Helplessness in the face of cries of pain
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, October 14
The euphoria ended and reality set in. I believe I might shock some with what I’m about to say, and I also think that some others will share my sentiment. With every scene of death, pain, and destruction, symptoms of this condition, marked by confusion and bewilderment, begin to surface. Why did what happened occur? And does what Hamas has done justify the price being paid now by millions of ordinary Palestinians?
I am fully aware that what has happened is the expected expression of what has been called “the revolt of the desperate.” Here I mean the Palestinians, after their paths were blocked, and they suffered all kinds of discrimination and persecution from the Israeli occupier. They grew weary of the blatant double standards practiced by the international community and the diminishing importance of their cause within the Arab context.
But all of this does not prevent us from asking the simple and unsettling question: Was the action initiated by Hamas, attacking Israeli settlements and killing more than 200 young Israelis attending a music event, the best course of action? Did Hamas leaders anticipate the expected reaction from “their people” in Gaza because of this targeting? Wouldn’t it have been wiser and more rational to deal with and target military sites and objectives?
I continue to follow international reactions and engage in discussions with several interested parties and followers in the UK while I’m here. I can contribute to the conversation when it revolves around Israeli stubbornness and international reluctance. I contribute when the discussion revolves around the suffering, killings, and destruction in Gaza, considering the Israeli violence in response to be unjustifiable to that extent.
However, when the discussion turns to Hamas’s actions and civilian targeting, the other side presents a more compelling argument for their rejection. When discussing the political gains Hamas might achieve, their logic seems stronger, as the international political dimensions were not considered by those making the decisions.
On the official Western level, a state of “rush,” competition, and bidding for support to Israel prevails, blinding those holding these positions from seeing all dimensions of the issue, including the intense bombardment against Gaza, thus leading to sympathy for the pain, blood, and destruction faced by Palestinians.
I know this discourse won’t find clear acceptance among many of us, and I know that the discussion about peoples’ sacrifices for liberation resonates with us. Some of us remind each other of the million martyrs for Algeria’s independence. But all this fades as I witness the killings, destruction, and cries of pain from our people in Palestine.
Some will not accept what I say, but I just ask for a moment to pause and think. It’s a state of confusion; I don’t know if what’s coming will help resolve it or not. – Abdel Latif El Menawy
Toward a multipolar system and its increasing challenges
Al-Ittihad, United Arab Emirates, October 14
Considering the recent bloody events between Israel and Hamas, predicting the end of this war is difficult. Of course, it is not the right time to make any political recommendations. This comes because of the exceptional events we have witnessed, where Hamas launched a sudden attack on Israel, resulting in numerous casualties and captives among civilians and military personnel.
Some have compared this attack to the events of September 11 in the US, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken noting that the scale of the destruction caused by this attack in Israel equals ten times the magnitude of what happened on September 11.
Therefore, in this tense and complex context, everyone must pause and try to understand the impact of this war between Hamas and Israel on the global stage, specifically concerning the concept of multipolarity and the challenges arising from it.
In this context, I read an article titled “The Global Context of the Conflict between Hamas and Israel” by David Leonhardt, in The New York Times on October 9. The article suggests that Hamas’s attacks on Israel reflect a new global shift under a multipolar system. The US is no longer the leading power it once was, and the Hamas attacks exacerbate tensions that are considered a threat to the resurgence of American power.
These attacks occurred within the context of peace negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Israel under American supervision. Hamas’s attacks can be interpreted as an attempt to hinder the enhancement of American power, especially if Israel turns Gaza into rubble in response to the attacks, potentially disrupting any agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel. This could negatively impact the US, especially after its strong support for Israel, which some consider heavily biased in favor of Israel, reinforcing the trend toward multipolarity in the world.
The writer pointed out that dominant countries do not retain their control permanently, but the US also made strategic mistakes that accelerated the emergence of a multipolar world. One of these mistakes is the assumption of naivety by the political leaders of the two parties in the US that China, due to its wealth, will automatically become a cooperative and friendly partner, neglecting the fact that the lenient trade policies of the US helped build a competitor.
Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq: The US spent costly years in unjust wars initiated by George W. Bush, and the humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan under President Joe Biden undermined the image of the US as a seemingly weaker state.
Some might celebrate the end of the long era of American dominance, which witnessed heinous injustices, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, and the conclusion of the role of the “world’s policeman” that the US took pride in. Now, considering these dangerous and decisive events, an important question remains: Will a multipolar world be able to manage better and achieve tangible progress? – Dr. Najat AlSaied
Peace is the key to ending the conflict
Al-Ittihad, United Arab Emirates, October 14
Civilians are the victims of wars, suffering the most in any armed conflict in any region. How much more so in an area that has endured years of consecutive wars, persisting in a state of constant conflict? We are talking here about the ongoing conflict spanning decades between Israelis and Palestinians, not just in Gaza but on all fronts.
In these conflicts, the innocent is always the fuel. What Gaza and its surrounding areas, including Israeli towns, have witnessed is extremely heartbreaking due to the number of casualties, especially among women, children, and the elderly.
This war must end, and clear mechanisms must be established to spare the innocent from the consequences of any fighting. All peace-loving nations should work to prevent further casualties, push for peace, and put an end to this conflict, which can only be resolved through peace alone.
The stance of the United Arab Emirates is clear and supportive of peace. It has called for de-escalation, the protection of civilians, the avoidance of violence, and the attainment of stability. The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has urged efforts to prevent a broader regional confrontation. The international community must work together to prevent violent acts that threaten stability and collaborate with all partners to return to negotiations and achieve a final resolution based on a two-state solution for the benefit of both Palestinians and Israelis who deserve to live in peace.
The UAE’s position reflects clarity of vision: Conflict will only lead to more innocent victims, and peace alone is the key to ending the conflict and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe and further loss of innocent lives.
The international community fully recognizes the importance of peace to end the conflict. There is a desire to prevent the recurrence of these tragic scenes witnessed through the media, which are still ongoing.
Immediate action and coordination among regional and global countries are necessary to find a solution and prevent the repetition of these scenarios. Everyone in this region deserves to live peacefully and securely in their homes without any threats. To achieve this, it is imperative to enhance stability and implement strategies to shield civilians from the consequences of war.
Amid the destruction and loss of hundreds of innocent lives in Gaza, the UAE has stepped forward, as always, to provide urgent assistance. His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan, president of the UAE, has ordered immediate aid worth $20 million to Palestinians through UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).
This assistance is part of the UAE’s consistent approach to extending a helping hand to its brothers. For years, the UAE has been committed to supporting Palestinians, both financially and morally. This approach, spanning over 50 years, has seen the UAE provide medical, food, and educational aid.
The UAE’s efforts are also evident through intense meetings and communications with world leaders to find solutions to the crisis. This started with discussions between His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan and US President Joe Biden, focusing on the priority of protecting civilians, delivering aid to them, and finding a genuine political horizon for peace.
UAE’s efforts have included most international actors, aiming to work toward a comprehensive peace that ends the entire conflict – a peace that brings all parties interested in peace to one table to find a permanent solution. The goal is to achieve security for the people of the region and then prosperity for these nations. Peace brings this, not conflicts.
The UAE’s stance on peace is clear, and it has laid the foundation for this peace, aiming to avoid the scenes we are witnessing now and give the people of the region a chance to live dignified lives. – Dr. Salem Humaid
‘Al-Aqsa storm’: A war without a map?!
An-Nahar, Lebanon, October 10
The wars are like fires, easy to ignite and difficult to extinguish: Those who enter a war without a plan are unlikely to find their way out. Those who start it without clear objectives end up becoming its target.
America entered Iraq with one plan, toppling Saddam Hussein and replacing his Ba’athist regime with a puppet government. But they prepared for war and not for peace, setting major headlines for their goals without detailing plans for achieving them. As a result, they succeeded in entering but failed to stay or leave.
This pattern has been repeated throughout history. Emperor Napoleon invaded Russia and saw his army perish in its freezing cold. Nazi leader Hitler conquered half of Europe and then broke against the walls of Stalingrad. In recent decades, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait followed by Iran, US president George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan, and Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed parts of Ukraine. Each of them got entangled, drained their strength, and found no way out.
The Arab conqueror Amr ibn al-As once said to the Caliph Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, “By Allah, I have never entered into something without finding a way out of it.” He said this after he had gone as the leader of a delegation to negotiate with the Romans in a fortified castle. When he sensed that their leader intended treachery, he told him: “Now that I have heard from you, I think I should return with my army leaders to consult with them.”
He hesitated, allowing him and his delegation to leave safely. Amr had studied the fortifications and saw what could be penetrated. When he returned, he planned an attack on the fortress and captured it. When he presented this plan, Muawiya rejected it, saying: “I have not entered into something without wanting to leave it.”
Comparing al-Aqsa Storm with the Ramadan War requires examination, despite the timing which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the Egyptian and Syrian attack on Israel in 1973. Perhaps a more relevant comparison is with the 1947 war, the 1967 war, or the 2006 war in Lebanon, with differences.
In any case, the truth is clear. Who denies that the Zionists aggressed and oppressed the Palestinian people, desecrating the holy sites of Muslims and Christians, with blind support from the West?! Who denies the Palestinians’ right to defend their land, wealth, and honor?! Who ignores Israel’s rejection of fair peace initiatives?!
The differences and disagreement lie in the plan of the war and its goals. In the first war, which ended with Nakba (catastrophe), the second ending with Naksa (setback), and the third causing destruction in Lebanon, there was no road map defining the details of the action and its response, the stages of the project, and the tools and equipment prepared for it. Also, the ultimate goals were unclear: Victory was the only goal without detailing alternatives or choices.
Expelling the Jews from Palestine was not a realistic goal in 1948, throwing Israel into the sea was impossible in 1967, and subduing it during its strength and arrogance in 2006 was unachievable. The Ramadan War had reasonable and achievable goals: reclaiming Sinai, Gaza, and the Golan Heights.
If the Egyptian Third Army had not been surrounded, if there had been no mistakes by the Syrian army on the eastern front, and if some confrontation and support states had not betrayed and faltered, perhaps complete victory could have been achieved. Israel was on the verge of collapse, to the point where Prime Minister Golda Meir considered using nuclear weapons and the US established an air bridge and declared a state of emergency for its fleet in the Mediterranean and its bases in the region.
In the end, several strategic objectives were achieved, most notably the recovery of Sinai and the Suez Canal. Egypt and its Arab allies, who coordinated roles with them, and received their support and backing, led by the “Hero of the Crossing” and the “Martyr of Jerusalem,” Saudi King Faisal bin Abdulaziz, had the right to call it a victory.
Today, history repeats itself. Our mujahideen brothers in Gaza launched a surprise war on the Zionist entity with intelligence and military capabilities that astonished the world and confused the enemy. As always, Israel’s response was swift, stormy, and harsh.
Because our brothers did not differentiate between civilian and military targets, they gave their enemy the justification to bomb cities, camps, and infrastructure, just as they did in Lebanon nearly 20 years ago. And because Hamas uses gang warfare tactics, and in the absence of military sites, the focus of Israeli airstrikes and the army was on civilian areas.
The planners of the July War neglected coordination with Arab countries or even the Lebanese state under whose umbrella they were supposed to be. They settled for receiving Iranian support and guidance, repeating the same method, bypassing the Palestinian Authority, hiding their plans from Arab governments, and when the ax fell on their heads, they demanded support and intervention from them, while undermining those who do not declare war with them.
When the official spokespersons of the Hamas movement were asked about their goals in this escalation, they put the liberation of al-Aqsa Mosque at the top of the list. But while they promise victory, or call on armies and Arab peoples to fight with them, they do not provide a plan beyond slogans and passionate speeches, nor do they present demands that can be negotiated with the international community with Arab support. They do not prepare for a diplomatic campaign to convince the world of the justice of their position.
Here, the political analyst has the right to question the timing of this storm, considering the political efforts being made to resolve the Palestinian issue based on the establishment of their state and its capital, east Jerusalem, and the restoration of al-Aqsa Mosque.
What is the connection between this and those who trade in this eternal issue for their political and financial interests, and those who justify and market all their destructive projects for the Arab region as stations on the road to liberating Jerusalem? What about those parties and leaders who have built their political agendas on the existence of a legitimate cause that ignites the passions of the masses, postponing all development programs (for no voice is louder than the voice of battle)?
Immediately, all parties must stop the escalation, and return to the path of peace. The Arab Peace Initiative is still on the table, and the Israeli government must clearly state its position, either the path of a comprehensive solution that opens the doors for normalization with both the Islamic and Arab nations, or the quagmire of violence and extremism and the fate of turning into a more isolated and rejected state.
And the jihadist brothers must redraw the map of the conflict to achieve more Arab and Islamic solidarity, and international sympathy, and define legitimate and realistic goals that enhance the chances of success on the ground and at the negotiating table. – Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Translated by Lana Ikelan.