component of the Iranian nuclear program last month and can do much more.
Sanctions, covert ops, and diplomacy to counter Iran
A joint US-Israel operation would exponentially increase the chances of success of the campaign against Khamenei’s nuclear program. Working together would combine Israel’s operational precision with American firepower, logistical capabilities, and diplomatic leverage. Pre-emptive strikes, cyber warfare to disrupt command systems, and covert actions to sabotage nuclear components could form the backbone of this effort.
With Donald Trump returning to the White House, the Islamic Republic is likely to face the return of crippling sanctions as part of Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure.” In his first term, sanctions decimated Tehran’s oil revenues, drained its foreign exchange reserves, triggered painful inflation, collapsed Iran’s currency, and constrained its ability to fund its terror network.
The president’s critics warned that outside pressure would force Iran’s proud and patriotic people to stand behind the regime. The critics were wrong. The Islamic Republic is an alien entity in Iran, and the people know it is the root cause of their misery. Thus, the return of maximum pressure will help to set the conditions for another uprising.
Accordingly, Israel must work with allies, especially the United States, to reimpose and expand sanctions, targeting not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the regime’s lifeline for exporting terrorism and oppression.
Diplomatically, Israel can increase pressure on Tehran by building on the Abraham Accords, in particular by finalizing a peace deal with Saudi Arabia. Iran’s support for Russia in Ukraine has antagonized the European government, which may now be willing to exert additional diplomatic pressure.
Israel’s intelligence and covert operations are another critical pillar of this strategy, targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, nuclear weapons scientists, IRGC leadership, cyber capabilities, and financial networks. These operations should escalate and focus on the regime’s critical nodes of power.
Finally, Israel must amplify its support for the Iranian people. By empowering dissidents with communications platforms, labour strike funds, and actionable intelligence against the regime, Israel can increase the odds that the Iranian people succeed when they seek to throw off their yoke of oppression. If the people choose to resist regime violence with force of their own, then they deserve weapons, too.
If Khamenei’s mission is to annihilate Israel by 20240, then Israel’s mission must be to dismantle his regime. All elements of Israeli power, with support from the incoming US administration, must be mobilized. Survival is not enough. Victory is the only option. That means ensuring Khamenei’s regime becomes a relic of history long before its destructive timeline reaches fruition.
Brig. Gen. (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD) and a professor at the Technion. He served as National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu and as acting head of the National Security Council. Mark Dubowitz is FDD’s chief executive and an expert on Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions. In 2019, he was sanctioned by Iran.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-830719
-----
‘I Used To Like Winter, But I Don’t Like It Now’
By Motasem A Dalloul
November 25, 2024
After her husband was killed by the Israeli occupation forces in Beit Lahiya and the destruction of her house, Amal Abu Halima, 39, fled with her children to Gaza City. Passing through two Israeli military checkpoints inside Beit Lahiya where they were obliged to throw away what few clothes and little food they had, they then walked around 20 kilometres. Some of her children were barefoot.
“We arrived here,” she told me, “thinking that Gaza City would be safer and more secure than Beit Lahiya, but we were shocked by the relentless Israeli bombing. We still lived in fear, but had to cope.”
The displaced mother of seven faced a severe food shortage and lack of clean tap and drinking water, but this was not the main issue. “We got used to it during the past 14 months. The biggest problem is the tent and winter.”
Amal fled from Beit Lahiya 10 days ago. At least 30,000 people fled before her from the northern Gaza cities of Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoun and Jabalia. They arrived in Gaza City and occupied all the partially empty homes, shops, garages, stores, streets and shelters.
“We found a small empty space on the seating area of Al-Yarmouk Stadium, but we had nothing to use for a tent,” she explained. “We started looking for anything that could be used, and found small pieces of cloth. I sewed them together and made something resembling a tent.” The stadium is now the largest refugee tent camp in Gaza.
Although she and the children slept inside their tent, she told me that she knew that it would never protect them from rain or the cold. When rain was expected, she stayed awake.
“At the beginning of the night, it was light rain, on and off. There was nothing to worry about, but I could not sleep. I wished that it would not rain at all.”
She checked the tent for any and every weak spot. Her children were shivering with the cold. They didn’t have enough mattresses, blankets or even heavy clothes.
“Just one minute, that’s all it took, and the rain started leaking everywhere inside the tent. I woke the children up, but I did not know what to do.” They stood up as best they could in the tent until it stopped raining.
In the morning, Amal found out that the other displaced people around her had had the same miserable experience. “We could deal with this by standing up for a couple of hours, but what shall we do when the winter hits hard, in the cold and rain? I used to like winter, but I don’t like it now.”
Amal and her family were not the worst-affected displaced persons that I have met. Compared with others, they are relatively fortunate, as they have a space and a tent of sorts.
Mother and grandmother Aisha Darabe is 63. I met her in front of the main gate of the stadium. She has nowhere except a spot near the rubble of a nearby government compound destroyed by the Israeli occupation forces earlier during the genocide.
“The Israeli occupation forces killed my son, my daughter and my grandson,” she explained. “I fled with my wounded husband, my children and my now orphan grandchildren. This was the only place we could find.”
“We have been trying to sleep with no shelter or warmth for six days. When it rained tonight, I sent the children to the families of my acquaintances who live in better places in the refugee tent camp.”
Bad as her situation is, Aisha is more fortunate than the displaced family of Suhaila, 49, the mother of 11 children. Her husband was killed in a refugee shelter in Beit Hanoun. She has a disabled daughter, who she needs to carry on her back when they move from one place to another.
“We have a tent, but it is on the edge of the playground where the stream of running rainwater drains away,” she said. “In the middle of the rain spell, rainwater flooded our tent and all of our mattresses and blankets were wet. Everything was damaged. We had to move.”
Her main problem, Suhaila told me, is that she has no place to protect her disabled daughter properly. “I was weeping all the time when it was raining. I did not know what to do as there is no place to go.”
Ghassan Abu Riyalah is 41 and the father of six children. His wife is very sick. “Nothing is good to protect my children. Despite covering my decaying tent with a new plastic sheet, rainwater is still leaking inside.” What’s the solution? I asked. “The best solution is for the Israelis to withdraw from our city, end of the genocide and let us return to our homes.”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241125-i-used-to-like-winter-but-i-dont-like-it-now/
----
World Must Pressure Israel Over Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
Chris Doyle
November 25, 2024
Some 185 days after they were requested by prosecutor Karim Khan, the International Criminal Court last week issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ex-Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Mohammed Deif, a Hamas commander.
Many ask, will this make any difference? Will Israel end its genocide in Gaza? The answer is almost certainly “no.” Netanyahu, now a war crimes suspect at large, is very unlikely to adopt a course correction and neither are his Cabinet colleagues. Israeli officials will conjure up fresh excuses and lines of attack for public relations purposes. Already, Netanyahu has abused the fight against antisemitism by referring to a “modern Dreyfus trial,” in reference to an infamous incident from the 1890s, in which a Jewish French officer was falsely accused and convicted of treason before eventually being acquitted.
At best, one or two around the Israeli Cabinet table might twitch at the thought they could be next. But many other Israelis in politics, the armed forces and security services should fear further warrants. No doubt, many would like to be able to travel freely, to see loved ones in other countries. Netanyahu is now 75, but younger military commanders may have years to endure any sanction.
Undoubtedly, a failure by the International Criminal Court to agree to the arrest warrants would have been catastrophic for international law and the rules-based order. At least the court can now say that it does go after the friends of the big powers. It is not only for African leaders. This matters. It sends a message to wannabe war criminals. However powerful your friends may be, they cannot protect you from the international judicial system.
State members of the court must honor their obligations and with gusto. This is a legal obligation, not a request. If any of the accused land in one of the 124 member states, they must be arrested and dispatched to The Hague. Some states have made clear they would do this. These include Italy and the Netherlands.
On the flip side, there are states prepared to trash international law and the rules-based system led by the US. Some American politicians even threatened sanctions against historic allies like the UK and France if they were to help the International Criminal Court. Others referred to America’s so-called Hague Invasion Act, which permits the US to use all means necessary to free Americans or its allies detained on the court’s orders.
Britain led the pack of those that gave equivocal responses. Ministers said they would respect the decision and abide by their legal obligations, but they would not be caught on camera saying the UK would arrest Netanyahu. Back in May 2023, when the court issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin of Russia, British ministers fell over themselves to welcome the historic decision, including Keir Starmer when he was opposition leader. Starmer has not personally commented on the new warrants.
And who was shocked that the far-right Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban invited Netanyahu to come and visit his country?
What was also startling was that much of the media coverage focused on the Israeli reaction and those of its allies, not the crimes themselves. Those states that welcomed the court’s decision were rarely mentioned.
Absent from most coverage were the victims. Typically, they were not even cited as Palestinians. Readers and viewers might have been left wondering exactly what these war crimes and crimes against humanity were. The voice of the Palestinians, those who have lost loved ones and are at this moment being starved to death, were missing.
Many in the media ignored the human rights community’s near-universal condemnation of Israel. It is hard to find a single human rights group that has not detailed and condemned the war crimes of which Netanyahu and Gallant are accused.
What should happen now? International Criminal Court member states should be reviewing their entire relationship with Israel. Those with any moral integrity should, if they have not done so already, introduce a full arms ban and cease any military and security cooperation with Israel. All states should demand that Israel hands the accused over to the court. It should be a condition of future relations with Israel that this happens.
But there are still questions for the court. Why have there been no warrants over the building of illegal Israeli settlements, which are clear violations of the Rome Statute? This should have been addressed years ago and, particularly following the July advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which made the authoritative determination that the occupation was unlawful and the settlements had to go, the International Criminal Court should be questioned as to why action has not been taken. There is no dispute of fact. The settlements exist, are being expanded and are in occupied territory.
Khan made it clear back in May that these warrants would almost certainly not be the last. Is he considering requesting arrest warrants for other Israeli and Hamas leaders? Israel has assassinated most Hamas leaders. But given the scale of atrocities that Palestinians are suffering every day, it is inconceivable that more Israeli figures will not be charged.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2580695
-----
The Roadmap To A Just Peace In Palestine
Dr. Ramzy Baroud
November 25, 2024
A major problem in American thinking relating to the Middle East is the utter rejection of the notion that Palestinian rights are fundamental, if even relevant at all, to the coveted peace and stability.
In the years before the Trump administration’s so-called deal of the century was officially revealed on Jan. 28, 2020, successive US administrations had attempted to “stabilize” the Middle East at the expense of the Palestinians. Earlier plans, or deals, rested on the premise of total marginalization of the Palestinian people and their cause. They included the Rogers Plan of 1969 and the Second Rogers Plan the following year, which culminated in the Camp David Accords of 1978.
When all such plans failed to subdue the Palestinians, Israel and the US began investing in an alternative Palestinian leadership that would be compliant with Tel Aviv’s will, often in exchange for money and a minimal share of power. The outcome was the Oslo Accords of the mid-1990s, which initially segmented the Palestinians politically, yielding competing classes, but ultimately failed to defeat their quest for freedom.
Numerous other initiatives and plans, mostly proposed by the US and other Western entities, tried to conclude the Palestinian struggle in favour of Israel without having to deal with the inconveniences of pressuring it to respect international law. They all failed.
The 2020 deal was another failed attempt. It was centred on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s previously thwarted economic peace of 2009. For Israel, this new attempt was meant to be a win-win scenario: ending Israel’s regional isolation, amassing wealth, making the Israeli military occupation permanent and avoiding any accountability under international law, thus permanently defeating the Palestinians.
The ongoing Israeli war and genocide in Gaza, the destabilization of the whole region and the ongoing Palestinian steadfastness and resistance are the final proof that there can never be real peace in the Middle East without justice for the Palestinians and other victims of Israeli brutality. No matter how many US-Western deals and initiatives are proposed in the future, this fact will not be altered.
The same applies to those operating in a less official capacity but who are still committed to the same perusal of creative “solutions” to the so-called conflict. Such notions may suggest that the lack of a solution reflects a lack of imagination and resolve or a dearth of legal texts that make a just end to the conflict impossible. However, a solution is readily available. Indeed, the solution to military occupation, apartheid and genocide is ending military occupation, dismantling the racist apartheid regime and holding Israeli war criminals accountable for their extermination of Palestinians.
Not only do we have enough international and humanitarian laws and court orders to guide us through the process of holding Israel accountable, but also more than the needed critical mass of international consensus that should make this “solution” possible. The main obstacle is the stubborn and unconditional US support of Israel, which has allowed the latter to flout international law and consensus for decades.
International law regarding Palestine is not an outdated solution but a robust and growing legal discourse that refuses to entertain any Israeli or US interpretation of the war crimes, including the crime of genocide, underway in Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Territories.
In February, the International Court of Justice held hearings that allowed representatives of more than 50 countries to articulate their political, legal and moral stances on the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
While the acting legal adviser at the US State Department argued that the 15-judge panel at The Hague should not call for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser contended that the Palestinians’ “use of force to resist oppression is an inalienable right.”
In July, the court issued a landmark ruling that the Israeli occupation in all of its expressions is illegal under international law and that such illegality includes Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and all of its Jewish-only settlements, annexation attempts, theft of natural resources and so on.
In September, international consensus was achieved again, as the UN General Assembly passed a resolution demanding Israel end “its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” within 12 months.
This is a mere footnote in the massive body of international law regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Yet more is regularly being added to the already clear discourse, including last week’s issuing of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for top Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu.
With such clarity in mind, why then should Palestinians, Arabs and the international community entertain or engage in any new deals, plans or solutions that operate outside the realms of international law and standards?
The issue is obviously not the lack of a roadmap to a just peace, but the lack of interest or will to implement it, specifically on the part of the US and a few of its Western allies. It is their relentless backing of Israel and financing of its war machine that makes a just solution in Palestine unattainable, at least for now.
As far as Palestinians are concerned, there can only be one acceptable deal: one that is predicated on the full implementation of international law, including the Palestinian people’s right of return and right to self-determination. The continued US-Israeli attempts to circumvent this fact will never impede Palestinians from carrying on with their struggle for freedom.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2580683
----
Lebanon … And ‘The Day After’
Ghassan Charbel
November 25, 2024
Fate had it that I was in Damascus the day of Rafik Hariri’s assassination on Feb. 14, 2005. That night, I felt that a violent earthquake had struck Lebanese-Syrian relations. Earthquakes need wise men, not strong men. On my way back the next day, I stopped by the town of Chtoura to have a cup of coffee with a friend. His words gave me pause: “The Syrian intelligence can behave in unsettling ways and I do not support their remaining here permanently, but I will not hide the fact that their withdrawal scares me, because of what I know of the Lebanese and their divisions.”
I returned to Beirut and it was boiling. Most people in Lebanon felt that the country’s backbone had been broken. Many were angry and demanded the withdrawal of Syrian forces, who they held responsible for Hariri’s assassination. These were violent and worrying times.
My journalistic curiosity got the better of me and, at the end of that month, I was in President Bashar Assad’s office. Our conversation was off the record. I asked Assad if his country’s forces would withdraw from Lebanon and he replied that some military officials believed that remaining in a strip of the Lebanese Bekaa would facilitate a defense of Damascus in the event of Israeli aggression. I asked what he would do if international pressure to withdraw his forces escalated and he replied that he would issue the order for his troops to withdraw to the border.
Assad was adamant in his insistence that Syria had no hand in Hariri’s assassination. Why be so certain, I asked, why not at least leave the possibility that a foreign entity had infiltrated one of your agencies to carry out the assassination? “We are a state and do not have merchants running our apparatuses. We had nothing to do with it and this will become clear to you in time,” he said. I also asked him about his brief final meeting with Hariri and other things, but that is beyond the scope of our conversation here.
During the years that Syrian forces were deployed in Lebanon, the Syrian intelligence bureau in Anjar (in the Bekaa Valley) issued the verdicts and stamps and it allocated shares of power. The withdrawal of the Syrian “supreme leader” left a large void that the country’s political forces failed to fill through the development of a state within the framework of the Taif Agreement.
Divisions deepened when Lebanese security agencies pointed to signs that Hezbollah elements had been implicated in Hariri’s assassination. Events escalated and the 2006 war further cemented Lebanon’s position in the so-called Resistance Axis. The opportunity to return to the state was squandered and Lebanon became an arena for broader regional conflicts.
Lebanon is currently being subjected to an Israeli assault that threatens to turn into a catastrophe for the small country. The Israeli killing machine has wiped entire villages off the map and left immense destruction in Hezbollah’s community. This violence has been met with sympathy or understanding in the West, under the pretext that Hezbollah chose this war by declaring a “support front” after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
It is clear that the party had hoped for skirmishes that did not violate the so-called rules of engagement. However, Hezbollah miscalculated, especially when it insisted on the “unity of fronts” even after Benjamin Netanyahu managed to turn the war into an existential one, which, in his view, justified human and economic losses that Israel had previously sought to avoid.
Lebanon did not follow the advice that US envoy Amos Hochstein gave it early on. Lebanon only responded after disaster struck. Immense destruction has been inflicted on this country, which is now teetering on the edge of an even deeper abyss. Hochstein presented no solution other than the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which was born of the 2006 war and which Israel and Hezbollah had hollowed out. This was especially the case after the latter became a “regional actor” that sends fighters and advisers to battlefields near and far.
Would Lebanon have been in this tragic situation if Resolution 1701 had been fully implemented? It is too late to ask this question, but the resolution must be implemented now as the country burns over a sea of rubble. Sometimes, patients must take bitter medicine to avoid something worse, and we must prevent the disintegration and disappearance of Lebanon.
A genuine exit from the current war and its exorbitant costs places Lebanese forces before a historic duty to turn away from policies of denial, their failure to learn lessons and rubbing salt in the wound. Resolution 1701 must be fully implemented to restore the world’s confidence and encourage the international community to play a role in the reconstruction process. That requires closing the chapter of Lebanon as an arena and beginning the journey to turn Lebanon into a normal state. The key to returning to the state is the implementation of the Taif Agreement and compliance with its spirit. There must be a deep understanding of war’s horrors and how to ensure it does not recur.
Implementing Resolution 1701 would significantly alter Hezbollah’s role in the region. In practice, this means Lebanon withdrawing from the unity of fronts, whose military commitments Iraq is currently trying to avoid. This change will not be simple, but it is necessary if the Lebanese are to reunite under the state and law.
The “day after” the ceasefire in Lebanon will not be easy, but all political forces must rise to the challenge. The bridges between the Lebanese must be rebuilt despite the bitterness of recent years. There must be mutual recognition, compassion and a return to policies suited to Lebanon’s nature. No coercion, no revenge, no diminishing or marginalizing components. The Lebanese cannot afford to waste the day after the ceasefire just like they squandered opportunities on many occasions in the past.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2580689
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/democracy-hamas-judaism-icc-genocide/d/133817
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