No truce in Gaza, but what about southern Lebanon?
Nida Al Watan, Lebanon, March 9
If nothing miraculous occurs, the ongoing conflict in southern Lebanon appears destined for a grim conclusion: a significant escalation, leading to a destructive Israeli war, and a troubling repetition of past incursions, from 1978 through 1982 to 2006.
Israeli intentions to respond forcefully to Hezbollah’s provocations are glaring, encompassing destruction, casualties, and forced displacement – evident in the ravaged villages of the south.
Hezbollah, instigator of the conflict, is forthright about its immediate goal: refusing a ceasefire until the conflict in Gaza subsides.
However, the dynamics in Gaza differ, with proposed truce talks focusing on a six-week ceasefire, prisoner exchanges, and increased humanitarian aid. While Israel may consider this proposal, Hamas vehemently opposes it, demanding a full ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, an outcome Israel deems inconceivable, as it seeks to eradicate Hamas and secure the region. Negotiations in Cairo have hit a roadblock due to these conflicting stances.
Rumors of a Qatari ultimatum to deport Ismail Haniyeh if Hamas persists in its stance add a layer of complexity to the situation.
With the arrival of CIA Director William Burns, a last-ditch effort is under way to broker a truce before the onset of Ramadan. Despite these efforts, a truce prior to Ramadan seems unlikely. Conflict in Gaza will persist, with increasing casualties. Calm could potentially be replaced by humanitarian relief efforts facilitated by the Biden administration.
As this unfolds in Gaza, concerns rise about Lebanon’s fate. Echoes of Condoleezza Rice’s involvement in 2006 have now come full circle with Amos Hochstein in 2024. The crux of the matter lies in Lebanon’s intertwined destiny with Gaza’s, a linkage that Hochstein vehemently resists, urging caution to avoid further conflict. The urgency of finding a resolution is paramount to prevent a broader regional conflict.
An American proposal, mirroring elements of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, seeks to quell tensions by enhancing military presence and reinforcing UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon.
Although this is a welcome step toward de-escalation, this proposal does not tackle the issue of militias, nor does it address Israeli activities. It merely sets the stage for future negotiations between Lebanon and Israel based on the resolution and ceasefire agreement. This plan, however, does not align with the conditions in Gaza.
The looming questions remain: What will the actors in the south decide? How will Iran react? And, most crucially, what course of action will Israel pursue, given its history of aggressive responses? – Tony Francis
Who makes decisions in Hamas and the Israeli government?
Aletihad, UAE, March 8
The comparison between decision-making within the Hamas movement and the Israeli government, particularly in the context of negotiations surrounding the conflict in Gaza, is a complex task.
The Israeli government operates within a multifaceted system that involves political, strategic, and security decision-making apparatuses.
Despite the establishment of a war cabinet to oversee strategic decisions, there is a significant overlap in positions and orientations among various government bodies, making it challenging to unify visions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu navigates through intersecting circles and intertwined spaces, empowering negotiators beyond security and strategic realms to achieve political goals. The voting mechanisms in the war cabinet differ from those in the broader government, adding layers of complexity to decision-making.
Decision-making within the Hamas movement is similarly intricate, with the political office playing a central role in both internal and external affairs. The internal circle, especially figures like Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Marwan Issa, along with the military wing, shape most of the policies on the ground.
The movement’s path toward a temporary ceasefire reflects the complexities it faces in aligning with broader Palestinian national action.
Both the Israeli government and Hamas navigate decision-making amid internal requirements and broader political interests. While the Israeli government seeks to maintain coalition stability, Hamas leaders maneuver within a complex network of interests and priorities. Internal and external influences shape decision-making processes, underscoring the challenges of balancing political and security considerations.
Despite their differing contexts, both entities centralize decision-making, respond to pressure, and emphasize defending their respective interests.
Ultimately, decision-making in both the Israeli government and Hamas movement is characterized by the presence of influential centers, competing priorities, and the need to navigate complex political landscapes. As each entity strives to protect its interests and maintain relevance, the dynamics of internal and external influences continue to impact strategic choices. – Tarek Fahmy
The threat of Houthi ballistic missiles
An-Nahar, Lebanon, March 7
America and the West are currently grappling with significant decisions on how to address the escalating threat posed by the Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. The realization that these rebels, armed with heavy weaponry from Iran, pose a danger that transcends local boundaries and may evolve into a global conflict has raised red flags among international observers.
The Houthi militias have targeted Western ships in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, causing economic disruptions and fueling inflation in Europe.
Despite relentless air raids by the United States and Britain, the Houthis have persisted in their military operations, with naval assaults continuing to unfold.
The Houthis’ alignment within the Iran-led axis of resistance hints at a broader concerted effort involving enhanced military cooperation between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing.
The Houthis made history by being the first to employ anti-ship ballistic missiles in combat, a technology originally obtained from China by Iran and later supplied to the Houthis along with an array of other weaponry, including ballistic missiles and drones.
Iran’s proficiency in enhancing the accuracy and range of missiles poses a grave threat, as evidenced by Houthi missile strikes on Eilat, highlighting their potential to disrupt key maritime passages like the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran’s burgeoning military ties with Russia and China, together with the Houthis’ relentless assaults on Western warships, utilizing sophisticated weaponry, mark an alarming development for Western nations. The coordinated nature of these attacks, supported by intelligence from Iranian assets and allies, serves as a strategic challenge that exceeds the Houthis’ intrinsic capabilities.
Washington and its European partners are now contemplating a course of action to counter the Houthi threat and degrade Iran’s strategic influence in the region. However, the complexities surrounding a potential military initiative underscore the necessity of Arab Gulf state support, which remains uncertain.
As pressure mounts for a definitive solution, Western powers are recognizing the urgency of addressing the Houthi threat to global security. The implications of the Houthi conflict in the Red Sea are profound, extending beyond local unrest. The prospect of allowing terrorist-designated groups like the Houthis to disrupt vital passages in the Middle East poses a formidable challenge that demands immediate attention from regional and global powers.
In light of these considerations, it is imperative for Western nations to reassess their tolerance for the proliferation of ballistic missiles and irregular forces that could be exploited by geopolitical rivals. The threat posed by the Houthis must be met with a united front that prioritizes securing international waterways and combating the spread of advanced weaponry orchestrated by Iran and its proxies. – Riad Kahwaji
Being Egyptian these days
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, March 7
A year ago, the American media organization Web Engine conducted a survey with 3,000 participants to explore the current meaning of being American in 2023. The results revealed a mix of emotions among respondents. While a minority expressed positive feelings and pride, the majority shared sentiments of fear, anxiety, and pessimism. Concerns were raised about the country’s perceived direction, corrupt political climate, rise in crime, and abuse of power. Many indicated struggles with the increasing costs of living and felt sidelined in political decision-making.
Looking ahead to 2024, a similar question emerges for Egyptians. The prevailing narrative seems to focus on economic challenges, escalating prices, and continuous societal shifts, where established institutions like religious, scientific, and media structures appear diminished.
Unchecked individual behaviors, including violent crimes (particularly targeting women), have taken center stage, prompting a reflection on the essence of Egypt and its people. The evolving social, political, economic, and cultural landscape plays a vital role in shaping individual identities.
Despite enduring characteristics like strong family bonds, respect for elders, and generous hospitality, Egypt finds itself at a crossroads. While boasting a rich history, diverse cuisine, and artistic heritage, there is a glaring disconnection of today’s society from the ancient Pharaonic civilization.
The decline in educational standards and the erosion of intellectual discourse challenge Egypt’s future trajectory. As modern Egyptians grapple with societal challenges and a growing sense of disillusionment, there is a noticeable shift toward negativity and despair.
However, expressions of discontent should not overshadow the country’s potential for progress. Famed author Naguib Mahfouz’s wisdom reminds us that while discontent is natural, succumbing to despair is detrimental. Maintaining optimism, as Mahfouz himself epitomized, is crucial for navigating through turbulent times and shaping a brighter future. – Abdullah Abdul Salam
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb.