Cairo negotiations: Why are mediators optimistic?
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, April 10
The optimism surrounding the ongoing talks in Cairo regarding a truce and prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas has grown significantly. Contrary to what one might expect, this optimism has not been a result of any dramatic Israeli gestures or extreme concessions from Hamas. Rather, this positive outlook is a product of the increasing effectiveness of the Egyptians, Qataris, and Americans in applying pressure on key figures to prevent the imminent collapse of the negotiations. This effort is crucial to avoid a deadlock, especially given the fragile situation in the region following the recent Israeli attack on the Iranian Consulate in Damascus and the subsequent threats from Tehran.
The most influential pressure, which has clearly made an impact, comes from the US. This pressure has led to Israeli flexibility in toning down the intensity of the conflict, postponing the invasion of Rafah, and enhancing the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. On the other hand, the joint Egyptian-Qatari position does not differ significantly from the American stance. Both Arab nations are united in advocating for a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire, with the imperative of Israel’s ultimate withdrawal from Gaza and the return of all displaced Gazans to their destroyed homes. Despite months of unsuccessful negotiations involving Paris, Cairo, Doha, and Washington, the current mediators are now actively engaged in the process, each with their own vested interests and agendas. The Americans are seeking success to de-escalate tensions in the region, particularly in the lead-up to pivotal elections for the Biden administration.
Qatar, playing a dominant role in its relationship with Hamas, is eager to demonstrate its effectiveness and influence in this critical moment. Meanwhile, Egypt is deeply intertwined with the conflict due to its geographic proximity and national security interests. The rising optimism during these talks reflects the mediators’ keen awareness of the stakes involved. They are not mere impartial facilitators; they are integral to the negotiations and heavily invested in the outcome. Looking beyond the immediate ceasefire, the focus shifts to what lies ahead and the challenges that need to be addressed moving forward.
The complexity of post-war arrangements is daunting, with the Americans taking a more assertive role in shaping the future landscape of the region. As discussions continue, the possibility of a six-week ceasefire provides a window to explore the unresolved issues and prepare for what comes next. The post-war period is a critical juncture in which the broader conflicts in the region must be addressed. The potential for success in this round of talks lies in laying the groundwork for a new phase of conflict resolution in the Middle East, starting from the pivotal point of Gaza.
In an unexpected turn of events, Gaza has emerged as the catalyst for regional reconciliation. It is a reminder of the interconnected nature of the conflicts in the Middle East and the need for a comprehensive approach to achieve lasting peace. The ongoing negotiations in Cairo are not just about ending the current conflict; they are about setting the stage for a new era of stability and cooperation in the region. – Nabil Amr
Trump’s ‘face-saving plan’ for Ukraine and Russia
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, April 11
“They want to save face and find an exit strategy.” This was the claim made by former US president Donald Trump, who boasted his ability to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours if elected, even before assuming office. Trump argues that both parties are in a bind and are seeking a way out. According to a recent report in The Washington Post, Trump’s proposed solution would involve pressuring Ukraine to relinquish some territory. Trump envisions a resolution that hinges on Ukraine ceding Crimea and the Donbas border region to Russia.
Critics of this approach argue that Trump’s plan would essentially reward Russian President Vladimir Putin and legitimize the forcible violation of internationally recognized borders. This approach stands in stark contrast to President Joe Biden’s strategy, which is centered on curbing Russian aggression and providing military support to Ukraine. The purported framework of Trump’s peace plan, as described by one of his aides, involves Ukraine giving up territory, thereby limiting NATO expansion and enticing Putin to reduce his reliance on China. The belief is that individuals in certain parts of Ukraine would be willing to become part of Russia.
However, this notion has faced pushback, with many parties criticizing the idea of driving a wedge between Russia and China, with some going as far as labeling it as “foolish.” Critics argue that any concessions made to Russia would come at the expense of other American interests. Granting Russian control over parts of Ukraine could also expand Putin’s autocracy following the largest land conflict in Europe since World War II. Trump’s plan diverges significantly from Biden’s approach, who warned in his State of the Union address that Putin “is invading Ukraine and sowing chaos across Europe and beyond,” emphasizing that Ukraine needs defense. Biden outlined a strategy to bolster Ukraine’s military capabilities this year, positioning it for a stronger defense in the following year.
However, US assistance is now at risk as House Speaker Mike Johnson faces opposition from Republican hardliners who oppose additional funding and are calling for his removal. Trump is pressuring congressional Republicans to resist further US support for the Ukrainian war effort, with his potential return to the White House poised to amplify his sway over the decision. European allies are preparing to have European military industries step in to substitute a considerable portion of the current American aid given to Kyiv. Nevertheless, Ukraine’s ability to continue fighting could be compromised if Trump succeeds in halting further US assistance. – Abdel Latif El-Menawy
Hezbollah’s weapons frighten not just Israelis but also Lebanese
Nida Al Watan, Lebanon, April 12
In a recent appearance on International Quds Day, Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, declared, “We have not employed our main weapons yet, nor have we used our main forces.” Similarly, back in early March, MP Mohammad Raad, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, made a statement asserting, “We have not yet used all our weapons. The weapons reserves for open warfare have not yet been deployed, and the enemy knows it.”
Hezbollah is known for its secretive approach regarding the weapons in its military arsenal. They keep the details hidden due to military secrets, causing unease among Israelis who constantly try to uncover the weapons stockpiled by the party. Nasrallah even claimed that Hezbollah’s budget, weapons, and missiles are supplied by the Islamic Republic of Iran. While it is no secret that Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal has Iranian origins, the organization has been expanding its sources of armament, acquiring new weapons in addition to the ones left by the Syrian Army when it withdrew from Lebanon in 2005. Not limited to Iranian supplies, Hezbollah also manufactures weapons in Lebanon, and receives arms through various means from Iran, Syria, and the Bekaa region.
Moreover, Hezbollah is said to acquire high-quality weapons from the black market, even ones manufactured in the West. There have been instances of Iranian weapons being used, including during the Iran-Iraq war when Iran illegally purchased American missiles through a covert deal orchestrated by American officials. The trend of pragmatism is visible not only in Hezbollah’s weapon procurement strategies but also in the diplomatic actions of the US and Iran. The historical context of arms trading between Iran and the US demonstrates how pragmatism often trumps ideological differences. Hezbollah’s approach, based on pragmatism, aims to wield its weapons not only against Israel but also as a tool in Lebanese internal politics. This versatility and adaptability make Hezbollah’s arsenal a subject of concern not only for Israelis but also for the Lebanese people. – Jean Feghali
A game between Netanyahu, Hamas, and Iran
An-Nahar, Lebanon, April 11
Six months after the Gaza War outbreak, initially sparked by the Aqsa Flood attack from Hamas on settlements surrounding the Gaza Strip on October 7, a significant shift has occurred. The conflict is now partially characterized as an Israeli-Iranian war. This development became evident with Israel’s targeting of the Iranian Consulate in Damascus. In a targeted operation, Israel took out seven senior commanders of the Quds Force within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, led by Mohammad Reza Zahedi. Zahedi, responsible for Syria and Lebanon files within the Quds Force, held close ties with Hezbollah and was rumored to be part of the party’s top leadership.
The Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades, the military arm of Hamas, promptly hailed Zahedi for his role in orchestrating al-Aqsa Flood, which triggered a prolonged war resulting in the destruction of 70% of the Gaza Strip’s buildings and widespread hunger. Meanwhile, Israel persists in its aggressive campaign against Gaza, a densely populated area measuring a mere 365 sq. km., with a population exceeding a million and a half concentrated in an area of about 55 sq. km. on the Rafah border with Egypt.
The Gaza war’s unanticipated six-month duration illustrates the complexities at play, compounded by the absence of a clear political resolution. The primary actors – Israel, Hamas, and Iran – engaged in concurrent conflicts seeking to establish dominance in the region. Notably, Iran aims to assert control over strategic points, potentially influencing the region’s stability. Although Israel suffered setbacks in the Gaza conflict, Hamas failed to emerge victoriously on a political front. The prolonged war has left the Israeli prime minister with no clear objective beyond continuing hostilities. Similarly, Hamas faces internal turmoil, torn between underground operations and a leadership abroad disconnected from Gaza’s plight.
Amid the struggle, international perceptions fluctuated following Israel’s targeting of a team of international aid workers from World Central Kitchen. While initial outrage subsided quickly, internal Israeli political dynamics and international pressures continue to shape the conflict’s trajectory. Beyond Gaza, conflicts in South Lebanon, the Red Sea, and Jordan further illustrate regional tensions exacerbated by Iranian influence. Iranian-backed militia groups operate across the region, challenging established powers and threatening stability. The Palestinian cause remains entangled in these broader conflicts, underscoring the complexity and interconnectivity of regional disputes. As the Gaza war persists, with deepening Iranian involvement, the Palestinian people remain the primary casualties. The potential implications extend to neighboring Lebanon, hinting at a bleak future if the conflict remains unresolved. Halting the Gaza war demands a decisive international stance, particularly from the US. Failure to act risks perpetuating the cycle of violence and playing into the hands of entrenched interests, imperiling the prospects for lasting peace and stability in the region. – Kheirallah Kheirallah
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb.