Middle East Press on: Iran, Jewish, Genocide, Olim, War, ICC ,UNRWA: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 November 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
14 November 2024
Iran’s Jewish Question Is Ancient Suspicion And The “Dual Loyalty”
Israel Must Seize Historic Opportunity To Welcome One Million Olim In 2025
End Of Empathy: Did The Gaza Genocide Render The UN Irrelevant?
The Reasons For Syria’s Neutrality On The Israel War
A New Deterrence For Lebanon Is Needed To Avoid A Long War With Israel
Netanyahu Chose ICC Over GCC, And Is Likely To Get What He Wished For
The Spillover Effect Of Israel’s Banning Of UNRW
------
Iran’s Jewish Question Is Ancient Suspicion And The “Dual Loyalty”
By Dr. Haim Ben Yakov
NOVEMBER 14, 2024
In a recent interview on Iranian state television, General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, a senior figure in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, launched a scathing critique against the Jewish people. He claimed that Jews have “caused suffering to the Muslim world throughout history” and, citing the Qur’an, referred to Jews as the “greatest enemies of Muslims.”
Asadi, who once commanded Iranian forces in Syria, went further, stating that “Jews have neither honor nor dignity” and that they “disgrace all of humanity.” He continued with an inflammatory rhetorical question: “If those who committed genocide in Gaza are not Jews, then who are they?” He then called on Jews worldwide, asking, “Where are the Jews who would appeal to the U.S. and Europe, complaining that Israel shames them?”
Such statements, as noted by analysts at the Jerusalem Centre for Foreign Affairs (JCFA), highlight a worrying level of state-sanctioned anti-Semitic incitement within Iran, home to a small but resilient Jewish community of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 people.
In the broader debate over “dual loyalty”—a concept as old as the Jewish diaspora itself—such statements cross numerous red lines. Accusations of dual loyalty have historically fuelled claims of Jewish hostility toward host nations, a trend that is by no means confined to authoritarian Iran.
The allegation operates on an embedded suspicion that any Jew living outside Israel is inherently loyal to the Jewish state and acts according to its interests, above all else. Historically, Jewish communities navigated such suspicions by grounding their interactions with the authorities in a Talmudic principle known as “dina de-malkhuta dina,” or “the law of the land is the law.”
First articulated by the third-century sage Shmuel, this principle has been a cornerstone of Jewish thought for centuries. Yet this rule, though categorical, is by no means absolute. It does not imply unqualified submission or full loyalty to every ruling power under all circumstances.
In my recent book, “Suitcase, Train Station, Israel: A History of Soviet Antisemitism,” published last week in London in Russian, I discuss how modern interpretations maintain that this principle applies only under conditions of equal citizenship. When host nations deny Jews equal treatment, total loyalty to such foreign regimes is not required.
The problem of dual loyalty has inspired dozens of recent studies. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reports that accusations of dual loyalty are one of the most prevalent antisemitic tropes today. A survey showed that 41% of people in certain countries believe this stereotype, equating to around 1.7 billion individuals worldwide.
Additionally, 29% of respondents think Jews wield “excessive” power and influence globally. The late Manfred Gerstenfeld, a noted historian and head of the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, argued that these myths lay a “fertile ground” for further anti-Semitic beliefs.
Gerstenfeld pointed out that if Israel’s interests clash with those of a Jewish individual’s country of residence, anti-Semites may accuse that individual of siding with Israel, suggesting, in essence, “You’re not one of us.” In its most extreme form, the accusation of dual loyalty implies outright betrayal.
Ironically, suspicions of Jews as an alien “fifth column”—one aligned with foreign interests, including Israel—resurfaced with renewed intensity after World War II, even in victorious Allied nations such as the Soviet Union. The issue continues to provoke debate, anxiety, and even dread among Jewish communities worldwide, including Iran’s. For Iranian Jews, such rhetoric is more than a casual provocation; it signals yet another peril in a centuries-old narrative of suspicion.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-829069
------
Israel Must Seize Historic Opportunity To Welcome One Million Olim In 2025
By Idan Tendler
NOVEMBER 14, 2024
In the early 1990s, one million new olim arrived in Israel and gave it a big boost forward. In 2025, we should and can bring the next million.
In the early 1990s, the unprecedented wave of aliyah followed the fall of the USSR. A million olim came to Israel and ensured that the country would keep growing. Academics, doctors, teachers, and others pushed Israel to become an emerging country in the West and one of the most promising.
Israel is now on the verge of a similar opportunity – in 2025, a million Jews could arrive in Israel. A combination of tragic circumstances – the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, a nearly unprecedented rise in antisemitism and violence against Jews in the US and Europe, and an awakening of Zionist sentiments among the Jewish people – have created a historic opportunity for Zionism.
Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas War, over 30,000 Jewish people worldwide have applied for Aliyah. Reports in the US say that since October 7, there has been an increase of 200% in anti-Semitic incidents. And on American campuses? We’ve seen the farce of leaders from the most prestigious universities in the US refusing to admit that calling for the murder of the Jewish people is racism. This might explain a rise of 500% in anti-Semitic incidents on campuses this past year.
The pogrom in Amsterdam, one of the safest cities for Jews in Europe, has shown that under the surface, the hatred of Jews and of Israel is worse than it has been in a long time. In France, anti-Semitic incidents have become four times more common in the last year. And the result? Some 38% of French Jews, or about 200,000 people, are now considering leaving the country.
Until October 7, the trend in America had been clear and unfortunate – American Jews had been detaching themselves slowly but surely from Israel. Then it flipped. Zionism has taken centre stage again.
Israel should take advantage of an opportunity
Key people in the Jewish community whom I know personally, who work in tech, medicine, and academia, have started talking positively about making Aliyah. Some of them are families of Israelis who have already emigrated to the US; some are Jews who have never spent a day in Israel, but all of them decided it is time to come back.
Many have children who have already made Aliyah so that they can be conscripted into the army. They’ve joined elite combat units, despite and because of the times we live in.
WHAT HAS Israel done to take advantage of this opportunity? Basically, nothing. Instead of starting a massive campaign to encourage Aliyah and create special benefits for olim, the state is cancelling existing benefits.
The new state budget is making a dramatic cut in the “absorption basket” of financial assistance given to new olim. It boggles the mind to read these clauses hiding in the new Economic Arrangements legislation.
According to the law, olim holding assets worth more than half a million shekels (about $135,00) will not receive an absorption basket. Thus, Israel is deliberately discouraging the affluent, academics, families, and property owners from making Aliyah. But these are exactly the potential olim whom we want and who are able to come to Israel – the people who are needed in Israel now more than ever.
The State of Israel must do two things immediately:
1. Launch a campaign to encourage Aliyah. Use Israeli hasbara (public diplomacy) and communication platforms – both the official government one (which for some reason has yet to be established), and the unofficial one (social media influencers and the hasbara organizations that citizens have started this past year) to reach Jews worldwide through social media. Take advantage of the ability of the Jewish Agency and other international organizations to attract Jews from all over the world to Israel.
2. Set generous benefits for olim. The Aliyah and Integration Ministry should, through the finance minister, cancel the benefit cuts. Instead, the government should triple the size of the absorption basket that new olim receive. Olim who own many assets must be encouraged more, not less.
The goal: One million olim in 2025. It’s possible, it’s necessary, it’s time.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828992
-----
End Of Empathy: Did The Gaza Genocide Render The UN Irrelevant?
By Dr Ramzy Baroud
November 13, 2024
Francesca Albanese did not mince her words. In a strongly worded speech at the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee on 29 October, the UN Special Rapporteur deviated from the typical line of other UN officials. She directed her statements to those in attendance.
“Is it possible that after 42,000 people killed, you cannot empathise with the Palestinians?” Albanese said in her statement about the need to “recognise (Israel’s war on Gaza) as a genocide”. “Those of you who have not uttered a word about what is happening in Gaza demonstrate that empathy has evaporated from this room,” she added.
Was Albanese too idealistic when she chose to appeal to empathy which, in her words, represents “the glue that makes us stand united as humanity”?
The answer largely depends on how we wish to define the role being played by the UN and its various institutions; whether its global platform was established as a guarantor of peace, or as a political club for those with military might and political power to impose their agendas on the rest of the world?
Albanese is not the first person to express deep frustration with the institutional, let alone the moral collapse of the UN, or the inability of the institution to effect any kind of tangible change, especially during times of great crises.
The UN’s own Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, himself had accused the executive branch of the UN, the Security Council, of being “outdated”, “unfair” and an “ineffective system”.
“The truth is that the Security Council has systematically failed in relation to the capacity to put an end to the most dramatic conflicts that we face today,” he said, referring to “Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine”. Also, although noting that “The UN is not the Security Council”, Guterres acknowledged that all UN bodies “suffer from the fact that the people look at them and think, ‘Well, but the Security Council has failed us.’”
Some UN officials, however, are mainly concerned about how the UN’s failure is compromising the standing of the international system, thus whatever remains of their own credibility. But some, like Albanese, are indeed driven by an overriding sense of humanity.
On 28 October, 2023, mere weeks after the start of the war, the Director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights left his post because he could no longer find any room to reconcile between the failure to stop the war in Gaza and the credibility of the institution.
“This will be my last communication to you,” Craig Mokhiber wrote to the UN High Commissioner in Geneva, Volker Turk. “Once again we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes and the organisation we serve appears powerless to stop it,” Mokhiber added.
The phrase “once again” may explain why the UN official made his decision to leave shortly after the start of the war. He felt that history was repeating itself, in all its gory details, while the international community remained divided between powerlessness and apathy.
The problem is multi-layered, complicated by the fact that UN officials and employees do not have the power to alter the very skewed structure of the world’s largest political institution. That power lies in the hands of those who wield political, military, financial and veto power.
Within that context, countries like Israel can do whatever they want, including outlawing the very UN organisations that have been commissioned to uphold international law, as the Israeli Knesset did on 28 October when it passed a law banning UNRWA from conducting “any activity” or providing services in Israel and the Occupied Territories.
But is there a way out?
Many, especially in the Global South, believe that the UN has outlived its usefulness or needs serious reforms.
These assessments are valid, based on this simple maxim: The UN was established in 1945 with the main objectives of the “maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of the well-being of the peoples of the world, and international cooperation to these ends.”
Very little of the above commitment has been achieved. In fact, not only has the UN failed at that primary mission, but it has become a manifestation of the unequalled distribution of power among its members.
Though the UN was formed following the atrocities of WWII, now it stands largely useless in its inability to stop similar atrocities in Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan and elsewhere.
In her speech, Albanese pointed out that, if the UN’s failures continue, its mandate will become even “more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world”, especially during these times of turmoil.
Albanese is right, of course, but considering the irreversible damage that has already taken place, one can hardly find a moral, let alone rational justification of why the UN, at least in its current form, should continue to exist.
Now that the Global South is finally rising with its own political, economic and legal initiatives, it is time for these new bodies to either offer a complete alternative to the UN or push for serious and irreversible reforms in the organisation.
Either that or the international system will continue to be defined by nothing but apathy and self-interest.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241113-end-of-empathy-did-the-gaza-genocide-render-the-un-irrelevant/
------
The Reasons For Syria’s Neutrality On The Israel War
By Hussein Abdul Aziz
November 13, 2024
The Syrian regime’s distancing itself from the Israeli war in Gaza is understandable, due to the cold relations between it and Hamas, and the unfeasibility of military support for the Resistance due to the geographical distance.
However, the Syrian regime’s distancing itself from the Israeli massacre against Hezbollah and its supporters raises many question marks for those who have not closely examined the regime’s policy over the past five decades.
Since the era of Hafez Al-Assad, the Syrian regime has adopted a policy of the art of the possible, and playing on the margins available, regionally and internationally, with a high-level political sense of risks. This makes it retreat and resort to its usual strategy based on going through the stages in the hope of changes occurring in its favour.
The Syrian regime did not need an Israeli warning through an Arab mediator after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, nor a direct Russian warning to refrain from participating in this war and not provide assistance to the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance, as it realised that Israel and the world would be different than it was before 7 October, 2023, and that Israel would launch a fierce military attack against every geographical spot participating in the war.
This approach was quite clear to Damascus, which presented a lacklustre media discourse regarding the war. Then it removed its forces from the locations where pro-Iran forces were positioned. Moreover, Al-Assad did not attend the funeral of former Iranian President, Ebrahim Raisi, in a clear political message directed not only to Tehran, but also to other concerned capitals, signifying that there is a difference between Damascus and Tehran regarding what is happening in the region.
This does not mean what media reports and what the Iranian Revolutionary Leader, Ali Khamenei, have said about attempts to remove Syria from regional equations through various methods, is true, referring to attempts to tempt the Syrian regime with lifting sanctions imposed on it and ending its international isolation.
The Syrian position is not at all related to Arab temptations, as these temptations have existed since 2011, and continue to exist, and the regime cannot distance itself from Iran due to the existential link between the two regimes that goes beyond the limits of normal interests between countries.
The Syrian-Iranian relationship is a supra-strategic relationship based on strong overlap and interconnection at all levels, and the Syrian regime cannot risk abandoning Iran for the sake of Arab countries whose interests may change in the medium term and turn against it.
On the other hand, the regime realises that the Arab demands will not be satisfied with merely distancing itself from Tehran, but will be followed by other demands related to the internal political situation. This is something that the regime will not compromise on at all, after the military successes it has achieved over the past years with Iranian and Russian support.
Accordingly, Syrian neutrality cannot be explained based on Arab temptations, but rather based on its internal situation, as the regime today is no longer what it was before 2011. It only possesses a weak military force, a primitive arsenal of weapons compared to Israel’s capabilities, a faltering economy and a human population that does not meet the requirements of war, not to mention its loss of its chemical weapons.
Moreover, its territory is divided into three areas, and it has two hostile powers (Turkiye and the US), and a social situation that is likely to explode, a factor of which is the Sweida protests.
Within this complex equation, the Syrian regime only has purely domestic goals, in the form of, firstly, maintaining authority and its continuity in light of the geopolitical earthquake, and not weakening the remaining military force it is saving for its major battle, i.e., regaining control over the territories controlled by the opposition and the Syrian Democratic Forces.
For the sake of achieving these goals, the regime distanced itself from the war, but the escalation of tension between Iran and Israel and Tehran’s attempt to exploit Syrian territory, prompted the regime, with Russian support, to take practical steps, firstly by closing the human gathering centres that Iran had established to bring fighters to Lebanon; secondly by refraining from transferring weapons to Hezbollah, leaving this matter to the Iranian forces only and, thirdly, by restricting Hezbollah’s movement and pro-Iran militias to the Golan Heights, the Damascus countryside governorates and the Homs desert.
This policy prevents the regime being exposed to any Israeli attacks that might lead to the collapse of its power, which the opposition forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces might exploit.
This policy also allows it to get closer to the so-called “moderate Arab countries” that have an interest in eliminating the Resistance in Gaza and Lebanon. These are the countries that the Syrian regime relies on, not only to re-strengthen its Arab presence but, more importantly, to be a strong factor in convincing the US to change its approach towards Syria. Perhaps the regime’s neutral position on the Israeli war will be one of the main points used by these countries to pressure Washington.
It will not be surprising that, after the war ends, the Syrian regime will turn into an obstacle and an impenetrable barrier to Iran in sending weapons to Hezbollah.
The “axis of Resistance” has practically ended, and the Syrian regime has begun to accept the Arab moderation that it fought for decades, as long as it ensures it remains in power. The mask has fallen, and the national constants have fallen in favour of pragmatism steeped in opportunism.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241113-the-reasons-for-syrias-neutrality-on-the-israel-war/
-----
A New Deterrence For Lebanon Is Needed To Avoid A Long War With Israel
By Sami Halabi
13 Nov 2024
Following the re-election of former US President Donald Trump, efforts to negotiate a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel have seemingly gained momentum. On Monday, US special envoy Amos Hochstein and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer met in Washington to discuss the matter.
In October, Hochstein traveled to Beirut, but his visit bore no fruit, as he made clear that for the US, “both sides simply committing to [United Nations Security Council Resolution] 1701 is not enough” and that there needs to be a new “formula that brings an end to this conflict once and for all”. Casting aside UN decisions appears to have become commonplace among US officials of late, with disastrous consequences.
In their latest offer, Israel and the US are demanding that Lebanon accept a new arrangement in which Israeli troops can engage in “active enforcement” of demilitarisation in southern Lebanon. In other words, Israel would have effective military control over Lebanese territory.
No sovereign nation – or non-state actor – would ever agree to such terms. Neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah would give up their military deterrence. Therefore, US and Israeli insistence on these new conditions will only prolong the war.
Building a new consensus around Resolution 1701 remains the only viable path towards peace.
The resolution brought to an end Israel’s last war with Lebanon in 2006, acting as a mechanism to stop the hostilities and outlining measures to clear the border area of armed group presence. Although there were issues with its full implementation – which both sides were aware would happen – it effectively put an end to the fighting.
Commitment to its implementation can stop hostilities this time as well. And Hezbollah must make the first move.
The grim prospect of a long war
On Sunday, Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that after 40 days of intense fighting, Hezbollah has been defeated. “Now it is our job to continue to put pressure in order to bring about the fruits of that victory,” he reportedly said during an official ceremony.
Israel seems to be convinced that it can bring Hezbollah to capitulation by force. However, going for a military solution in Lebanon means war that will not be anything like the 2006 conflict.
Back then, Israel’s ground offensive faltered, and public support eroded as losses mounted. Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu has the Israeli public’s backing, buoyed by military successes that have eliminated Hezbollah’s leadership and disrupted its communications networks.
Despite these losses, Hezbollah is also better prepared, better equipped, and arguably more disciplined than in 2006. It’s little wonder that Israel has not managed to gain more than a few miles of ground in since its land incursions began and the daily rocket salvoes directed at northern and central Israel continue.
Barring some major change or diplomatic shift under the incoming Trump administration that would put pressure on Israel, all of this means that we are in for a very long war.
An essential deterrent
Hezbollah restarted hostilities with Israel in support of its ally Hamas and, up until recently, made a ceasefire with Israel contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza. The group knows that while many Lebanese understand its ongoing intervention, many are also dissatisfied, to say the least, with its actions over the past two decades.
By propping the Syrian regime in the 2010s, helping maintain the rule of the corrupt Lebanese elite when the economy collapsed in 2019, and blocking the investigation into the 2020 Beirut port blast, Hezbollah has made a lot of enemies at home and abroad and has had to rely almost completely on Iran for diplomatic leverage and military prowess.
Its refusal to integrate into a national defence strategy by maintaining its weapons outside of the command and control of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) has also led to a colossal mismanagement of national security and left the country vulnerable to Israel’s far superior military.
The devastation Israel is wreaking across Lebanon is also a major cause for concern. The longer the huge displacement from the south and east of the country continues, the more social tensions and anger towards Hezbollah will grow.
At the same time, Hezbollah’s deterrent arsenal of missiles and fighters is Lebanon’s only real bargaining chip. Without Hezbollah, Israel’s Merkava tanks would almost certainly roll into Beirut and install a puppet regime, facing little resistance along the way.
The Lebanese calling for Hezbollah to give up its arms for peace are either living in a fantasy world or are just terrible negotiators.
That said, if Hezbollah wants to salvage any semblance of Lebanese unity, the onus is on it to come to the table with a political plan for the implementation of Resolution 1701. It also needs to prove it can work within a national framework, not just act as an Iranian proxy.
Given the distrust among its detractors, for these initiatives to work they would need to happen in phases. For starters, Hezbollah would need to explain how it will formally coordinate with the LAF to form a joint deterrent force, just like it did in 2017 when they fought together against ISIL (ISIS). In addition, Hezbollah will need to accept that the national army and government speak on its behalf and that it needs to take its place in such a configuration without the threat of arms or veto power over political decisions.
From there, the party will need to elaborate on Lebanon’s national defence strategy, which can’t rely solely on the woefully under-resourced LAF. That strategy needs Hezbollah’s arms – but with a clear roadmap for integration.
New deterrence framework
Any new defence strategy that leaves Lebanon without a deterrent against Israel’s war machine is bound to fail and reinforce the justification for Iran and Hezbollah to maintain a non-state deterrent. Talk of a new national security framework and support for the LAF at conferences like the one organised by France in late October remains irrelevant, as it comes without concrete security guarantees for Lebanon.
If French President Emmanuel Macron, or any other Western leader, were serious about supporting Lebanon, they would offer something more concrete than mere talk of an arms embargo on Israel. France could offer Rafale jets or air defence systems, for instance, which would allow the LAF to establish its own deterrence.
Of course, that would mean France overstepping the US in terms of material support to the LAF – something that is unlikely before, at the very least, a well-defined stance on Lebanon’s national defence is made by Hezbollah and Iran.
What is clear at this stage is that an international diplomatic solution is needed, but not one which discards the consensus reached in 2006. The West and the incoming Trump administration need to face the fact that without a return to Resolution 1701, security guarantees and a military deterrent for Lebanon, wars with Israel will continue.
Hezbollah and Iran also need to understand they cannot run a private army in Lebanon and get away with it without deadly consequences. Otherwise, everyone will find themselves back on the battlefield talking about yet another “new formula”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/13/a-new-deterrence-for-lebanon-is-needed-to-avoid-a-long-war-with-israel
----
Netanyahu Chose ICC Over GCC, And Is Likely To Get What He Wished For
Faisal J. Abbas
November 13, 2024
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to enter the White House, pivotal moments in the past few weeks make it abundantly clear that the climate for both US and Israeli foreign policy will be very different next January.
Israel would be well advised to understand that it cannot continue to ignore the global call for justice and peace. Led by Saudi Arabia, the region is showing a unity and assertiveness not seen in years, and is having an influence worldwide.
Statements from Saudi leaders and the outcomes of international summits indicate that the era of unchecked Israeli actions is coming to an end. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would do well to pay close attention: the geopolitical environment is no longer one he can control through political manoeuvring or the goodwill of the US or other sympathetic allies.
At last month’s Future Investment Initiative summit in Riyadh, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan made a powerful and unambiguous statement. Asked about the possibility of a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, he told Becky Anderson of CNN that such a deal was “off the table.” This is a message that Israel should interpret as a red line, not a negotiating tactic. There is no mood in the region for another round of Abraham Accords that ignore Palestinian statehood.
Whether Israel still cares about normalizing ties with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world is irrelevant. Its leaders should realize that with so much blood on their hands, nobody will be willing to shake them: in fact, the mood now is for Israel to be punished for its violations and held accountable under international law.
Saudi Arabia again took a public and uncompromising stance against Israeli aggression at this week’s Arab-Islamic Summit. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not mince words in addressing the escalating violence in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. Describing Israel’s actions as genocide, the crown prince called for the international community to recognize the devastation being wreaked upon the Palestinian people. His condemnation was met with unanimous support in the summit’s final communique, which reinforced Saudi Arabia’s push for a unified stance on the Palestinian issue and a commitment to the two-state solution: which, since it is already accepted by the UN, does not legally need Israel’s approval.
For decades, the concept of a two-state solution has been the global consensus for peace between Israel and Palestine. But with each passing year, Israel’s expansionist policies and the continued suffering in Gaza erode this possibility, leaving the region on the brink of perpetual conflict. Saudi Arabia’s leadership, however, offers a way forward, not just for Palestinians, but for regional stability. The Kingdom’s recent moves reflect an effort to build a coalition of nations committed to real solutions, not just words. From Riyadh to Rabat, from Cairo to Jakarta, Muslim-majority nations are coming together to insist on Palestinian self-determination and an end to the violence that has plagued the region for generations.
For Netanyahu, the situation could not be clearer. His long-standing strategy of appealing to Western allies while ignoring the Arab and Muslim world is now facing a stern test. He may be counting on the support of a sympathetic administration in Washington, but there are limits to what that can shield him from. The days when the US could unconditionally veto international action against Israel are fading. A new American leadership will take office with a united Arab and Islamic world, along with a substantial portion of the international community, all pushing for accountability and a concrete two-state solution.
One need only look at the legal landscape to understand the pressure now mounting on Israel. Legal action for its actions in Gaza has already reached international courts, including the International Criminal Court, with allegations of war crimes and genocide. Netanyahu and his government might believe that they are immune to such legal repercussions, or that international law can be circumvented by powerful allies. However, as Saudi Arabia has shown, the tide is turning. The era of impunity is being challenged, and the global coalition building around Palestine is not one Israel can simply brush off.
At the core of this shift is the undeniable reality of Gaza. The horrors that have unfolded there cannot be dismissed as collateral damage or “self-defence.” It is, by many accounts and definitions, genocide, the systematic destruction of a people. Images of children suffering, families torn apart, and entire neighbourhoods reduced to rubble have mobilized people worldwide. The world, including Israel's neighbours, is saying “enough.” Saudi Arabia’s stance is not isolated: it is part of a growing demand for accountability. Israel cannot hope to maintain its current trajectory without facing consequences.
It is worth noting that Netanyahu’s government had the opportunity to forge historic alliances in the Middle East: a future in which Israel coexists peacefully with the GCC states and the broader Arab and Muslim world was within reach. Instead, by continuing down this path of violence and neglect of human rights, Israel has alienated potential allies and placed itself under scrutiny from international bodies. The choice of peace or isolation remains in Netanyahu’s hands, but the moment to choose is rapidly slipping away.
For Israel, the writing is on the wall. Saudi Arabia, with its influence as both a regional powerhouse and religious leader, is making it clear that the path to peace lies in respecting Palestinian rights and pursuing a genuine two-state solution. Israel must abandon its current approach and realize that there is no longer any “luck” left to rely on. As a global coalition forms, Israel has two options: it can either join the path to peace or find itself increasingly isolated on the world stage.
Israel’s future now hinges on its willingness to embrace a true, sustainable peace. The Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, is ready to support this vision, but it will not compromise on the principles of justice and dignity. It is time for Israel to wake up to the new realities, or risk losing far more than it stands to gain by continuing its current policies.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2579191
-----
The Spillover Effect Of Israel’s Banning Of UNRWA
Zaid M. Belbagi
November 13, 2024
As the war in Gaza continues with no end in sight, the Israeli parliament’s decision last month to sever ties with UNRWA risks adding further volatility to the conflict. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently cancelled the 1967 cooperation agreement that formed the legal basis of Israel’s relations with the UN agency. This agreement provided UNRWA with protection and diplomatic immunity. Foreign Minister Israel Katz said this decision was motivated by Israel’s assessment that UNRWA’s alleged ties to Hamas make it complicit in the ongoing conflict.
Since its establishment in 1949, UNRWA has been a lifeline for Palestinian refugees, delivering vital services such as education, healthcare, food assistance and emergency relief. Its prominence has particularly grown in the last two decades, as the number of refugees dependent on it for food assistance has grown from 80,000 people in 2000 to more than 2 million today. As of 2023, the poverty rate in Gaza stood at 64 percent and in the West Bank it was 12 percent.
This Israeli move will disrupt Gaza’s fragile aid distribution system at a time when the humanitarian crisis has been greatly exacerbated and Israel is facing growing pressures to allow aid into the Strip. The Palestinian Authority is already facing a severe financial crisis amid the war and economic collapse and is struggling to pay public servants. This may increase dependence on Hamas for social services and support, given its role in the governance structure in Gaza. However, this will further delay the resolution of the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
The gap in humanitarian aid caused by UNRWA’s withdrawal from Gaza will inevitably require the support of regional and international actors. Until a formal replacement for UNRWA is established, Egypt and the Gulf states will be faced with the primary responsibility for aid and reconstruction in Gaza, as their geographical location makes them particularly vulnerable to outward migration from the Strip. Since October 2023, the Gulf states have already increased their aid outflow to Gaza and this momentum will continue. In the past year, the UAE has sent more than 50,000 tonnes of urgent supplies to Gaza, while Saudi Arabia, in addition to supplies, has announced a monthly financial grant for Palestinians. The two countries are also among the top 20 UNRWA donors.
The US has traditionally been the largest international donor, although in January it temporarily paused all funding to the organization as a result of Israel’s accusation that 12 Hamas-linked UNRWA staff were involved in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack. Nonetheless, the US will play a key role in filling the aid vacuum in Gaza, as it has expressed deep concern over Israel’s latest move. Moreover, incoming President Donald Trump is keenly focused on regional stability to expedite US military withdrawal from the Middle East. The next US administration may increase the flow of aid to Gaza while encouraging Israel to replace UNRWA.
In response to Israel’s letter to the UN on severing ties with UNRWA, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres highlighted that it is Tel Aviv’s responsibility to establish or appoint a replacement for the aid agency. UNRWA is not the sole aid agency operating in Gaza and the West Bank, with several leading international humanitarian organizations like the Palestine Red Crescent Society, Doctors Without Borders, the UN Population Fund and UNICEF also present. However, UNRWA, known as the “backbone of the humanitarian response in Gaza,” has served as a consolidated anchor agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. It will therefore be a major challenge for a single organization to replace it.
Israel’s decision comes at a critical juncture in the conflict in the Middle East, which, though far from being over, will be followed by a mammoth reconstruction effort in Gaza that could cost nearly $80 billion. Post conflict rebuilding will require not only financial support but also on-the-ground experience of working with Palestinian refugees and authorities, which is UNRWA’s expertise. Due to the lack of a stable political system in Gaza and the West Bank, the removal of UNRWA translates into the removal of the most advanced available administrative structure in the Occupied Territories.
While the Israeli decision is unlikely to be reversed, the international community is likely to encourage Israel to expand the avenues of humanitarian aid into Gaza and to increase cooperation with the other humanitarian agencies present in the region.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2579147
-----
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