Middle East Press on Iran, Russia, Israel, US, Iran, Gaza, Palestine and the Arabs: New Age Islam's Selection, 31 October 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
31 October 2024
Iran-Russia’s Wary Alliance: Arming up or Breaking Down?
How Kri’s Elections Consolidate Kdp-Puk ‘Forced Marriage’
Isolated Iran: Israel's Success in Driving Islamic Republic's Allies Away
The Shadow War Intensifies: How Iran’s Strategy Threatens Israel
A World of Two Realities, For Peace They Must Be United
‘Diplomacy or Bias?’ Responding to a Former Ambassador’s Views on the Middle East
If It Wasn’t For the Arabs, the Situation in Palestine Would Be Much Worse
Journalists on Middle East’s Front Lines Paying the Price of Truth
-----
Iran-Russia’s Wary Alliance: Arming up or Breaking Down?
By Mehmet Kiliç
Oct 31, 2024
The dynamics in world politics rapidly shift. Iran's supply of short-range missiles and drones to Russia has triggered fresh sanctions from the United States and the European Union. As the Ukraine war approaches its third year and Russia turns to Iran to replenish its dwindling ammunition stockpiles, Western countries are growing uneasy. This is not just an arms deal – it's a move that could have significant consequences for regional stability and the global balance of power. Moreover, it complicates efforts to pressure a sanctions-hit Russia into engaging in peace talks.
In response, the U.S. and the EU have started imposing new sanctions, calling Iran's arms support a "security crisis." Western military and economic aid to Ukraine has severely weakened Russia on the battlefield, even allowing Ukrainian forces to control Russia's Kursk region. Russia has procured Iranian-made Shahed UAVs and Fath-360 short-range ballistic missiles to alleviate its ammunition shortage. Reports indicate that more than 200 Fath-360 missiles were delivered to Russia via the Caspian Sea. Although Iranian officials deny supplying missiles to Russia, intelligence reports from the U.S. and the U.K. confirm that Iran has provided munitions to Russia.
The presence of a reformist president in Iran, who is expected to foster strong relations with the EU, does not imply that he controls this process. The final decision-making power in Iran rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). While this hinders Iran's opportunity to improve its relations with the West, Tehran sees significant strategic gains from cooperation with Moscow. According to experts, Iran receives advanced military technology, nuclear energy and defense industry support from Russia in return for this cooperation. The two countries allegedly hold talks, especially on advanced air defense systems.
West in stress
Western powers have reacted harshly to these developments. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the growing cooperation between Russia and Iran poses a direct threat to Europe's security and that Iran's destabilizing influence reaches far beyond the Middle East. As a result, the U.S. and EU blacklisted the Iranian airline "Iran Air" and restricted access to Europe. In addition, economic sanctions on Iran's missile program were expanded, and three senior Iranian military officials and four entities were sanctioned.
The arms trade between Iran and Russia has also sparked a debate on whether it violates the 2015 nuclear deal. The deal also covered ballistic missiles, but since these restrictions on Iran expired in October 2023, Iran is technically not violating the agreement. However, U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which underpinned the nuclear deal, defined the G-7-created Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) as part of the arms embargo on Iran. By sending short-range weapons, Iran is circumventing the binding nature of this article. Despite Western pressure, Iran's supply of arms to Russia is based on several factors – first, the unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the nuclear deal in 2018 without justification.
The unwavering support of the U.S. and E.U. for Israel in its operations in Gaza and Lebanon has driven Iran to seek closer ties with Russia. Recent Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military and missile production facilities have underscored vulnerabilities within Iran’s air defense systems, exposing its pressing need for advanced defensive capabilities. These attacks, which bypassed Iran’s radar and air defenses, not only inflicted significant damage on key installations and resulted in the deaths of four Iranian soldiers but also served as a stark reminder of Iran’s exposure to high-level threats. For Tehran, these events go beyond immediate losses, underscoring the strategic necessity of bolstering its defenses against potential future assaults on critical infrastructure, such as nuclear facilities and oil fields.
In light of these developments, Iran's cooperation with Moscow is crucial. By securing Russian air defense systems and advanced military technology, Tehran aims to address the defense gaps highlighted by Israeli incursions. Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, have publicly declared Iran’s right to retaliate, a stance that signals the likelihood of escalating tensions. Israel’s recent strikes, paired with U.S. support for such actions, will reinforce Iran’s drive toward a strategic alliance with Russia to establish a counterbalance to Western-backed regional threats.
The fact that Israeli warplanes were able to enter Iran, evade radar and destroy specific installations sent a powerful message to Iran: “We could have done more if we wanted.” Growing concerns over possible future attacks on nuclear and oil facilities intensify Iran’s motivation to deepen its military cooperation with Russia. In return, Iran seeks to obtain advanced Russian military assets, such as Su-35 Flanker fighter jets and S-400 air defense systems, to reinforce its air defenses.
Mutual distrust
However, Moscow seems to be dragging its feet, as it has yet to supply Tehran with resources that would promptly meet Iran’s strategic defense requirements. This is why many within Iran grew skeptical of the Kremlin’s commitment to Tehran’s defense.
For example, the S-300 air defense system, manufactured in Russia and valued at $1 billion, has faced significant setbacks since Iran initiated negotiations with Moscow for its delivery, which spanned 15 years. Despite its high cost and extended wait, the system's operational performance has been disappointing, recording zero successful interceptions and thus providing no tangible defense success for Tehran. This prolonged delay and lack of efficacy underscore the challenges Iran has faced in securing reliable defensive capabilities from Moscow.
Russia's failure to provide promised S-400 anti-aircraft systems or Su-35 fighters left Iran vulnerable, raising considerable concerns in Tehran. On Oct. 28, 2024, at a press conference of the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Ali Akbar Saadati, a reporter for the Kar va Kargar (Work and Worker) newspaper, criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin, describing him as dishonorable, noting that he abandoned Iran in its most difficult times.
Other Iranian observers recall Russia's past support for U.N. sanctions against Iran and its backing of the UAE's claims to three islands in the Persian Gulf, which Iran has controlled since the 1970s. Furthermore, Russia played a significant role in derailing the restoration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during the 2022 negotiations, coinciding with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, when Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insisted that U.S. sanctions over Ukraine should not impact Russian-Iranian economic ties outlined in the JCPOA.
The one and only support
Currently, Tehran's stance appears vulnerable, and it is keen to get Moscow's support as it is the only one it can get. However, the Kremlin harbors concern that Iran might be negotiating with the West to strengthen the relations between both sides, potentially at Russia's expense. Meanwhile, military cooperation between Iran and Russia will continue to help both countries realize their short-term strategic objectives. With the weapons provided to Russia, Iran will seek to modernize its military capacity and gain access to advanced technologies.
This synergy will continue as both countries seek solidarity against Western sanctions. Russia's military activities in Ukraine and Iran's regional security concerns increase interdependence. Russia will stockpile long-range missiles in its inventory with the short-range missiles it acquires from Iran, and depending on the state of the war, this means that it will maintain the ability to use these long-range missiles to strike deep into Ukraine in the future. However, the sustainability of these relations will depend on changes in both sides' domestic and foreign policies.
As the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, the implications of Iran's military support for Russia cannot be underestimated. This collaboration not only serves the immediate strategic interests of both nations but also complicates efforts to build a new Western security architecture.
With Iran aiming to enhance its military capabilities while Russia seeks to replenish its resources in the ongoing Ukraine conflict, their partnership reflects a complex interplay of necessity and skepticism. Ultimately, the future of this alliance will hinge on their ability to navigate the pressures of external sanctions and internal political dynamics, shaping the course of their respective nations in the years to come.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/iran-russias-wary-alliance-arming-up-or-breaking-down
---------
How Kri’s Elections Consolidate Kdp-Puk ‘Forced Marriage’
By Mehmet Alaca
Oct 31, 2024
After two years of delays, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) finally held parliamentary elections on Oct. 20. In the competitive elections, the region's ruling parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), secured 67 seats in the 100-seat Parliament, along with five minority quotas.
No single actor could win a majority to form a government; the remaining 33 seats were divided between opposition parties. The results showed that even in the region's most fragile period, voters prioritize the ruling powers and that the 30-year power balance between the two Kurdish parties will continue.
Status quo of duopoly
The KRI Parliament’s tenure ended and the legitimacy of the government was weakened as a result of the elections, which were originally scheduled for 2022 but were repeatedly postponed. While the PUK grew its number of seats from 21 to 23, the KDP only managed 39 seats, falling short of the 45 seats in 2018. The balance between the two parties was mainly preserved, while the total number of seats in Parliament was reduced from 111 to 100 this year.
The election did not produce results that would break the 30-year dual structure in the KRI, where the Barzani family-led KDP controls Irbil and Duhok defined as the "yellow zone" and the Talabani family-led PUK dominates Sulaymaniyah and Halabja known as "green zone" since the 1990s. The KDP and PUK have their own Peshmerga, intelligence and security forces, as well as control of the local economy.
The ruling parties’ relations, which have deteriorated considerably since the 2017 independence referendum, continue to be at very opposite poles on the issues of Kirkuk, the budget, relations with Baghdad and the PKK. The PUK’s extremely harsh targeting of the KDP during the election campaign also indicated the tension in relations. This tension was also displayed in a lawsuit filed by the PUK in the Iraqi Federal Court over the minority quotas being in the KDP’s favor. While previously 11 quotas were allocated to Turkmens and Christians, it was decreased to five quotas by decisions of the court. However, the PUK utilized the very same move in this election. By using the loophole in the quota system, the five seats were divided between three allies of the KDP and two partners of the PUK.
Opposition’s electoral inability
Despite the ruling parties’ squabbles, the opposition’s electoral failure and its reluctance to be part of the established order of ruling parties, which is known for its corruption, eliminate alternatives to the Kurdish duopoly. The biggest defeat of the elections was suffered by the Gorran Movement of Change, who failed to maintain the 12 seats in 2018 and gained one seat. Gorran, which previously rode the opposition wave and surpassed the PUK in 2013, lost support from the anti-system masses after joining the government as a partner.
The New Generation Movement (NGM), which raised to 15 from the prior eight seats and occupied a significant role in the opposition left empty by Gorran, is well-known for its vehement opposition to the 2017 independence referendum and the KDP and PUK's duopoly. Despite its populist and ill-disciplined party structure, the NGM’s success also emphasizes the quest for a realistic opposition in the region.
Instead, Islamic parties like the Islamic Union and Justice Group could not gain momentum as expected in the elections due to the already conservative feature of the KDP and that the people generally tend to vote ideologically rather than religiously. Also, the Sulaymaniyah-based Popular Front, founded by Lahur Sheikh Jangi, the former co-chair of the PUK expelled by his cousin Bafel Talabani, failed to become an alternative with only one seat.
The KDP and the PUK manage to maintain their power through the clientelistic network in the region. The fact that membership in the ruling parties opens the way for citizens to obtain jobs and positions gives the ruling parties an advantage over the opposition. The KDP and PUK do not want to lose their party-state-like characteristic that feeds their order. The opposition’s desperate situation consolidates the power of the ruling parties in the eyes of the voters.
Dilemmas with Tehran and Baghdad
To form a government in the KRI, a simple majority of 50+1 is required. After the election results are approved, the party that receives the most votes will have 90 days to form a government. Therefore, it is expected that the parties will start negotiations during the government formation process after the final results are approved. In the current picture, a coalition government of the KDP and PUK is the most likely option.
While the NGM and the Islamic Union have recently announced that they will not take part in the government, the KDP, which has the most seats with 39, needs 12 seats to form a government. The coalition government established in 2018 included the KDP, the PUK, Gorran, Turkmen and Christians. The New Generation, the Islamic Union and the Justice Group, which were on the opposition front, did not join the government. For this reason, the KDP is likely to knock on the PUK’s door first in government talks.
The ruling parties need each other because they cannot form a government on their own. The KDP may try to form a government with smaller parties, but this scenario makes the government’s chances of being effective in the green zone even weaker. The absence of the PUK from the government also weakens the legitimacy of the government. Furthermore, this option would extremely provoke the PUK, which has already caused unrest in the region due to its Baghdad-centric policies. During the government formation process, the Baghdad government, which is under Iranian influence, has an opportunity to easily pressure the KDP on issues such as the budget, salaries and oil exports, and force it to step back in negotiations with the PUK.
A government formula that does not include either of the ruling parties may hinder the government operation in the yellow or green zones, the dual structure may become even more fragile, and the PUK – drawing strength from Baghdad and Tehran-centric policies – may outspeak its demand for autonomy from Irbil.
In the past, the KDP was able to form a government on its own with the help of quotas, which strengthened the party’s hand against others. However, the current electoral results have strengthened the PUK’s hand. The priority for the KDP right now is to quickly establish a government that has been dysfunctional for two years. Government formation negotiations between the two parties took 10 months in 2018 and it lasted nine months in 2013 as well. New negotiations could be postponed since Iraqi parliamentary elections are expected to be held next year because the post of Iraqi president could also be part of these negotiations between the KDP and PUK. While a delay means further weakening of the legitimacy of the current government in limbo, previous experiences have shown that the Kurdish duopoly will test any formula to maximize their interests.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/how-kris-elections-consolidate-kdp-puk-forced-marriage
---------
Isolated Iran: Israel's Success In Driving Islamic Republic's Allies Away
By Alex Selsky
October 30, 2024
One of the key successes of Israel's recent strike has been to distance Iran from its close allies, Russia and China. First, by making it clear to both countries that they neither should nor realistically could protect Iran in the event of a war. And just as importantly, by sending Iran the message that it will stand alone.
While it was expected that Russia and China, maintaining robust strategic and economic ties with Iran, would be unlikely to take substantial steps to defend Iran, recent events have made this reality evident to all. Israel should seize this opportunity to maximize Iran's isolation, which will weaken it significantly—economically, militarily, and politically.
Economic constraints, historical precedents, strategic calculations, and the potential for regional and domestic instability suggest that Russian and Chinese support would likely remain limited to diplomatic condemnation and indirect assistance. The internal dynamics within Iran, alongside broader regional factors, could potentially prompt domestic and regional efforts to overthrow the regime if a credible threat is perceived.
Should the Islamic Republic's regime collapse, Russia and China would turn to alternative sources for the Iranian products they currently rely on, primarily energy and defense technology. China, for example, could source energy from emerging African suppliers, such as Mozambique, or even from Russia itself, which competes with Iran in the energy market and would be the first to benefit from a drop in Iranian exports. Russia, in turn, which relies on Iranian weapons for its war in Ukraine, has already started to fulfill some of its military needs through North Korea and Turkey.
Both Russia and China are deeply integrated into the global economy and reliant on trade with Western countries, even Rusia, despite the sanctions. Any direct military intervention on behalf of Iran would bring severe economic consequences, including increased sanctions and disrupted trade relationships. For example, China is one of the largest trading partners of both the United States and the European Union, and entering a conflict that risks these economic ties would be a strategic gamble Beijing is unlikely to take.
Should the Islamic Republic's regime collapse, Russia and China would turn to alternative sources for the Iranian products they currently rely on, primarily energy and defense technology. China, for example, could source energy from emerging African suppliers, such as Mozambique, or even from Russia itself, which competes with Iran in the energy market and would be the first to benefit from a drop in Iranian exports. Russia, in turn, which relies on Iranian weapons for its war in Ukraine, has already started to fulfill some of its military needs through North Korea and Turkey.
Both Russia and China are deeply integrated into the global economy and reliant on trade with Western countries, even Rusia, despite the sanctions. Any direct military intervention on behalf of Iran would bring severe economic consequences, including increased sanctions and disrupted trade relationships. For example, China is one of the largest trading partners of both the United States and the European Union, and entering a conflict that risks these economic ties would be a strategic gamble Beijing is unlikely to take.
Historical examples show a pattern of restraint by Russia and China regarding direct military intervention, even when vested interests are at stake. During NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, Russia, despite its strong historical ties and vocal opposition, refrained from military intervention. Similarly, in 2003, despite opposing the US-led invasion of Iraq at the United Nations, neither Russia nor China provided military support to Saddam Hussein's regime. In 2011, Russia abstained from a UN vote authorizing NATO intervention in Libya, which led to Muammar Gaddafi’s downfall.
These cases illustrate a consistent preference for diplomatic condemnation and limited support—such as arms supplies or economic aid—over direct military engagement with Western powers.
Russia will also have no interest in a direct conflict with Israel. Israel has demonstrated its ability to cooperate with Russia on multiple levels, including military coordination in Syria, as well as its neutral stance and limited support for Ukraine, despite US pressure.
Direct involvement in a conflict to defend Iran could also ignite instability within Russia and China. Both nations face significant domestic issues, including economic difficulties and political dissent, which could intensify in the face of a costly foreign war.
Israel also serves as a unique channel for dialogue between Russia and the West, especially the US, due to its close ties with Washington and pragmatic relationship with Moscow.
Moreover, Russia and China understand that Iran's terrorism-driven policies could one day target them, either for ideological reasons or as leverage to secure better trade deals. Their alliance with Iran is not based on natural or ideological alignment but on pragmatic, instrumental interests.
For Israel, this is an opportunity that must not be missed. Continued pressure and military action will further isolate Iran. Alliances will grow stronger in support of Israel's resilience. Iran must not be allowed to escape with its nuclear ambitions, regardless of the sitting US president's stance—whether friendly or less so. Israel has proven to itself and others that it can act independently, and as it continues this path, it will increasingly reap the rewards of its victory.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-826892
---------
The Shadow War Intensifies: How Iran’s Strategy Threatens Israel
By Louis Libin, Michael J. Salamon
October 30, 2024
The Afghan proverb “You have the watches; we have the time” underscores a timeless strategy: Wait out your foe to claim victory. Iran seems to be adopting a similar approach in its campaign against Israel, one that demands a continual rethinking of Israel’s response and the very nature of modern warfare.
Iran’s strategy is less about winning a swift, decisive war than about waging a “war of attrition.” Through its proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis – Iran is launching persistent, smaller-scale attacks to erode Israel’s resources, patience, and resolve over time. These groups, empowered by Iranian funding, arms, and training, keep Israel perpetually on guard, exacting a steady toll on its military, economy, and, not least of all, its psyche.
The intent is clear: Through sustained pressure, Iran seeks to fatigue Israel, goad it into strategic and tactical mistakes, and gradually diminish our emotional capacity to resist.
The attacks are relentless: rockets, missiles, suicide drones, and lone wolf raids at unpredictable intervals. Israel must maintain a state of high alert, draining its military and finances. The parallels to the Vietnam War or the US experience in Afghanistan are striking. Iran aims not for an immediate knockout but for a slow-motion weakening of Israel, exploiting the asymmetry of proxy warfare and hoping that Israel will just pack up and leave.
Israel must anticipate the evolving nature of these attacks. Iran’s proxies will likely deploy advanced drones: smaller, quieter, longer-range, and harder to detect. “Swarm” attacks, with numerous drones at once, have the potential to overwhelm defenses.
Terror strikes within Israel – on civilians, as we have seen this week with the ramming of the bus packed with soldiers, and on critical infrastructure – are also a growing risk, as are maritime attacks and potentially even the use of underwater drones or stealth technology. The scope of the threat is vast, demanding a continual and comprehensive reevaluation of Israeli strategy.
To counter this, Israel must prioritize readiness and rapid modernization. Investment in cutting-edge surveillance, air defenses, and cybersecurity are vital. Electronic warfare capabilities to disrupt enemy systems are also essential. Israel disarmed Iranian air defenses a few days ago, but the rockets and drones from the proxies have continued. Technical solutions alone are insufficient; Israel needs a multilayered defense strategy integrating air, land, sea, and cyber domains.
Israel cannot simply react
But Israel cannot simply react; it must shift the focus to undermining Iran’s will to fight in a manner that degrades the proxy threat. A strategy centered on attriting the enemies while preserving Israeli strength and morale is crucial.
This demands not just military prowess but programs to bolster societal resilience, prevent fatigue, and maintain unity in the face of relentless and unpredictable pressure. It requires diplomatic efforts to expose Iran’s proxy strategy and build international pressure, which is currently waning.
The Iranian-sponsored war of attrition is underway and has been for some time. Israel’s response will shape the future of the region. It must move beyond mere reaction and adopt a proactive strategy that addresses the nature of this new threat. This will require not only military adaptation but a renewed focus on fortifying the home front.
Israel must invest in programs that strengthen societal cohesion, providing therapy and resiliency training and supporting those communities most impacted by the constant attacks. Of critical importance as well is to ensure that the economic burden of perpetual defense does not become unsustainable.
The international community, too, has a critical role to play. It cannot turn a blind eye to Iran’s proxy strategy, allowing it to wage war while maintaining a veneer of deniability. World leaders must call out this cynical tactic and apply pressure on Tehran to halt its support for these destabilizing groups. This can only be accomplished with more sophisticated hasbara (public diplomacy).
Only by combining a robust defense with societal resilience and diplomatic pressure can Israel successfully navigate this war of attrition and secure its future. The watches may be ticking, but with foresight and determination, Israel can ensure it has the time and strength needed to endure.
Louis Libin is an expert in military strategies and innovation, and advises on and teaches military innovation, wireless systems, and emergency communications, at military colleges and agencies. He is the founder of a consulting group for emergency management, cybersecurity, IP, and communications.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-826727
---------
A World Of Two Realities, For Peace They Must Be United
By Justin Amler
October 30, 2024
As Israel’s war with terrorist organizations trying to destroy it enters its second year, it has become increasingly clear the world views this conflict through two vastly different lenses. In one view is a reality in which Israel is fighting for its survival against relentless threats, by antagonists who openly say they will never agree to any coexistence with the Jewish state. But there is an alternate perception in which Israel is cast as the aggressor.
This war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on peaceful communities in southern Israel. It was one of the most brutal, sadistic attacks in recent history – some 1,200 innocent people, including men, women, and children, were slaughtered, and others brutalized and raped in terrorist acts that shocked the world. A further 251 more were kidnapped, some taken straight from their beds, often still in their pajamas, and dragged into the terror dungeons of Gaza.
Yet, even as Israel faced this horror, the global response has often been bewildering. Instead of uniting against this evil, much of the international community has focused on Israel’s military response, urging Israeli restraint and calling for a ceasefire.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi forces in Yemen, and militias in Syria and Iraq joined the fray, launching attacks on Israel in solidarity with Hamas. And at the center of the orchestrated assault is Iran, which has long provided financial, military, and ideological support to all these groups. Since October 7, Israel has been targeted on multiple fronts with rockets, drones, and even ballistic missiles.
This is a conflict with one clear objective: to erase Israel from the map. Iran has even set up a clock in a Tehran square counting down to Israel’s supposedly inevitable demise.
Yet while Israel faces this existential threat, a perverse alternate reality is embraced by many governments, media outlets, and global institutions, portraying Israel not as a nation under siege but as the instigator of this violence.
Limited Western arms embargoes
Key Western democracies like France, Britain, and Canada have even initiated limited arms embargoes against Israel in an effort to force it into a ceasefire – one that leaves the fate of Israel’s 100 or so remaining hostages in the hands of terror monsters, and Hamas almost certainly still in charge of Gaza, making preparations for the next October 7.
Even supportive allies like the United States have at times tried to limit Israel’s military action in going after the terrorists in their strongholds. US Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris warned Israel in March not to go into Rafah, because she had “studied the maps” and a humanitarian catastrophe was inevitable if Israeli forces entered the city.
Israel went in, no humanitarian catastrophe occurred with residents safely evacuated, and it was in Rafah where hostages were saved and October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar was found and killed.
Then there is the United Nations, an organization rife with anti-Israel bias and even antisemitism. It’s an institution tasked with maintaining international peace and security, yet it has failed to issue even one clear condemnation of the Hamas atrocities.
Its UNRWA “aid” organization has been repeatedly shown to be directly implicated in terror, while its so-called “peacekeeping” force in southern Lebanon has proved to be not only impotent in carrying out its UN-sanctioned mandate, but effectively an ally of Hezbollah.
Also ignored is the role of Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza, yet this is rarely, if ever, talked about in the international community.
While Israel is falsely accused of “starving” Palestinians and denying aid, there has been almost no discussion on how it was possible for a so-called “besieged” territory to have built a sophisticated underground terror network bigger than both the New York subway system and the London Underground.
If Hamas had the money, materials, technology, and skills to build such a colossal underground infrastructure, it raises critical questions about its dependency on Israel for essential services like power and water, and the international community for healthcare, education, and other aid.
Meanwhile, no country in the world would be expected to simply absorb the over 10,000 rockets launched so far by Hezbollah into Israel – destroying homes, killing dozens of people, burning forests and farms, and displacing over 60,000 residents from their homes in northern Israel for more than a year.
Iran itself has launched ballistic missiles at Israel, yet these assaults are often downplayed in the international arena because of Israel’s successful defense systems such as the Iron Dome. But this does not negate the intent of these rocket attacks: Each one is designed to kill. Unless deterred, future attacks eventually will.
As long as the global community remains confused between these two realities – one grounded in facts, the other in distortion – this conflict will continue, and any hopes for the peace and stability all reasonable people crave will be destroyed.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-826720
---------
‘Diplomacy Or Bias?’ Responding To A Former Ambassador’s Views On The Middle East
By Dr Fadi Elhusseini
October 30, 2024
Recently, a former ambassador to Israel posted a lengthy message on social media, quickly republished by a pro-Israel website in what appeared to be a coordinated effort. Compelled to respond, I found his message riddled with inaccuracies and lacking basic regional insight, despite his five years in Israel.
The ambassador leans on a predictable Israeli narrative designed to deflect from the core issue—the Occupation of Palestinian land. For years, Israel has leveraged its relationship with consecutive US administrations to shift attention from its Occupation, focusing on figures like Saddam Hussein and, now, Iran, while framing the Palestinian struggle as a mere humanitarian issue instead of the deeply political one that it is. For this reason, I will focus specifically on the Palestinian issues in the ambassador’s commentary.
In his remarks, the ambassador claims that 7 October of last year marked the start of recent conflicts. This over-simplification might sway some readers into believing that regional turmoil began only last year. Yet, he goes further, attributing the root cause to a judgment by “Israel’s enemies that their time had come”, revealing a fundamental lack of understanding of the complex historical context.
The ambassador’s oversight of the real root cause—decades of military Occupation, systemic discrimination and disregard for international law and UN resolutions—exposes a serious blind spot in his analysis. Any accurate perspective must address long-standing injustices preceding his chosen timeline.
Settlements in Occupied Territories: Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem violate Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into Occupied Territory. These expanding settlements, and the violence they bring against Palestinians, have drawn international condemnation.
Collective Punishment: The blockade of Gaza is widely regarded as collective punishment, violating international humanitarian law. This blockade severely restricts access to essential services for over two million Palestinians, fuelling a humanitarian crisis.
Disproportionate Use of Military Force: Israeli military operations in Gaza have often been criticised for disproportionate impact on civilians. Significant casualties, especially among women and children, are reported during these escalations.
Destruction of Civilian Infrastructure: Attacks on civilian buildings and infrastructure, including homes, schools and hospitals, violate international law. Such actions lead to material destruction and tragic loss of life.
Restrictions on Movement: Israeli measures, including checkpoints and the separation barrier, severely limit Palestinians’ freedom of movement, cutting access to work, healthcare and education. International bodies have deemed these restrictions illegal.
Human Rights Abuses of Political Prisoners: Reports of arbitrary arrests, torture and lack of due process for Palestinian prisoners are widespread. Significant numbers of Palestinians, including minors, face detention without trial, raising serious human rights concerns.
Ignoring UN Resolutions: Israel’s repeated disregard of UN Security Council resolutions calling for withdrawal from Occupied Territories and dismantling settlements has fuelled tensions and a lack of accountability for actions deemed illegal under international law.
The former ambassador embraced a one-sided Israeli narrative, reducing a complex issue to a single root cause and making a far-fetched connection between Middle Eastern conflicts and recent protests in European and North American cities, where ordinary people, wrapped in Palestinian flags, expressed solidarity. He implies that these demonstrators—diverse groups, including students and community members—are influenced by Middle Eastern actors. This view dismisses the genuine emotions of people who, through global media, have witnessed brutal injustices, suffering and destruction inflicted by Israel—not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank and across Palestine. These individuals protested from a sense of humanity, disillusioned by governments claiming to uphold human rights, while staying silent in the face of these atrocities.
The ambassador then justifies Israel’s actions, framing its genocidal war on Gaza as necessary to restore “deterrence”. He suggests Israel “had no other option” but to take extreme measures, downplaying the devastating toll: the deaths of over 16,000 children and 11,000 women, the destruction of schools, hospitals, places of worship and the targeting of medical personnel and journalists. For a senior diplomat to portray these actions as essential to restoring Israel’s deterrent power is alarming, as he appears to endorse not only the war but even a permanent Occupation of Gaza, regardless of the horrific costs to human life and diplomatic credibility.
While the ambassador repeatedly invokes “self-defence” to justify the war on Gaza and Lebanon, he ignores the fact that Israel occupies Palestinian land and parts of Lebanon—the real starting point for any discussion on defence. Israel’s unprecedented military onslaught on Gaza, backed by US diplomatic and military support, appears far removed from internationally recognised standards of lawful self-defence: immediacy, simultaneity and proportionality. Israel’s actions do not reflect these principles, suggesting something far from genuine self-defence.
Further, the ambassador never acknowledges Palestinians’ right to self-defence, a right that Article 51 of the UN Charter grants to any nation under attack, until the UN Security Council can restore peace. Ironically, rather than proposing diplomatic solutions, the ambassador leans towards further violence. Would he care to explain what alternatives the Israeli government has offered?
This Israeli administration, under Netanyahu, has escalated regional tensions and openly dismissed the prospect of peace, with Netanyahu himself opposing the Oslo Accords in 1993. Unsurprisingly, the Israeli Knesset voted against establishing a Palestinian State. Let’s be clear: a Palestinian State exists, recognised by nearly 150 countries, including the nation the ambassador represents, yet it remains under Occupation. Netanyahu has advanced the misleading notion that a Palestinian State cannot exist outside of negotiations. But negotiations should address contentious issues—Jerusalem, water, borders—not deny the existence of a State. Curiously, the ambassador refers to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, though the country he represents does not recognise it as such. For any diplomat, international law should guide foreign policy.
UN resolutions clarify that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are null and void. Resolution 476 reiterates this, while Resolution 478 condemns Israel’s claim to Jerusalem in the “Basic Law”, and the UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly requested that diplomatic missions not be located in Jerusalem.
If the ambassador intended objectivity, he would avoid loaded Israeli terminology—such as “Jewish State” five times in his post. Benjamin Netanyahu first used the term “the Jewish state” prominently in his speech to the UN General Assembly in 2011, emphasizing it in the context of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
The ambassador closes by lauding values Israel purportedly represents, suggesting they are in decline in the West. Perhaps he has not spoken with ordinary citizens in Western countries who, after witnessing over a year of ongoing genocide, question what values Israel now stands for. To assert that Israel’s “successes” reflect the permanence of these values ignores the many who view the Israeli government, particularly under Netanyahu’s watch, as embodying a regime bent on war, increasingly isolated and operating with unbridled impunity.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241030-diplomacy-or-bias-responding-to-a-former-ambassadors-views-on-the-middle-east/
--------
If It Wasn’t For The Arabs, The Situation In Palestine Would Be Much Worse
October 30, 2024
By Suhail Kewan
The most damning question heard these days is, “Where are the Arabs?” This is usually followed by insults about Arabs. I will not address the relationship of non-Arab Muslims with Palestine, because this requires a different and more complex type of research than that related to the Arabs.
Where are the Arabs when it comes to the genocide of an Arab nation in Palestine? How can all of this happen while the Palestinians are surrounded by 400 million Arabs? Such questions are repeated by their friends with regret and pain, and their enemies repeat them mockingly to discourage them.
The truth is that the Arabs are present, and if it wasn’t for the Arabs the cause of the Palestinian people would have disappeared since 1948, the year of the Nakba. While it is true that we would have hoped for something greater than this, if it wasn’t for the Arab people’s presence around Palestine, the Palestinian people would have disappeared. They would have been in danger of extinction in a world ruled by force and turmoil, and in light of the unlimited colonial support for the occupation state, which was established as a “bastion” of civilisation and the US-European spearhead in the flank of the Arab homeland.
Some of them have exploited it for their own interests; some have used it as a bridge to work for the West; and some regard themselves to be the sole protectors of Palestine and Jerusalem and so they should be the reference point. In any case, Palestine has not been absent. Why? Simply because the Arab people have never given up on Palestine being the top Arab cause. Even when these countries are involved in civil or foreign wars, the Palestinian cause has always been present, and that is because the Arab people and most of their intellectuals have not abandoned Palestine.
The Zionist media tries to portray the Arabs as enemies of the Palestinians on the popular level, which is why they hunt down individuals through whom they promote their narrative. Hence, we see pictures of someone wearing a red and white keffiyeh attacking the Palestinians, followed by electronic flies supporting him and others opposing him and cursing him. This individual or a few others appear as if they represent a specific Arab nation, but it is a false image of the feelings of the Arab people in these countries towards the Palestinians and what they are exposed to.
This is similar to the situation when Arabs from outside Palestine see an Arab soldier in the occupation army calling for killing “saboteurs” and another praising Israel and criticising the resistance, and it seems to those who are on the outside that these are “Arab Israelis”. It makes it seem as if all of them are like that Arab soldier in the occupation army.
After the siege of Beirut in 1982 and the expulsion of the Palestinian resistance movement from Lebanon, several Arab countries embraced the leaders and fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). They would not have done this had their people not sympathised with the Palestinians, which is important, because, as everyone knows, the ambitions of the Zionists are not limited to Palestine; they want to occupy neighbouring Arab countries, and take their wealth. They also act as a contractor for Western interests.
More than 95 per cent of the Arab people support the Palestinians, and their right to struggle by all available means. A very high percentage of them consider Palestine to be an issue that concerns them and concerns their religious beliefs, not just their national loyalties. The Arab regimes limit the energy that the Arab people can expend in support of Palestine, restricting them and tricking them.
Moreover, we must acknowledge that many Arab regimes have supported the Palestinians financially with billions of dollars since the founding of the PLO.
In addition to financial support, there is Arab support at the UN and other international organisations, although it is not sufficient and does not match the level of South Africa’s support for the Palestinians in the current genocidal war. However, we cannot ignore the popular support for Palestine in the form of mass demonstrations held in a number of Arab cities, even in Arab countries that have normalised relations with Israel. The position of the people often differs from the positions of the regimes.
A survey conducted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy at the end of 2023, about two months after 7 October, showed that 95 per cent of Saudi citizens support the Palestinians, and 91 per cent of them believe that the resistance groups defend all Arabs and Muslims.
All Arab peoples, without exception, support the Palestinians, and they consider any resistance achievement as their own, and celebrate it, to whatever degree they are allowed to express themselves. Many are oppressed by their regimes and unable to express themselves because of this.
I often monitor responses from various Arab countries to news on social media, and I see thousands of people supporting the Palestinian resistance groups and sympathising with them. They voice opposition to their rulers who are complicit with the occupation, and they apologise for their helplessness.
One Arab sheikh, a Kuwaiti I believe, asked his guests at a wedding feast not to post pictures of the food because there are hungry Arabs in the region, alluding to the Palestinians in Gaza. The issue has popular regional support.
All Arab nations are preoccupied with their own issues, internal wars and divisions, such as those in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Iraq. There are also disagreements over the issue of the Western Sahara. The Arab countries themselves are suffering and are under attack and at the centre of plans that seek to undermine and weaken them. Nevertheless, no matter how complicit, selfish and subservient to the West they might be, regimes cannot eliminate the relationship between the Arab people and Palestine and its people.
Insulting Arabs and making generalisations about an Arab nation because of a few individuals is a grave mistake. This only serves those who actually want to isolate the Palestinians from their brothers, and those who seek to destroy the Arabs.
We must not be drawn into the provocations of some ignorant people and must not give them more time than they deserve. The Arabs are a great people, without whom the Palestinian cause would not have survived. If that had happened, the field would have been left clear for Zionism, with Western support, to eliminate the cause forever.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241030-if-it-wasnt-for-the-arabs-the-situation-in-palestine-would-be-much-worse/
---------
Journalists On Middle East’s Front Lines Paying The Price Of Truth
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
October 30, 2024
As night descends over Beirut’s suburbs, the sounds of bombs are now a familiar and harrowing presence, underscoring an ongoing war that targets not only civilians but the very act of bearing witness. Early last Friday, an Israeli drone struck the Hasbaya region in southern Lebanon, where journalists were gathered, killing three and injuring two more. For these journalists, the risks are part of a bleak routine — a job that, in this region, has resulted into all-too-frequent brushes with death. In the Middle East, journalism is no longer a profession; it is a perilous journey, in which facts are relentlessly under fire and the cost of telling the truth may well be one’s life.
This latest attack marks yet another chapter in a grim pattern, as assaults on journalists by Israeli forces and other actors have become an unmistakable, if tacit, strategy within the region’s conflicts. These incidents bring renewed urgency to the ongoing, often disregarded, call for journalists to be protected — a call that, as many have come to fear, falls on deaf ears amid the cacophony of war.
In regions where violence is ceaseless and the rules of engagement blurred, journalists increasingly find themselves as collateral — or intentional — casualties. The Middle East, in particular, is a notorious killing ground for journalists. Reporters Without Borders ranks it as the world’s most dangerous region for media professionals, a title it has held for decades. In October 2023 alone, at least 30 journalists died covering the hostilities in Gaza, many of them locals documenting the tragedies within their own communities. Lebanon’s quieter yet persistent turmoil has also claimed more journalists over recent years; casualties of a volatile political climate and residual violence from the Syrian civil war that continues to reverberate throughout the region.
In the 12 months following the Oct. 7 attacks, 70 percent of all journalists and media workers killed worldwide died in attacks carried out by Israel, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. This staggering statistic exposes the magnitude of risk, as journalists in Gaza and Lebanon’s ongoing wars have to contend with aerial bombardments, ground assaults and the deadly precision of sniper fire.
In regions of turmoil, information is power. Silencing journalists is a chillingly effective way to control narratives, suppress the truth and distort public perception. Press freedom advocates argue that the targeting of journalists has become a calculated tactic in the Middle Eastern conflict playbook. Silencing the media denies populations access to unbiased information, leaving them susceptible to misinformation and manipulation by warring parties. Beyond direct assaults, journalists face an unyielding web of restrictions, shutdowns and interference from all sides. Deliberate attacks on journalists form part of an institutional disregard for press safety that contravenes international conventions.
The consequences ripple beyond the Middle East’s borders. Intimidation and violence deter many foreign correspondents from entering these zones, leading to a scarcity of international coverage. Local journalists, who bear the bulk of this burden, also face elevated dangers as they lack diplomatic protections and often work in the shadow of international neglect. They are subject to detention, harassment and violence, with the knowledge that the laws meant to protect them remain unenforced or ignored.
International conventions, including the Geneva Conventions, assert that journalists are civilians who should be protected in war zones. Yet, in practice, enforcement is alarmingly rare. The cases of only one in 10 murdered journalists are properly investigated, according to the UN, allowing perpetrators to act without fear of repercussions. For journalists in Gaza, Lebanon and similar conflict areas, the law offers little sanctuary. Amid the territorial disputes and political fragmentation that define these regions, prosecutions of those who harm journalists remain rare, further emboldening those who view the press as a threat.
UNESCO and the Committee to Protect Journalists have continuously urged warring parties to respect journalistic neutrality. But in an environment where media workers are regarded as adversaries, these appeals are frequently disregarded. Without stronger enforcement mechanisms and a genuine commitment to accountability, the international legal protections meant to shield journalists are nothing more than paper promises.
The struggle for journalistic safety in conflict zones has prompted a surge in advocacy from organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists. These groups call for robust protections, proposing measures like internationally monitored safe zones for journalists and specialized task forces to investigate attacks. Some advocates urge the International Criminal Court to classify attacks on journalists as war crimes, hoping this will deter future violations and hold perpetrators accountable.
Despite mounting deaths and continuous threats, journalists in Gaza, Lebanon and other conflict regions remain committed to exposing the raw truths of war; a commitment they honor even as the risks escalate. Their work serves as an unfiltered lens through which the world glimpses the human cost of conflict — if only briefly, as these glimpses are often obscured by the darkness of suppression and violence.
Amid relentless chaos and fear, the question of “until when?” reverberates; a haunting echo that underscores the high-stakes game of journalism in the Middle East. As journalists press forward into perilous zones, they do so with the knowledge that their lives may become part of the story — a chilling testament to the bloodstained ground upon which they tread.
The world’s awareness of global suffering, conflict and injustice hinges on those willing to document and disseminate the truth. If these front-line truth-tellers continue to face unparalleled risks without significant protections, the consequences will ripple far beyond the Middle East, signaling a loss for truth, transparency and humanity. Protecting journalists is no longer merely a matter of policy; it is an ethical imperative that is essential to sustaining a world that values accountability, humanity and, above all, the right to know.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2577445
--------
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/iran,-russia-russia-israel-iran-palestine/d/133590
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