Middle East Press On: Ecocide, Israel, UN, Faith, Hezbollah, Lebanon: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 November 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
28 November 2025
After 75 Years: Could Israel Actually Lose Its Un Membership This Time?
The Exodus Of Faith: Israel’s Internal Reckoning
The Ruptured Mirror: How 7 October Broke The Israeli Narrative
As Israel Hunts Leaders, Hezbollah Waits: What Will Another Israeli War On Lebanon Look Like?
The Ecocide In Gaza: Turning A Homeland Into A Death Zone
------
After 75 Years: Could Israel Actually Lose Its UN Membership This Time?
by Dr Mohammad Yousef
November 27, 2025
On 24 November 2025, civil-society actors in Chile launched a campaign calling for the expulsion of Israel from United Nations, invoking UN Charter Article 6. They base their call on what they describe as “continuous and systematic violations” of international humanitarian law and repeated breaches of UN resolutions, particularly in light of ongoing Genocide in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there.
Article 6 of the UN charter states: “A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
This is not the first such call. In September 2025, following Israeli airstrikes on Qatar targeting Hamas officials, Pakistan demanded Israel’s suspension or expulsion from the UN for violating international law and threatening international peace and security. Pakistan’s UN ambassador warned that Israel’s actions risked regional stability and global lawlessness.
Similarly, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), has repeatedly urged Israel’s suspension from the UN, Citing the crime of genocide that Israel committed against Palestinians. Targeting UN premises, violating the UN charter and labeling the UN as a terrorist organization.
The UN Charter provides mechanisms for suspension or expulsion of member states under Articles 5 and 6, while Article 6 deals with the expulsion, Article 5 deals with the suspension.
Historically and since its inception after World War II, the UN has never expelled or suspended any state member from the organization under Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter. However, the attempt to block the South Africa from attending the UNGA meetings was successful, following the U.N. General Assembly approval of the Credentials Committee’s recommendation to cancel the credentials of South Africa, citing the country’s Apartheid-era racial policies.
Multiple attempts were made in order to expel Israel from the UN in the past, but all of them remained unsuccessful due to either political pressure or threats to use the Veto power. The first attempt was in 1975 when Algeria and Syria led a joint campaign aiming on the suspension of Israel from the UNGA, this step requires the recommendation of the UNSC, and due to the U.S veto threat the process was halted. However, alternative ways were explored in order to isolate Israel leading to the UNGA Resolution 3379 adopted in November 1975, which declared Zionism to be “a form of racism and racial discrimination”.
Another attempt was organized by 34 Muslim states and the Soviet Union (USSR). These states sent a letter to the UN General Assembly Credentials Committee requesting Israel’s expulsion from the UNGA. The letter stated:
“Israel’s continued defiance and its flagrant and persistent violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law. Furthermore, we wish to reiterate Israel’s contempt and its defiant challenge to the resolutions of the United Nations as they relate to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East.”
The states further emphasized Israel’s non-adherence to the UN Charter and its violations of obligations, arguing that this makes Israel a non–peace-loving state, which is a requirement for UN membership. This attempt was obstructed by Israel’s allies in the US and western countries. As a result, it failed to gain the required two-thirds majority and remained unsuccessful.
IN 2018, the Kenest passed the Nation-State bill, which in its Article 1(a) states that: “The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established. “The president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas, called the Nations-State Law, “Illegitimate, Racist and apartheid.”. Following this, and in response to this Law, the PA lunched an initiative calling for Israel’s expulsion form the UN. However, this initiative failed and did not progress due to the U.S threat to cut UN funding.
Given the above precedent, the campaign to expel Israel from the UN is legally grounded — but faces dıfrrent type of political pressure and institutional barriers. Any real proposal would require: (a) adoption by the Security Council; (b) absence of vetoes by any of the five permanent members (P5). Given current geopolitical alignments, particularly the support for Israel by some P5 states, such a proposal is unlikely to pass.
Nevertheless, the fact that the legal mechanism exists, coupled with mounting global outrage over Israel’s violations and Genocide in Gaza — equip the call with significant symbolic and political weight. Even if immediate expulsion is unrealistic, pressing for such a step can be part of a broader strategy of international isolation, reputational pressure, and incremental delegitimization.
Because expulsion or suspension of a state member from the UN under Article 5 and 6 is difficult, as it must go through the UNSC and most likely face the U.S Veto power. As of September 2025, the U.S has used its veto 51 times to shield Israel. Acting within the framework of the UN General Assembly has a greater chance of success, particularly given the recent overwhelming support for Palestine and the noticeable shift in many states’ positions in favour of Palestine.
In May 2024, by an overwhelming majority vote, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting the Palestinians’ right to admission to the UN and to obtain full membership in the organization. The resolution passed with 143 votes in favor, 9 against, and 25 abstentions. Similarly, in September 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution calling on Israel to bring an end without delay its unlawful presence, the resolution passed with 124 votes in favour,14 against, and 43 abstentions. On 12 September 2025, the “New York Declaration” supporting a two-state solution was endorsed by 142 UN member states, with just 10 votes against and 12 abstentions.
As with the South Africa case, the credentials of Israel’s delegation can be blocked following a letter to the UNGA Credentials Committee and a two-thirds majority vote by UNGA member states. This scenario is likely to succeed, given the growing global support for the rights of the Palestinian people within the UN.
There is another alternative: appealing to the UN General Assembly resolution “Uniting for Peace.” Adopted on 3 November 1950 (during the Korean War), it was designed to empower the GA when the Security Council is deadlocked by vetoes. Under this mechanism, the GA can convene special emergency sessions and recommend collective measures—including economic, political, or even armed action—against states threatening peace when the UNSC fails to act.
Since proclaiming itself a state on historic Palestine, Israel has repeatedly been accused of war crimes, genocide, and violations of the UN Charter, posing serious threats to international peace. After the October 7th ,2023 until today, over 100,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, more than 1.9 million Gazans and tens of thousands of West Bankers have been forcibly displaced by Israel, Gaza’s healthcare and educational systems massively destroyed by Israel. Within a year or less, Israel has attacked seven countries, violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity, including, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, Iran, Tunisia, and the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel continues to expand its occupation and settlements into the West Bank and Syria, planning de jure annexations and maintaining indefinite military presence.
Given that Israel faces no serious international pressure and collective sanctions, the UN and international community—including states and NGOs—must apply maximum pressure through all possible means. The call to expel Israel from the UN or the suspension of its membership are not a rhetorical measure only — they rest on the clear text of Articles 5 and 6 of the UN Charter. Yet, Political pressure, institutional realities — especially the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members can halt any efforts in this regard.
In this very critical moment in the prolonged legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people against the apartheid regime in Israel, calling for Israel’s expulsion or suspension from the UN, or blocking its credentials in the UNGA, is not only justified but necessary to stop the ongoing genocide and grave violations. States and the international community, through the UN, are obligated to translate diplomatic commitments into tangible actions—isolating Israel politically, legally, economically, and diplomatically—and holding it accountable for its crimes and violations of the UN Charter and international law.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251127-after-75-years-could-israel-actually-lose-its-un-membership-this-time/
------
The Exodus Of Faith: Israel’s Internal Reckoning
by Ranjan Solomon
November 27, 2025
Israel today is grappling not with the battlefield alone, but with a far subtler, far more consequential collapse: the evaporation of confidence among its own citizens. Recent data from the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) paints a disquieting picture. According to the April 2025 survey, more than a quarter of Israelis — approximately 27 per ent — are seriously contemplating leaving the country. For a nation long mythologised as resilient, cohesive, and invincible, these numbers represent not just a shift in sentiment, but an existential fissure.
The timing of the survey amplifies its significance. Conducted before major escalations such as the Israel-Iran war and the high-profile hostage negotiations, the poll nevertheless reflects the early tremors of disillusionment. Israelis’ faith in their nation’s future is faltering; many no longer believe they can reclaim what has been lost. Where once narratives of unity, social cohesion, and collective endurance flourished — particularly after the horror of Hamas’ 7 October 2023 attack — a more sober, anxious, and fractured consciousness is taking root.
To understand this shift, one must first recognise the ideological scaffolding Israel has relied upon for decades. The state’s social and political narrative rested on four pillars: moral clarity, military superiority, unshakeable Western backing, and social cohesion. Each has been critically undermined. Moral clarity has been called into question by the protracted, devastating campaign in Gaza, which has drawn global condemnation for its humanitarian toll. Military supremacy, once a cornerstone of national pride, has been challenged by asymmetrical engagements, extended hostilities, and mounting civilian casualties. Western support, once presumed immutable, is now increasingly conditional and contested in international forums. And social cohesion — long celebrated as a unifying force across diverse ethnic, religious, and political lines — has splintered along multiple fronts, from intra-Jewish ideological divides to tensions with Palestinian citizens of Israel, to discontent among settlers and peripheral communities.
The survey reveals something more than mere dissatisfaction. It reflects a profound disengagement from the Zionist promise itself. For generations, Zionism articulated the vision of a homeland where Jews would find security, prosperity, and collective dignity. That promise, embedded deeply in the Israeli psyche, now seems increasingly hollow. Young Israelis in particular see themselves trapped within a system defined by militarism, political rigidity, and social inequity. They confront sky-high living costs, a widening economic gap, entrenched far-right influence, and an existential political uncertainty that leaves little room for hope. A growing sense of isolation — both geographically and morally — feeds into the contemplation of emigration.
In past crises, Israelis turned to national solidarity, trusting that shared sacrifice and resilience would carry them through. Today, that solidarity is fraying. The government’s handling of hostages and military operations has sparked accusations of incompetence and moral compromise. Conflicts between secular and religious Jews, and between urban elites and peripheral populations, have sharpened long-standing resentments. Palestinian citizens of Israel are increasingly alienated, facing heightened surveillance, harassment, and legal marginalisation. What appeared as national cohesion after 2023 is now recognised as a fragile façade, capable of cracking under stress.
Economic factors exacerbate this psychological erosion. Israel’s reliance on a highly mobile, high-tech economy means that many of those most capable of contributing to growth are the same people now considering departure. Brain drain, investor wariness, and declining tourism are not just economic concerns; they are signals that Israel’s global relevance and internal viability are being questioned. The “Start-Up Nation” myth is being replaced by an image of militarised instability, political dysfunction, and uncertainty over fundamental civil rights.
Internationally, Israel is facing a legitimacy crisis. Protests, UN resolutions, and proceedings in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court underscore a growing global perception of Israel’s moral failings. Once shielded by unquestioning Western support, the country now senses that this foundation is eroding. Moral exceptionalism, which had provided a sense of national security and self-justification, is under assault — leaving a population increasingly anxious about both international standing and domestic future.
Fear has become a defining emotion in Israeli society. Citizens worry that the conflict is unending, that far-right theocracy is gaining permanent political dominance, and that prolonged occupation has become a moral and strategic dead end. Concerns about isolation, economic decline, and generational inheritance of perpetual militarism weigh heavily on public consciousness. The political narrative that once offered pride and purpose has been replaced with existential anxiety.
This fear is compounded by demographic signals. In surveys, it is particularly young, secular, and highly educated Israelis — often those holding second citizenships — who are most likely to consider leaving. In this context, emigration is no longer a mere convenience; it becomes a rational response to an existential crisis. It represents a quiet rejection of the system rather than open rebellion, yet its cumulative impact is enormous: a slow bleed of confidence, talent, and civic engagement.
The fracture is not only ideological or emotional. It is social, political, and generational. The narrative of Israeli resilience — cultivated after every previous crisis — now seems inadequate, even toxic. Young citizens question the very legitimacy of institutions. They see social divisions deepen, government failures multiply, and democratic norms erode under the strain of perpetual conflict and nationalist excess. Civil society, once a source of hope and mediation, finds itself squeezed between militarized governance and public disillusionment.
The implications are profound. Israel is not collapsing in a spectacular, observable implosion; it is dissolving slowly, through attrition in trust, civic engagement, and social cohesion. When a quarter of a population contemplates emigration, it signals a crisis far deeper than policy disputes or temporary fatigue. It reflects a population disengaged from national purpose, uncertain of leadership, and doubting whether the social contract remains credible.
The path forward is uncertain, but the consequences of inaction are clear. Without meaningful political reform, inclusive governance, economic opportunity, and moral accountability, Israel risks further demographic and psychological attrition. National identity, once reinforced by shared purpose and historical narrative, may instead be eroded by fear, alienation, and migration. Every citizen lost to emigration is a citizen removed from the collective project, a fragment of social cohesion dissolved.
Israel’s current crisis demonstrates a critical truth: a state’s endurance is not guaranteed by military victories, global support, or historical mythology. It survives through the faith of its citizens, their belief in shared purpose, and the legitimacy of its institutions. When that faith evaporates, no military shield, no ideological narrative, and no external alliance can compensate. A nation can exist on maps, in embassies, and in treaties — but it lives, truly, only in the hearts of its people.
More than 25 per cent of Israelis now report that they are considering leaving. That is the starkest indicator of evaporation: a nation losing confidence not to external conquest, but to internal despair. For Israel, the challenge is not simply survival in a military or geopolitical sense; it is survival in the moral, psychological, and civic dimensions that define a living, functioning society.
If Israel is to endure, it must confront this reality with honesty. It must rebuild trust, provide economic opportunity, ensure equitable governance, and restore the civic and moral foundations that sustain a nation. Otherwise, the state risks being remembered not as an enduring homeland, but as a society that quietly lost its own people — and with them, the future it promised.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251127-the-exodus-of-faith-israels-internal-reckoning/
------
The Ruptured Mirror: How 7 October Broke The Israeli Narrative
By Jasim Al-Azzawi
November 27, 2025
The world beyond 7 October 2023 is not the same. It is a world that has finally seen beyond the decades-old narrative of a perpetually vulnerable Israel, whose actions were always justified by existential fear. The brutal atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza have inflamed world condemnations. Still, more importantly, they have torn asunder the foundations of this narrative that held Western powers hostage for generations. The collective trauma of 7 October was swiftly overtaken by the shocking spectacle of a no-holds-barred state perpetrating war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide.
The collapse of the old narrative
The Israeli narrative traditionally pivoted on moral high ground and strategic restraint. That image is now broken, buried, and forever finished. The most damning evidence for the prosecution in the Court of global opinion has come from the language used by Israeli leaders themselves.
The declaration of Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on 9 October 2023, for a “complete siege, no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel,” with the dehumanising assertion “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly,” was indeed a statement of intent that shocked the conscience of the civilized world.
Such language, combined with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s invocation of the biblical command “Remember what Amalek has done to you,” has been cited by critics, including the submission by South Africa to the International Court of Justice, as evidence of genocidal intent. Several scholars have noted that this is unusually explicit language.
The sharpest attacks: Voices of the anti-establishment
The most powerful quotations come from voices that were once considered marginal, whose warnings have now been borne out by events. Criticisms that once could easily be dismissed as extreme now reverberate in the mainstream.
As Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, the famous international relations theorist, said shortly after the Hamas attack, it was “Not Terribly Surprising.” Israel was already acting as an “apartheid state” destined to be seen, and condemned, by “growing numbers of people and more and more governments around the world.” His past analysis that Israel had been “unwittingly destroying its own future as a Jewish state” has now become a prophecy fulfilled in the eyes of a galvanized global public.
Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, for many years has been one of Israel’s most ferocious critics. His poignant 2008 commentary rings even truer now: “I don’t respect the crocodile tears-if you had any heart in you, you would be crying for the Palestinians.” The sheer scale of Palestinian suffering finally broke through to force the world to confront the reality to which Finkelstein referred: the narrative used to remember the Holocaust was weaponized to shield the oppressors from accountability.
As Scott Ritter, a former US intelligence officer, succinctly put it: “Americans have no romance left for Israel.” The blind allegiance that was a bedrock of US policy is dissolving, replaced by frustration and disgust over the crimes against humanity being committed with American weaponry and diplomatic cover.
The crack in the American and European walls
The institutional support from the US media, political class, and hitherto solid European allies is showing unprecedented fissures.
In the US Congress, the first significant crack came when centrist Democrat Senator Chris Murphy warned that Israel was committing “strategic and moral mistakes,” and that the civilian death toll would “ultimately going to provide permanent recruiting material to Hamas, and it will be a threat for years to come.” This is not a fringe position: It’s the dawning recognition of the American establishment that unwavering support for the IDF’s unrestrained conduct is actively undermining American security interests.
But the most blistering broadsides have been issued from the very heart of the European political elite: The former head of EU foreign policy, Josep Borrell, issued a scathing salvo, accusing the government of Israel of “carrying out the largest ethnic cleansing operation since the end of the Second World War in order to create a splendid holiday destination.” He added, “Seldom have I heard the leader of a state so clearly outline a plan that fits the legal definition of genocide.” This is, quite frankly, a political atomic bomb—a senior European diplomat, not a Palestinian advocate, using the language of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Meanwhile, a Guardian investigation revealed Israel’s efforts at “Spying, hacking, and intimidation” against the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan. Further, a leading human rights lawyer described an Israeli government plan to create a vast holding area for Palestinians as a “blueprint for crimes against humanity,” which would create a transit camp for deportation, something that is “nothing less than that.” Juxtaposed against a government plan for forced displacement is covert espionage against the ICC. It exposes the Netanyahu regime not as a victim of international bias but as an aggressive actor committed to subverting international law.
Perhaps the political shift was best encapsulated by economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, who bluntly said, “The overwhelming will of the world is for a state of Palestine now… I want it to be imposed on Israel, pure and simple.” As he warned, “Friends do not let friends commit crimes against humanity, much less provide them with the finances and arms to do so,” it would appear Washington’s unconditional support is now seen as complicity in global crime.
The decline of AIPAC and fear
The fear of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, is demonstrably waning. For decades, the Israel lobby was able to end political careers for even minor deviations from the pro-Israel line. This calculus is changing. The war in Gaza “accelerated” a new courage among US politicians and grassroots movements now “intent on proving that being pro-Palestinian” does not mean political suicide. The moral imperative of opposing genocide is overcoming the political fear of being targeted by the lobby. The traditional power of AIPAC is giving way to the moral power of an outraged global public.
The new reality
October 7, 2023, was a tragic day for Israel, one that led to an overreaction that has totally delegitimized the state in the Court of global opinion. It did not garner more security or sympathy for Israel, but only provided a pretext for an operation that laid bare for the whole world to see the occupation’s essential brutality.
The Israeli narrative was not only damaged but annihilated by the actions of its own leaders. And the world is witness to the moral fallout, siding with the oppressed. The road to a future wherein Israel can know peace and security again, a legitimate goal, lies no longer in military dominance or manipulative narratives but in the hard, politically painful work of justice for Palestinians. Such is the global verdict that 7 October ultimately delivered.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251127-the-ruptured-mirror-how-7-october-broke-the-israeli-narrative/
------
As Israel Hunts Leaders, Hezbollah Waits: What Will Another Israeli War on Lebanon Look Like?
By Robert Inlakesh
November 27, 2025
It is no secret that Israel is on the verge of a new offensive against Lebanon and has attempted to stir as much chaos internally in order to encourage the dismantlement of Hezbollah from within. Despite its best attempts to draw the group into a tit-for-tat, it appears that the next war will be much different.
On November 27, 2024, the Lebanon ceasefire agreement went into effect, after two months of war. While Hezbollah adhered to the deal, the Israelis began violating it instantly. A year on, the Israelis have violated the ceasefire over 7,000 times, expanded their occupation of southern Lebanese lands, and demonstrated that it can even bomb Beirut at any time of its choosing.
The majority of Israel’s military achievements against Hezbollah had occurred in September of 2024, with the initiation of the pager attacks and then the assassination strikes against its senior leadership figures. Yet, during the war itself, which really began after the killing of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, along with 300 civilians in southern Beirut, the Israelis failed to achieve their goals.
For around two months, the Lebanese group managed to slowly escalate the pace of its attacks, deter Israeli ground incursions and reveal new weapons which it introduced to the battlefield. When the war officially ended, the situation rested on the verge of an all-out battle, in which Hezbollah was ready to escalate its strikes on Tel Aviv, while Israel would drop all restrictions on what it would be willing to hit in Beirut.
Now, one year later, it is clear that Hezbollah has found its footing, once more, and is rebuilding its military arsenal. Yet, it is not behaving recklessly and refuses to respond to Israel’s daily aggression.
What Kind of War?
The Israelis understand that their failure to defeat Hezbollah now spells an even greater threat from the group than previously existed; they also understand full well that the desire for revenge is immense amongst the Lebanese supporters of the group. This means that war is inevitable.
What Tel Aviv has attempted to do for some time is to draw a response from Hezbollah, through escalating its operations and assassinations. If the Lebanese group were to respond with some kind of attack that would serve to level the playing field, then a new tit-for-tat equation could be imposed, whereby the Israelis could dictate rounds of fighting that are limited.
It is clear, through the Israeli Hebrew media reports on the issue, that the regime has been preparing its people for a new round with Lebanon, one which they began by claiming it would last a number of days; now Channel 14 is finally saying “weeks”. The aim of the upcoming operation is said to be designed to degrade Hezbollah’s power.
Realistically speaking, an attack that only lasts a few days cannot conceivably weaken Hezbollah’s military capabilities to a significant degree. Even if that was the intention then, at the very least, such a conflict is more likely to last for weeks or months.
Yet, it appears as if Hezbollah is not interested in engaging in such a battle. Beginning on October 8, 2023, this tit-for-tat style battle is what the group committed itself to, as a support front for Gaza.
The major issue for a group like Hezbollah is that there is no military parity between it and its enemy; the Israelis have better equipment, more advanced weapons and an endless supply from their Western allies. Therefore, victory is very unlikely if it is to engage in limited exchanges that are unlikely to change the regional equation.
Instead, to assert their dominance, the group must be prepared for an all-out war with no limits from the get-go. Such a war will dramatically change Israeli calculations, forcing it into a new military reality.
If Hezbollah’s behavior, such as refusing to respond to the recent assassination of its top military leader, Haitham Ali Tabatabai, who was murdered in the southern suburbs of Beirut, can be interpreted as them refusing to engage in a limited exchange, then the Israelis will only have two real options: The first is an all-out war that seeks to seriously damage Hezbollah’s military infrastructure; the second is a war focused on assassinations and civilian massacres.
In the event of an all-out war, the Israelis are likely to use Syrian territory to invade the Beqa’a Valley region of Lebanon. This move would indicate that they are actually attempting to significantly degrade the group’s capabilities. Such a war will take many months, potentially years, and cost the Israeli military thousands of casualties. This is the only way that it could actually take out significant portions of Hezbollah’s weapons.
The second option will be to focus on more assassinations, with a particular focus on killing the current Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, likely in the opening round. In the media, the Israelis will sell such a conflict as an attempt to crush Hezbollah’s capabilities, but it will actually be geared towards inflicting a psychological blow on both the group and Lebanese society. Then, depending upon how much damage Hezbollah manages to inflict on Israeli cities, the civilian death toll in Lebanon will be adjusted.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likely favors the latter style of war, one that he can switch off at the moment of his choosing, not achieving any real military objectives, but managing to cause more issues inside Lebanon by doing so. If this model of intense warfare, lasting around a few weeks, proves feasible, they will do this repeatedly. From there, this would place huge internal stresses on Hezbollah and could forward the goal of the pro-US Lebanese government to push ahead to disarm them.
However, Hezbollah knows all of this and will have to be vigilant. Another major factor here is that the other members of the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance also see the potential dangers. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, in particular, they understand that it is only a matter of time before another round between them and the Israelis occurs.
During the 12-day Iran-Israel war, back in June, the Israelis proved to have many proxies and agents working on the ground for them inside Iranian territory and that it could even trigger armed groups from other countries to engage in battle, too. On Iran’s side, its only way of putting up a ground front against the Israelis is through Lebanon currently, meaning that Hezbollah’s survival is crucial to their national security.
It should also be taken into consideration that Israel’s insistence on attacking Hezbollah is not drawn from any immediate threat or need to respond, as there is no fire from Lebanon towards them; they are the aggressors through and through. The reason for this is that they seek to destroy Iran, and taking out Hezbollah or, at least, taking it out of the fight when the time to attack Tehran comes, is crucial to this mission.
The Israeli regime understands that, because of its actions towards Lebanon both last year and after the ceasefire, Hezbollah desires revenge and to expel the occupying forces from the south of the country. This also factors into its urgency.
What appears to be driving the Israelis crazy is that Hezbollah is not responding at all; it is not issuing threats or red lines, it is sitting back, planning and rebuilding. Meaning that Tel Aviv is left in the dark and incapable of reading its intentions.
Nevertheless, the Israeli thirst for more war is insatiable as it pushes full steam ahead towards achieving its desired “Greater Israel” project. In line with this view, Israel’s Alma think-tank, focused on threats to the north, has developed what could be interpreted as a new Hezbollah hit list.
Those named, as part of the military leadership in Hezbollah, include Mohammed Haidar, Haj Khalil Harb, Talal Hosni Hamiyeh and Khader Yousef Nader. They also named Sheikh Naim Qassem, in addition to Wafiq Safa, the head of the coordination and liaison unit.
Even when Israel fought Hezbollah last year, with every conceivable advantage on its side, its main achievements came in the form of assassinations, as its soldiers proved incapable of completing their goals on the ground. What will face them, the next time round, will likely be much more formidable and prepared.
These assassinations, undoubtedly, have a psychological impact that cannot be ignored, with the assassination of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah serving as a major blow that cannot be discounted. Yet, at the same time, the organization has managed to harness the emotions of its base and channel this into a desire to inflict a major blow on the enemy at all costs, down to the very last drop of blood.
The mentality of the supporters of Hezbollah and those who fill its ranks has to be taken very seriously in any analysis of the situation and what a new war will look like. They would rather meet death than be dealt a humiliating blow.
If we extract some crucial lessons from the way Iran responded to the Israelis, the picture becomes even clearer. Israel was essentially forced to back off and accept a ceasefire with the Iranians, as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps landed the final blows against them.
Why was Israel forced into retreat? Because Iran demonstrated its willingness to batter cities like Haifa, Beir Saba’a and Tel Aviv with wave after wave of ballistic missiles. In the end, the intensity of the attacks was becoming too much as Israeli air defenses ran out of interceptor munitions.
If anything, the message communicated through Israel’s adherence to the ceasefire with Iran was that it can be battered into submission, relying almost exclusively on assassinations and Mossad operations to achieve its objectives.
Even when it comes to the Gaza Strip, its soldiers have been receiving danger money salaries, some between US $7,000 to $8,000 per month, in order to fight. In addition to this, the northern Israeli settlements have still not been rebuilt and significant portions of their populations have not returned to their homes. This has led to threats from the remaining Israeli residents to flee if their areas are, once again, subjected to fire from Lebanon.
There are serious questions about Israel’s ability to actually sustain a meaningful war front in Lebanon at this stage, which, in large part, is down to the morale of its fighting force. On the ground, the Israeli military has proven itself an objectively terrible army, incapable of even defeating much smaller armed groups in Gaza. Where it shines is in its overwhelming technological advantages.
While the above-mentioned scenarios, in which the Israelis are the aggressors, are more likely to unfold, it is also possible that Hezbollah could launch a pre-emptive offensive of its own. If it goes this route, it would be more than likely that a move of this nature would be coordinated with the other actors in the Axis of Resistance and that other fronts will open in a calculated manner.
The Iranian-led Axis had adopted a policy of containment following October 7, 2023, hoping to bring hostilities to an end in Gaza. The US-Israeli alliance had other ideas, instead hedging their bets on the collapse of the entire regional alliance that Hamas was a party to.
In my opinion, this reality only truly set in for Iran, Hezbollah and the others when Israel assassinated Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah. Since then, their discourse has dramatically shifted to a much more confrontational one. The idea of a ‘final battle of liberation’ and ‘existential threats’ appears to predominate.
Although it may appear as if the Israelis have achieved significant victories across different fronts, the truth is very different. Benjamin Netanyahu has presided over operations across the region, in what he calls a “seven-front war” that no other Israeli administration, even the ones he previously ran, would have dared to carry out.
At the end of all these operations, all that the Israelis have to show for it is the degradation of Hezbollah and the Palestinian armed groups. Iran is still a major strategic military threat, Yemen’s Ansarallah is only growing stronger militarily and neither Israel nor the US proved capable of landing significant blows; the Palestinian groups are still alive and refuse to give up their weapons, while Hezbollah rebuilds and remains a much more powerful force than Hamas ever was.
Bashar Al-Assad’s Syria fell, resulting in the Israeli occupation of southern Syria and the destruction of the country’s strategic arsenal. However, this did not stop weapons transfers to Lebanon, despite the removal of much of Iran’s footprint in the war-torn nation. It will likely take years for Syria to develop any kind of resistance force, as the current regime is opposed to it and allies itself with the US, although that timeline could, in fact, change given Turkiye’s developing role inside the country. Eventually, some kind of equation will be set there, likely through southern Syrian forces and Palestinian factions.
Regardless of the predicament of Syria, which has been sidelined and will remain at Israel’s mercy in the immediate future, as its President continues to play basketball with his CENTCOM pals, the Israelis are not actually in the dominant position that they portray. What currently exists is a range of stalemates, war fronts that could reopen at any moment. Such a predicament is not sustainable for any nation.
Returning to the issue of a Lebanon-Israel war, in the event that a new conflict opens, it will more than likely be very intense from the outside. Israel is likely to experience major blows, some that will come to the surprise of many, while it will inflict large-scale destruction across Lebanon and commit countless civilian massacres.
If Tel Aviv feels as if the threat – or blows – it is receiving, are too extreme, it will carry out the Gaza Doctrine in Lebanon and launch a war of extermination, targeting civilians and civil infrastructure. The worst possible outcome for Hezbollah would be a limited conflict where they, once again, lose their senior leadership.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/what-will-another-israeli-war-on-lebanon-look-like/
------
The Ecocide in Gaza: Turning a Homeland into a Death Zone
By Dan Steinbock
November 27, 2025
The final step of the broadest possible genocide is ecocide, that is, the intentional destruction of the environment necessary for the support of human life.
Ecocide, in turn, is directly related to the decimation of the reproduction of culture that Raphael Lemkin, the pioneer of the Genocide Convention, associated with the concept of “cultural genocide.”
Gaza is a textbook case.
The Long Legal Effort to Suppress Ecocide
In The Obliteration Doctrine, I show in painful detail how Lemkin had to compromise this idea. While he got strong support from the countries of the Global South, the former colonial powers – led by the United States and the United Kingdom – undermined Lemkin’s quest. Consequently, the current Genocide Convention is just a mutilated torso of the original idea.
Ever since Olof Palme, the Swedish prime minister, accused the United States of ecocide at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, war has often been seen as the primary cause of ecocide, along with over-exploitation of natural resources and industrial disasters.
In environmental law, ecocide (from ancient Greek oikos ‘home’ and Latin caedere ‘to kill’) connotes the destruction of the environment by humans. It has often been associated with genocide. In effect, in the late 1990s ecocide in peacetime was to have been included in the Rome Statute. However, it was deleted due to objections by the United Kingdom, France, and the United States; that is, by the former colonial powers. Such censure would not have surprised Lemkin, who knew well that these powers did not want to pay for their crimes in the World Court. Nonetheless, as a result, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes no provision for the crime of ecocide in peacetime, only in wartime.
Just months before October 7, 2023, the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide defined it as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”
The Decades-Long Ecocide in Gaza
Well before October 7, 2023, the Gaza Strip had progressively been isolated from the West Bank and the outside world, overall, while being subjected to repeated Israeli military incursions – over three decades, in parallel with the Madrid and Oslo peace talks.
In terms of environmental damage, deterioration had worsened since 2014, when the clearing and bulldozing of agricultural and residential lands by the Israeli military close to the eastern border of Gaza had been coupled with the unannounced aerial spraying of crop-killing herbicides. These illicit practices not only destroyed entire swathes of formerly arable land along the border fence, but also crops and farmlands hundreds of meters deep into Palestinian territory, resulting in the loss of livelihoods for Gazan farmers.
From a historical view, such massive bombardment went back to the early days of the Cold War, when the United States dropped bombs on North Korean dams to flood crops and induce starvation among civilians. To compound the same effect, irrigation systems were attacked on the ground. The difference is that, in Gaza, the geographic scope of destruction was far narrower than in Korea, but the decimation was far more effective, intensive and lethal.
Colonial Violence and Environmental Warfare
From the beginning, “environmental warfare in Gaza” has been marked by colonial violence. It has been an inherent part of the Palestinian expulsions and Israeli occupation since the late 1940s.
Furthermore, the destruction is central to the Obliteration Doctrine of the Israeli military, which was initiated in Lebanon in the late 2000s and perfected in Gaza in 2023-25. In that sense, the Nakba also has a lesser-known environmental dimension, “the complete transformation of the environment, the weather, the soil, the loss of the indigenous climate, the vegetation, the skies. The Nakba is a process of colonially imposed vulnerability to climate change.”
Even on the eve of October 7, World Bank analysts warned that, in the West Bank and Gaza, drivers of fragility, development constraints, and vulnerability to climate change were closely interconnected, thanks to decades of the fragmentation of land, restrictions on the movement of people and goods, recurrent episodes of violent conflict, persistent political and policy uncertainty, and the lack of sovereign control over critical natural resources.
As the net effect of the Gaza War, widespread damage to built-up areas from the use of explosive weapons have resulted in direct impacts on water services and in millions of tons of debris, toxic waste and destroyed agricultural lands. This has led to the outbreak of communicable diseases, from poor water, health and sanitation conditions, combined with the risk of exposure to a range of additional hazardous materials and the collapse of environmental governance.
The Death Zone
Hence, the damage to water infrastructure and widescale urban destruction, in combination with a severely degraded healthcare system, all of which posed a long-lasting threat to both public health and livelihoods.
The future that awaited Palestinians at the end of the hostilities was a Gaza turned into an “uninhabitable death war zone.”
By late April 2024, Israel’s obliteration of Gaza had already created 37m tons of debris. That amounts to an average of 300kg of rubble per square meter of land in the Gaza Strip. Worse, much of these piles and heaps of debris and wreckage were laced with unexploded bombs, which could take up to 15 years of extensive work to remove, assuming the availability of 100 trucks on a daily basis.
Taking into consideration the fact that, on average, about 10 percent of weapons failed to detonate when fired, huge demining teams would be warranted for years. The longer the war continues, the longer would the clearance take at its end.
During the first two months of Israel’s assault on Gaza, the projected emissions from there exceeded the annual emissions of 20 individual countries and territories.
Indeed, the total emissions increased to more than those of over 33 individual countries and territories when the war infrastructure built by both Israel and Hamas is included, such as Hamas’s tunnel network and Israel’s protective fence or “Iron Wall.” In that light, the carbon costs of reconstructing Gaza are likely to prove huge.
Rebuilding Emissions
Effectively, rebuilding Gaza will result in a total annual emissions figure higher than that of over 130 countries, putting them on a par with that of New Zealand.
The overwhelming majority of the 281,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide (CO2) generated in the first two months of hostilities can be traced to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza.
Almost half the total carbon emissions were down to US cargo planes flying military supplies to Israel. By contrast, Hamas rockets fired into Israel in the same period generated 713 MT of CO2, which is equivalent to 300 MT of coal. There was no symmetry in war machinery.
The initial brutal offensive by Hamas was overwhelmed by Israel’s obliteration of what used to be Gaza. Worse, these estimates are highly conservative because they are based on just two months of the war that had already endured three times longer by June 2024.
More importantly, the actual carbon footprint could prove five to eight times higher, when emissions from the entire war supply chain are included.
Furthermore, what has happened in Gaza will not stay in Gaza. Even the perpetrators cannot avoid their own poison.
Spillovers of Ecocide
The overall cost for rebuilding Gaza is estimated to be tens of billions of dollars over decades, with some projections reaching as high as $70 billion.
The obliteration of Gaza has inflicted severe and potentially irreversible environmental damage, including widespread contamination of water, soil, and air with toxic substances, the collapse of critical infrastructure, and massive carbon emissions.
The effects of this environmental catastrophe are likely to mimic those of past conflicts involving widespread environmental destruction – for instance, US deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam – which, in one form or another, will likely be felt by Israeli citizens for years or decades to come.
In the foreseeable future, these key impacts on Israel may include public health crises, water contamination, adverse agricultural and economic effects, rising contribution to climate change, not to mention the security concerns that will ensue from the deliberate creation of an uninhabitable environment in Gaza.
As Israeli environmental groups warned already, a decade ago, the untreated sewage from Gaza that has flowed into the Mediterranean Sea is a ticking time bomb. Following the obliteration of Gaza, the destruction of wastewater treatment facilities creates a significant risk of infectious diseases, even cholera, which could spread along the coast. Additionally, the potential contamination of shared coastal aquifers with seawater, heavy metals, and chemicals poses a long-term threat to Israel’s freshwater supplies.
The inconvenient truth is that water contamination, like ecocide, knows no borders.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-ecocide-in-gaza-turning-a-homeland-into-a-death-zone/
------
URl: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/ecocide-israel-un-faith-hezbollah-lebanon/d/137799
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