Middle East Press on: Houthis, Iran, Post, Islamic, War, Syria: New Age Islam's Selection, 1 January 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
1 January 2025
How Israel Should Respond To The Houthis: Make Them Fear Us More Than We Fear Them
How Will Opposition Groups Shape Post-Islamic Regime Iran?
As It Fights Israel’s War In Jenin, Can The Palestinian Authority Be Saved?
Israel’s Attacks On Hospitals Are War Crimes; The World Must Respond
How Will The New Syria Handle Its ‘Greater Israel’ Problem?
How To Bring The Region Closer To Peace In 2025
Carter Was A Man Of Peace And Integrity
------
How Israel Should Respond To The Houthis: Make Them Fear Us More Than We Fear Them
By Gil Troy
January 1, 2025
The Houthis’ ongoing missile barrage provides the moral clarity Israelis need in battle – and the motivation to keep fighting this multi-front war we spent years trying to avoid. Soldiers have always reported, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” Having been awakened Friday night by the latest air raid sirens in Jerusalem, I’ve discovered there are no pacifists in bomb shelters, either.
Israel’s war has advanced impressively. Israelis and Westerners are safer today than we were on October 6, even as many now fear many threats they long denied. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s relentless pressure-cooker strategy has worked, leaving Hamas crushed, Hezbollah eclipsed, Iran exposed, and Syria reeling.
Israel has mistakenly finished other wars prematurely. It cannot repeat those errors. Anyone anxious for the war to end should: pressure Hamas and their Qatari bankers to release every hostage, insist that Hamas terrorists free Gaza from their grip, and demand that the Houthis and Iranians stop firing deadly missiles.
Never underestimate the Houthi slogan: “God is the greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse be upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.” They mean it – as do the Iranian mullahs.
Too many Americans keep asking “Why is Israel still fighting?” It’s as if Israel’s right to self-defense after October 7 had a two-month expiration date. This naive, impatient, approach to urban warfare ignores our enemies’ stubborn cruelty. They’re continuing the war they started.
The real question is “How can Israel stop now, with so many homicidal maniacs still trying to destroy the Jewish State?”
The pre-October 7 mentality tolerated arms buildups on our borders along with genocidal threats from fanatics. October 7 proved that they took their words seriously. Having been raised to hate the Jew, Hamas terrorists and thousands of other Gazans tried crushing us. They raped and murdered wantonly, kidnapped babies, and tortured the elderly, all because they were Jews – or non-Jews, sometimes even fellow Muslims, daring to live peacefully with Jews.
The terrorists failed miserably, hurting us, yet mobilizing us. By joining, cheered on by worldwide intifada-enablers, Hezbollah, the Iranians, their proxies, and the Houthis have proven that too many in the Muslim world like to annihilate every Jew “from the river to the sea” and often overseas, too.
That’s not the narrative much of the West hears
Consider how America’s media covered the latest intercontinental ballistic missile launched from America’s adversary – the Houthis – against America’s ally Israel – especially after the US’s THAAD air defense system intercepted one super-destructive missile. On Saturday night, The New York Times website ignored it, reporting: “As Hopes Rise for Gaza Cease-Fire, Conditions There Have Only Worsened.” Hmm.
Shifting locally, to Haaretz, which at least covered the Houthi attack – and the two Hamas rockets fired from Gaza toward Jerusalem – we also learned that “Netanyahu May Be Making the Same Mistake with the Houthis as He Did with Iran.” Where did he err? “Iran’s nuclear program was a global issue ‘Israelized’ by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposing the nuclear agreement.” The necessary, devasting response to the Houthis should be international not just Israeli.
Welcome to the anti-Zionist hall of mirrors, where every story reflects one conclusion: “It’s Israel’s fault.”
The invaluable statistics in the INSS Swords of Iron Real Time Tracker show that since October 7, Israelis have scrambled for shelter 31,333 times as over 27,000 rockets pounded the Jewish state. Yet, we’re the aggressor.
Palestinians launched 6,349 terror attacks. Yet we’re the oppressor. The media ignores the ongoing assaults against Israel, from Gaza too, as Bibi-phobes blame Israel for defending itself when the world farms out its dirty work of Houthi-fighting to the Jews.
Yes, an international coalition should crush Iran and the Houthis. But the US and the United Kingdom dithered, not properly protecting international shipping lanes, let alone Israel. Because the Houthis and Iran have Israelized the attack, targeting Israel, Israel must respond.
Repeated exposure to a negative stimulus reduces your emotional responsiveness, creating “desensitization,” psychologists explain.
In politics, overdosing on outrages deadens your conscience. We get used to Hamas hiding in once-sacrosanct civilian sites such as the Kamal Adwan Hospital. We sigh as The Jerusalem Post headlines “Army arrests 240 suspects, some posing as patients, at Jabalya Hospital used as command center,” but BBC screeches “Israel forcibly evacuates Gaza hospital and detains medical staff” and even the World Health Organization (WHO) scolds: “Kamal Adwan Hospital out of service following a raid yesterday and repeated attacks since October.”
We count the missiles launched from Yemen and Tehran, overlooking how many thousands they could kill if their payloads of 200, 300, or 400 kilograms detonated in a neighborhood.
One Pentagon weapons specialist, Bill LaPlante, told Axios: “I’m an engineer and a physicist, and I’ve been around missiles my whole career,” but the increasingly sophisticated Iranian-supplied Houthi weapons are “scary.” They threaten Israel, 2,000 kilometers away, international shipping, and America’s defense posture worldwide.
In the 1970s, reporters tried shaming Israel’s warrior-diplomat Moshe Dayan – who was instrumental in negotiating the peace treaty with Egypt – into supporting a Palestinian state. However, as someone fluent in Arabic, who befriended many Palestinians, Dayan understood his enemies.
“No, no. It’s not a flag they want,” he scoffed. “They want us to go. That’s the problem. They don’t want us to remain here...”
The only response, then as now, is to win clearly, make them fear you more than you fear them, and – as Dayan did – in the afterglow of our victory, if and when they’re finally ready, turn from war-making to peace-making.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-835595
----
How Will Opposition Groups Shape Post-Islamic Regime Iran?
By Aidin Panahi
January 1, 2025
The fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and its ripple effects on Iran’s future have reignited debates about the role of opposition groups in shaping a post-regime Iran.
Among the groups competing for influence, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, known as Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), has long been a controversial player. Despite its claims to represent Iranian resistance, the MEK’s history and current standing reveal why it has no place among the people of Iran.
Founded in 1965, MEK initially emerged as a radical group opposing the monarchy of shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Combining Marxist and Islamist ideologies, MEK was responsible for violent attacks during the 1970s, including the assassination of US military personnel and contractors in Iran. Following the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, MEK found itself at odds with Ayatollah Khomeini’s new Islamic Republic, leading to armed confrontations and the exile of its leadership.
In the 1980s, MEK aligned with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. This alliance led to joint attacks on Iran, resulting in the deaths of many, including innocent civilians. MEK’s actions during this period cemented its image as a traitorous and terrorist organization.
The US Department of State designated MEK as a terrorist organization in 1997, citing its violent past. Similarly, the European Union included MEK on its list of terrorist organizations in 2002.
However, in the 2000s, MEK claimed to renounce violence and undertook lobbying efforts to rehabilitate its image. By 2009, the EU removed MEK from its terrorist list, and the US followed suit in 2012. These decisions were driven largely by geopolitical considerations and logistical challenges in relocating MEK members from Iraq to Albania with United Nations support.
Despite its rebranding efforts, MEK remains deeply unpopular among Iranians, widely despised for its collaboration with Saddam Hussein and its ideological extremism. Its lack of grassroots support and cult-like practices further undermine its claim to represent the resistance.
Beyond groups like MEK, certain lobbyists and journalists in the West falsely present themselves as part of the opposition, while actively discouraging full regime change.
Instead, they promote superficial reforms that seek to preserve the regime’s core power structures under the guise of progress. These narratives often narrow their focus to specific issues, such as gender apartheid or hijab enforcement, portraying them as central problems. While significant, this approach ignores the broader systemic crises – political, economic, and social – that demand comprehensive solutions.
Prioritizing symbolic gestures over systemic reform is evident in the elevation of figures focused on media-friendly campaigns, for example, unveiling hijabs, while neglecting deeper structural crises in Iran. At the same time, figures operating within Iran, such as Narges Mohammadi, bring attention to human rights abuses but face criticism for their connections to Islamist-Marxist ideologies and ties to the reformist oligarchy.
While Mohammadi has drawn international recognition, including the Nobel Peace Prize, many Iranians inside the country reject these same forces, seeking a complete break from the Islamic Republic and its systemic failures. Mohammadi’s husband’s public support for Sharia law and antisemitic rhetoric further complicate perceptions of her commitment to the secular, democratic future most Iranians desire. While Mohammadi’s advocacy has drawn international recognition, this does not make her the leader Iranians are seeking.
The people of Iran overwhelmingly desire leadership that embodies unity, secularism, and a clear vision for a democratic future. The promotion of such figures by the West risks overshadowing genuine leaders and movements advocating for systemic change. Iran does not need a manufactured leader akin to Ahmad Chalabi; it needs representatives who genuinely reflect the will of its people.
A democratic Iran is not only the aspiration of its people but also a strategic necessity for the international community.
A free Iran would transform the Middle East, fostering regional stability, reducing terrorism, and ensuring secure energy supplies for the global market. The West must carefully evaluate whom it elevates as representative voices, ensuring they align with the people’s genuine aspirations, rather than perpetuating reformist narratives that fall short of meaningful change.
The most credible leader for non-regime Iran
CROWN PRINCE Reza Pahlavi stands out as the most credible leader capable of representing the aspirations of Iranians. He has publicly stated his readiness to lead Iran’s transition, emphasizing unity, secular governance, and non-violent resistance. He emphasized, during the Israeli-American Council (IAC) 2024 Summit, “Iran’s opposition is not asking the West to overthrow the regime on our behalf. We are asking for partnership with democratic nations to support the Iranian people in their pursuit of freedom.”
Pahlavi’s principled stance on non-violent resistance, respect for territorial integrity, and commitment to human rights has earned him significant respect within Iran and among its diaspora.
He has also emphasized that a free Iran would not only strengthen its partnership with Israel but ensure peace with its neighbors and the West, including the United States. Pahlavi’s leadership is not just a unifying force for the Iranian opposition – it aligns directly with the strategic interests of the US and Israel, ensuring a stable and democratic future for the region. Supporting such a vision empowers the Iranian people and also enhances global security by eliminating a key state sponsor of terrorism.
As discussions about regime change in Iran continue, maximum pressure on the regime and maximum support for the Iranian people must guide the approach. The regime is likely to capitalize on the possible death of Khamenei by implementing a transformation project designed to appear as reform while negotiating with the West to buy time and maintain power. Such tactics, coupled with superficial gestures, have been used by the regime for decades to forestall genuine change.
There is no time for compromise or negotiation with this regime – it must go.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-835592
---
As It Fights Israel’s War In Jenin, Can The Palestinian Authority Be Saved?
By Dr Ramzy Baroud
December 31, 2024
The latest news about the Palestinian Authority’s so-called “Protecting the Homeland” operation in the Jenin refugee camp paints a grim picture. Nine Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing crackdown which began on 5 December, including a young journalist, Shatha Al-Sabbagh.
The campaign, as reported by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, has, not surpisingly, received a stamp of approval from the Israeli occupation army, which seems content with the PA’s performance. Meanwhile, Israel’s Channel 14 confirmed that the occupation regime has issued a clear deadline for the PA to finish the task of effectively eradicating what remains of legitimate resistance in Jenin, in the name of ending “lawlessness” and apprehending “outlaws”.
It is an irony that has become all too familiar: the Palestinian entity that was supposed to represent the will of the people and lead them towards freedom has become complicit in crushing resistance in one of the most marginalised and impoverished areas of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, all while serving the interests of the occupation state. This is the heart of the Palestinian paradox in the West Bank.
For years, the PA has demanded unflinching obedience from the Palestinian people in the name of preparing Palestine for sovereignty and statehood. Yet, as the years have passed, this pledge has slipped further and further away. In its place, the PA has become complicit in the expansion of Israel’s territorial control and the erosion of Palestinian rights. This might be a difficult conclusion to digest, but the killing of innocent Palestinians in Jenin at the hands of Palestinian security forces, while Israel and its settlers are cracking down on Palestinians elsewhere in the West Bank, should be all the proof needed to support such a conclusion.
Moreover, the PA’s strategy of appeasing Israel through “security coordination” has done little to hinder Israel’s systematic land grab and the continued construction of illegal settlements. On the contrary, such “coordination” has emboldened Israel and its lawless settlers.
What is perhaps more damning is the fact that the PA has often become an active participant in the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, as is happening in Jenin today. In its role as an enforcer of Israeli policies, the PA has become a tool of the Israeli occupation, tasked with quelling political dissent and silencing critics.
The latest operation in Jenin is a clear manifestation of how Israel uses the PA to do its dirty work. The Jenin refugee camp, an area of less than half a square kilometre, has always been a symbol of Palestinian resistance. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, Israel has raided Jenin 80 times in the past year alone, killing at least 220 Palestinians and wounding hundreds more. Yet, Jenin remains unbowed. To now see the PA working in concert with the Israeli army to break the will of Jenin’s 23,000 inhabitants is a deeply painful reality for most Palestinians.
What complicates this crisis even further is the silence of many Palestinian intellectuals, both in the West Bank and the diaspora, who have failed to confront the PA with the same vigour with which they criticise the Israeli occupation. Why have so many prominent voices, intellectuals and political analysts remained mute on the issue of the PA’s betrayal of the Palestinian struggle?
The answer lies in a complex mixture of fear, political pragmatism and historical inertia. For decades, the PA has maintained a stranglehold on the political landscape of Palestinian life. It controls the levers of power, and anyone who dares to challenge its authority risks being silenced, through arrests, imprisonment, torture or worse. Palestinian intellectuals, particularly those in the West Bank, are all too aware of this reality.
Moreover, there is a deep sense of paralysis within the Palestinian intellectual community in the occupied West Bank, in part due to their leadership’s failure to confront Israel over the ongoing genocide in Gaza. But there is more to this ongoing paralysis.
For years, the PA has framed itself as the “sole legitimate representative” of the Palestinian people. Many intellectuals who would normally criticise Israel’s occupation are unwilling to take on the PA for fear of further fragmenting the Palestinians. There is a deep-seated belief among some that a public confrontation with the PA would lead to greater disunity, which could play into Israel’s hands.
This political pragmatism comes at a heavy cost. While many Palestinian intellectuals hesitate to criticise the PA, they are forced into a position of complicity with its actions. The PA’s betrayal of the Palestinian cause is no longer a matter of debate, it is a fact. Yet, by failing to confront this betrayal head-on, intellectuals and activists alike risk forfeiting their moral credibility.
In the face of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and unprecedentedly-violent crackdowns on Palestinians in the West Bank, the betrayal of the PA has been laid bare for all to see. Its willingness to assist in the subjugation of Palestinians in the West Bank, while pretending to represent them, has exposed the institution like never before.
Can the PA be saved? The answer may not even matter. What matters is whether the Palestinian people, with their collective will and resistance, can liberate themselves from Israel’s settler colonialism and the moral corruption of their self-proclaimed leadership. The events of the coming weeks and months will be decisive.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241231-as-it-fights-israels-war-in-jenin-can-the-palestinian-authority-be-saved/
---
Israel’s Attacks On Hospitals Are War Crimes; The World Must Respond
By Jamal Kanj
December 31, 2024
The recent Israeli attack on Kamal Adwan Hospital, the only partially-operating hospital in northern Gaza, was the latest phase of Israel’s egregious disregard for international humanitarian law and the sanctity of medical facilities. This audacious act highlighted the alarming impunity with which Israel conducts its genocidal war in Gaza, and further aggravates the suffering of the Palestinians in the enclave.
In attacking Kamal Adwan, Israel resorted to the same discredited lies used to justify its assault on Al-Shifa Hospital in November 2023, which alleged that Hamas operated a command centre beneath the hospital. This fabrication has long been employed as a pretext to target medical facilities across Gaza. During its raid on Al-Shifa, Israeli forces found no evidence of a military presence yet proceeded to destroy the hospital anyway.
Eyewitness accounts report that Israeli forces stormed the hospital under the pretext of searching for individuals allegedly connected to resistance groups. Hospital staff were forcibly removed from their posts, and several patients, including children, were left unattended during the raid. Patients and medical staff faced severe intimidation and arrest, and critical care was disrupted as soldiers combed through wards and operating rooms. They then set the hospital on fire after failing to uncover the alleged military infrastructure.
Two days after setting Kamal Adwan Hospital ablaze, Israel escalated its attacks on Gaza’s medical infrastructure, killing seven civilians in a strike on Al-Wafaa Hospital in Gaza City and shelling the nearby Ahli Baptist Hospital. Despite mounting evidence disproving its claims, Israel, unchallenged, repeated the same fabricated justification: resistance fighters were alleged to be operating within the hospitals. This unsubstantiated template has become a routine pretext for targeting healthcare facilities, disregarding international laws designed to protect civilians and medical institutions during conflict.
Israel’s disinformation regarding the presence of military targets within Gaza’s medical facilities continues to be reported unquestionably by Western media, despite there being a well-documented track record of inaccuracies and history of falsehoods pushed out by spokespersons for the occupation state.
By omitting the broader context of occupation, two-decades of blockade, and systemic oppression, these media platforms contribute to a distorted representation of the reality on the ground. Western media, in particular, report frequently on Israeli atrocities as though they are inevitable natural disasters, devoid of human accountability or compassion. This approach not only erases the agency behind these tragedies, but also dehumanises Palestinians, reducing them to mere statistics.
The failure to examine thoroughly and challenge Israel’s repeated falsehoods reflects a blatant bias in Western journalism. By granting disproportionate weight to Israeli perspectives while side-lining Palestinian voices, these outlets perpetuate stereotypes and reinforce systemic racism. This one-sided, remote reporting on Gaza undermines the principles of journalistic integrity and fuels global indifference to the plight of civilians. The lack of accountability for such biased coverage underscores the need for a more equitable and truthful approach by reporting directly from inside the war zone.
The raid on Kamal Adwan Hospital was not an isolated incident; it was a manifestation of a broader military policy aimed at inflicting maximum pain on the people of Gaza. Already deprived of food, water, power and adequate medical supplies due to Israel’s blockade, the timing of the raid on the only partially-functioning hospital in northern Gaza, was emblematic of a systematic strategy to render the area uninhabitable.
Despite clear evidence of war crimes, accountability remains elusive. The lack of meaningful action from global powers and institutions undermines the credibility of international law and signals to Israel that it can evade any and all consequences of its actions.
Hospitals, including military hospitals, are recognised as neutral spaces under international law, protected from military aggression to ensure the uninterrupted provision of critical care during times of war. The UN has both a moral and legal obligation to uphold and enforce Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which explicitly prohibits attacks on medical facilities. Anything less will be a betrayal of the principles that underpin international humanitarian law and a failure to stop war crimes.
The genocidal war on Gaza is not merely a regional issue; it is a moral litmus test for the global community. Every bomb dropped, every home destroyed, and every person killed in Gaza is a stain on humanity’s conscience. The international community must confront this genocide with the urgency and resolve it demands. Failing to act not only condemns Gaza’s population to further suffering, but also erodes the very foundations of international law and human decency.
The international community’s response for the Israeli genocide in Gaza has been woefully inadequate. While some countries issue lukewarm condemnations, others, like the United States, provide unwavering support for Israel to “finish the job”. This double standard exposes the hypocrisy of the US and Western powers that, ostensibly, champion human rights and international law in other contexts while turning a blind eye to the injustice in Israeli-occupied Palestine.
The Israeli attacks on medical facilities also expose a deliberate intent to coerce the population into forced “voluntary” ethnic cleansing. The targeting and subsequent destruction of hospitals is not random. It is part of a broader, systematic pattern of military violence against all aspects of civilian life in Gaza. This includes hospitals, schools, shelters, religious centres, agricultural infrastructure, water wells, bakeries and humanitarian aid distribution networks. These calculated assaults are designed to dismantle the foundations of daily life, exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and strip the population of even the most basic means of survival.
The international community’s conspicuous silence and failure to hold Israel accountable have encouraged such actions, creating an environment where impunity reigns. By targeting hospitals — essential lifelines in any society, let alone one under siege — Israel not only deepens the humanitarian crisis but also sends a chilling message: no space, not even those dedicated to saving lives, is off-limits.
The world must respond. Not with platitudes or empty gestures, but with concrete actions to ensure that those responsible for this ongoing genocide are held accountable.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241231-israels-attacks-on-hospitals-are-war-crimes-the-world-must-respond/
---
How Will The New Syria Handle Its ‘Greater Israel’ Problem?
By Muhammad Hussein
December 31, 2024
When Israel’s far-right extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich acknowledged in October his aim for a Jewish state that encompasses not only all of the Palestinian territories, but also extends to Syria, some speculated about how such a goal would be achieved. In Israel’s classic strategy of “bit by bit”, according to Smotrich, Tel Aviv will eventually have to cut further into Syrian territory as “it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus”.
That ominous admission threw further light on the potential pursuit of the Zionism’s “Greater Israel” project, which would cover Jordan, Lebanon, part of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and part of Saudi Arabia. The occupation state would claim the lands as its own and impose Israeli statehood on the local people, unless they too suffer ethnic cleansing as the Palestinians have.
If Israel’s extremists take Damascus, the region will be destabilised; the regional chessboard will be overturned. They would not simply be taking on resistance groups — as is the case in Gaza and Lebanon — but they would also need to invade and conquer an independent, sovereign state. The more covert, proxy dynamics in place up until now would be replaced by a full-scale state v state war. It’s a risky endeavour.
However, the ouster of the Assad regime on 8 December left a security vacuum that enabled Israel to destroy Syria’s major military defence capabilities and deploy its armed forces further into Syrian territory beyond the occupied Golan Heights. Israeli forces are now just kilometres from Damascus.
Assad’s supporters have responded with glee, of course, because this strengthens their spurious claims that the dictator was the only one standing in the way of such an Israeli invasion; that the “axis of resistance” against Israel is now weakened; and that the new Syrian authorities are complicit with the occupation state and even acting as its agent.
Such allegations, though, can be dismissed, not least because the Assad regime has been in contact with Israel for years, and never took any action to regain its territory annexed by Israel or otherwise challenge the occupation. Moreover, the Israeli attacks and destruction of Syria’s defence capabilities more likely prove that Tel Aviv is extremely wary about its new neighbours in charge of Syria.
It knew that his regime would never mobilise against Israeli forces, at least not effectively. Israeli policy towards Assad has for decades been to maintain a Syria that was strong enough to oppress its own people but never strong enough to pose a military threat in the neighbourhood.
The new Syrian government’s initial attitude towards the Israeli moves into Syrian territory have done little to discredit the allegations of collaboration with the Zionist state as they grapple with this dilemma. Consider, for example, the comments by the governor of Damascus, Maher Marwan, in an interview with NPR, in which he expressed understanding that “Israel may have felt fear” after the fall of Assad, “so it advanced a little, bombed a little, etc.” He has, on the face of it, taken what is in effect an invasion of his country very lightly indeed.
Damascus aims to have cordial relations with Israel, he claimed, stating that, “We have no fear toward Israel, and our problem is not with Israel.” He reportedly stressed that, “We don’t want to meddle in anything that will threaten Israel’s security or any other country’s security. We want peace, and we cannot be an opponent to Israel or an opponent to anyone.” Moreover, a spokesman for HTS avoided the question of Israel’s 300 air strikes on Syria when questioned by Britain’s Channel 4 News.
Syria’s de-facto leader Ahmed Al-Sharaa – also known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad Al-Julani – has expressed his willingness to return to the 1974 agreement with Israel and once again have UN peacekeepers deployed within the demilitarised zone in the Golan Heights.
“We do not want any conflict whether with Israel or anyone else and we will not let Syria be used as a launchpad for attacks,” Al-Sharaa told the Times in London earlier this month. “The Syrian people need a break, and the [air] strikes must end and Israel has to pull back to its previous positions.”
Syria’s interim government, rather than having any genuine sympathy towards Israel and its actions, seems to understand the fact that Syrian forces have little to no significant military capabilities to counter the Israeli occupation forces, let alone to launch any kind of offensive to recapture occupied territory.
Given that Israel is reported to have destroyed around 80 per cent of Syria’s air, land and sea defence capabilities, Al-Sharaa is taking a pragmatic approach. His main mission is to stabilise the domestic situation in a number of ways, chiefly by consolidating the security position and striking an agreement among former anti-Assad groups to unite under the Defence Ministry; disarming former regime soldiers; and trying to absorb Kurdish fighters into the new Syrian Army.
In terms of government, the new authorities are still organising their administration. The interim cabinet will serve until March 2025, at least, and a “National Dialogue Conference” is planned to determine the issue of Syria’s governance.
He has hosted numerous delegations from the international community over the past three weeks, and secured a number of significant deals covering the rebuilding of Syria’s infrastructure and the revival of its aviation systems. He now seeks to have all sanctions lifted so that the Syrian economy can be revived, and to persuade the US and other Western powers to remove the group which he heads, Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), from their “terrorist” lists.
Syria’s new leader and the people around him know that doing or saying anything against Israel will likely damage their efforts to stabilise their country. With neither the military capabilities nor diplomatic leverage in place, they know that they cannot force the occupation state to the negotiation table. Moving against Israeli forces in south-west Syria despite the obvious security threat that they pose, will block any real chance of the incoming Trump administration and other Western governments delisting HTS and giving formal recognition to the new government in Damascus.
Nevertheless, Al-Sharaa has a couple of cards up his sleeve to challenge Israel’s encroachment on Syrian territory: Turkiye and the Gulf States. Turkiye’s involvement in the former opposition offensive and the ouster of Assad is no secret, and it has already expressed support for Syria’s new leadership on military, infrastructural and economic terms. Damascus could well utilise that partnership to have Ankara not only strengthen the new administration, but also to serve as a counterbalance to Israel.
While that may be tempting, it is an option that would be perceived as aggressive. Senior Israelis, including former army officers as well as media outlets are already expressing concern that Turkiye is taking the place of Iran and Russia in Syria and this, claim some, is “limiting Israel’s freedom of action”.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and even Qatar – although Israel would be sceptical of the latter – have made overtures to the new Syrian authorities, and they could be expected to invest heavily in Syria’s economy and infrastructure in the coming years. Such partnerships could be used to get Damascus and Tel Aviv talking.
For now, therefore, Syria’s administration is using a diplomatic hand to counter Israeli aggression, in the hope that the occupation state will not see Al-Sharaa and his colleagues as a security threat. The big question is: how will Israel respond?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241231-how-will-the-new-syria-handle-its-greater-israel-problem/
-----
How To Bring The Region Closer To Peace In 2025
Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg
December 31, 2024
Even by the turbulent standards of the Middle East, 2024 was earth-shattering in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and the West Bank. In Gaza, tens of thousands were killed and millions made homeless. Impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity emboldened perpetrators to commit ever more gruesome atrocities. In Syria, Bashar Assad was forced to flee after a disastrous 24-year rule capped by a bloody 13-year civil war. In Lebanon, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and weakened its grip on power. Consistent with Israel’s indiscriminate battle doctrine, there was a huge civilian toll.
The most catastrophic event in 2024 was the killing fields of Gaza and this looks set to continue into 2025. More than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed there since October 2023, mostly women and children. About 100,000 more have been injured, some maimed. Many others are missing or buried under the rubble of their destroyed homes.
In October, the World Health Organization estimated that more than 6 percent of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million had been either killed or injured.
The UN estimates that nearly 70 percent of Gaza’s water and sanitation plants have been destroyed or damaged. That includes all five of the territory’s wastewater treatment facilities, plus desalination plants, sewage pumping stations, wells and reservoirs. Nearly all of Gaza’s inhabitants have been forcibly displaced, some multiple times.
Having taken control of all entry points into the Gaza Strip, Israel has severely impeded the flow of aid. For example, out of the 91 attempts the UN made to deliver aid to the besieged north of Gaza between Oct. 6 and Nov. 25, 82 were denied and nine impeded. The conditions for survival are diminishing for the 65,000 to 75,000 people estimated to remain in the north. Starvation has already taken a toll in many parts of Gaza and famine is looming.
In addition to deliberately starving the Palestinians of Gaza and forcibly displacing them en masse, which are war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, Israel has engaged in other grave breaches of international humanitarian law, including indiscriminate bombing and the targeting of unarmed civilians, hospitals, schools, refugee camps and shelters. It is for these and other war crimes and crimes against humanity that the International Criminal Court in November issued warrants to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The Israeli government, led by Netanyahu and populated by some of the basest ministers Israel and the region have ever had, engaged in this genocidal campaign because it was assured by the full support of the US. Although the Biden administration frequently voiced disagreement with some of Netanyahu’s extreme tactics, it continued to support him materially and shield him from UN censure.
President Joe Biden, the consummate politician who has spent more than 50 years in politics, failed to use his tremendous leverage to temper Israel’s unhinged behavior in Gaza, let alone bring a halt to the war. His administration also failed to persuade Israel to allow aid to flow to starving Palestinians.
It was argued that it would be difficult for Biden to discipline Israel during the US election campaign. But once the elections were over, the administration continued its lackadaisical approach of letting Israel off the hook every time the UN tried to improve the situation inside Gaza.
Many have argued that Biden still has enough time and power to do the right thing before he leaves office on Jan. 20. Jonah Blank, now with the RAND Corporation, served for 10 years as a Biden adviser. He wrote that there are three steps Biden could take during his final weeks in office that would “mitigate Palestinian suffering and preserve the possibility of a two-state solution — which would also be the best way to solidify Israel’s security in the long run.”
First, he should recognize Palestinian statehood. Second, he should sponsor a resolution on a two-state solution at the UN Security Council. Third, he should enforce existing US legislation on arms transfers. These three actions are within Biden’s executive authority and could change the course of the crisis in the Middle East, “which is hurtling toward catastrophe,” as Blank made clear.
Such actions could salvage Biden’s legacy, which is now marred not only by the failure of his Middle East policy but also his contribution to the Democratic Party losing the presidential and congressional elections. This was one of the most pivotal moments of 2024.
According to US election experts, Biden’s initial insistence on running for reelection, against the better judgment of Democratic Party elders, led to that loss. After his disastrous performance in the presidential debate with Donald Trump, Biden was urged to relinquish his bid for a second term. He reluctantly agreed, but it was too late to salvage the Democratic Party’s election campaign.
The Democrats blamed him for their resounding defeat as the Republicans, led by Trump, trounced them everywhere to get what might be called — in the language of racing — a trifecta or even a superfecta. Republicans convincingly flipped the White House and the Senate and retained their majority in the House of Representatives. They already had a solid majority in the Supreme Court, thus rounding out the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. From Jan. 20, they will be in a position to change the face of the federal government for a long time.
For at least the next four years, America’s allies, partners and adversaries need to deal with this changed landscape in Washington. But for the next few weeks, Biden is in control and he can make history if he chooses to do so. A permanent ceasefire is needed in Gaza to start the process of rebuilding and reunifying the Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority, instead of breakaway factions.
In addition to the Gaza war, there are other crises that the White House needs to address during the weeks leading up to Trump’s inauguration to make sure that there are no gaps in US regional policy on the changing of the guard at the White House and Congress. They include the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Fortunately, in each of these four crises, there is consensus on what needs to be done and UNSC resolutions to go by.
First and most urgent is the crisis in the West Bank, where the Israeli government and settlers have increased their attacks on Palestinians with the clear aim of driving them off their land. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and their homes and farms destroyed or burned down.
Clearly, the only way to defuse the West Bank crisis is through ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state. Already, about 150 countries have recognized Palestine as a state and there is a clear consensus on the parameters of this solution in UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.
In September, Saudi Arabia, together with Norway, the Arab League and the EU, launched the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. The first meeting of the alliance was held in Riyadh on Oct. 30 and attended by 90 states and organizations, while the second meeting was held in Brussels on Nov. 28 and the third is planned for January in Oslo. The US took part in these meetings and expressed support for the alliance. It needs to do more to persuade Israel to join.
Second, in Lebanon, the agreement of a 60-day temporary ceasefire was a good start, but it needs to be solidified by the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1701 of 2006, which called for the withdrawal of all forces, save for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon and the Lebanese security forces, from Lebanese territory south of the Litani River.
Third, the surprise attack in late November by Turkiye-backed Syrian groups on Aleppo and the surrounding areas ended in Assad’s ouster and the installation of a new Islamist government in Damascus. In large part, the attack was motivated by the impasse in the UN and Arab League-mediated political process.
In December 2015, the UNSC unanimously adopted Resolution 2254, which set forth a roadmap to resolve the crisis in Syria. Talks over its implementation stalled because the Assad regime stopped cooperating with UN Special Envoy Gere Pederson. Instead, the civil war raged, claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands and leaving half of Syria’s population homeless.
In May 2023, the Arab League reached an agreement in Amman with the Assad regime to resume the political process, but it later ignored the Arab League’s pleas to live up to that agreement.
The weakening of Assad’s close allies, Iran and Hezbollah, and preoccupation of Russia, Assad’s third ally, contributed to the decision by the militants to launch their successful blitz. In October, Assad’s forces again bombed the rebel-held Idlib province, probably hastening their decision to mount their counterattack.
Things in Syria are now in flux, but the new rulers appear to be eager to reassure Syrians and the outside world that they intend to have an inclusive government focused on rebuilding Syria’s devastated economy.
Fourth, in Yemen, the UN-led peace process has also stalled, as the Houthis have chosen to improve their political standing by disrupting international maritime trade and attacking ships. Here too, there is a clear UNSC resolution (No. 2216 of 2015, which was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter) that sets out the main parameters for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
To its credit, the Biden administration has been working on all these issues. But time is of the essence. It needs to take advantage of its remaining days in office to finish at least some of them, so as to hand over to the new administration a coherent response.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2584870
-----
Carter Was A Man Of Peace And Integrity
Osama Al-Sharif
December 31, 2024
The Palestinian people have this week lost one of the most outspoken champions of their cause. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the US, died on Sunday at the age of 100. Carter will be remembered as a man of integrity and courage. His readiness to move away from the more orthodox foreign policy line adopted by both Democrats and Republicans back in the 1970s over the Arab-Israeli conflict triggered fundamental shifts in how the world later approached that conflict, with the plight of the Palestinians as its core.
Carter’s life embodied the American dream, while transcending it through his dedication to global service. His one term as president (1977-1981), even though he was often criticized during his tenure, yielded lasting diplomatic triumphs, most notably the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt — an achievement that earned him respect as a peacemaker long after he left office.
Carter, who had no foreign policy experience prior to his 1976 presidential victory, oversaw one of the most important and complex US diplomatic interventions ever to resolve a significant aspect of the conflict: ending the state of war between Egypt and Israel. Those agreements paved the way for future US-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, culminating in the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which would be followed by a peace deal between Jordan and Israel.
Carter’s commitment to peace and justice knew no bounds. Though controversial, his advocacy for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israeli policies reflected his unwavering commitment to human rights and justice, regardless of political cost.
His 2002 Nobel Peace Prize recognized his diplomatic achievements and his lifelong dedication to advancing human dignity and peace. Throughout his life, Carter maintained a reputation for integrity that stood as a beacon in American public life. His plainspoken manner and modest lifestyle reflected his belief that true greatness lies in serving others. Even as he faced criticism for his political positions, few questioned his sincerity or commitment to his principles.
Carter’s commitment to the Palestinian issue extended beyond his presidency and covered most of his post-presidential career. During his time in office and over the following decades, Carter brought unprecedented diplomatic attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving an indelible mark on Middle East peace efforts.
His crowning achievement was the 1978 Camp David Accords, as he skillfully mediated negotiations between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. While the accords primarily focused on normalizing Egyptian-Israeli relations and returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, they also established a framework for addressing Palestinian rights and autonomy. However, the provisions regarding Palestinian self-determination remained notably vague and fell short of Palestinian aspirations for statehood.
Carter was committed to acknowledging Palestinian rights throughout his administration, stressing the importance of including Palestinian self-determination in any enduring peace solution. His administration kept open communication channels with the Palestine Liberation Organization, representing a significant change in America’s diplomatic approach. Carter also supported UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for a fair settlement of the Palestinian issue, although the implementation of such resolutions continued to be contentious.
After leaving the White House, Carter’s advocacy for Palestinian rights intensified. He became an increasingly vocal critic of Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories and a steadfast proponent of a two-state solution. Through books, speeches and direct involvement in peace initiatives, Carter consistently highlighted the challenges faced by Palestinians and advocated for their rights and recognition. During the 1990s and 2000s, he participated in numerous peace initiatives and observer missions in the region, working to foster dialogue and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians.
Carter’s 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” marked perhaps his most controversial contribution to the discourse. In it, he provided a critical examination of the Israeli occupation and its impact on Palestinian lives. While the book drew sharp criticism and allegations of antisemitism from some quarters, especially in Israel, Carter remained resolute in his stance, continuing to address issues such as settlement expansion and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Throughout his post-presidency, Carter openly criticized US policies that he believed undermine Palestinian interests. This included certain aspects of military aid to Israel and what he perceived as inadequate pressure on Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza. His approach reflected a rare willingness among American political figures to challenge established views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Carter’s legacy regarding the Palestinian issue reflects the achievements and limitations of American engagement with this conflict. His presidential accomplishments, particularly the Camp David Accords, established important frameworks for negotiation, even if they failed to fully address Palestinian aspirations. His post-presidential advocacy helped maintain focus on Palestinian rights and the necessity of a just resolution to the conflict. Through both periods, Carter’s efforts underscored the intricate challenges of achieving lasting peace in the region and the importance of considering the rights and aspirations of all parties involved in the peace process.
Carter’s contribution to advancing peace in the region has influenced US foreign policy on the conflict and created momentum that transcended his one-term presidency. His successors, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, all attempted to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians with mixed results. None was able to deliver what was promised to the Palestinians under the Oslo Accords: an independent state and an end to Israeli occupation.
In hindsight, one can say that US mediation became a liability for an equitable peace deal. The US was never able or willing to put real pressure on Israel to embrace the two-state solution and end its occupation of Palestinian territories.
Today, as Trump gets ready to begin his second term as president and complete what he started in his first term — attempting to conclude a peace deal between the Arabs and Israel — Palestinians cannot help but feel abandoned by the international community. The Biden administration’s complicity in the Gaza massacre is a case in point.
Carter’s advocacy of the Palestinian cause was not just about sound foreign policy, but a deep and genuine belief in the historical injustice they had endured and continue to endure. No US president since has had the courage or integrity to even come close to matching Carter’s legacy of genuine empathy with the Palestinians.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2584866
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/houthis-iran-post-islamic-war-syria/d/134208
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