Middle East Press On: Ethnic, Cleansing, UK, Hamas, Al Sharaa: New Age Islam's Selection, 12 March 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
12 March 2025
Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing In The West Bank Continues As The PA Slips Into Irrelevance
External Impositions Only Create More Oppression For Palestinians
UK Recognised Hamas’s Right To Armed Resistance 32 Years Ago, British Documents Reveal
The Struggle In Syria … The Struggle Over Syria
How Can Al-Sharaa Prevent The Overthrow Of His Regime?
Time For Netanyahu To Launch A Full Oct. 7 Inquiry
Canadian Stock Exchanges Offers Growth Opportunity For Israeli Tech Companies
Can Trump Make His ‘Gaza Riviera’ Plan Work
The IDF’s Job In The Gaza Strip Is Not Over
-------
Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing In The West Bank Continues As The Pa Slips Into Irrelevance
By Jamal Kanj
March 11, 2025
The ongoing Israeli military assault on Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank is part of a larger ethnic cleansing of the occupied territory, a systematic effort to forcibly displace Palestinians from their homes and erase their historical and national identity. As the world watches in silence, the relentless incursions into these camps — home to some of the most vulnerable Palestinian communities — are reducing entire districts to rubble, killing civilians and forcing tens of thousands to flee.
Meanwhile, and even as Israel wages a brutal genocidal campaign in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority (PA) stands idly by, unwilling to defend its people. Worse still, on Monday, 10 March, the PA security forces carried out Israel’s bidding and assassinated seasoned Jenin fighter Abdul-Rahman Abu Muna.
The refugee camps of Jenin, Nur Shams, Balata and others have long been the heart of legitimate Palestinian resistance. Housing Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in 1948 — and today — they stand as grim reminders of Israel’s original sin: the Nakba. Through generations, the Palestinian camps have become a powerful symbol of Palestinian identity, embodying the deep-rooted belonging to Palestine. The camps are not just a physical space; they represent a collective memory, a repository of cultural heritage, and a reminder of the ongoing struggle for self-determination and homeland restoration. Thus, their erasure — much like the destruction of their residents’ original villages within historic Palestine since 1948 — has become an Israeli obsession aimed at wiping out their existence.
In reality, what is unfolding is a merciless campaign of destruction, aimed at crushing the spirit of Palestinian resistance and making life unbearable for those who dare to remain. Homes are demolished, roads are ripped up; electricity and water supplies are cut; and entire communities are left in ruins. Israel destroys civilian infrastructure, not for military tactical objectives, but purely to make life unbearable for residents, ensuring that even those who survive are left with an unliveable environment. This collective punishment is a blatant war crime under international law.
The ongoing assault on Palestinian refugee camps is not about military strategy; it is tied deeply to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s endless war for political survival. On trial for alleged corruption and facing mounting political pressure, Netanyahu has relied on endless war and ever more violence to maintain his fragile coalition of right-wing, racist factions. By escalating attacks on Palestinians, he ensures the continued support of racist, ultranationalist, Jewish groups who demand harsher measures against the occupied population. This cycle of aggression is a deliberate strategy to prolong his grip on power at the expense of Palestinian lives.
The core issue is not simply the military assaults, but the very nature of the Israeli occupation and the hordes of violent settlers who terrorise Palestinian communities with impunity. The expansion of illegal, Jew-only colonies, backed by the Israeli military, has emboldened Jewish supremacists to carry out attacks against Palestinians, including arson, physical assaults and even outright murder. This settler-colonial project aims to replace Palestinian existence with a network of Jewish colonies, erasing any hope for a Palestinian state.
Israel’s strategy of targeting refugee camps is part of this broader policy. The destruction of Jenin camp in 2002 was supposed to end Palestinian resistance, but it did not. Two decades later, Israel is fighting the progeny of those it murdered more than 20 years ago, repeating the same failed strategy and hoping that this new wave of destruction will achieve what past massacres could not. But history has shown that Palestinian resilience cannot be broken by military force. As in 2002, today’s destruction will not erase the Palestinian struggle; it will only fuel the determination of a people who refuse to disappear.
The PA, which was established through the Oslo Accords with the promise of leading Palestinians toward statehood, has instead become an enforcer of Israeli security serving as an administrative subcontractor rather than a true representative government. Its continued security collaboration with Israel, even as refugee camps are emptied of their inhabitants, is nothing short of a betrayal; treachery on a massive, deadly scale.
At a time when the Palestinian people long for real leadership, the PA has shown itself to be an institution of self-preservation, more concerned with maintaining its own grip on power than resisting a malevolent occupation. It has failed to mobilise international support, and failed to take any meaningful action to stop Israel’s aggression.
It is very clear to all with eyes to see that the Palestinian Authority is complicit in the suffering of its own people through its inaction, collaboration and subservience to Israeli diktats. Worse still, the PA refuses to intervene because its leadership is more focused on protecting the privileges and VIP status granted to them under Israeli occupation. Rather than safeguarding Palestinian lives, the PA’s primary concern has become to maintain its elite’s access to special permits, security arrangements and economic benefits that Israel doles out to ensure its collaboration.
If the PA continues on this trajectory, it will cease to have any role in shaping the future of Palestine. The people will inevitably turn elsewhere for leadership, whether to civil society organisations, local resistance groups or new political movements that truly represent their aspirations. The Palestinian cause does not need an institution that stands on the sidelines while its people are ethnically cleansed; it needs a leadership that will fight for its people’s survival and sovereignty.
The Israeli destruction of Palestinian refugee camps is a military operation with a calculated strategy of population displacement. By forcing thousands to flee, Israel is laying the groundwork for a West Bank emptied of Palestinians, paving the way for further illegal annexation and settlement expansion.
The United Nations, human rights organisations and the world at large must hold Israel accountable for its crimes and put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to end its complicity. If it continues to stand idly by as its people are being ethnically cleansed, it will slip further into irrelevance and its leadership will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250311-israels-ethnic-cleansing-in-the-west-bank-continues-as-the-pa-slips-into-irrelevance/
-------
External Impositions Only Create More Oppression For Palestinians
By Ramona Wadi
March 11, 2025
Palestinians in Gaza are caught between two externally-imposed plans, neither of which prioritises the decolonisation of their land. The US plan to take over Gaza and develop it as a “Rivera of the Middle East” for Israel’s benefit, which the latter has of course endorsed, is countered by the internationally-preferred Egyptian-Arab plan for Gaza which would combine rebuilding the enclave and the Palestinian Authority’s return.
Palestinians thus have two options: a US-Israeli collaboration to forcibly expel them from Gaza, or the return of illegitimate PA rule which even Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have been rebelling against.
Israeli media reported Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as saying that the defence ministry is working towards a “migration administration” to oversee the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza. There are no budget obstacles, Smotrich pointed out. “If we take out 5,000 a day it will take a year. The logistics are complicated because we need to know who is going to which country,” he added.
According to Israeli Minister for Settlements and National Projects Orit Strock, “As long as we don’t allow most of the population to emigrate, we will not remove the threat.” Allowing emigration is one thing – it implies making an international move voluntarily, for better prospects or a new job elsewhere — whereas forcibly displacing Palestinians is a war crime.
Israeli media reported Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as saying that the defence ministry is working towards a “migration administration” to oversee the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza. There are no budget obstacles, Smotrich pointed out. “If we take out 5,000 a day it will take a year. The logistics are complicated because we need to know who is going to which country,” he added.
According to Israeli Minister for Settlements and National Projects Orit Strock, “As long as we don’t allow most of the population to emigrate, we will not remove the threat.” Allowing emigration is one thing – it implies making an international move voluntarily, for better prospects or a new job elsewhere — whereas forcibly displacing Palestinians is a war crime.
If the international community really wants to oppose the US-Israeli scheme, rebuilding Gaza is not enough, though. Acknowledging and then addressing what has forced Palestinians into perpetual refugee status for decades — Israel’s settler colonial occupation — and dismantling it, must take precedence. If not, then external impositions will only ever create more oppression for the Palestinians.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250311-external-impositions-only-create-more-oppression-for-palestinians/
----
UK Recognised Hamas’s Right To Armed Resistance 32 Years Ago, British Documents Reveal
By Amer Sultan
March 11, 2025
The United Kingdom not only engaged in direct dialogue with Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) 32 years ago, but also acknowledged the Palestinian group’s right to armed resistance, recently released British documents reveal.
According to records I obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, British diplomats held secret discussions with Hamas representatives in London and the Middle East. The documents indicate that these meetings provoked strong reactions from both Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which sought to tarnish Hamas’s image.
On 10 February 1993, during a meeting at his official residence, British Ambassador to Jordan Patrick H.C. Eyers informed a Hamas delegation that, as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the UK “could not condone” Hamas’s use of violence in the occupied territories. However, he acknowledged that Hamas was acting “legally within their rights”, while also noting that their actions “contributed to the cycle of violence which made more difficult the resolution of the conflict by peaceful, political means.”
The meeting was set-up at Hamas’s request and was attended by Ibrahim Ghosheh, the movement’s representative abroad, Mohammed Nazzal, Hamas’s representative in Jordan, and Karen Wheatley, the embassy’s security officer. Ghosheh described Hamas as a liberation movement dedicated to freeing Palestinians from Israeli occupation, emphasising the group had not operated outside Palestine and “had no plans to extend its activities beyond Palestine.” He insisted that Hamas’s attacks targeted only Israeli soldiers.
At the time, Hamas played a key role in the First Intifada (1987–1993), a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation that ultimately led to the signing of the Oslo I Accords between Israel and the PLO in September 1993. Due to its growing influence, Israel deported 418 members of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement (IJM) to Marj Al-Zuhur in Lebanon in December 1992, an action that drew international condemnation.
During the meeting, Ghosheh criticised Israel for “exceeding internationally acceptable bounds by the use of force” and called on the UK “to take steps” to support the Palestinian cause. He noted that the UK “was known for its support of just causes”. When asked about Hamas’s stance on the peace process, Nazzal clarified that while Hamas “was not opposed to peace per se”, it rejected “the terms of reference of the current peace process”. He argued that the process seeks to deal with Palestinians “as a population and not as a people.”
Eyers told the Hamas representatives that the UK agreed with their position on key issues, including “the status of the occupied territories, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” However, he emphasised that the UK disagreed with Hamas on the means of achieving these goals, stressing the importance of peaceful solutions. The ambassador noted that the positive press coverage that the Palestinians received in the early days of the Intifada “enabled politicians in the West to take an interest in the issue of Palestinian rights.” But he also warned that the increasing use of firearms by the Palestinian resistance “limited the politicians’ room to maneuvre”, and that any moves which confirmed Western prejudices of Palestinians “could only damage their cause”.
Following the meeting, Wheatley observed that Hamas leaders were well spoken and “seemed keen to emphasize common ground and not antagonize” the ambassador.
In London, a dispute emerged within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) between the Security Coordination Department (SCD) and the Middle East Department (MED) regarding Hamas’s classification. The SCD, which maintained security contacts with Israel and other countries, viewed the Palestinian movement as an organisation with a “terrorist wing”, The MED disagreed, arguing that Hamas’s attacks were largely confined to Israeli military and paramilitary targets in the occupied territories and that the resistance group “has never mounted an international terrorist operation nor a cross-border raid into Israel from abroad.”
Israeli and pro-Israel media outlets alleged that Hamas was planning attacks on Western targets, but the SCD found that “none of this is substantiated” adding that Israel and the PLO “have an interest in blackening the reputation of Hamas”. Their purpose, the SCD argued, was “making life difficult for the supporters of the organization both at home and overseas.”
After further analysis, the UK’s security agencies concluded no “great deal of credence” could be attached to media allegations that Hamas was planning to attack Western interests. Meanwhile, after contacts with the Israelis, the agencies concluded that “there was nothing to substantiate the Israeli claims that Hamas supporters in the UK play a pivotal role in supporting violence within Israel and the occupied territories.”
In the United States, pro-Israel newspapers echoed Israeli claims that Hamas had established a “safe haven” on American soil, with its central command operating from within the US. However, a top-secret cable from the British Embassy in Washington to the FCO dismissed these allegations as an “apparent Israeli attempt to divert the attention of the American public” from the controversy surrounding the deportation of Hamas and IJM members to Marj Al-Zuhur.
The embassy’s assessment was based on communication with Ronald Schilcher, director of the US State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism. Schilcher confirmed that Israel was “patently trying to make something out of nothing” and noted that while approximately 20 Hamas activists were present in the US, the FBI “were keeping a close eye” on them. He specifically mentioned Dr. Mousa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas leader residing in the US at the time after obtaining a doctorate in construction management from the University of Colorado. While Schilcher said that Abu Marzouk could be described as part of Hamas’s political leadership, he dismissed Israeli claims that he controlled Hamas operations from abroad as “nonsense”. The US security official confirmed that Abu Marzouk’s interactions with Hamas members in Palestine were primarily focused on presenting Hamas’s case to the American public.
In the UK, the SCD estimated that there were about 100 active Hamas members, mostly students dissatisfied with the PLO’s moderate stance. Mark Canning, head of SCD, confirmed that “there was no information to substantiate” Israeli claims that Hamas leaders in the UK are directing terrorist operations in the occupied territories
The PLO strongly objected to the UK’s contacts with Hamas. A few days after the ambassador’s meeting with Hamas representatives, Dr. Asaad Abdel Rahman, member of the National Council and the Central Executive Committee of the PLO, informed Eyers that he had received “an agitated telephone” call from PLO leader Yasser Arafat who expressed “concern and irritation” over Western countries engaging with Hamas while refusing dialogue with the PLO.
In response, Eyers made several key points:
The UK government would not justify whom its representatives chose to talk to.
The claim that the UK avoided contact with the PLO was untrue, as UK diplomats were in regular contact with PLO officials in Jordan and Tunis, including Arafat himself.
It was wrong to suppose that some hidden political purpose lay behind his receiving Hamas representatives.
The meeting was held at the request of Hamas representatives residing in Jordan and Hamas are part of the political scene in the country.
It was important not to cut off groups like Hamas from ideas challenging their own.
The UK remained committed to the peace process and made clear to Hamas that violence undermined the Palestinian cause.
The UK intended to maintain lower-level contact with Hamas as part of its broader diplomatic engagement in Jordan.
In Washington, the US State Department echoed Palestinian negotiators’ concerns about Western engagement with Hamas. Faisal Al-Husseini and Hanan Ashrawi, members of the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid peace talks, criticised Western countries for their willingness to talk to Hamas while some of them refused to engage with the PLO.
According to counterterrorism officials and the Jordan Affairs Department of the US State Department, Al-Husseini and Ashrawi said “it was very strange for them [Western countries] to have contacts with a terrorist movement that opposed the peace process.”
After internal discussions, British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd instructed UK diplomats not to follow any US decisions regarding Hamas. In a top-secret telegram, Hurd authorised the British ambassador in Jordan and the UK consul in Jerusalem to “maintain working-level contacts” with Hamas.
In December 1993, another round of talks took place in London between Hamas leader Mohammed Nazzal and Janet Hancock, head of the Foreign Ministry’s Research and Analysis Department. Nazzal predicted that the Gaza-Jericho First Accord would collapse due to its failure to address Palestinian sovereignty and independence. Hamas “didn’t need to take any drastic action to scupper” the Accord, he said.
Nazzal emphasised that Hamas was keen to “have a dialogue with the British government in order to present Hamas’s views.”
Hancock noted that while Hamas remained committed to armed resistance, and considered itself a Palestinian nationalist organisation “with an appeal beyond the narrow Islamic constituency”, she believed that Hamas lacked a “vision for the lives of Palestinians” post-liberation.
In her conclusion, Hancock said the failure of the PLO to deliver any tangible gains on the ground as result of its policies is “one of Hamas’s strongest cards”. While this situation remains, Hamas “will prosper”. But if the situation changes the support the group enjoys “could fade, unless in the meantime it comes up with a credible alternative programme,” she explained.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250311-uk-recognised-hamass-right-to-armed-resistance-32-years-ago-british-documents-reveal/
----
The Struggle In Syria … The Struggle Over Syria
Eyad Abu Shakra
March 11, 2025
Safeguarding victory is often more difficult than achieving it.
That is self-evident, all the more so when powers and factions are eagerly seeking to overturn the shifts we saw in Syria a few months ago.
These actors were caught off-guard by the pace at which the shift unfolded, especially the collapse of the security apparatus in major Syrian cities, one after another. Nonetheless, anyone who understands the fabric of Syrian society recognized, at the time, that multiple actors, both domestic and foreign, had not yet had their final say.
This is not a fleeting phase but is rather the legacy of 54 years of iron-fisted rule, the “deep state” it built, systematic brainwashing and the networks of vested interests and transnational mutual accommodations.
On the other hand, Syria is not, as we are constantly reminded, an isolated island. It is the heart of the Middle East, which is the heart of the world.
Syria is a cradle of civilization, culture and religion — it is a crossroads of trade and military confrontation, as well as the West’s window to the East and the East’s gateway to the West. It gave the world the alphabet. Religions whose faithful span the globe emerged in Syria. It has produced emperors, while empires have relied on the bounty of its land.
It has played a role in most of the major events that have shaped the fate of humanity: from the Islamic conquests and the Crusades to the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire and the world order established after the First World War. That world order, however, left fragmentation (partition) in the Levant, first through the Sykes-Picot Agreement and second with the Balfour Declaration. As we can see today, we are still dealing with the repercussions of these two major turning points.
At this critical moment, Syria is undergoing a difficult ordeal that many had anticipated.
First, the state of shock that facilitated the collapse of the Assad regime and the dominance of regional patron Iran’s “Velayat-e Faqih” regime has faded. Tehran has regained its footing and begun to retaliate, undermining the change in Syria. There are many reasons behind its effort to destabilize the country, chief among them proving that it remains a powerful regional player following the blows it received at the hands of Israel in Lebanon. Israel’s blows sought to put a ceiling on Iran’s ambitions for regional dominance, which had come at the expense of the other two sides of the triangle: Israel and Turkiye.
Here, it is worth recalling, once again, that neither Tel Aviv nor Washington has an interest in removing Tehran’s regime. The well-known reasons include Tehran’s role in impeding Palestinian unity, undermining Palestinian resistance and thwarting the state project in Lebanon.
Second, Israel has never, even for a moment, forgotten its geopolitical priorities. Foremost among them is realizing its ancient messianic dream of dominating the land that stretches from the Euphrates to the Nile. This dream emboldens the most extreme Torah adherents, racists and advocates of population transfer, pushing them to impose their will on a region that has become exhausted, dazed and confused.
Exploiting Palestinian divisions is crucial to achieving this end. Facilitated and fostered by the regime in Tehran, this division is a steppingstone toward the displacement of Palestinians, first from Gaza and then from the West Bank. And who knows whether the Palestinian citizens of Israel will be spared from this wave of displacement at a time when the US president is not only signing a blank check to the Israelis, but also seeking to go further, appointing political and diplomatic officials with the goal of further fragmenting the region.
Furthermore, Syria and its mosaic-like social fabric has long been a point of interest for Israeli expansionists, who see potential for exploitation. For quite some time now, Tel Aviv has been leveraging every doubt and fear to convince weak-spirited individuals in Syria and Lebanon that they need protection from their own compatriots — those who share their homeland, identity and fate.
Accordingly, while Iran, which had long-standing and deep ties to the Assad regime, led efforts to overturn the shift in Syria from the coast (Latakia and Tartous) by stirring fear in the hearts of Alawite communities, Israel took the initiative in southern Syria (Quneitra, Deraa and Suwayda) by playing the Druze card. Drawing on old ties with their religious establishment that predate the founding of Israel in 1948, Tel Aviv reminded its local proxies of the 2015 Nusra Front massacre in the village of Qalb Lawzah in Idlib province, as well as the Daesh offensive in eastern Suwayda in 2018.
Finally, we have the Kurdish separatist project east of the Euphrates, a region home to major recourse and US geopolitical interests, as well as it being a battleground between Iran and Turkiye. Undoubtedly, the weaker Syria’s central authority becomes, the greater the ambitions of Kurdish separatists, who reject Syria’s Arab identity, oppose unity and are willing to make a deal with the devil to achieve their goal.
I believe the current Syrian leadership is fully aware of the grave implications of everything outlined above. However, despite its unquestionably sincere intentions, the steps it has taken on the ground have, so far, fallen short.
A transition from the logic of armed struggle to the logic of statehood is necessary, but it has not yet come. Unfortunately, one side continues to dominate decision-making and appointments and mistakes continue to be justified.
Moreover, the grim legacy of the past 54 years has made its popular base seem content, at times, to remain silent in the face of human rights violations, or to even eagerly defend the indefensible, both morally and politically. This is especially concerning in light of the international scrutiny and regional conspiracies that the Syrian government has to deal with.
The atrocities seen in the coastal region — and the fears, whether genuine or dubious, of similar events in the south — are unacceptable. They legitimize chaos and justify additional conspiracies. What we need is transitional justice, not retribution and revenge.
Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @eyad1949
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2593219
------
How Can Al-Sharaa Prevent The Overthrow Of His Regime?
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
March 11, 2025
It is rare to hear of a regime in our time that has triumphed and treated its followers and affiliates with nobility and tolerance, as we have seen with Ahmad Al-Sharaa in the Syrian Arab Republic. In Iraq, the Baathists dragged communists through the streets and, before them, the communists participated in the extermination of monarchists.
The Americans pursued the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime and dismissed half a million people associated with him. In Syria itself, Salah Jadid hanged nationalists, only to be overthrown by Hafez Assad, who then buried thousands of Hama’s residents alive as collective punishment for a faction’s rebellion. His son, Bashar, followed suit, digging mass graves and filling prisons. The UN archived tens of thousands of images smuggled out of the country by a forensic doctor, making it the largest documented case of murder and torture in history.
Unfortunately, wars bring out deep-seated grudges and vendettas. However, to his credit, the new Syrian ruler’s first message upon entering Damascus was one of reassurance to the Alawites before anyone else, along with other minorities and those who had worked with the regime, excluding those involved in murder and torture. We witnessed a swift acceptance of the new regime.
The recent armed rebellion in the coastal region is not surprising; it was expected after the fall of a regime that had ruled for half a century. Transition requires wisdom, patience, inclusion and communication — it cannot be managed by force alone.
Yet, there are forces that will not stop destabilizing the situation and fueling public distrust against the new regime — those who lost power, as well as regional regimes that suffered from Assad’s downfall, such as Iran and its militias in Iraq and Lebanon. There are various factions — Sunni, Christian and Alawite — that supported Assad’s regime and lost their privileges with his fall and they will work against Damascus today. The narrative of hostility toward the Alawites is specifically being pushed by remnants of the deposed regime to provoke nearly 2 million Alawites into siding with them. Even fleeing figures from Assad’s regime, like Rami Makhlouf, are seeking reconciliation.
This crisis tests the new regime’s leadership. When it was merely an armed militia in Idlib, its responsibility for its fighters’ actions was limited. Today, it is the state and it must not let its enemies drag it into the same trench as the fallen regime, becoming another sectarian and violent entity that resorts to force instead of politics.
Most Arab states rushed to express solidarity with the Damascus government, sending a clear message to the Syrian people about where they stand. This political stance is crucial for the international community to hear. However, Damascus faces a difficult road ahead, with challenges that could last for years. Al-Sharaa cannot fight multiple wars simultaneously, such as confronting both Israel and Iran — no state has ever done so and succeeded.
His government must therefore understand Israel’s intentions, or at least its expectations, as seen in its support for the Druze against what it describes as oppression by Damascus. For half a century, Israel tolerated — even protected — the Assad regime, until Bashar granted Iran military privileges, prompting Israel to turn against him. Since taking office, Al-Sharaa has been aware of these geopolitical realities and has stated that he does not intend to enter conflicts with his neighbors, including Israel.
It is important to remember that all states bordering Israel have signed agreements or understandings with it. Al-Sharaa will be forced to either reach an understanding with Israel or Iran — facing both adversaries at once is impossible.
Domestically, we recognize the conflicting pressures facing President Al-Sharaa. Syrians who suffered under the previous regime demand exclusion and sectarian revenge. Others seek full federalization, a demand difficult to achieve during wartime, as it risks leading to separatism. Here, the president’s leadership is critical in restraining both his allies and opponents, preventing political, ideological and military clashes.
In the end, Al-Sharaa’s regime will succeed in resisting attempts to overthrow it and in unifying Syria while confronting the rebels. But can he shorten the timescale and reduce the losses?
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2593218
----
Time For Netanyahu To Launch A Full Oct. 7 Inquiry
Yossi Mekelberg
March 11, 2025
In a low-key ceremony at the headquarters of the Israeli military last week, Chief of the General Staff Herzi Halevi, who commanded the army during the calamitous Oct. 7 Hamas massacre and its aftermath, was replaced by Eyal Zamir.
Although Halevi announced his departure some time ago, it was fitting that the ceremony should take place shortly after an investigation by the Israeli military released a report admitting what we all know — that it “failed in its mission to protect Israeli civilians.” But what shockingly emerges from the details of this failure is that the entire catastrophe could have been prevented.
In the same week, an investigation by Shin Bet, the internal security service, also revealed that, for several years, the organization had failed to identify Hamas’ plan to attack Israel. And not because of a lack of the necessary information, but because it believed that Hamas was under control. Yet, it still warned the government against complacency regarding the intentions of this Islamist organization, regardless of any specific attack plan.
As such, these conclusions amount to nothing that we could not have deduced by ourselves. However, these powerful and honest investigations by two of Israel’s most crucial security organizations, in addition to Mossad, are beginning to assemble the jigsaw puzzle that ought to provide a full picture of the truth. They will also enable any identified shortcomings to be fixed for the sake of preventing any such future catastrophes, as well as allowing Israeli society to begin its healing process.
The task of the military is to defend its citizens and borders from enemy attacks and the naked truth is that it failed in the most colossal manner, with immeasurable consequences for the Israeli people, the Palestinians and the region as whole. As we might have expected, many senior commanders have already taken responsibility and retired from service. Yet, not one politician — first and foremost Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — has been prepared to admit any responsibility for the failure to defend their own citizens. Instead, in their audacity, they have portrayed themselves as victims of a system that deliberately led them to fail, which is a complete absurdity.
Calamitous strategic surprises with far-reaching consequences are not unknown in history. Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa, both during the Second World War; the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968; Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990; and, in Israel’s case, the coordinated attack by Egypt and Syria in 1973, are just a small sample of such surprises. What they all have in common — beyond the element of surprise — is that, despite ample warning signs, it was misperceptions and preconceived ideas held by decision-makers at the political and military levels about the intentions of the attacker and their capabilities that led to calamity.
The Israeli military and Shin Bet have done the only thing that you could expect of organizations that have failed those whom they had a duty to protect in such a spectacular, tragic way: they have thoroughly investigated how they suffered such an eclipse of judgment regarding their enemy.
Until Oct. 7, Israelis believed that, regardless of Hamas’ ill intentions and even its capabilities, the border between Gaza and Israel was impenetrable. Only two years before the Hamas attack, Israel completed a barrier that featured a sensor-equipped underground wall, a 6-meter-high above-ground fence and a barrier at sea with monitoring equipment to detect incursions from the water at a staggering cost of $1.1 billion. This security fence was even equipped with remotely controlled weapons systems and an array of radar systems with cameras that covered the entire territory of the Gaza Strip.
Who could have believed that, not only would it take less than an hour to make this obstacle obsolete, but also that the Israeli forces would take so many hours to reach the communities on the border and those at the Nova festival while people were being massacred. The soldiers in the bases and the civilians who carried weapons fought heroically to stop the waves of attack, but the failure of the senior command to take seriously warnings from spotters in the days and weeks leading up to the attack — and put all the bases on high alert and mobilize more troops — beggars belief.
The most basic maxim in this kind of scenario, “better safe than sorry,” eluded them. This was because of a combination of dogma, complacency, arrogance and groupthink, let alone a lack of discipline when procedures that should have been activated due to suspicions were ignored.
The military investigation focused on its own conceptual and operational failures and was careful to avoid linking itself directly with the responsibility on the political level. Yet, the divisions in Israeli society caused by the government allowing foreign money to finance Hamas set the conceptual framework for assuming that Hamas was pacified.
Unlike the military probe, Shin Bet’s inquiry did not pull any punches regarding the government’s role and Netanyahu’s personal misjudgment that contributed to Oct. 7. It is not that the organization and its head Ronen Bar relinquished their own responsibility, but for the first time they formally stated that allowing money to be funneled to Hamas, with the encouragement of Netanyahu, as a way of maintaining “quiet” in Gaza, was a major factor in building Hamas’ military capability and a crucial factor that enabled Hamas to prepare for the attack.
Moreover, Shin Bet officials had, prior to that day, warned their political superiors that “we are entering an unstable period” and that only by proactive action against Hamas, including targeting its leadership, would Israel avoid being pulled into another round of fighting. One can question the legality and the effectiveness of targeted assassinations, but it is fair to assume that Netanyahu and his Cabinet colleagues were ignoring these warnings.
In the Knesset chamber last week, Netanyahu suggested that the findings of such an inquiry would be “predetermined” against him. This reflects both his paranoia and calculated evasiveness. Playing the victim could hardly wash in this case and the person at the top of the pyramid is always responsible when things go so disastrously wrong, but here he also set the policies and instructed the security forces how to operate.
The only decent thing the prime minister can do for the memory of those who lost their lives and their families, as well as those taken hostage, is ensure that the full truth about whose mistakes led to this calamity is thoroughly sought out and investigated by an apolitical state commission of inquiry — immediately.
Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2593217
------
Canadian Stock Exchanges Offers Growth Opportunity For Israeli Tech Companies
By Ido Almany
March 12, 2025
In recent years, a growing number of Israeli tech companies have leveraged the Canadian stock exchanges, notably the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the TSX Venture Exchange (TSX-V), as an alternative path to public markets. While Wall Street remains a traditional choice, the Canadian exchanges provide a compelling opportunity for growth-stage companies – offering accessibility, flexibility, and a more cost-effective listing process.
While exchanges like NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) offer clear advantages of high liquidity and media attention, the Toronto Stock Exchange provides a more attractive alternative for small to mid-cap companies looking to raise capital while maintaining financial flexibility.
1. Faster and more cost-effective path to going public: Canada’s regulatory requirements allow companies to conduct public offerings under more favorable conditions compared to major US exchanges. While the strict requirements of NASDAQ and NYSE may present significant barriers for growth-stage companies, TSX and TSX-V enable stock listings through a less complicated process, which is also suited for smaller-cap companies. This allows Israeli companies to go public and raise the necessary capital for growth without undergoing overly complex and costly procedures.
In recent years, a growing number of Israeli tech companies have leveraged the Canadian stock exchanges, notably the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the TSX Venture Exchange (TSX-V), as an alternative path to public markets. While Wall Street remains a traditional choice, the Canadian exchanges provide a compelling opportunity for growth-stage companies – offering accessibility, flexibility, and a more cost-effective listing process.
While exchanges like NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) offer clear advantages of high liquidity and media attention, the Toronto Stock Exchange provides a more attractive alternative for small to mid-cap companies looking to raise capital while maintaining financial flexibility.
1. Faster and more cost-effective path to going public: Canada’s regulatory requirements allow companies to conduct public offerings under more favorable conditions compared to major US exchanges. While the strict requirements of NASDAQ and NYSE may present significant barriers for growth-stage companies, TSX and TSX-V enable stock listings through a less complicated process, which is also suited for smaller-cap companies. This allows Israeli companies to go public and raise the necessary capital for growth without undergoing overly complex and costly procedures.
3. Financial stability with a gateway to the US: Canada’s economy is considered one of the most stable in the world, and its banking system is recognized as one of the strongest and safest globally. Israeli companies choosing to list in Canada benefit from a dual advantage: on one hand, they operate in a stable financial environment with clear regulations; on the other hand, they gain direct access to the North American market, including the United States.
For companies targeting North America, listing in Canada can serve as a strategic stepping stone to enter the US market without facing the high costs and entry barriers of major American exchanges.
4. Lower costs compared to NASDAQ: Canadian exchanges offer a financially efficient alternative to US markets. Compared to NASDAQ or NYSE, companies listing on TSX or TSX-V face substantially lower regulatory costs, listing fees, and compliance expenses. This means more capital remains available for strategic growth, R&D, and scaling operations instead of being absorbed by administrative overhead.
Israeli companies interested in going public but wary of the high costs of registration and compliance with US regulations can find a more affordable alternative in Canadian exchanges.
Regulatory costs, listing fees, and additional financial services are lower in Canada, allowing companies to allocate more resources toward business growth and R&D instead of spending heavily on meeting US capital market requirements.
Furthermore, by entering the Canadian market, companies gain access to American investors who actively seek opportunities in the Canadian market – a trend less common for companies listed in Israel. Another key point is that since the Canadian exchange is smaller than NASDAQ (despite being a top-10 exchange globally), successful companies have an easier time standing out, attracting attention, and gaining investor interest.
Opportunity for Israeli tech companies
Israel is regarded as one of the world’s leading innovation hubs, with hundreds of start-ups seeking ways to raise capital for growth and international expansion. While many Israeli companies traditionally focus on raising funds from venture capital and private investors, public offerings provide a long-term solution that can offer financial stability, access to new capital sources, and enhanced brand recognition in international markets.
At Zoomd, we have firsthand experience with the benefits of the Canadian market, having gone public on the TSX-V. Our experience has shown that the Canadian market understands the needs of tech companies, offers flexible financing solutions, and provides a platform for growth and expansion.
In conclusion
For Israeli tech companies considering going public, choosing the right exchange can be critical to their success. The Canadian stock exchange offers a combination of IPO accessibility, openness to tech investments, financial stability, access to the North American market, and lower costs – advantages that make it one of the most attractive destinations for companies seeking capital raising and global growth.
The significance of a public market does not end with the IPO; it also generates awareness and investor interest, leading to stock liquidity and ongoing funding opportunities for development and growth.
For Israeli tech companies with global ambitions, the choice of public market can shape their growth trajectory. Canadian stock exchanges are not just an alternative – it is a proven springboard for companies seeking capital efficiency, investor engagement, and a North American footprint. At Zoomd, we have seen firsthand how the TSX-V fosters innovation and long-term growth. Israeli companies looking to scale should seriously evaluate this strategic opportunity.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-845649
-------
Can Trump Make His ‘Gaza Riviera’ Plan Work
By Salem Alketbi
March 12, 2025
Since US President Donald Trump announced his plan to transform the Gaza Strip into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” this idea has captured widespread attention. Some view it as an opportunity to rebuild the devastated territory, while others consider it unrealistic and potentially destabilizing for the region.
After Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan failed, a new concept emerged on a limited scale: temporarily relocating Palestinians to the Negev Desert within Israel. This alternative emerged not from the president himself but after Arab countries refused to accept Palestinian refugees. The critical question remains: does this solution offer a practical option, or will it further complicate the situation?
Trump stressed Gaza’s prime spot on the Mediterranean Sea. During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the president stated: “We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal: [to make Gaza] the Riviera of the Middle East.”
Gaza’s coastal position offers not only aesthetic value but substantial economic potential. With proper reconstruction, it could transform into an international tourism hub attracting global investors and visitors. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, previously described Gaza’s waterfront as “very valuable,” noting its real estate significance if development focused on creating sustainable livelihoods.
How might this theoretical value transform into concrete reality? Trump’s proposal primarily focuses on developing Gaza’s coastal strip into a vibrant commercial and tourism center, particularly through constructing an international seaport. Such a port would connect Gaza with Mediterranean countries and revitalize trade and investment, creating thousands of jobs for Palestinian youth and reducing the currently excessive unemployment rate of 50%.
With comprehensive infrastructure support, this initiative could fundamentally transform Gaza’s economy by stimulating logistics, tourism, and manufacturing sectors, especially with Arab and Gulf companies willing to finance reconstruction efforts.
The coastal development could complement interior reconstruction through Arab and Gulf funding, establishing world-class hospitals, schools, and universities, and restoring Gaza to its former prosperity.
This vision offers Palestinians hope for a thriving future, potentially surpassing the conditions in various Arab countries facing chronic economic crises without comparable support opportunities, such as Yemen, Lebanon, or Sudan. Current statistics indicate 90% of Gaza’s population depends on humanitarian aid.
Economic prosperity could restore social stability and reduce tensions, though this requires international guarantees against terrorist activities, politicization of development projects, and misappropriation of aid – problems that have consistently plagued previous efforts. Success demands a Palestinian-Arab-international partnership focused on sustainable development beyond temporary solutions.
The challenge extends beyond potential to current reality. A September 2024 UN report indicates that approximately 70% of Gaza’s buildings suffered damage or destruction during the 15-month conflict. Reconstruction costs are estimated to reach $53 billion, including $20 billion during the initial three years. This figure reflects Gaza’s profound humanitarian and economic crisis.
UN estimates suggest Gaza may require thirty years to restore conditions to what they were before October 7, 2023 – before the Hamas terror attack supported by Iran that triggered Israeli military response following the massacre of unarmed Jewish civilians and Arab residents in Israel.
Arab countries, particularly Egypt and Jordan, responded extremely negatively to Trump’s proposal, firmly rejecting any Palestinian resettlement on their territories. They believe this approach would complicate Palestinian issue resolution and create an unwelcome new regional reality. Historical precedents suggest such population movements could destabilize host countries’ economic, social, and security conditions. Palestinians themselves condemned the idea.
Trump as a dealmaker
Trump’s “Riviera of the Middle East” reflects his dealmaker perspective. However, Palestinians and Arabs universally rejected this vision as “ethnic cleansing” and illegal under international legal frameworks.
Despite political, security, and humanitarian hurdles, the “Gaza Riviera” project holds large economic promise. Success requires extensive regional and international cooperation, alongside firm guarantees for Palestinian rights. Israel must evaluate this proposal through not only economic, but also humanitarian and political lenses.
The fundamental question remains: could this project establish genuine peace and lasting regional stability?
The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-845675
----
The IDF’s Job In The Gaza Strip Is Not Over
By Gil Troy
March 12, 2025
Good historians abhor premature evaluation. Sweeping conclusions about Israel’s military outcomes in Gaza, today, mid-war, are foolish. It’s like the Democrats who assessed Kamala’s victory – after her successful debate 55 days before Election Day.
Still, today’s clashing interpretations regarding Gaza will shape how Israel proceeds in the coming months to win conclusively – which entails freeing the hostages and further neutralizing any threats from Hamas and other Gazan terrorists.
Particularly tedious are Netanyahu’s worshipers, who credit him for any successes, while excusing every failure. To them, the prime minister had nothing to do with the pre-October 7 “conceptzia,” the calamity, or any hesitations afterwards – despite years of insisting he was in charge, that he had tamed Hamas, and that only he, “Mr. Security,” could guarantee Israelis’ safety.
Equally monotonous are the Joe Biden Zionists. These slavish Democrats only see the impressive support Biden and America initially offered – and the massive munitions America supplied. The narrative overlooks the herky-jerky starting-and-stopping America imposed, too. How do you win a war you keep pausing, while indulging your enemy with humanitarian aid, and agonizing over their casualties?
The war president Biden forced Israel to wage is not the necessary, disciplined, ruthlessness America and its allies unleashed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Biden’s dithering should worry anyone concerned about how America will fight tomorrow’s wars. He never educated Americans to understand that war is hellish, chaotic, and bloody – especially urban warfare against Jihadists like Hamas.
Most confusing – and confused – are Israeli-based Bibi-bashers. They simultaneously complain that:
THE CONTRADICTIONS they swallow would give most people indigestion. These days, the star of the anti-Bibi narrative is Yoav Gallant, the former defense minister. Gallant threw Netanyahu under the bus, recently, on Dan Senor’s popular “Call Me Back” podcast. Gallant claimed: “We could have eliminated all the chain of command of Hezbollah immediately,” days after October 7, and neutralized “the missiles and the rockets all over Lebanon as we did in September.”
While acknowledging that President Biden didn’t “like the idea of the war being expanded,” Gallant mostly blames Bibi. This confirms the longstanding “Chicken Bibi” stereotype of his critics.
Trying to undermine Israel’s prime minister, in English, in wartime, reflects poorly on Gallant’s character – and Israeli political norms.
Each narrative starts with a truth without reaching the whole truth. Yes, throughout much of 2024, Netanyahu bravely resisted American pressure, eventually fighting hard enough to crush Hamas, smash Hezbollah, humiliate Iran, and watch Syria’s regime collapse under the pressure. Yes, following October 7, Biden supported Israel impressively. And yes, especially in retrospect, Netanyahu prolonged the war by succumbing to Biden’s demands and failing to neutralize Hezbollah quickly.
Sifting through these conflicting interpretations highlights how much America constrained Israel. Constantly pressuring Israel to feed the Gazans fueled Hamas while reducing civilian pressure on Hamas to surrender. Constantly pressuring Israel to limit firepower limited Israel. Ironically, it prolonged the hostage’s agony – and the Gazans’.
This war vindicated the military theorists who teach that in an age of total war with totally evil enemies, the only way to fight is to fight to win. Seeking a draw, or a managed outcome, trying to keep the war in proportion, is an immoral position that only sounds virtuous. Once you go to war, fight full throttle – otherwise you risk your own troops, and drag out everyone’s suffering.
ALTHOUGH PREMATURE, this debate is crucial. Two dozen live hostages remain in Gaza. Hamas is regrouping. Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, the Israeli hostages’ suffering genuinely infuriates him. Unless Hamas releases all the hostages, Israel may start fighting in Gaza again. This time, for everyone’s sake, Israel should seize territory and hold it, crush Hamas unapologetically, and deprive Hamas of the humanitarian aid shipments the terrorists keep stealing.
Such an assertion of power won’t be pretty. But it will end the war – and the suffering – far faster than the on-again, off-again dithering that somehow has been cast as the right way to fight urban warfare against this evil enemy.
This is the position of West Point’s urban warfare expert, John Spencer. He blames Egypt for not providing refuge to Gazan civilians – as sympathetic neighbors normally do – especially when they have vast deserts. This allowed Hamas to use “the population and hostages as human shields.” Spencer criticizes America’s intense pressure on the IDF not to enter “Rafah for months, demanding civilian casualties be reduced to zero, demanding bombing of military targets be reduced because of perceptions, demanding halts in operations beyond daily four-plus hour pauses because of humanitarian concerns based on unverified data.”
Spencer's advice
During the next round, however, at least Israel won’t be worrying about simultaneous threats from the North. Most importantly, “Hamas is also not the Hamas of October 2023–February 2024 with five brigades, 24 battalions, 20,000 rockets, fully stocked units, decades of experienced leaders, trained forces, defensive positions.” It’s now untrained, poorly-led, under-provisioned and desperate.
Still, Spencer advises, to win, the IDF must “actually seize and clear terrain” and “hold areas to prevent Hamas rebuilding.” Ultimately, “Hamas can absolutely be defeated with military force” but Israel needs determined leaders – and American support – to do what it needs to do, what it should have done already, what the world needs it to do.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-845672
--------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/ethnic-cleansing-uk-hamas-al-sharaa-/d/134846
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