Middle East Press on: Hezbollah, Gaza, Antisemitism, ICC, France, Israel Lebanon Ceasefire: New Age Islam's Selection, 29 November 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
29 November 2024
Has Hezbollah Failed Gaza?
Surge In Antisemitism Must Be A Global Wake Up Call
The ICC’s Dangerous Gamble - Undermining Democracies While Aiding Terrorists
Intensified Destruction A Week After The Decision
France Sets A Precedent In Non-Compliance With The ICC Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire: Will It Lead To A Truce In Gaza Soon?
International Solidarity With The Palestinian People Must Include International Action
Lebanon Awaits The Political Consequences Of Peace
Iraq’s Water Crisis And The Need For Global Action
Will North Korean Soft Power Return To The Middle East?
------
Has Hezbollah Failed Gaza?
By Motasem A Dalloul
November 28, 2024
fter 53 days of intensified brutal Israeli strikes on Lebanon to destroy the military abilities of the Lebanese Hezbollah, a ceasefire brokered by the US and other countries came into effect at 4am local time (02:00 GMT) yesterday.
Hezbollah has been involved in resistance action along with the Palestinian resistance in the occupied Gaza Strip from the beginning of the ongoing Israeli genocide.
Due to Hezbollah’s resistance, tens of thousands of Israeli settlers were evacuated from their homes in northern Israeli settlements. These settlers have caused problems for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has recently updated the goals of his ongoing war to include the return of the settlers in the north to their settlements.
Since the start of its involvement in the resistance action, Hezbollah had reiterated that its participation in the resistance against the Israeli occupation was part of a united action that involved the Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza and others in the region —resistance axis in the region.
The resistance in the region consists of Hezbollah in south Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq in addition to the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. All but the Palestinian resistance are Shia Muslims and are Iran’s proxies.
Iran and all of its proxies have reiterated that they will continue fighting the Israeli occupation until it ends its attacks on Gaza and withdraws its forces from the enclave, adding that it is the Palestinian resistance which is leading the battle against the occupation.
Hezbollah has suffered massive losses during the battle, with experts claiming it needed decades to rebuild its power. In spite of this, it continued to stress that its fate is strongly tied to the fate of Gaza, and that it would not lay down its arms before the Israeli occupation stops its aggression and ends the occupation of Gaza.
Until the day before the ceasefire was announced, Hezbollah had condemned all Israeli attempts to distance it from Gaza, and denied all reports that said it would end its resistance action before the end of Gaza’s ordeal.
However, it agreed to a ceasefire which states that its forces would withdraw some kilometers from the Lebanese borders with Israel, allowing the Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers to take control of the area, while Israeli occupation forces would withdraw from the region within 60 days.
As a Palestinian, I would like to thank Hezbollah and any party that exerted any efforts to support our cause, but I think that Hezbollah has failed the Palestinian resistance in the blockaded enclave. It did not fulfill its pledge. Its resistance ended before the Israeli aggression on Gaza was stopped.
As a resident of Gaza, I did not trust Hezbollah since it involved itself in the attacks on Israel. Even after Israel carried out the pager attack and assassinated the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s caused little damage to the occupation state. It only changed its target base in the last round of attacks before the announcement of the ceasefire agreement which coincided with Israel escalating its attacks.
I feel everything was engineered between Hezbollah, Iran, Israel and their broker —the United States. Even the retaliatory Iranian attacks were completely engineered by the US as none of them caused real harm to Israel.
I also believe that Iran sold the late Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh to Israel. Iran and its proxies gave Israel the pretext to continue its brutal war on the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.
Israel got what it needed, propaganda that it is fighting an existential war by mega powers encircling it and was given time to carry out its war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Part of the world supported Israel under the pretext that it is fighting an existential war and declared it was acting in “self-defence”. Gaza was erased as the main focus, with the scene shifting to Lebanon, Yemen and Syria.
Now, Gaza stands alone. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may now slow the war and seek a prisoner swap deal. The world would then not focus on the Israeli occupation and destruction of Gaza, but ask about the delivery of aid and how to “improve” the lives of the over two million displaced persons, rehabilitating hospitals, schools and homes, reopening the Rafah Crossing for patients and such issues.
In a few months, the world will forget Gaza and Israel would maintain its status quo —military governance over Gaza and de facto global acceptance of its oppression of the Palestinians in the Strip, as we have seen play out in the occupied West Bank.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241128-has-hezbollah-failed-gaza/
-----
Surge In Antisemitism Must Be A Global Wake Up Call
By JPost Editorial
November 29, 2024
After an Iranian plot to assassinate Canadian human rights activist Irwin Cotler was revealed in late October, he called it “a wake-up call for the community of democracies.” Since then, antisemitic and anti-Israel assaults and threats have escalated further around the world, from the murder of Chabad emissary Rabbi Zvi Kogan z”l in the United Arab Emirates on November 21 to incendiary leaflets in London this week.
GB News reported on Wednesday that leaflets reading “Zionists, leave Britain or be slaughtered” were distributed in Hendon, a neighborhood with a large Jewish population. “We are witnessing a troubling trend of redlines being repeatedly crossed,” said Isaac Zarfati, executive director of StandWithUs UK. “This is not just another wave that will pass if we remain passive.”
What can be done to counter this hateful phenomenon? One example of a country taking swift action is The Netherlands. Following the antisemitic attacks on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam on November 8, the Dutch government unveiled a five-year national strategy for combating antisemitism in pursuit of what it called “Netherlands without antisemitism.”
According to a cabinet statement, the Dutch Jewish community, numbering some 50,000, “lives in great insecurity.” The cabinet earmarked 4.5 million euros ($4.7 million) annually for the plan to be coordinated by the Justice and Security Ministry, advised by the National Coordinator for Combating Antisemitism, focusing on stepping up security at Jewish sites.
The new strategy calls for the establishment of an antisemitism task force, tougher laws on “glorifying terrorism,” and a probe into violence during protests in the streets and in soccer stadiums, where fans will be targeted in a bid to eradicate antisemitic chanting.
“With the current strategy, the government makes it clear that the fight against antisemitism concerns all Dutch people,” the cabinet said. “We all have a responsibility, as a society, to combat antisemitism and the insecurity of Jews. The Netherlands stands for an open, reasonable, and tolerant society. Jewish life is a very explicit part of that.”
Asked for his view of the situation, French philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Lévy, who authored a new book titled Israel Alone, told The Jerusalem Post:
“The situation is clearly not good. Look at the Amsterdam pogrom—the hostile protests before the France-Israel soccer match at the Stade de France. There have been countless authoritarian, even totalitarian, countries or nations involved in terrible wars that have played at the Stade de France without any issue. Yet now it’s Israel’s turn, a true democracy, attacked on seven fronts and targeted in its very existence – and there’s a widespread boycott! Isn’t that strange? Doesn’t that trouble you?”
In a recent op-ed in Post, Fleur Hassan-Nahoum and Lahav Harkov suggested that Israel take the leading role in combating global antisemitism. “While the State of Israel cannot eradicate the world’s oldest hatred, it must take effective action to mitigate it,” they wrote, arguing that Israel “must provide support to Jewish communities confronting antisemitism.”
They proposed that the government form an inter-ministerial committee for Israel-Diaspora relations to coordinate the international battle against antisemitism.
For his part, Cotler, who was appointed Canada’s first antisemitism envoy and is also the founder and international chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, outlined his position clearly in the Annual Antisemitism Worldwide Report published by Tel Aviv University and the Anti-Defamation League.
“The explosion of antisemitism is a threat not only to Jews but is toxic to our democracies, an assault on our common humanity, and a standing threat to human security – in a word, the bloodied canary in the mineshaft of global evil,” Cotler wrote. “Jews alone cannot combat it, let alone defeat it. What is required is a constituency of conscience – a whole-of-government, whole-of-society commitment and action to combat this oldest and most lethal of hatreds.”
Cotler’s daughter, Michal Cotler-Wunsh, appointed Israel’s special envoy for combating antisemitism just a few weeks before October 7, 2023, said this is a time for everyone who cares to stand up and speak out. “To me, this tsunami of antisemitism is a call to action and responsibility, and not just for Jews, but for anyone who understands the importance of this existential moment in time.”
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-831229
-----
The ICC’s Dangerous Gamble - Undermining Democracies While Aiding Terrorists
By Ami H. Orkaby
November 28, 2024
With global conflicts intensifying in Europe and the Middle East, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant raises critical concerns about the Court’s role in modern warfare.
This unprecedented move—the first time the ICC has targeted leaders of a democratic state—raises broader questions about the ability of democracies to defend themselves without fear of politically motivated prosecution.
Since Hamas launched its deadly terrorist assault on Israel on October 7, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have been engaged in a military campaign to dismantle Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure. Under international law, Israel’s response is justified as self-defence. While Israel is doing its utmost to avoid civilian casualties, Hamas is using the civilian population of Gaza as human shields—a grave violation of the laws of war.
This well-documented war crime only exacerbates the human toll. Because available figures come solely from Hamas-controlled sources, which fail to distinguish between combatants and civilians, it is nearly impossible to make accurate casualty assessments. Despite this lack of reliable data and with hostilities ongoing, the ICC issued its warrants, also ignoring the principle of complementarity, which mandates that the ICC only intervene when national legal systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute war crimes.
Israel’s legal system can fully investigate such matters, as even the ICC Prosecutor has acknowledged. In contrast, Hamas has shown no intention of holding its own operatives accountable for war crimes. War crimes against the civilian population are, in fact, a fundamental strategy employed by Hamas, as previously highlighted.
Raising a troubling historical parallel
The ICC’s actions raise a troubling historical parallel: would wartime leaders like Winston Churchill have faced accusations of war crimes had the ICC existed during World War II? Churchill’s difficult decisions, such as the bombing of German cities, were deemed necessary to secure victory. Similarly, Israel’s leaders face hard choices as they work to protect their citizens from an enemy openly committed to their annihilation. By targeting Israel, the ICC undermines the ability of democracies to defend themselves, setting a dangerous precedent for other nations.
This dilemma is not unique to Israel. The United Kingdom, as an ICC member, is now expected to detain Netanyahu or Gallant should they visit British soil, despite Israel being a crucial ally in the fight against Islamist terrorism. Such a scenario puts the UK in an impossible diplomatic position, a challenge exacerbated by inconsistent responses from British political leaders. As a matter of fact, a Downing Street spokesperson confirmed Wednesday (27.11.2024) that UK courts would evaluate whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu qualifies for immunity from arrest under international law if he visits the UK.
Mongolia, also an ICC member recently faced a similar situation, when Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the country for an official state visit, despite an ICC arrest warrant against him. The legality of the ICC’s warrant against Putin is highly controversial, reflecting ongoing conflicts and lacuna in international law. Mongolia’s decision to host Putin underscores the impracticality of enforcing ICC mandates in cases involving complex geopolitical realities and foreign policy issues of sovereign states.
These examples highlight the risk of politicizing international justice. The ICC was never intended to become a tool for political agendas. Democracies must be able to defend themselves without the constant threat of politically driven legal action.
The ICC’s actions risk emboldening terrorist organizations while undermining the Court’s own legitimacy. True justice requires acknowledging the complexities of modern warfare and upholding the right of democracies to protect their citizens. By prioritizing politics over impartiality, the ICC endangers the principles it was established to defend, setting a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-831228
----
Intensified Destruction A Week After The Decision
By Sabri Saidam
November 28, 2024
s soon as the arrest warrant was issued against the head of the Occupation government, the Occupation went mad, between shock and thinking of ways to appeal the decision, reject it or harming the ICC, as a whole. In the meantime, Netanyahu’s political and field missiles continued to bombard Palestine, the Palestinians, Lebanon and the Lebanese, in a bold attempt to confirm that the arrest warrants will be of no use on the ground, as they did not stop the war, nor did they alleviate the impact of the Zionist fire and gunpowder on the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples.
Indifference is the position that Netanyahu pretended to take shortly after the arrest warrants were issued, armed with the Biden administration’s rejection of them, and the position of some of Netanyahu’s supporters, such as the Prime Minister of Hungary. There was also the reluctance of others to reveal their position on the warrant, such as Germany, the Czech Republic and others.
Relying on the idea that “the best defence is a good offense”, Netanyahu intensified his forces’ progression towards Beit Lahia, Jabalia and Gaza City, in addition to their difficult advancement towards the Litani River. Meanwhile, his forces continued to prevent aid from entering the Gaza Strip, leaving the displaced Palestinians prey to the wind, cold and rain, without shelter or mercy, amidst the insistence to evacuate the depths of the Shuja’iyya and Zeitoun areas. This came at a time when his forces bombed Kamal Adwan Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip, along with ramping up the number of arrests of Palestinians, specifically in Gaza. It reached the point that Israel felt no embarrassment in admitting that more than a quarter of the Palestinian prisoners have scabies because they have been deprived of treatment and care, as well as the basics of life.
This situation completely overlapped with the escalation of the situation in the West Bank. However, Netanyahu’s ambitions did not end with confronting an attack with an attack, but rather by silently searching for a way out of his growing predicament through a ceasefire deal in Lebanon, by agreeing to give France the opportunity to return to the negotiations for the Lebanon deal and gain the honour of announcing a ceasefire. According to Israel’s Channel 13, this ceasefire seems to be in exchange for the French President using what is known as personal immunity to prevent Netanyahu’s arrest and suspend the arrest warrant on French soil.
However, the price of accepting the deal with Lebanon was not limited to this, but rather included the US President’s agreement to lift the ban on a new shipment of heavy weapons to the Occupying state, according to Kan news channel, as well as giving the green light to his coalition partner, the far right Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, who said that half of Gaza’s population will emigrate within two years, and that Israel has the right to annex some of the Strip’s territory. A few hours before the Court’s decision, the US used its veto in the Security Council against the ceasefire draft bill in Gaza in order to provide Netanyahu with leverage in a way that enables him to prolong the war, which he needs to last so he can remain in power, according to Lapid and Lieberman, who are opposed to Netanyahu himself. All this comes in the context of an attempt to stop the storm caused by the ICC decision, but some believe that its timing provides Netanyahu with a pretext to annex the West Bank as a retaliatory step against it, and he would thus have achieved his goal.
Whatever their position, no one can deny the importance of the ICC decision, and its role in changing the course of the current holocaust in one way or another, either negatively or positively. Will the political and field realities witness dramatic changes in the coming days, or will destroying everything continue in order to meet Netanyahu’s ambitions? We will wait and see!
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241128-intensified-destruction-a-week-after-the-decision/
-----
France Sets A Precedent In Non-Compliance With The Icc Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
By Ramona Wadi
November 28, 2024
France has given an example of how non-committal diplomacy works to create impunity for genocide. After describing the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant as “legally complex”, the French government has now confirmed that it will not comply with the court’s decision.
Not only did France claim that Netanyahu enjoys immunity from the court since Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute; France’s Foreign Ministry also issued a statement insisting that, “France intends to continue to work in close collaboration with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security for all in the Middle East.” The statement came after the US and France brokered a deal for a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Out of the G7 countries, France has cited alleged immunity for Netanyahu, the US has outright rejected the ICC arrest warrants, and Italy has said that it needs “to understand what the obligations are”.
Article 27 of the statute is clear that any immunities related to an individual’s official capacity “shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.”
France’s opposition to the ICC arrest warrants comes from Article 98, which states that the court cannot request the arrest of an official from a country that is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, if such an arrest “would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State.”
So, according to France, there is the possibility that it would be breaching international law if it applies the ICC arrest warrant, should Netanyahu visit. But supporting genocide does not compel France to state the same. What do the lawyers advising the French government say, I wonder, about officials seeking further cooperation from the orchestrator of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to bring “peace” in the Middle East? Through further genocide, perhaps?
And now, its allies can also benefit from impunity, as long as support for Israel’s impunity is ensured. The discourse can turn back to non-existent legal loopholes while Israel continues its genocide in Gaza with full impunity, not to mention the start of countries following France’s lead in delaying or rejecting the ICC arrest warrant issued for Netanyahu.
For example, the brokered ceasefire in Lebanon does not mean that we will see the same or similar in Gaza. Indeed, Israel is likely to increase its efforts to empty Gaza of Palestinians and, this time, with knowledge that France and most probably other European countries will not be fulfilling their responsibilities as signatories to the Rome Statute.
France’s decision makes it clear that Israel barely has to defend its fabricated “security and self-defence” narrative any more, because its allies can be counted on in that regard. Israel has justified genocide under the pretext of security concerns, while France has justified genocide on the basis that a bogus immunity can cause the government to act in violation of international obligations. Israel and France have each made claims that are both absurd and macabre.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241128-france-sets-a-precedent-in-non-compliance-with-the-icc-netanyahu-arrest-warrant/
------
Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire: Will It Lead To A Truce In Gaza Soon?
By Anadolu Agency
November 28, 2024
The ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is raising questions about whether a similar truce could bring an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Statements from around the world have given rise to cautious hope, such as the US saying it aims to use the Lebanon truce “as a catalyst for a potential Gaza ceasefire,” but prospects of something actually materialising remain uncertain.
Palestinian academic, Sami Al-Arian, believes Israel does not want a ceasefire in Gaza, at least “for the time being.”
Israel, he said, has been trying to “annihilate the (Palestinian) Resistance” but failed to do so, or “free their captives with military means.”
“They have been trying for 14 months and they have failed miserably,” he said, adding that going for a ceasefire in such conditions would not fit in with Israel’s goals.
Israeli expert, Ori Goldberg, also finds chances of a truce in Gaza difficult, pointing to Netanyahu’s own statement rejecting that specific possibility.
He said the Israeli Premier, now a man wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, is unlikely to agree to ceasefire terms that risk his political standing.
“Various countries have already stated a renewed commitment to a hostage deal, but a ceasefire in Gaza will have to include a detailed schedule for Israeli withdrawal,” Goldberg said.
“I have trouble seeing Netanyahu agreeing to that in Gaza […] If he agrees to it in Gaza, he will seem weaker.”
Another factor, he added, is how much “the Israeli public supports the presence of the Israeli military in Gaza, much more than it does in Lebanon.”
Why did Israel agree to Lebanon ceasefire?
Experts say Israel’s main reason for agreeing to the Lebanon truce was because it failed to achieve its military goals against Hezbollah.
said Al-Arian, adding that Israel opted for a cessation of hostilities because its forces were suffering.
“They wanted to impinge on Lebanese sovereignty and be able to fly over the airspace of Lebanon and control the border. That failed.”
Other goals of returning illegal Israeli settlers to Lebanese lands or creating a buffer zone also failed, he added.
Al-Arian emphasized that the current agreement is “not a ceasefire” but a truce for 60 days, reiterating that Israel’s only reason for agreeing was that “they were not able to bring Hezbollah to its knees and surrender.”
Ali Rizk, a Lebanese security analyst, presented a slightly different view, saying that both Israel and Hezbollah needed the truce.
“Hezbollah needed a ceasefire because it had suffered some heavy blows,” he told Anadolu.
Hezbollah’s supporters, particularly among the Shia community, were targeted by Israel, with many of them being displaced, and there was “immense human suffering with the onset of the winter season,” he added.
For Israel, Rizk believes they “initially had the momentum in their favour, especially after the assassination of Hezbollah’s former leader, Syed Hassan Nasrallah, but gradually that momentum appeared to fade away.”
“They encountered some heavy resistance in the south. A lot of their soldiers lost their lives in the south. Hezbollah missile and rocket attacks continued,” he said.
In his own statement, while Netanyahu “didn’t say it, but he was implying that the Israeli military was suffering from some kind of a fatigue,” Rizk pointed out.
The US was another factor, he said, as it never wanted – since October 2023 – the “situation to erupt, to explode in Lebanon.”
“They (US) welcomed any steps and they took the opportunity when they found that these circumstances were appropriate and they sent Amos Hochstein,” said Rizk, referring to Biden’s special envoy.
“There were several factors – Hezbollah’s interests, Israeli interests and US interests – and I think they all converge in the same direction.”
Israeli analyst, Goldberg, also believes Netanyahu agreed to a truce because his forces were not accomplishing their goals in Lebanon.
“He wants to keep the Israeli military in Gaza. There’s no victory there, so he wanted something that would be a feather in his cap [..]. He agreed to it in Lebanon because these are two sovereign states,” he said.
Will Lebanon ceasefire hold and what comes next?
On the durability of the Lebanon truce, Rizk struck an optimistic tone.
“If you look at what happened in 2006, Resolution 1701, that ended that conflict and it spoke about a cessation of hostilities,” he said, adding that the situation remained calm from 2006 until 2023.
“It’s quite possible that […] we could have a long-term calm again […] because it’s clear that neither the Israelis nor the Americans have an interest in the situation exploding.”
With Trump coming to power soon, having made clear his aversion to any war or military adventures, it would be fair to say “there is a good chance that this agreement is going to hold,” he added.
Goldberg, however, was more cautious in his outlook.
“I think the ceasefire will hold, even though there are provisions […] that suggest that Israel can open fire and use violence whenever it likes. We will see how this happens,” he said.
“I think Netanyahu has an interest in the ceasefire holding because that gives him carte blanche in Gaza.”
Rizk, meanwhile, also believes that a formula could be reached to end the Gaza genocide and go ahead with a hostage deal.
“In July, according to reports, (US President-elect Donald) Trump told Netanyahu that he wants the situation done, and he wants the war to come to an end,” he said.
“If you look at Trump’s appointments and his mandate, it seems that he doesn’t want anything to do with a new conflict in the Middle East. He’s even given indications that he wants to deal with Iran, so that leads me to conclude that his foreign policy priorities are going to be elsewhere, which requires calm in this part of the world.”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241128-israel-lebanon-ceasefire-will-it-lead-to-a-truce-in-gaza-soon/
----
International Solidarity With The Palestinian People Must Include International Action
By Thaher Saleh
November 28, 2024
The UN General Assembly decided in 1977 to celebrate the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29 November every year. If nothing else, this means that a majority of countries in the world recognised the justice of the Palestinian cause, and endorsed the narrative of the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom in the face of the false Zionist narrative which is based on lies and terrorism.
The 47th anniversary of this solidarity day bears witness to the injustice, oppression and Nazi-like aggression that the Palestinian people have been subjected to for decades, with an unjust international community operating under double standards and supporting the apartheid, settler-colonial state. This system gives the green light to the Zionist state of Israel to kill, wound, torture and displace hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in full view of the entire world.
For the second year running, the solidarity day witness to the ongoing Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, funded and supported by the US and other western governments. Starvation has been weaponised, and hospitals, schools, places of worship and other civilian infrastructure have been destroyed, as have tens of thousands of homes. Even the places to which the displaced Palestinians have been told to go to have then been bombed. Israel has killed at least 44,282 Palestinians since last October, mainly women and children, while wounding 105,000 others. An estimated 11,000 are missing, presumed dead under the rubble of their homes. The occupation state has blocked or hindered all deliveries of humanitarian aid to northern Gaza throughout this month. More than 1,000 doctors and nurses have been killed by Israel, and hundreds more have been arrested. There is a chronic shortage of medicines and medical disposables.
The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People 2024 arrives in what are exceptional circumstances. We are witnessing a genocide taking place in real time on social media — nobody will be able to claim that they didn’t know — while the Arab regimes have done little or nothing to help the Palestinians. Their inaction and silence in the face of mass murder is, in many ways, more shocking and more cruel than the occupation state itself. Some of the regimes now deal with the Palestinian issue as if it is purely a political matter that has nothing to do with them and does not concern them, even though the Zionist occupation is an extension of an Arab tragedy.
Genuine manifestations of solidarity, which used to express a moral and humane stance against the massacres committed by the occupation forces, have largely disappeared in the Arab world. Solidarity has become little more than empty slogans, and in some countries not even that.
Where is the world? Where are the Arabs and Muslims? Where are the people who care about what happens to their fellow human beings? Is the global community really unable to stop the killing of innocent children, women and the elderly; to take food, water, medicine and fuel to the Palestinians in Gaza?
If the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is to have any meaning at all, solidarity must turn into serious intervention by the Arab regimes and people, as well as the international community, which needs to fulfil its responsibilities stop the Zionists and their rogue state. Israel must be held to account; the days of impunity have to end, not only in Gaza, but across all of the occupied Palestinian territories as well. International solidarity must be based on the implementation of international law, otherwise both are meaningless. The International Court of Justice arrest warrants and South Africa’s genocide charge against Israel at the International Court of Justice are a good start, but both must ensure that justice prevails. International solidarity with the Palestinian people must include international action to stop the occupation state in its tracks.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241128-international-solidarity-with-the-palestinian-people-must-include-international-action/
-----
Lebanon Awaits The Political Consequences Of Peace
Nadim Shehadi
November 28, 2024
In his book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace,” John Maynard Keynes warned that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles that ended the First World War could lead to another war for the next generation. Similarly, the latest war in Lebanon is, to a large extent, a consequence of the imperfect resolution of the last one and ending it should not pave the way to the next.
Life in wartime Lebanon consists of being glued to TV news and social media, with endless phone conversations trying to figure out when and how it will end and what will happen later. I am full of admiration for news anchors and the way they grill politicians.
At the center of today’s debate is UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which was agreed more than 18 years ago, in August 2006, as a short-term measure to stop the hostilities in Israel’s last war with Hezbollah.
The main issue was pointed out to me by a former European diplomat with 20-plus years of experience in the region. He warned against the manner in which 1701 was being renegotiated and the problems of its implementation. In 2006, it was the Lebanese government that conducted the negotiations and it has to be brought back into the process. This needs to avoid being turned into a West Bank and Gaza situation.
What did not happen and should be emphasized is already included in Paragraph 8 of UNSC Resolution 1701, which called for a permanent, long-term solution based on the Taif Agreement. The 2006 war ended with a cessation of hostilities under certain conditions, which included the withdrawal of Hezbollah’s combatants and its arms from a zone up to the Litani river, with the UN Interim Force in Lebanon in charge of its application. The fact that we are here again today is an indication of its failure. Going back to it may be a case of making the same mistake twice, but with the grave addition that this time the state is absent from the equation. By making Hezbollah the interlocutor, the repercussions could be far worse than last time.
The Taif Agreement that ended the civil war in 1990 called for the dissolution of all militias and armed groups. Hezbollah was excluded at the time on the basis that it was a resistance force and not a militia. A formula should be reached internally to allow it to comply with the agreement.
There is a chain of agreements and resolutions. Applying Taif would also fulfill the requirements of a sequence of UN resolutions on Lebanon: UNSC Resolution 1559 of 2004 basically called for the application of Taif; Resolution 1680 of May 17, 2006, called for the application of 1559; and 1701 of August that same year called for the application of both 1559 and 1680. They all point to the armistice agreement of 1949, which delineated the Israeli-Lebanese borders and which was broken by Lebanon in 1969 when it gave the Palestine Liberation Organization the right to attack Israel from southern Lebanon. At the time, this was done to maintain the peace internally, but instead it sowed the seeds of external conflict.
In fact, the chain goes back further, as the main points of the May 17, 1983, agreement between Israel and the Lebanese government, following the Israeli invasion of 1982, were incorporated into the Taif Agreement. Again, this points to the armistice agreement of 1949, the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the armed groups that at that time were Palestinian. The recently published memoirs of Dr. Elie Salem, Lebanon’s foreign minister at the time, recounted that story. After the agreement was accepted by the majority of Lebanon’s MPs and politicians, Israel introduced additional interpretations and conditions that sabotaged the agreement and allowed Syria to veto its application.
The principal task now is to navigate both internal and external conflicts at the same time to stabilize the border with Israel and prevent the situation resulting in a civil war. There is a risk of internal conflict after Israel’s withdrawal due to indications that Hezbollah is trying to blame its failure on the rest of the Lebanese, whom it accuses of collaborating with Israel or of supporting its attack. The aftermath of the cessation of hostilities should be managed to prevent an internal conflict.
The danger lies in the “security arrangements” also mentioned in Paragraph 8 of Resolution 1701, in which UNIFIL was charged with ensuring that no buildup of arms was allowed between the Litani river and the Israel-Lebanon border. But UNIFIL was given only observer powers and it is unlikely to be given the powers of enforcement, like the UN and NATO presence in Kosovo, as this would require another UN Security Council resolution. Also, without a “permanent” solution, UNIFIL is no longer interim and is not sustainable.
Going back to the analogy with Palestine, the Palestinian Authority and Israel cooperate and coordinate according to the Oslo Accords and, since 2007, they have agreed to focus on security coordination above all due to the alleged widespread threat from Hamas. This is where the PA was accused of having an agreement so that Israel could protect it from Hamas in the West Bank. The PA was discredited because when it acts it looks like it is doing Israel’s job, while when it does not act then Israel intervenes and the PA looks like it is collaborating against its own people. Could this happen to Lebanon too?
The implementation of Resolution 1701 could pit the Lebanese army against Hezbollah, which it is not equipped for. Unlike other armies in the region, the Lebanese army cannot fight internal battles to suppress one party or another. At best, its doctrine is that of separating the parties and acting as a mediator. It will be accused of doing that for Israel, acting as a buffer to protect it. If it does intervene to stop Hezbollah rearming, it will be accused of acting on behalf of Israel, almost like the PA. Hamas controlled Gaza in the same way as Hezbollah controlled southern Lebanon.
We still do not know the full terms of this week’s agreement, but if it is setting up the Lebanese army to fail, with a temporary ceasefire as a test, then the next war could involve more than just Hezbollah. Ultimately, the solution should be an internal one in Lebanon, rebuilding the state that was paralyzed and incapacitated as a consequence of ignoring the long-term clause of 1701 since the last war.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2581086
-----
Iraq’s Water Crisis And The Need For Global Action
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
November 28, 2024
Iraq is facing a water crisis of staggering proportions. Extreme temperatures, prolonged droughts and inadequate water management have pushed the country into a state of emergency.
A report published this month by the Norwegian Refugee Council highlights how Iraq’s agricultural decline is being compounded by “extreme temperatures and long, dry spells,” forcing one in two families to cultivate less land or use less water in 2024 compared to previous years. The report sheds light on how these challenges affect income, harvest yields and people’s ability to recover from decades of instability.
Iraq’s reliance on outdated irrigation techniques has most likely exacerbated the crisis. As many as 70 percent of farmers still depend on inefficient flood irrigation, despite severe water shortages.
Years of conflict have also left Iraq’s water infrastructure in a state of disrepair, rendering it incapable of addressing current or future challenges. The reduction in agricultural inputs has led to dire economic and social consequences. In addition, farming communities have witnessed a steady decline in wheat, vegetable and fruit harvests for the second consecutive year. This trend is not only eroding household incomes but also increasing the vulnerability of millions to hunger and poverty. Without urgent intervention, Iraq faces a spiraling crisis that threatens to destabilize rural communities and deepen socioeconomic inequalities.
Addressing Iraq’s water crisis requires a comprehensive strategy that integrates modernization, investment and resilience-building efforts, including transitioning to efficient irrigation techniques such as drip and sprinkler systems. This would significantly reduce water wastage. Promoting drought-resistant crops is another vital step to ensure that agriculture can adapt to the changing climatic conditions.
Iraq’s aging water infrastructure, encompassing reservoirs, irrigation canals and distribution networks, requires urgent and comprehensive improvement to address its inefficiencies and vulnerabilities. Decades of neglect and conflict have left these critical systems in disrepair, leading to significant water losses that exacerbate the challenges posed by climate change. Modernizing this infrastructure by investing in advanced storage facilities can play a pivotal role in water management. These facilities could help capture and conserve water during the wet season, ensuring a reliable supply during prolonged periods of drought.
Equally important is equipping farmers with the necessary knowledge and skills to adopt sustainable water usage practices. Training programs on modern farming techniques, efficient irrigation systems and crop diversification could significantly reduce water wastage in agriculture, which is the sector that uses the largest volume of water in Iraq. To encourage the widespread adoption of these measures, government-led initiatives offering financial incentives such as subsidies or tax breaks for water conservation practices could be highly effective.
At the same time, the establishment of strong regulatory frameworks is essential for equitable water distribution and efficient resource management across Iraq. Without clear regulations and oversight, disputes over water access and mismanagement are likely to persist, further straining an already fragile system. Such frameworks should include mechanisms to monitor and control water usage, enforce sustainable practices and ensure fair distribution among urban, rural and agricultural sectors.
It is important to point out that Iraq’s water crisis is not an isolated problem but a global challenge requiring international support. Global powers and international organizations have a moral and practical responsibility to assist Iraq in overcoming this crisis. World powers and wealthier nations, particularly those responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, must share the responsibility of funding transformational projects in Iraq.
Sue Clarke, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s country director for Iraq, emphasized: “The world’s largest polluters, which also happen to be among the richest, must share the collective responsibility of investing in climate-resilient transformational projects in countries like Iraq.”
Organizations like the UN and the World Bank can offer technical assistance to modernize Iraq’s irrigation systems and water infrastructure. The international community must recognize the disproportionate burden placed on countries like Iraq, which are bearing the brunt of climate change despite contributing minimally to global emissions. This recognition should translate into tangible support for Iraq’s adaptation efforts.
If immediate steps are not taken, the consequences for Iraq and the broader region could be catastrophic. First of all, continued agricultural decline will lead to widespread food insecurity, forcing millions into poverty and hunger. Vulnerable groups, including displaced populations, will suffer the most. As water resources dry up and livelihoods collapse, migration pressures will intensify, straining Iraq’s urban centers and neighboring countries.
In addition, competition over water resources could escalate tensions within Iraq and with neighboring countries, potentially leading to broader regional conflicts. Furthermore, Iraq’s struggles could disrupt global food supply chains, exacerbating food price inflation and economic instability worldwide. And the prolonged neglect of water management will accelerate desertification, further reducing Iraq’s arable land and biodiversity.
In conclusion, Iraq’s water crisis is a stark reminder of the interconnected nature of climate challenges. While Iraq must take decisive steps to modernize its water systems and adopt sustainable practices, the international community has an equally important role to play. World powers and wealthier nations must invest in climate resilience projects, mediate regional disputes and advocate for climate justice to support Iraq in overcoming this crisis. The stakes are too high to ignore. Failure to act will not only devastate Iraq but also have far-reaching consequences for the region and the world.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2581079
----
Will North Korean Soft Power Return To The Middle East?
Khaled Abou Zahr
November 28, 2024
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was not unusual to see headlines praising North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Il Sung in Lebanese newspapers. Indeed, Levantine media at the time even named him “the leader loved by 100 million.” It was obviously mainly left-leaning or socialist media outlets that would publish articles praising the achievements of the North Korean leader, while always focusing on the theme of resistance.
North Korea had positioned itself as a pillar of the nonaligned movement. It was a supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization and other causes. Pyongyang viewed these groups as allies in the international struggle against imperialism. It developed a real soft power strategy during the broader Cold War era, exporting its revolutionary ideology. The recurrent themes were anticolonialism, anti-imperialism and support for socialist movements across the Middle East. This was very clear in Lebanon, which was the epicenter of the Palestinian struggle at the time.
One also needs to remember that North Korea did not only push its ideological messages, it also provided military training, arms and financial aid to Palestinian militants. Moreover, during the Lebanese Civil War, Pyongyang extended military support and expertise to communist and leftist factions. The Lebanese Communist Party was one of the beneficiaries of this support. It is worth noting that this group is now completely pro-Hezbollah.
This period was also different for North Korea. I will not delve into the Korean wars, but Pyongyang was able to balance between Russia and China and, in a way, gain its voice. This balance empowered its capacity to send its ideological message to the Middle East.
Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, this was no longer the case. North Korea became increasingly dependent on Beijing. A quick look at North Korea’s imports highlights this. It has maintained a certain degree of freedom, but this is much more limited than during the Cold War. Moreover, its political influence and focus on the Middle East also faded away.
In the 1980s, North Korea’s outreach to the region was mostly in the form of covert dealings, rather than its earlier very clear anti-imperialist messaging within the Middle East.
It is also worth noting that Pyongyang had some arrangements with Muammar Qaddafi. This was consistent with its goal of seeking partners to circumvent international sanctions and to support its struggling economy. In the same way, it also keeps good relations with Syria and, to this day, it has strong ties with Algeria, which continues to celebrate Kim’s historic 1975 visit.
Is North Korea now about to engage ideologically in the Middle East once again? Last month’s news of North Korean soldiers assisting Russia in its war against Ukraine could be a sign of change. The mutual visits and expanding bonds of friendship between President Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are potentially changing the equation relating to Pyongyang’s reliance on China. With growing exchanges and resources from Moscow, North Korea will probably be able to rebalance or mitigate the influence of Beijing. It is also clear that China is uneasy with the latest development as it makes it more difficult to maintain its neutral stance in the war in Ukraine.
Despite these tensions, there is a more unified front between China and Russia than there was in the 1970s. This is partly because the Nixon Doctrine is now void. The former US president’s opening to China successfully divided the two communist countries. Today, China, Russia and North Korea have a dynamic relationship, but are looking to the West in the same way.
Hence, at a time of high volatility in the Levant, this could prove to be a new opportunity for North Korea to re-establish its messaging and outreach in the region to end its isolation. Exactly like it did in the 1970s. If we review the ideological positioning of North Korea at the time, the main message that resonated was its solidarity with oppressed people. This also implies a messaging push on the theme of anti-imperialism, as well as another theme that is recurrent and important for North Korea: self-reliance and the base of what is known as the Juche ideology.
In the 1960s, this was pushed through books and publications based on the translations of Kim Il Sung’s works. This literature was disseminated via leftist groups in Lebanon and the broader Middle East. Today, TikTok and Instagram will probably do the job. Moreover, these themes resonate strongly with the Middle East’s bourgeois youth, even more than those living or studying abroad. We also now live in a time when people reject great power competition. Hence, with conflicts in the region echoing the 1970s, are we about to witness a renewed communication policy from North Korea? Stranger things have happened.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2581067
-----
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