Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on May 12-13/2024
Happy & Blessed Mathers Day To All Mothers/Elias Bejjani/May 12/2024
Patriarch Sfeir’s Pertinent Call: ‘Lebanon First, Lebanon Sovereign/Fady Noun/This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
Patriarch Al-Rahi says EU, world 'raising criminals and terrorists' in Lebanon
Archbishop Audi: Lebanon Will Rise Again
Army Commander Joseph Aoun heads to Qatar
South Lebanon: Intermittent Fire Exchange Between Israel and Hezbollah
Closure of 540 Businesses Operated by Illegal Syrian Migrants
Lebanon praises UNGA decision: A step in the right direction to reclaiming Palestinian rights
Ezzeddine to LBCI: Issues detected with imported child milk substitutes, calls for unified stance regarding Syrian displacement
Stranded Lebanese in Gaza: Lebanese nationals stuck in Gaza await passage
Spring Rally: Roger Feghali Passes the Torch to His Son Alex/Makram Haddad/This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
Tribute: Yvette Achkar, a Life Dedicated to Abstract Art
Wokeism and Islamism (3/4)/Amine Jules Iskandar/This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 12-13/2024
Blinken delivers some of the strongest US public criticism of Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza
UN chief calls for ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire, hostage release
Donors pledge over $2 billion for Gaza at Kuwait conference
Frankly Speaking: Where will Gazans go after Rafah’s invasion?
Egypt says to support South Africa ICJ case against Israel
Israeli military says it opened a new aid crossing into Gaza
Israeli internal discord deepens: Is a new plan being formulated for the Gaza war?
Eurovision Contest: An arena for Israeli-Palestinian war
McCaul says Rafah invasion is ‘last step’ for Israeli military ‘objective’
Sanders says Americans don’t ‘want to be complicit’ in ‘starvation’ in Gaza
Mace on Gaza war: ‘The promised land’ is Israel’s; ‘Biblical warfare, plain and simple’
Powerful Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Sadr girds for political comeback
Thousands evacuated as Russia pounds Ukraine border town
Iran conservatives tighten grip in parliament vote

Titles For The Latest English LCCC  analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources on May 12-13/2024
The Betrayal of Israel by the US Administration Is Almost Complete/Guy Millière/Gatestone Institute./May 12, 2024
Statehood in the Arab Levant Faces a Miserable Fate/Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 12/2024
The Train of the Palestinian State between the First and Final Stations/Nabil Amr/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 12/2024
After Gaza/Tony BadranThe Tablet/May 12/2024A
Averting catastrophe in Darfur must be a priority/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/May 12, 2024
Gaza protests continue on US campuses despite bigoted response/Ray Hanania/Arab News/May 12, 2024

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on May 12-13/2024
Happy & Blessed Mathers Day To All Mothers
Elias Bejjani/May 12/2024
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/74768/elias-bejjani-happy-blessed-mathers-day-to-all-mothers/
Today while in Canada we are happily and joyfully celebrating the Mothers’ Day, let us all pray that Almighty God will keep granting all mothers all over the world the needed graces of wisdom, meekness and faith to highly remain under all circumstances honoring this holy role model and to stay as Virgin Merry fully devoted to their families.
For all those of us whose mothers have passed away, let us mention them in our daily prayers and ask Almighty God to endow their souls the eternal rest in His heavenly dwellings.
In Christianity Virgin Merry is envisaged by many believers and numerous cultures as the number one role model for the righteous, devoted, loving , caring, giving, and humble mothers.
The Spirit Of My mother who like every and each loving departed mother is definitely watching from above and praying for all of us. May Almighty God Bless her spirit and the Spirits of all departed mothers.
In all religions and cultures all over the world, honoring, respecting and obeying parents is not a favor that people either chose to practice or not. No not at all, honoring, respecting and obeying parents is a holy obligation that each and every faithful individual who believes in God MUST fulfill, no matter what.
Almighty God in His 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 ) made the honoring of both parents (commandment number five) a holy obligation, and not a choice or a favor.
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you”. (Exodus 20:12)
Reading the Bible, both the Old and New Testament shows with no doubt that honoring parents is a cornerstone and a pillar in faith and righteousness for all believers. All other religions and cultures share with Christians this holy concept and obligation.
“Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” (Deuteronomy 5:16)
“You shall each revere your mother and father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:3).
Back home in Lebanon we have two popular proverbs that say:“If you do not have an elderly figure in your family to bless you, go and search for one”. “The mother is the who either gathers or divides the family”
How true are these two proverbs, because there will be no value, or meaning for our lives if not blessed and flavored by the wisdom, love and blessings of our parents and of other elder members.
He who does not honor the elderly, sympathize and empathize with them, especially his own parents is a person with a hardened heart, and a numbed conscience, who does not know the meaning of gratitude.
History teaches us that the easiest route for destroying a nation is to destroy, its cornerstone, the family. Once the family code of respect is belittled and not honored, the family is divided and loses all its Godly blessings.
“Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls” (Luke 11-17)
One very important concept and an extremely wise approach MUST apply and prevail when reading the Holy Bible in a bid to understand its contents and observe the Godly instructions and life guidelines that are enlisted. The concept needs to be a faith one with an open frame of mind free from doubts, questions and challenges.
Meanwhile the approach and interpretation MUST both be kept within the abstract manner, thinking and mentality frame, and not in the concrete way of interpretation.
We read in (Matthew 15/04: “For God said, Respect your father and your mother, and If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death).
This verse simply dwells on The Fifth Biblical Commandment: “Honor your Father and Mother”. To grasp its meaning rightfully and put it in its right faith content one should understand that death in the Bible is not the death of the body as we experience and see on earth. DEATH in the Bible means the SIN that leads to eternal anguish in Hell.
The Bible teaches us that through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, Jesus defeated death in its ancient human, earthly concept. He broke the death thorn and since than, the actual death became the sin. Those who commit the sin die and on the judgment day are outcast to the eternal fire. Death for the believers is a temporary sleep on the hope of resurrection.
Accordingly the verse “If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death”, means that those who do not honor their parents, help, support and respect them commit a deadly sin and God on the Judgment Day will make them accountable if they do not repent and honor their parents.
God is a Father, a loving, passionate and caring One, and in this context He made the honoring of parents one of the Ten Commandments.
In conclusion: The abstract and faith interpretation of Matthew 15/04 verse must not be related to children or teenagers who because of an age and maturity factors might temporarily repel against their parents and disobey them.
Hopefully, each and every one of us, no matter what religion or denomination he/she is affiliated to will never ever ignore his parents and commit the deadly SIN of not honoring them through every way and mean especially when they are old and unable to take care of themselves.
Happy Mothers’ Day to all mothers
N.B: Picture Enclosed is for the writer with his late mother in 1982
*The Above Piece was first published in 2015
The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com
Author’s Website: http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com

Patriarch Sfeir’s Pertinent Call: ‘Lebanon First, Lebanon Sovereign’
Fady Noun/This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
“Every patriarch persistently restates and renews the role that the Maronite Church must fulfill as the backbone of the Lebanese nation.” These words by Patriarch Bechara Rai, as recounted by Isabelle Dillman in her book Au Coeur du chaos (In the Heart of Chaos), capture perfectly the enduring duty and fervor that defined the life of Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir (1920-2019). Every year on May 12, Lebanon commemorates his passing, as that of a remarkable figure whose name echoes in the national consciousness. Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, who exemplified humility and obedience by submitting his resignation to Rome in 2011 to pave the way for younger successors, passed away at the revered age of 99. If his life were to be narrated, it would be defined by the true passion he experienced during the twenty-five years of his patriarchate (1986-2011), which began amidst a civil war and ended after the Doha Agreement (2008). Two key moments, one religious and the other political, stand out in the exceptional journey of a man deemed by some as one of the greatest – if not the greatest – patriarchs the Maronite Church has ever known. The religious facet pertains to the convening of the Synod for Lebanon by Pope John Paul II in 1995, which more than any other event highlighted Lebanon’s calling as a “message of freedom and an example of pluralism for the East and the West.” (1989). As for the political aspect, it was the historic “call” Patriarch Sfeir made, alongside the Maronite Episcopal Synod, demanding the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. This call was in strict accordance with the Taif Agreement, which he meticulously crafted, ensuring every aspect was minutely accounted for with the former Speaker of the House, Hussein Husseini (see the aforementioned publication).
Before his resignation, which occurred in May 2005, after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri on February 14, 2005, the patriarch had to witness the self-destruction of the Maronite community due to the fratricidal struggle between the army teams loyal to General Michel Aoun on one side and the Lebanese Forces of Samir Geagea on the other. It is worth recalling that both parties involved in these truly “sacrilegious” clashes suffered losses, with one seeking exile in France and the other serving eleven years in prison in a cell beneath the Ministry of Defense.
“His unwavering, unyielding stance against the repeated attempts by the Assad regime to coax him into compromise and persuade him to head to the Barada River for a symbolic visit, will be etched in history,” wrote Michel Touma in an editorial following his death. Despite efforts by prominent Maronite figures to sway him and urge him to use some “pragmatism” in regards to dealing with Damascus, Sfeir stood firm, believing that sovereignty couldn’t be bartered away, especially since the clear outcome would be nothing short of a fool’s deal. Despite his official position and the inherent protocol of such a position, Patriarch Sfeir was also a man of action. When confronted with tricky questions from journalists or politicians, the patriarch was renowned for his concise responses that eloquently captured the essence of his thoughts without giving away too much. With a composed demeanor and a smile, he would calmly assert, “We’ve said what we’ve said,” leaving little room for further inquiry. This exemplified to the dot philosopher Hannah Arendt’s notion that “the right word at the right moment is action.”

Patriarch Al-Rahi says EU, world 'raising criminals and terrorists' in Lebanon
Naharnet/This Is Beirut/12 May 2024
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi on Sunday sounded the alarm over the presence of displaced and "illegal" Syrians in Lebanon, noting that "the safe areas in Syria are much bigger than the area of Lebanon.""We regret that the European and world countries are not cooperating with Lebanon to resolve the refugee crisis and to return them to their country, because these nations are still using the refugees for political motives in Syria," al-Rahi said, in his Sunday Mass sermon. "They are putting this heavy burden on Lebanon with its very dangerous repercussions, not realizing that they are raising criminals and terrorists that will target these very countries before any other place," the patriarch warned.

Archbishop Audi: Lebanon Will Rise Again
This Is Beirut/12 May 2024
Beirut Greek Orthodox Archbishop Elias Audi affirmed in his Sunday homily that Lebanon will eventually “rise again, despite all the doubts.”“Just as (the apostle) Thomas doubted the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there are many who doubt Lebanon’s ability to rise again,” he said, adding, “The forces of evil, corruption, and perdition will not have their way with him, even if they appear to be the strongest.”According to the Archbishop, despite the darkness of the night, the sun will eventually rise over Lebanon “as long as there are honest men and women working to save it from the corruption and evil spread in the hearts of some.” Those “who have worked for many years to bleed it, to exploit its capacities, to plunder its wealth, to deprive it of its role, and to empty it of its young people by blocking the election of a president of the Republic and paralyzing the work of the institutions,” Audi said in a thinly veiled criticism of the axis of the Moumanaa.

Army Commander Joseph Aoun heads to Qatar
LBCI/12 May 2024
Army Commander General Joseph Aoun is headed to Qatar, in response to an invitation from his Qatari counterpart, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Pilot Salem bin Hamad bin Aqeel Al Nabit. The meeting will address the needs of the military institution and ways for support so that it continues to carry out its missions in order to preserve Lebanon’s security and stability.

South Lebanon: Intermittent Fire Exchange Between Israel and Hezbollah
This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
The exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israel continued intermittently on Sunday throughout the day, with the Israeli army bombarding the Labbouneh-Naqoura region, the outskirts of Wazzani, Rachaya al-Foukhar, Kfar Hammam and Shebaa. It also conducted two raids on an area between the villages of Hebbariyeh and Fardis, as well as on Helta. Meanwhile, Hezbollah in a series of statements claimed attacks on an Israeli soldiers’ gathering in the Zebdine area, the Shebaa farms, as well as a military vehicle transporting espionage equipment. The pro-Iranian group also declared the destruction of technical equipment in the Ramim barracks and spy equipment in Malkiya. Additionally, sirens sounded in Galilee, and the Israeli army reported intercepting a suspicious object fired from southern Lebanon.

Closure of 540 Businesses Operated by Illegal Syrian Migrants
This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
As part of its campaign to combat illegal activities by Syrian migrants, the General Security has in recent days sealed off hundreds of businesses that are operated or leased by Syrian migrants living in an illegal situation across the country. Over the past five days, nearly 540 businesses have been closed in various regions, including Bourj Hammoud, Tripoli, Batroun, Jbeil, Jounieh, the southern suburbs, Tyre, Aley and Saida, according to sources cited by the LBCI channel. In Saida alone, General Security arrested five Syrian nationals on Saturday, bringing the total number of Syrian migrants arrested there to twelve in just two days. Caretaker Interior Minister Bassam Mawlawi assured, in a speech delivered at the congress of the Order of Pharmacists, that his Ministry “will continue to enforce the laws to protect Lebanon and the Lebanese.”

Lebanon praises UNGA decision: A step in the right direction to reclaiming Palestinian rights
LBCI/12 May 2024
On Saturday, Lebanon's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants praised the recent decision taken by the United Nations General Assembly, granting Palestine a bid to become a full UN member in the organization. "Lebanon and the Arab Group voted among 143 countries in favor of this resolution," it said. The ministry reiterated the necessity of giving peace a chance after more than 75 years of occupation, tragedies, and destruction, by recognizing an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. The ministry viewed the recent decision as "a step in the right direction towards reclaiming Palestinian rights and achieving security and stability in our region."

Ezzeddine to LBCI: Issues detected with imported child milk substitutes, calls for unified stance regarding Syrian displacement
LBCI/12 May 2024
Inaya Ezzeddine, Chair of the Women and Children Parliamentary Committee and member of the Development and Liberation Bloc raised concerns about imported food items and milk alternatives for kids, revealing discrepancies between their labels and actual contents. On LBCI's "Nharkom Said" TV show, she urged for an investigation into these inconsistencies and emphasized the need for cooperation among relevant ministries. Ezzeddine highlighted the significance of food quality for children's health, stressing the importance of consistent monitoring, particularly in light of the expensive nature of high-quality products, which poses challenges for many citizens. Ezzeddine also warned about antibiotic resistance, noting that Lebanese people have developed resistance to some of the strongest antibiotics, such as colistin, which is found in livestock. She mentioned that, in coordination with the Ministry of Agriculture, a decision was made to ban colistin in poultry. She further stated that the Women and Children's Committee has requested the Ministry of Health to monitor this issue closely.  She said, "Tomorrow, I will hold a meeting with UNICEF to work on transparency in studying micronutrients in our children's food, especially in imported products." Ezzeddine emphasized that addressing this issue requires collaboration between the government, private sector, and consumers. She suggested that awareness campaigns should be conducted and that this topic should be included in educational curricula. In another context, Azeddine emphasized the need to regulate the use of social media and employ preventive measures and awareness campaigns through a high level of awareness and governance. She considered this issue a global challenge. Regarding the Syrian displacement issue, she affirmed that everyone agrees on the danger of this issue to Lebanon and that it requires a solution. She noted that Lebanon's demographic and social reality, along with its infrastructure bears a heavy burden. As a member of the Development and Liberation Bloc, she expressed hope for a unified image to emerge from Wednesday's parliamentary session. She considered the European Union's one-billion-euro funds originally earmarked for Lebanon, emphasizing that Lebanon will not accept any unsuitable conditions imposed upon it, nor will any party be able to impose such conditions. Ezzeddine emphasized that the Lebanese Army is not a border guard for anyone. Regarding the presidential election, Ezzeddine clarified that ''we must sit together to dialogue and outline the specifications and concerns of each presidential candidate to reach a consensus on a name.'' On another note, Ezzeddine explained that Lebanon has presented modifications that align with Resolution 1701.

Stranded Lebanese in Gaza: Lebanese nationals stuck in Gaza await passage
LBCI/12 May 2024
The issue of Lebanese nationals stranded in the Gaza Strip, particularly in Rafah and its crossing, remains a complex and sensitive matter, as all efforts to resolve the issue have so far failed. As a result of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, Lebanese families fled in search of a haven, some of whom ended up in Rafah. However, attempts to cross the Rafah crossing into Egypt were thwarted, prompting them to seek assistance from Lebanese authorities. The Lebanese Foreign Ministry took action, reaching out to both French and Egyptian counterparts for assistance, but to no avail. Consequently, the caretaker Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib turned to Qatar, following Qatar's success in evacuating some stranded individuals from Rafah in the past. Bou Habib met with the Qatari Ambassador to Lebanon, Sheikh Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, seeking Qatari assistance.
Nonetheless, until now, there has been no response from the Qatari side, according to Lebanese Foreign Ministry sources speaking to LBCI.
Who are these Lebanese citizens, and how many are they?
They comprise over 100 individuals, including 30 married Lebanese women to Palestinian men along with their children, as well as two families consisting of Lebanese men with their children. Some of these individuals are not registered in Lebanese records and possess only Palestinian nationality, according to Lebanese Ambassador to Egypt Ali Al Halabi, who closely monitors the issue in coordination with relevant authorities, notably the Egyptian authorities. Al Halabi explains that the procedures for these Lebanese nationals to exit Rafah towards Egypt require approval from three parties: the Egyptian side, the Palestinian side, and the Israeli side. Nevertheless, the major obstacle lies with the Israelis, who have not granted permission for the Lebanese citizens to leave. Meanwhile, the Rafah crossing remains entirely closed today to all, including international entities, since it fell under Israeli military control last week, adds the Lebanese Ambassador in Egypt.  Current efforts are underway, preparing for the moment of reopening the crossing, through communication with the Egyptians, Qataris, and French, as they could potentially mediate with Israel. However, the situation is so complex that the French side informed the Lebanese Embassy in Egypt that there is little hope. Political considerations dictate the Israeli decision, which prohibits the departure of Lebanese citizens from the Gaza Strip.

Spring Rally: Roger Feghali Passes the Torch to His Son Alex
Makram Haddad/This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.
Alex Feghali won the 39th ATCL Spring Rally on his Mitsubishi. However, it was his father, Roger Feghali, a sixteen-time winner of the competition, who was the fastest on Sunday. The latter, “guilty” of a technical error, was demoted, thereby relinquishing the top spot to his son.
Alex Feghali and his navigator Marc Haddad, in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10, clinched victory in the 39th Spring Rally, the first round of the Lebanese Rally Championship for the current year. Organized by the Automobile and Touring Club of Lebanon (ATCL) on Saturday and Sunday, the rally took place on asphalt roads in the districts of Keserwan and Jbeil. Roger Feghali and his navigator Joseph Mattar secured second place in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10, while Carl Rizk and his navigator Karim Abou Sleiman also claimed third place in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10.
Massive participation
The Rally attracted a massive number of participants. Indeed, no fewer than 30 crews, with 26 crossing the finish line, took part in this significant sporting event. The total distance of the rally was 262.75 km, including 95.86 km of special stages spread over 6 stages (one stage on Saturday and five on Sunday) in the districts of Keserwan and Jbeil. An exhibition special stage kicked off the Spring Rally on Saturday. Held within the ATCL Kaslik premises in front of a large audience, this stage was dominated by Roger Feghali ahead of Bassel Abou Hamdan and Rabih Ayoub.
Paternal sacrifice
The race resumed on Sunday morning on slippery ground due to rain showers, with a large crowd lining the five special stages. It was Feghali senior who took control of the rally from start to finish, followed by his son Alex. While everyone expected another victory from Roger Feghali, he was penalized for deliberately delaying passing through the checkpoint, thus propelling his son Alex to the top of the final standings. Paternal love prevailed over the thirst for victory. Roger Feghali thus finished in second place followed by Carl Rizk who completed the podium.
Standings
1- Alex Feghali and Marc Haddad in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10: 1:01:55
2- Roger Feghali and Joseph Mattar in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10: 1:01:07
3- Carl Rizk and Karim Abou Sleiman in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10: 1:03:08
4- Joseph Hindy and Vicken Kanledjian in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10: 1:03:31
5- Rodrigue al-Rahi and Nabil Koumboz in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10: 1:04:14
6- Abdulaziz al-Kuwari (Qatar) and Ata al-Hamoud (Jordan) in a Skoda Fabia R5: 1:04:18
7- Doumit Bou Doumit and Rami Menhem in a Citroën DS3: 1:05:17
8- Rawad el-Hashem and Gary Koundakjiian in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 9: 1:05:53
9- Elias al-Dahni and Omar Mazkur in a Citroën DS3: 1:05:54
10- Tarek Younes and Salim Jleilati in a Ford Fiesta: 1:05:57
11- Bassel Abou Hamdan and Firas Elias in a Volkswagen Polo GTI: 1:06:08
12- Charbel Chebli and Douleneck Schlink in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 9: 1:06:31
13- Ahmed Khalid and Moussa Jehjeryan (Jordan) in a Ford Fiesta: 1:07:50
14- Paul Kosseifi and Rawad Issa in a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 8: 1:08:16
15- Chadi al-Faqih and Samer Safiir in a Renault Clio: 1:08:53
Categories
In other categories, Abdulaziz al-Kuwari and his navigator Ata al-Hamoud won the “RC2 Rally 2” category, Doumit Bou Doumit and his navigator Rami Menhem won the “RC4 R3T” category, Ahmed Khalid and his navigator Moussa Jehjeryan won the “RC3 Rally 3” category, Chadi al-Faqih and his navigator Samer Safiir won the “RC5” category, Joseph Salem and his navigator Carlos Hanna won the “RC4 Rally 4” category, Walid Chalhoub and his navigator André Achkouti won the “N3” category, Joanna Hassoun and her navigator Clara Janbary won the “RC4 R3” category, and Sami Daou and his navigator Wassam Daou won the “SI” category. Tarek Younes and his navigator Salim Jleilati won the Ranking Cup, Rhea Dagher won the Ladies’ Cup, and Douleneck Schlink won the Navigation Cup. Joanna Hassoun won the Junior Drivers’ Cup and Clara Janbary won the Junior Navigation Cup. On Sunday afternoon, the prize-giving ceremony took place at the Casino du Liban (Maameltein) in the presence of the Secretary-General of the organizing club, Camille Eddé, the treasurer, lawyer Gilbert Massih, the coordinator of the Automobile Sports Committee of the organizing club, Imad Lahoud, the director of the National Sports Committee, Sleiman Khattar, the head of the automobile sports department of the organizing club, Gaby Kreiker, the race director, Gaby Hayek, his deputies, lawyer Ziad Jamous and Roy Moukarzel, Bassam Hamdan (Casino du Liban), rally officials, sponsor representatives, and a large number of motorsport enthusiasts.
A new era
In sports, the gene of victory exists indeed. The Feghalis, father and son, proved it again this weekend. Roger Feghali’s “sacrifice” does not diminish the exceptional talent of his son. However, it is not certain that this victory is exactly the one the son dreamed of for his first triumph. Whether it was a fatherly boost or not, one thing is certain: the Feghalis’ future is guaranteed.

Tribute: Yvette Achkar, a Life Dedicated to Abstract Art
This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
The art world mourns the passing of Yvette Achkar, a Lebanese painter who marked the international artistic landscape with her unique approach to abstraction. Yvette Achkar, an internationally renowned Lebanese painter, passed away on May 12, 2024, at the age of 96. Born in Sao Paulo in 1928, Achkar turned to visual arts after being rejected by the Lebanese National Conservatory due to the size of her hands. This setback marked a turning point in her career, steering her towards abstract art. Trained at the Lebanese Academy of Fine Arts (ALBA) under the direction of Fernando Manetti, and later in Paris on a French government scholarship, Achkar developed a personal style characterized by bold colors, dynamic brushstrokes, and an exploration of emotional and spiritual themes. Her often enigmatic works reflect her belief that true art transcends literal interpretation. As a teacher at ALBA and the National Institute of Fine Arts at the Lebanese University, Achkar trained many artists, imparting techniques and a philosophy of art based on freedom and depth. Her influence on the development of abstract art in Lebanon is significant, inspiring many artists who followed in her footsteps.Achkar’s works, exhibited internationally and present in prestigious collections, testify to the recognition of her talent beyond Lebanese borders. Her approach to painting, characterized by a constant search for the essence beyond form, remains a testament to her artistic vision. Yvette Achkar’s passing leaves a void in the art world, but her work continues to evoke interest and emotion. Her artistic legacy will endure, inspiring future generations of artists. Yvette Achkar will remain an important figure in abstract art, an artist whose work continues to captivate with its depth and humanity.

Wokeism and Islamism (3/4)
Amine Jules Iskandar/This Is Beirut/ 12 May 2024
The woke ideology doesn’t adhere to the concepts of nations, borders, and heritage. In fact, its ultra-identitarian mindset aims to divide communities irrespective of geographic considerations. Individuals are granted immediate access to the same rights as local residents upon entry into any territory. However, they are also expected to integrate into a racial, ethnic, sexual, or any other community that will protect them against inevitable oppression.
Transnationalism
Islamism, be it Shiite or Sunni, recognizes neither borders nor nations, as these concepts fundamentally oppose its religious and historical dogma. Within its limitless caliphate, Islamism negates cultural identities, recognizing only religious communities of dhimmis who assume the conqueror’s identity, history, heritage, and origins. In this context, the oppressed have the right to practice their religions but are denied the freedom to preserve their languages and histories. People are forced to integrate into a community that will define their rights and duties.
Furthermore, Wokeism is communitarian and, as such, rejects the notion of individualism. This doctrine believes that the individual only exists as an intrinsic component of a group in perpetual confrontation with other groups. This identity-based communitarianism clearly differentiates the woke from the legacy of French philosophers and thus the French Theory. While Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, or Gilles Deleuze deconstructed and rejected the notion of identity, Wokeism established itself around the slightest identity nuances.
Ultra Identity-Based Communitarianism
The philosophy of the woke American legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw highlights Wokeism’s deep-seated emphasis on identity. Here, the individual’s existence becomes inseparable from and exclusively defined by their racial, social, sexual, professional, and religious identities, which subsequently merge into communities. Individual freedom is thereby written off, along with free will and the potential for self-liberation. Individuals become confined by their skin color, sexual inclinations or preferences, social standing, religious affiliation, origins, obesity, physical or mental disabilities, and the countless labels conferred to them.The common ground between Wokeism and Islamism lies in this dual characteristic, as both are identity-driven and focus on identities. In addition, both are transnational in their rejection of the concept of national preference in Western territories while embracing it in Islamic ones. Advocating for ultra-communitarism, both Wokeism and Islamism forsake the principle of equality and abolish the pre-existing heritage.
The Post-Apocalyptic Doctrine
In the Hadith, the Prophet stated, “Islam negates all that preceded it” (Ibn Shimasah al Mahri). Islamists (banned in many Arab-Muslim nations) apply this principle literally, as seen in their destruction of churches in Syria-Mesopotamia, the ancient steles of Nineveh, and the historic Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan. Similarly, adherents of Wokeism forbid and ostracize, viewing all aspects of Western culture and science as tainted by colonialism, slavery, racism, and patriarchal misogyny. This legacy, which embodies only evil in all its manifestations, ought to constantly be denounced, criticized, and abolished.
It is therefore necessary to fully condemn its literary, architectural, artistic, musical, spiritual, technical, and scientific heritage. Acts of desecration and vandalism are on the rise, targeting cathedrals, museums, masterful sculptures, paintings, and even classical music, which is being vilified. We are witnessing a post-apocalyptic mindset where everything needs to be rebuilt anew by wiping the slate clean of the past and its heritage. The reign of evil is deemed over, and an allegedly new truth must emerge from the ashes. Nothing positive can be drawn from the past except evil and ignorance. This marks the Jahiliyya (the pre-Islamic era) of the emerging woke religion, significantly opposed to the teachings of Christ, who proclaimed, “I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17).
Wokes and Islamists find commonality within their shared ultra-communitarian, ultra-identitarian, transnational, and post-apocalyptic doctrines and, therefore, their values. This would explain the renaming of school holidays to avoid any reference to a bygone past. For the woke, Christian references are the Buddhas of ignorance (Jahiliyya), which must be written off from history. This would also explain the ban on Christmas nativity scenes in public spaces while lavish Ramadan iftars are being celebrated. Wokeism relies on Islamism to erase its Western legacy, while the latter promotes the woke ideology in the West to dismantle its foundations and peacefully conquer what it failed to achieve militarily. One of the strategies of the woke is to eliminate God and create a kind of spiritual void. Yet nature abhors hollowness, which will inevitably be filled by another form of spirituality. Cardinal Robert Sarah warned that the absence of God and his removal from Western civilization is a “tragedy with unforeseen consequences.”
What About Lebanon?
Despite all the warning signs, the wokes are unfortunately emboldened by the legitimacy bestowed upon them by their universities. Graced with prestigious degrees and doctorates, and granted esteemed positions, they have easy access to the media as well as local and international platforms. The authority, fame, and respect accorded to them leave little doubt regarding the righteousness of their cause. During the 2020 student elections at one of Beirut’s Christian universities, the dean of the Faculty of Political Sciences expressed outrage and deep concern for the country’s future following the victory of the Lebanese Forces party. Yet, that same respected figure never showed any concern over the numerous seats previously secured by the Islamist Hezbollah party. On March 8, 2024, as Ireland decisively rejected the destructive woke ideology, a devastated Lebanon continued to grapple with it. Among its esteemed academics from leading English- or French-speaking national institutions are activists who are adamant on lecturing. With utter arrogance, these advocates of the ultra-identitarian doctrine of Wokeism staunchly oppose any federalist project aimed at preserving Lebanon’s cultural diversity, ironically labeling it as an identitarian approach.

Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 12-13/2024
Blinken delivers some of the strongest US public criticism of Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP)/Sun, May 12, 2024
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday delivered some of the Biden administration’s strongest public criticism yet of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza, saying Israeli tactics have meant “a horrible loss of life of innocent civilians” but failed to neutralize Hamas leaders and fighters and could drive a lasting insurgency. In a pair of TV interviews, Blinken underscored that the United States believes Israeli forces should “get out of Gaza,” but also is waiting to see credible plans from Israel for security and governance in the territory after the war. Hamas has reemerged in parts of Gaza, Blinken said, and that “heavy action” by Israeli forces in the southern city of Rafah risks leaving America's closest Mideast ally “holding the bag on an enduring insurgency." He said the United States has worked with Arab countries and others for weeks on developing “credible plans for security, for governance, for rebuilding'' in Gaza, but ”we haven’t seen that come from Israel. ... We need to see that, too." Blinken also said that as Israel pushes deeper in Rafah in the south, where Israel says Hamas has four battalions and where more than 1 million civilians have massed, a military operation may “have some initial success" but risks “terrible harm” to the population without solving a problem “that both of us want to solve, which is making sure Hamas cannot again govern Gaza.” Israel's conduct of the war, he said, has put the country “on the trajectory, potentially, to inherit an insurgency with many armed Hamas left or, if it leaves, a vacuum filled by chaos, filled by anarchy, and probably refilled by Hamas. We’ve been talking to them about a much better way of getting an enduring result, enduring security.”Blinken also echoed for the first time publicly by a U.S. official the findings of a new Biden administration report to Congress on Friday that said Israel’s use of U.S.-provided weapons in Gaza likely violated international humanitarian law. The report also said wartime conditions prevented American officials from determining that for certain in specific airstrikes. “When it comes to the use of weapons, concerns about incidents where given the totality of the damage that’s been done to children, women, men, it was reasonable to assess that, in certain instances, Israel acted in ways that are not consistent with international humanitarian law,” Blinken said. He cited “the horrible loss of life of innocent civilians.”The war began on Oct. 7 after an attack against Israel by Hamas that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians. About 250 people were taken hostage. Israel's offensive has killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to the health ministry in Gaza. U.S. and U.N. officials say Israeli restrictions on food shipments since Oct. 7 have brought on full-fledged famine in northern Gaza. Tensions between Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about how the war, as well as domestic tensions about U.S. support for Israel with protests on U.S. college campuses and many Republican lawmakers saying that Biden needs to give Israel whatever it needs. The issue could play a major role in the outcome of November's presidential election. Biden said in an interview last week with CNN that his administration would not provide weapons that Israel could use for an all-out assault in Rafah. Blinken appeared on CBS' “Face the Nation” and NBC's “Meet the Press.”

UN chief calls for ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire, hostage release
AFP/May 12, 2024
KUWAIT CITY: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Sunday urged an immediate halt to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, the return of hostages and a “surge” in humanitarian aid to the besieged Palestinian territory. “I repeat my call, the world’s call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, the unconditional release of all hostages and an immediate surge in humanitarian aid,” Guterres said in a video address to an international donors’ conference in Kuwait. “But a ceasefire will only be the start. It will be a long road back from the devastation and trauma of this war,” he added. Israeli strikes on Gaza continued on Sunday after it expanded an evacuation order for Rafah despite international outcry over its military incursion into eastern areas of the city, effectively shutting a key aid crossing. “The war in Gaza is causing horrific human suffering, devastating lives, tearing families apart and rendering huge numbers of people homeless, hungry and traumatized,” Guterres said. His remarks were played at the opening of the conference in Kuwait organized by the International Islamic Charitable Organization (IICO) and the UN’s humanitarian coordination organization OCHA. On Friday, in Nairobi, the UN head warned Gaza faced an “epic humanitarian disaster” if Israel launched a full-scale ground operation in Rafah. Gaza’s bloodiest-ever war began following Hamas’s unprecedented October 7 attack on Israel that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,170 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures. Vowing to destroy Hamas, Israel launched a retaliatory offensive that has killed more than 34,971 people in Gaza, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run territory’s health ministry.

Donors pledge over $2 billion for Gaza at Kuwait conference
AFP/May 12, 2024
KUWAIT CITY: A conference of international donors in Kuwait pledged over $2 billion in aid to Gaza Sunday as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an “immediate” ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. The conference, organized by the International Islamic Charitable Organization (IICO) and UN humanitarian coordination agency OCHA, said the funds would be dispersed over two years, with the possibility of an extension. The initiative is designed “to mobilize efforts to support life-saving humanitarian interventions in the Gaza Strip, and to support the prospects for early recovery for the population,” IICO general manager Bader Saud Al-Sumait said. It would be applied on five different tracks — “life-saving interventions, shelter, health, education, and economic empowerment,” Sumait said as he read the conference’s final statement. Guterres urged an immediate halt to the war, the return of hostages held in Gaza and a “surge” in humanitarian aid to the besieged Palestinian territory. “I repeat my call, the world’s call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, the unconditional release of all hostages and an immediate surge in humanitarian aid,” Guterres said in a video address. “But a ceasefire will only be the start. It will be a long road back from the devastation and trauma of this war,” he added. Israeli strikes on Gaza continued on Sunday after it expanded an evacuation order for Rafah despite an international outcry over its military incursion into eastern areas of the city, effectively shutting a key aid crossing. “The war in Gaza is causing horrific human suffering, devastating lives, tearing families apart and rendering huge numbers of people homeless, hungry and traumatized,” Guterres said. Meeting Kuwait’s Emir Sheikh Meshal Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah, the UN chief accepted an honorary shield “on behalf of the United Nations, and especially on behalf of the almost 200 members of the UN that were killed in Gaza.” On Friday in Nairobi, Guterres warned that Gaza faced an “epic humanitarian disaster” if Israel launched a full-scale ground operation in Rafah.Gaza’s bloodiest-ever war began following Hamas’s unprecedented October 7 attack on Israel that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,170 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.Vowing to destroy Hamas, Israel launched a retaliatory offensive that has killed more than 35,034 people in Gaza, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run territory’s health ministry.

Frankly Speaking: Where will Gazans go after Rafah’s invasion?
ARAB NEWS/May 12, 2024
DUBAI: If Arab countries really cared about Gaza, they would throw open their borders to Palestinian refugees. That is a claim made repeatedly by Israel since the Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7 last year sparked the conflict in the Gaza Strip.
According to Ambassador Hossam Zaki, assistant secretary-general to the Arab League, this argument is deeply flawed — ignoring the fact that Arab nations already host millions of Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, Zaki believes this argument ignores the stark reality that once the people of Gaza are displaced, the Israeli government is unlikely to permit their return — opting instead to seize the land for the state of Israel.
“If we really want the truth, the Israeli wish is to see that the Palestinian population would disappear from the Occupied Territories,” Zaki told Katie Jensen, host of the Arab News current affairs program “Frankly Speaking.”
He added: “From the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, they would love for the Palestinians just to vanish. We all know that, because we know that they want the land. They want to grab the territory. They want to annex the territory to their state.”
In a wide-ranging interview, in which he discussed the forthcoming Arab League summit in Bahrain on May 16, efforts to halt Israel’s assault on Rafah, and the diminishing prospects for a two-state solution, Zaki said previous mass displacements would not be repeated. “The Palestinians have learned from the mistakes of the past — from the 1948 war and 1967 war — that once they move out of their territory, the territory is confiscated by Israel, taken under control by Israel. And it seems to be such an uphill battle to get it back,” he said.
“The hope of getting back territory is ever so pale. So, what we are doing is, we are assisting the Palestinians to hold on to their territory, to hold on to their land, and not to move out of the land, because they know the consequences of moving out.”
Zaki was equally vehement in his rejection of the Israeli suggestion that the Arab states had failed to offer sanctuary to Palestinian refugees.“They (the Israelis) can criticize us all they want,” he said. “We have Palestinians living in all Arab countries, some in refugee camps — very, very few — but most living like the normal citizens of these countries.“In Egypt and in the Gulf countries, in Jordan, in North Africa, all Arab countries, you have Palestinians living.
“Normally, that is a criticism that we are willing to take, because we know that whatever is said in this regard means only to evacuate the territory for the benefit of the Israelis who want to grab it.”Since the war in Gaza began seven months ago, the Arab League has been actively involved in trying to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, to arrange for sufficient aid to enter the enclave, and to keep the goal of Palestinian statehood on the agenda. Zaki said the Arab League and its “heavyweight members” — including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Jordan — had continued to promote the Arab Peace Initiative, first unveiled 20 years ago, and were working to stop the “killing madness” continuing. “But nothing has been successful so far,” he said. “Even the only resolution that the UN Security Council was able to adopt in order to stop the war, to cease the fire, was not implemented. It’s been adopted since, what, one month now? Nothing. As if there is nothing.”
Zaki believes Israel has been allowed to act with impunity owing to the protection and largesse of the US. “Israel is basically a country that is pampered by the US, pampered by many of its allies, accomplices, so-called friends in the West,” he said. “They condone what it is doing and they cannot stop it. They cannot stop this madness. Unfortunately, they gave it a carte blanche since the beginning and this is where we are. “Seven months in this war — this criminal war — and nothing is happening. They are not capable of reigning in this country, this government of extremists.” Asked whether the Arab League itself shares part of the blame for failing to bring an end to the conflict, Zaki laid responsibility entirely on Washington. “Why would we — how could we — blame the Arab League?” he said. “The Arab League is not an accomplice in this. The Arab League is not giving bombs to Israel. The Arab League is not giving ammunition to Israel. The Arab League is not funding the Israeli aggression. “The Arab League is a regional organization, a respectable regional organization, that is seeking peace, that is talking politics. It’s a diplomatic organization. We are willing to engage with whomever is seeking peace as well on the other side. “Why do we say the US and the West? Because it is the US that’s funding Israel. It keeps transferring money to Israel, aid to Israel, munitions, bombs, weapons, whatever — you name it.”Israel’s months-long bombardment and strangulation of aid flows has devastated Gaza’s infrastructure. Zaki believes Israel has deliberately sought to make Gaza inhospitable to compel the Palestinian population to abandon their land and accept refugee status abroad.
“The Israelis, in the nasty, very nasty, war against the Palestinians in Gaza, what they’re trying to do is not only to kill Palestinians … they did something which is much more nasty, actually: They have destroyed the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip,” he said. “They’ve destroyed the health infrastructure, the education infrastructure, the water infrastructure, the electricity infrastructure. This is mean and malignant, and they want to make it a point for the Palestinians who remain in the Gaza Strip — most of the inhabitants — to find this place uninhabitable.
“When the war ends, all the Palestinians would look around and see that this has become totally uninhabitable, so they would want to leave. But surprise to them, I would tell you from now — and mark my words — that is not going to happen.
“They’re going to reconstruct their state, their country. They’re going to reconstruct Gaza, and the Arabs are going to help them. You bet on that. And the international community has enough decent people, enough peace-loving people, who believe in Palestinian rights and who will help them rebuild their country after all the crimes that Israel has committed there.”Furthermore, Israel has threatened to take over the Philadelphi Corridor — a narrow strip of land along the Gaza-Egypt border, established under the Philadelphi Accord in 2005 and which authorized Egypt to deploy 750 border guards to police its side of the border. If Israel were to seize control of the Philadelphi Corridor, it could undermine the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty, in which Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt and created the current border that bisects Rafah.
“They are playing with fire, and I think they know that,” said Zaki, himself an Egyptian diplomat. “Those who are taking decisions on the Israeli side are taking a big risk. I do not think that, in their right mind, they would want to see an undermining of the main pillar of peace in the region, which is the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979.”
Preparations are underway for the 33rd Arab League summit, during which the leaders of the 22 member states will discuss common challenges facing the region.
With multiple conflicts blighting the Middle East and North Africa, Zaki said there would be “a hefty agenda” this year. “Obviously the issue of the war on Gaza is going to be left, right and center in all of this,” he said. “Sudan is a big issue for us. The war on Sudan has not receded. It’s been going on for more than a year. It’s unfortunate. We need to address that. The situation in Libya. The situation with Yemen is still a problem. Syria is still an issue for us. “And, we have a set of other socioeconomic resolutions that are prepared for the leaders to adopt in their meetings. So we do have quite a hefty agenda for our summit this year.”High on that agenda will no doubt be the prospects of reviving the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “There is no alternative to that solution,” said Zaki. “The Palestinians should have their own state. They should have their own independent contiguous state. Nothing should stand in their way and nothing, really, should justify assisting Israel in diluting this solution.” But, given the destruction in Gaza, the ongoing spread of settlements in the West Bank, and the deep hostility felt on both sides, some might argue the region is moving further away from the two-state solution. “No, we’re not moving further away,” said Zaki. “I think the world — which has pretty much paid lip service to this two-state solution for a couple of decades now — is now realizing that, well, lip service is not useful anymore, and we should really engage in active steps, like many European leaders have been saying, active steps. “Even US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that several months ago. We should all engage in active steps to make true the Palestinian state — to make it come about and to make it a reality. “This is going to happen in the UN; one step closer, one step closer to Palestinian statehood. And things are going to move in this direction. “The Israelis will have to resist that as they want to, and as they refuse to engage in peace talks, and they refuse to agree on Palestinian statehood. But it’s not up to them. “We are trying to convince the rest of the world, especially the Western world, that Palestinian statehood should not be subject to an Israeli veto. Because if we do give the Israelis the veto over this, I think they will never agree on it. And a Palestinian state will never see the light of day.”

Egypt says to support South Africa ICJ case against Israel
AFP/May 12, 2024
CAIRO: Egypt on Sunday announced its intention to formally support South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice against Israel, alleging genocide in its war against Hamas in Gaza. Pretoria brought its case to the ICJ in December, calling on the UN court to order Israel to suspend its military operations in Gaza. In its most recent appeal to the ICJ on Friday, South Africa again accused Israel of “continuing violations of the Genocide Convention” and of being “contemptuous” of international law. Egypt on Sunday said its move to back the case comes “in light of the worsening severity and scope of Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip,” according to a foreign ministry statement. It further pointed to Israel’s systematic “targeting of civilians and destruction of infrastructure” and “pushing Palestinians into displacement and expulsion.”South Africa has called on the world’s top court to order Israel to “immediately withdraw and cease its military offensive” in Rafah, the southernmost Gaza city where about 1.5 million Palestinians had been pushed against the Egyptian border. Israel on Monday sent ground troops and tanks into eastern Rafah, later seizing and shutting the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing with Egypt. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday that Gaza risked an “epic humanitarian disaster” if Israel launched a full-scale ground operation in Rafah. Egypt was the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and has acted as a key mediator between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, including in the current war. It also shares the only border with the Gaza Strip not controlled by Israel, but has refused to coordinate aid access through the Rafah crossing since Israeli forces seized it. State-linked television channel Al-Qahera News on Sunday reported a high-level source denying Israeli media reports of “coordination between Israel and Egypt at the Rafah crossing.”Egypt has also issued repeated warnings against escalation since negotiators from both Israel and Hamas departed Cairo on Thursday after talks again failed to achieve a truce. In January the ICJ called on Israel to prevent acts of genocide following the original South African request for international action. The court rejected a second South African application for emergency measures over Israel’s threat to attack Rafah. South Africa made a new request in early March.

Israeli military says it opened a new aid crossing into Gaza
Reuters/May 12, 2024
The Israeli military said on Sunday it opened a new humanitarian aid crossing into the Gaza Strip in coordination with the United States.The crossing, called ‘Western Erez, was opened in the northern Gaza Strip in order to transfer humanitarian aid, the military said in a statement.

Israeli internal discord deepens: Is a new plan being formulated for the Gaza war?
LBCI/May 12, 2024
As fighting escalates in Gaza, particularly in Jabalia, internal conflicts and disputes within Israel over the government's policy towards the Gaza war have intensified. Officials have warned of the army's potential entanglement in Gaza's impasse. The deepening rift extends to the official establishment, with the return of combat to areas where the army has fought repeatedly without achieving its objectives.  Division in disagreement between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi has become apparent, with Halevi asserting that recent orders to expand the war will not yield results unless the government devises a strategic plan for Gaza. Despite efforts to highlight the army's strength in Gaza, the absence of a plan ensuring the success of the post-war period dominates the Israeli scene. This fact led the official responsible for security policy and strategic planning in the National Security Council, Yoram Hamo, to resign, unveiling a new plan from the National Security Council to be presented to the Cabinet for approval. The plan encompasses Israeli control over Gaza for a period ranging from six months to a year, through civilian administration, similar to current practices in the West Bank. During this period, services for Gaza residents will be provided by private companies affiliated with Arab countries, especially Gulf states, including education, police, and various civil services. The civilian administration and Arab companies will ensure stability in Gaza and guarantee full civil services. During this period, a Palestinian side, made of local figures that are not hostile to Israel, will be agreed upon to hand over power in the Gaza Strip. The plan does not address a party emerging from a renewed Palestinian Authority, a demand raised by Israel, internationally, and by the United States. The discussion about post-war coincides with the disclosure of US intelligence information regarding the whereabouts of Yahya Sinwar, which has sparked sterile Israeli discussions, coinciding with an Israeli report confirming the absence of Sinwar and Hamas leadership in Rafah. Amid escalating protests by the families of prisoners aimed at pressuring for an immediate exchange deal and cessation of the war, the families of 600 reserve soldiers sent a message to the military leadership and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, refusing to send their sons to invade Rafah, expressing their lack of confidence in the army and the government.

Eurovision Contest: An arena for Israeli-Palestinian war
LBCI/May 12, 2024
In what may have been initially perceived as an attempt to disperse protesting students against Israel, the scene unfolded not on the streets but rather at the Eurovision event. Eurovision, a singing competition uniting European nations and a few from outside Europe, including Israel, saw contestants performing under their respective national flags, often dubbed the "pop music Olympics."This shift in conflict from universities to the Eurovision Contest reflects the tensions between Israel's supporters and defenders of Palestine. Following the performance of the Israeli contestant, videos circulated on social media showing audible boos from the audience. Despite the controversy, the voting details of the program's followers have been revealed. The Israeli contestant ranked fifth. Eurovision voting is divided between public votes, which are scored, and votes from a jury panel from each country, excluding their own. Israel received only 52 points from the jury votes, with no jury awarding the maximum of 12 points. However, it received 323 points from public votes, placing it second in this aspect, with fans from 15 countries giving it the full 12 points. In contrast, the UK jury did not award any points to the Israeli contestant, while it received a maximum of 12 points from the British public. Similarly, Italy's jury did not award any points, while the public gave full marks. Ukraine did not vote for Israel either, neither through public votes nor through the jury. While we know in principle which countries supported the Israeli contestant, understanding the behind-the-scenes of the voting process, including the age categories and affiliations of voters, and whether there was any organizational intervention affecting the vote count, remains challenging. Thus, Gaza's battleground extends from bombs and bullets to university protests and now to the Eurovision stage, with protests and audience outcry. Who knows which new stage will become the arena for this escalating conflict in the future?

McCaul says Rafah invasion is ‘last step’ for Israeli military ‘objective’
Miranda Nazzaro/The Hill./May 12, 2024
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) on Sunday argued Israel’s invasion of Rafah is the final step in completing its military campaign in Gaza as President Biden threatens to halt weapons in the case of a full-scale invasion. “Now, of course, you want the conditions with humanitarian to be in place. Of course, you want the tenants in place, but to say you cannot invade Rafah…we’re telling the Israelis, dictating their military strategy,” McCaul said Sunday in an interview with ABC News’s ‘This Week. “This is a last point and a last step in the completion of their military objective.”Biden last week warned he would halt offensive weapon supplies to Israel, including bombs and artillery shells, should the country’s forces launch an invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza. The White House has repeatedly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against sending forces into Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians are seeking refuge amid the violence. “For us to step in and say, ‘No, you can’t go into Rafah and finish a job…’ I think it’s tantamount to an arms embargo,” McCaul said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long maintained that moving into Rafah is necessary to go after the leaders of Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that has run the Gaza Strip since 2007 and carried out the Oct. 7 surprise assault against Israel that killed about 1,200 people. McCaul suggested Biden’s warning “may not matter” given Netanyahu’s stance. “With respect to Israel, Netanyahu said — and I’ve talked to him — ‘I’m going to do this alone if I have to,'” McCaul said. “Where it matters, is the signal and the message we’re sending the rest of the world that you can’t count on the United States, can’t trust the United States. Our allies….and our enemies see this as well.”Biden’s weapon halt threat drew criticism from several Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), who said he hopes Biden was having a “senior moment” when he made the threat. He suggested Biden’s comments violated what the Speaker thought were promises to guarantee Johnson’s support for the $95 billion emergency foreign aid package. “I hope — I believe he’s off-script,” Johnson said. “I don’t think that’s something that staff told him to say. I hope it’s a senior moment, because that would be a great deviation in what is said to be the policy there.”Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) called the threat “disgusting” and accused Biden of being a part of the “pro-Hamas” group of the Democratic party. In a statement to The Hill last week, a senior Biden administration official said, “President Biden shares Israel’s goal of dismantling Hamas and he has done more than any world leader to support Israel as it has defended itself since October 7.”“The President was very clear last night[week], as he has always been: While the United States will continue ensure that Israel has all of the military means it needs to defend itself against all of its enemies, including Hamas, he does not want to provide material support to an operation we oppose – especially since we believe there are alternate ways that Israel can accomplish its objectives,” the official added.

Sanders says Americans don’t ‘want to be complicit’ in ‘starvation’ in Gaza
Miranda Nazzaro/The Hill/May 12, 2024
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday doubled down on his opposition to further U.S. aid to Israel, suggesting Americans do not want to be “complicit” in the starvation of children in Gaza. “Well, I understand…look, every Republican as I understand it, wants to give huge amounts of money to Israel,” Sanders said during an interview with NBC News’s “Meet the Press.” My guess is that many Republicans want Israel to go into Rafah, despite the incredible humanitarian destruction that will cause, and there are Democrats who also feel that way.” “But this is what I will tell you, Kristen. That is not what the American people feel. Poll after poll suggests that the American people want an immediate ceasefire. They want massive humanitarian aid to get in,” he continued. “The people of our country do not want to be complicit in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of children.” Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, has repeatedly called for a stop to U.S. aid amid the civilian death toll and depleting humanitarian resources. More than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks. Polls have varied in their indications of Americans’ sentiment over the war. In a poll last month, nearly one-third of Americans said Israel has gone too far in Gaza, while another poll released in recent weeks found an overwhelming majority of Americans support Israel in its war against Hamas. About 1,200 people were killed in Israel on Oct. 7, while about 250 others were taken hostage by Hamas and brought to Gaza. The war between Israel and Hamas has raged on for over seven months and has prompted a severe depletion of food, water, medicine and other resources amid the violence. World Food Programme (WFP) Director Cindy McCain said earlier this month that there is a “full-blown famine” in northern Gaza. According to a WFP report released in March, about 1.1 million in Gaza have completely exhausted their food supplies and are facing catastrophic hunger and starvation. Congress last month passed a massive foreign aid package that included $26 billion for Israel and global humanitarian aid, including for Gaza. Sanders voted against the package, pointing to the “8.9 billion in unfettered military aid” to allow Israel to wage an “unprecedented assault against the Palestinian people.”“But the reality is, as I think any objective observer knows, Israel has broken international law. It has broken American law. And in my view, Israel should not be receiving another nickel in U.S. military aid,” Sanders said Sunday. “Look, the facts are quite clear. Hamas is a terrible, disgusting terrorist organization that began this war. But what Israel has done over the last seven months is not just gone to war against Hamas, it has gone to war against the entire Palestinian people,” he continued.

Mace on Gaza war: ‘The promised land’ is Israel’s; ‘Biblical warfare, plain and simple’
Lauren Irwin/The Hill/May 12/2024
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) weighed in on the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, dubbing it “Biblical warfare.”“Israel doesn’t occupy the land, they own it. The promised land is theirs,” Mace posted on social media platform X. “It’s Biblical warfare, plain and simple.”Mace, like many other Republican lawmakers, has been supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself after Hamas attacked on Oct. 7. In a December interview, Mace sharply criticized her Democratic colleagues in the House for not speaking out against the acts of sexual violence that Hamas inflicted on Israelis that day. “I can’t think of anything more shameful to see these women’s groups, to see woman on the left, women in the House, my colleagues on the left who refuse to say what this is, which is shameful. It’s disgusting. It’s barbaric,” she said. “And we ought to be condemning it from every corner of our country. Every woman should be condemning this. And I think it’s shameful.”Mace is an outspoken advocate against sexual violence, having been a victim of rape herself. She used her own experience in expressing grief about the violence Israeli women suffered. “I mean, we know now —we know now that Hamas in their battle plan was to go in and systematically rape, mutilate, and murder these Israeli women,” Mace said. “And I’m — I’m a survivor of rape, but the difference is that I survived. But many of these Israeli women didn’t, and they were mutilated, and murdered while it was happening.”The Hill has reached out to Mace’s office for further comment about her post and the war.

Powerful Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Sadr girds for political comeback
Timour Azhari and Ahmed Rasheed/Reuters/Sun, May 12, 2024
Powerful Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is laying the groundwork for a political comeback two years after a failed and ultimately deadly high-stakes move to form a government without his Shi'ite rivals, multiple sources said. His return, likely planned for the 2025 parliamentary election, could threaten the growing clout of rivals including Iraqi Shi'ite parties and armed factions close to Iran, and undermine Iraq's recent relative stability, observers say. However, many among Iraqi's majority Shi'ite population are likely to welcome Sadr's re-emergence, especially his masses of mostly pious and poor followers who view him as a champion of the downtrodden. Reuters spoke to more than 20 people for this story, including Shi'ite politicians in Sadr's movement and in rival factions, clerics and politicians in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, and government officials and analysts. Most spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters."This time, the Sadrist movement has stronger plans than the last time round to win more seats in order to form a majority government," a former Sadrist lawmaker said, though the final decision to run has not officially been made.Sadr won the 2021 parliamentary election but ordered his lawmakers to resign, then announced a "final withdrawal" from politics the next year after rival Shi'ite parties thwarted his attempt to form a majority government solely with Kurdish and Sunni Muslim parties. A dominant figure in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, self-styled nationalist Sadr has railed against the influence of both Iran and the United States in Iraq. Iran views Sadr's participation in politics as important to maintaining Iraq's Shi'ite-dominated political system in the long term, though Tehran rejects his aspirations to be recognised as its single most dominant force. The United States, which fought Sadr's forces after he declared a holy war against them in 2004, sees him as a threat to Iraq's fragile stability, but also views him as a needed counter to Iranian influence. Many Iraqis say they have lost out no matter who is in power while elites siphon off the country's oil wealth.
CLERICAL NOD
Since March, Sadr has stepped back towards the limelight. First, he held a rare meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a prominent cleric revered by millions of Shi'ites who played a central role in ending the deadly intra-Shi'ite clashes in 2022 that preceded Sadr's political exit. Sadrists interpret the March 18 audience with Sistani, who stays above the fray of Iraq's fractious politics and does not typically meet politicians, as a tacit endorsement, according to six people in Sadr's movement. A cleric close to Sistani said Sadr spoke about a possible return to political life and parliament and "left this important meeting with a positive outcome". Sistani's office did not respond to a request for comment. Days after the meeting, Sadr instructed his lawmakers who resigned in 2021 to gather and re-engage with the movement's political base. He then renamed his organisation the Shi'ite National Movement, a swipe at rival Shi'ite factions he deems unpatriotic and beholden to Iran as well as a bid to further mobilise his base along sectarian lines, a person close to Sadr said. While some analysts fear the disruption of a Sadr return to frontline politics, others say he could re-emerge humbled by the routing of his forces during the intra-Shi'ite strife as well as the relative success of the current Baghdad government, including its balancing of relations between Iran and the U.S. "Of course, there is always a greater risk of instability when you have more groups balancing power, especially when they are armed. But the Sadrists should return less hostile," said Hamzeh Haddad, an Iraqi analyst and visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. "The political parties know it's best to share power than to lose it all together," he said. A senior Sadrist politician said the movement might seek to ally with some ruling Shi'ite factions, such as popular Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, while isolating others including arch-rival Qais Al-Khazaali, leader of the powerful, Iran-backed political and military group Asaib Ahl al-Haq. Advisers to Sudani said he was keeping his options open. "There are groups in the framework that we have long-time relations with and could ally with before or after elections. What we don't accept is to get into deals with corrupt militias," the senior Sadrist said. In Sadr City, Sadr's sprawling, long-impoverished stronghold on the east side of Baghdad, many supporters await his return in the hope this could translate into jobs and services. "This city supports Sadr and I don't think he would forget us after all the sacrifices we have made for him," said Taleb Muhawi, a 37-year-old father of three who was waiting to hear back on a government job. "He needs to shake things up when he comes back."

Thousands evacuated as Russia pounds Ukraine border town
Agence France Presse/May 12, 2024
Thousands of people been evacuated from border areas in Ukraine's Kharkiv region, as Russia kept up constant strikes on a key town as part of a cross-border offensive, officials said Sunday. The surprise Russian attack across Ukraine's northeastern border began on Friday, with troops making small advances in an area from where they had been pushed back nearly two years ago. "In total, 4,073 people have been evacuated," Kharkiv regional governor Oleg Synegubov wrote on social media, a day after Russian forces claimed the capture of five villages in the region. Ukraine has reported several civilians killed in the offensive. Synegubov said the latest casualty -- a 63-year-old man -- was killed by artillery fire in the village of Glyboke. On Sunday AFP saw groups of people who had been evacuated from around the border town of Vovchansk, most of them elderly and disoriented. "We weren’t going to leave. Home is home," said 72-year-old Lyuda Zelenskaya, hugging a trembling cat named Zhora. Liuba Konovalova, 70 said she had endured a "really terrifying" night before her evacuation. The pair, who lived together after their children married each other and moved away, were at a first point for evacuees in the Kharkiv region. Around them, volunteers assisted elderly evacuees towards a few wooden benches where they registered and received food before being evacuated toward the city of Kharkiv, the regional capital.
'Everything... is being destroyed' -
Oleksiy Kharkivsky, a senior police officer from Vovchansk helping to coordinate evacuations, said "several people" had been killed by shelling on Saturday and one person was found dead in rubble overnight. "The city is constantly under fire," he said. "Everything in the city is being destroyed... You hear constant explosions, artillery, mortars. The enemy is hitting the city with everything they have," he said. The Ukrainian army said it was holding back any further Russian advances. "Russian occupants' attempts to break through our defense have been stopped," said Ukraine's commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrsky. But he said the situation in Kharkiv region had "deteriorated significantly" and was "complicated".Ukrainian forces "are doing everything they can to hold their defensive lines and positions and inflict damage on the enemy," he said.
Evacuation teams under fire -
Kharkivsky estimated that around 1,500 people had been evacuated or fled Vovchansk since Friday and there had been 32 drone strikes on the town over the past 24 hours.He said evacuation teams had come under fire "many times". On Saturday, AFP saw groups of people fleeing the border area arriving in vans and cars loaded with bags at a reception centre for evacuees near Kharkiv. Evacuees -- most of them elderly -- received food and medical assistance and could sleep in bunk beds. President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Saturday that Ukrainian troops had been carrying out counterattacks in the border villages. "Disrupting Russian offensive plans is now our number one task," he said. Troops must "return the initiative to Ukraine", the president insisted, again urging allies to speed up arms deliveries. Ukrainian officials had warned for weeks that Moscow might try to attack its northeastern border regions, pressing its advantage as Ukraine struggles with delays in Western aid and manpower shortages.

Iran conservatives tighten grip in parliament vote
Agence France Presse/May 12, 2024
Iran's conservatives and ultra-conservatives clinched more seats in a partial rerun of the country's parliamentary elections, official results showed, tightening their hold on the chamber. Voters had been called to cast ballots again on Friday in regions where candidates failed to gain enough votes in the March 1 election, which saw the lowest turnout -- 41 percent -- since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Candidates categorised as conservative or ultra-conservative on pre-election lists won the majority of the 45 remaining seats up for grabs in the vote held in 15 of Iran's 31 provinces, according to local media. For the first time in the country, voting on Friday was a completely electronic process at eight of the 22 constituencies in Tehran and the cities of Tabriz in the northwest and Shiraz in the south, state TV said. "Usually, the participation in the second round is less than the first round," Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi told reporters in Tehran, without specifying what the turnout was in the latest round. "Contrary to some predictions, all the candidates had a relatively acceptable and good number of votes," he added. Elected members are to choose a speaker for the 290-seat parliament when they begin their work on May 27. In March, 25 million Iranians took part in the election out of 61 million eligible voters. The main coalition of reform parties, the Reform Front, had said ahead of the first round that it would not participate in "meaningless, non-competitive and ineffective elections". The vote was the first since nationwide protests broke out following the September 2022 death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian Kurd, arrested for allegedly breaching the Islamic republic's strict dress code for women. In the 2016 parliamentary elections, first-round turnout was above 61 percent, before falling to 42.57 percent in 2020 when elections took place during the Covid pandemic.

Latest English LCCC  analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources on May 12-13/2024
The Betrayal of Israel by the US Administration Is Almost Complete
Guy Millière/Gatestone Institute./May 12, 2024
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20636/betrayal-of-israel
The Biden administration does not appear ever to have issued the slightest threat, warning or ultimatum to the authors of the war: Hamas, Iran or Qatar.
US Senator Chuck Schumer, after declaring himself a friend and defender of Israel, suggested overthrowing Israel's democratically elected prime minister, and -- as if Israel, and not America, were within his jurisdiction -- called for new elections.
Meanwhile in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where anti-government demonstrations began again, one of their leaders, Ami Dror, revealed on social media that the demonstrations and riots are part of a plan by the Biden administration to bring down the Netanyahu government.... The US State Department has, for more than a year, been providing financial support for protests hostile to the Netanyahu government.
Biden, it seems, is frustrated that Netanyahu is objecting to humanitarian aid -- which basically resupplies Hamas. Hamas, Israel's argument goes, released hostages only after unremitting pressure. Relieving that pressure by backing Hamas makes the probability of seeing any more hostages released less likely. Biden is also reportedly frustrated that Netanyahu, for some inexplicable reason, objects to the creation of a terrorist Palestinian state next door.
One cannot leave aside that the Biden administration, through ignoring sanctions on Iranian oil, has allowed the Iran's regime to earn up to an estimated $100 billion... Without those funds, the massacre of October 7 would not have been possible, Hezbollah would not have been able to fire so many missiles into Israel from Lebanon, and Iran itself would not have been able to launch more than 300 drones and ballistic missiles at Israel in April, and to attack US troops more than 150 times on, just since October 7, 2023 -- evidently in an attempt to drive the US out of the Middle East.
The Biden administration, it seems, does not want a definitive end of the conflict -- as with Ukraine as well -- especially if the end would entail the defeat of Hamas or Russia. Hamas is a protégé of Qatar and Iran, the world's two leading state sponsors of terrorism. The Biden administration has been rewarding them -- Iran with money and Qatar with renewing its protection by Al-Udeid Air Base, headquarters of America's CENTCOM, as well as controlling the new terror pier the US has built in Gaza At the same time, the Biden administration is falsely accusing Israel of violating human rights.
The Biden administration may even be complicit in the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials that might be issued by the International Criminal Court – possibly as a way to dispense with him.
The mullahs are, in effect, using their proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and so on -- as their "human shields".
The Biden administration has placed the existence of Israel in danger to protect Biden from the dangerous voters of Michigan.
Worse, with the Biden administration now having come down squarely against Israel and on the side of Iran, Qatar and Hamas, they have to feel no inclination to agree to anything. Why should they? Iran's mullahs have a new proxy, the United States, backing their terrorism for them.
Even worse, at almost the same time as the US told Israel it was withholding arms shipments that Congress had already approved (a move for which Democrats tried to impeach then President Donald Trump), the Biden administration waived sanctions for arms purchases by Lebanon, Qatar and Iraq -- countries that host groups working to destroy Israel.
Worst of all, if you are Ukraine, Taiwan, China, Russia, Japan – just about any US ally or foe -- you probably cannot avoid thinking something like: We have watched the supposedly mighty US surrender Afghanistan, its ally of 20 years, to a bunch of terrorists, the Taliban. Now we are watching the US surrender its closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, the only democracy there, to terrorists: to Hezbollah in Lebanon with 150,000 rockets and missiles pointed at Israel, and to Hamas in Gaza by sending "humanitarian aid," that will used by terrorists.
Where are any prosecutions or sanctions by the UN and international courts for war crimes and human rights violations on countries such as Qatar (here and here), China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen and Sudan?
Currently, the Biden administration appears to want three things: Netanyahu OUT – reportedly to be replaced by a puppet who will do whatever the US tells him; a terrorist Palestinian state IN, and to preserve Iran and Qatar's client, the terrorist group, Hamas. So far, all the pressure from Washington has been on Israel, none at all on Hamas or on its patrons, Qatar and Iran. The fighting could indeed stop tomorrow if either of them or the US seriously ordered Hamas to stop fighting and immediately return the 132 remaining hostages.
Did the Biden administration even ask?
The Biden administration, it seems, does not want a definitive end of the conflict -- as with Ukraine as well -- especially if the end would entail the defeat of Hamas or Russia. Hamas is a protégé of Qatar and Iran, the world's two leading state sponsors of terrorism. The Biden administration has been rewarding them. The genocidal anti-Semitic attack on October 7, 2023 by the Islamic terrorists of Hamas at first aroused horror throughout the Western world. It took only a few hours, however for the horror to fade -- long before Israel had even begun to respond. Demonstrations against Israel, and in support of the terrorist group, Hamas -- sometimes "cleaned up" to be labeled "pro-Palestinian" -- exploded just hours later on October 8, before hundreds of charred bodies had been removed from their homes. These well-planned and well-funded professional demonstrations, complete with instant Palestinian flags and, later, instant identical tents -- rapidly metastasized throughout North America and Europe.
The slogan, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" -- calls for the total destruction of Israel, which, by coincidence, happens to be located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – and "Death to America" were chanted by tens of thousands of self-described "progressives," Muslims and their followers. The campuses of several American and European universities -- including, among other places, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia and New York University -- became sites of acts of pure anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic violence, under the guise of "free speech." If the demonstrations had been against gays or Blacks, does anyone think that "free speech," or violence masquerading as "free speech, would have lasted five minutes? Whatever happened to all those demonstrations against China's genocide of the Uyghurs, or crushing Hong Kong; or Russia's scorched-earth war in Ukraine; or Iran's rape, torture and execution of women, children and, now, rappers, or North Korea's "murder, enslavement, torture, [and] enforced disappearances"?
"Stop Calling Them 'Pro-Palestine' Rallies,'" wrote the Rochester Institute of Technology's A.J. Caschetta. In blunt Australia, euphemisms were dispensed with altogether in favor of "Gas the Jews" and "F---k the Jews."
The whitewash of the terrorist group Hamas had begun. European politicians in France and Belgium, supporting Hamas, call it a "resistance movement."
As Israel's military response in the Gaza Strip progressed -- meticulously crafted to avoid harming Palestinian civilians -- many European leaders turned on Israel. They falsely accused it of acting "disproportionately" while Hamas's widespread use of its own civilians as human shields was almost totally ignored. As Hamas also meticulously plans, the gullible international community accuses Israel of killing innocent civilians, not the Palestinian officials in Gaza who intentionally place them in harm's way, even shooting at them to keep them from fleeing to safety in the south as the Israelis were urging them to do.
Also ignored is that Hamas officials seize virtually all of the free humanitarian aid, then give it to their terrorists or sell it to civilians on the black market for extortionate prices.
Although there is "'no food shortage' in Gaza," several of Israel's most steadfastly hostile critics, such as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, nevertheless falsely accuse Israel of causing a "famine" in Gaza.
As early as March 19, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, like so many European political leaders, falsely accused Israel, not Hamas, of "causing a famine" in Gaza. He even added that "100 percent of the population in Gaza is at severe levels of acute food insecurity". Israel is now forced to allow hundreds of trucks into Gaza that Israeli soldiers escort. Gaza, in fact, reportedly receives far more food than the population of Gaza needs. Gee, what could be happening to it?
Soon, all the mainstream European media stopped talking about the horrors of Hamas and instead turned their attention to the suffering Palestinians of Gaza – without noting that the people responsible for their fate and the death count are Hamas. Hamas even freely admits that its strategy is to use human shields. As far as Hamas is concerned, the higher the Palestinian death-count, the better.
The United States has been Israel's main ally for decades, discounting occasional fluctuations here and there. Historically, American leaders' support for Israel has been unwavering – until now. In February, America's Democrat politicians voted to block aid to Israel. As the Israeli author and historian Gadi Taub noted last week:
"The U.S. is holding Israel on a leash by rationing the American-made ammunition on which the war effort depends; it has forced us to supply our enemies with 'humanitarian aid' which Hamas controls and which sustains its ability to fight; the U.S. is building a port to subvert our control of the flow of goods into Gaza; it refrained from vetoing an anti-Israel decision at the U.N. Security Council at the end of March; it leaked its intention to recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally; it allowed Iran to attack us directly with a barrage of over 300 rockets and drones without paying any price whatsoever; and then told us that Israel's successful defense against that strike (which was mostly stopped by a combination of superior Israeli tech and faulty Iranian missiles that crashed all over the Middle East, and to some extent by U.S. interceptors) should be considered "victory"; it consistently protects Hezbollah from a full-fledged Israeli attack; it did all it can to prevent the ground invasion of Rafah, which is necessary for winning the war; it is trying to stop the war with a hostage deal that would ensure Hamas' survival.
"The U.S. is not protecting Israel from the kangaroo courts in The Hague which now threaten to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and others. Instead, it is goosing those warrants, in part by itself threatening to impose sanctions on a unit of the IDF, thus subverting the chain of command and pressuring IDF units to comply with American demands rather than with orders from their superiors. "
By now, most mainstream American media are as negative towards Israel as most mainstream European media.
In the days that followed October 7, the Biden administration generously provided arms and ammunition to Israel, as well as positioning several warships in the area, presumably to keep the conflict from spreading. Yet even then, pressure was put on Israel's government. US President Joe Biden bizarrely asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "not to be consumed by rage". Soon, as the Israeli military countered the terrorist threat in Gaza, US pressure on Israel was accompanied by harsh –and curiously public -- criticism.
On January 9, despite unprecedented Israeli precautions to avoid harming civilians, Blinken announced, "the daily toll of war on civilians in Gaza is far too high", and accused the Israeli Defense Forces of "indiscriminate bombing" -- an accusation, as Blinken must have known, that could not have been less accurate.
John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, wrote:
"The Israel Defense Forces conducted an operation at al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip to root out Hamas terrorists recently, once again taking unique precautions as it entered the facility to protect the innocent; Israeli media reported that doctors accompanied the forces to help Palestinian patients if needed. They were also reported to be carrying food, water and medical supplies for the civilians inside
"None of this meant anything to Israel's critics, of course, who immediately pounced. The critics, as usual, didn't call out Hamas for using protected facilities like hospitals for its military activity. Nor did they mention the efforts of the IDF to minimize civilian casualties."
Not only were Blinken's comments untrue, they seemed intended to give arguments to Israel's enemies.
On February 7, Blinken went further and said that the October 7 massacre did not give Israel -- trying to defend itself in a war it did not start -- a "license to dehumanize others." Unfortunately for Blinken, that is the last thing Israel is doing, but the main thing Hamas, Hezbollah, Qatar and Iran are doing.
On February 8, Biden himself said abruptly, "A lot of innocent people are starving. A lot of innocent people are in trouble and dying. And it's got to stop."
All right. If it has "got to stop", why not demand that Hamas, Iran and Qatar stop it?
On March 25, the Biden administration refused to use the American veto and allowed the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution, proposed by Algeria, demanding an immediate unilateral ceasefire from Israel -- with no condemnation of Hamas.
On April 4, Blinken tried to create a false moral equivalence between a terrorist group and a liberal democracy by charging that Israel had no reverence for human life and that if Israel did not do more to protect civilians in Gaza, Hamas and Israel could become "indistinguishable". He then cited an old Jewish saying -- that "whoever saves a life, saves the entire world" – contortedly, grotesquely implying that the Israel's attempt to defend its own country and people is in contravention of the values of Judaism itself.
On April 4, according to journalist Barak Ravid:
"President Biden laid out an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in their call on Thursday: If Israel doesn't change course in Gaza, 'we won't be able to support you,' he said, according to three sources with knowledge of the call."
According to the Times of Israel:
"During a security cabinet meeting after the call, Netanyahu noted that the White House readout similarly didn't explicitly condition a ceasefire on a hostage deal. It said that Biden told the Israeli premier 'that an immediate ceasefire is essential to stabilize and improve the humanitarian situation and protect innocent civilians...'"
The Biden administration does not appear ever to have issued the slightest threat, warning or ultimatum to the authors of the war: Hamas, Iran or Qatar. Hamas in Gaza, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, is now most likely seen universally as the tail wagging the American dog.
Although the UN Security Council resolution of March 25 was not binding, any further ceasefire would mean Hamas won the war, simply by surviving to repeat the October 7 attack, time and again, until Israel is annihilated, as Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said.
Hamas, on October 6, 2023, had a ceasefire with Israel. On October 7, Hamas violated it. Hamas did accept a second ceasefire a few weeks into the war and exchanged nearly half the hostages it held. A ceasefire now, especially a "temporary" one that would surely be pressured into becoming permanent, would just enable Hamas to regroup, rearm, and replenish its supply of terrorists from Israeli prisons.
US Senator Chuck Schumer, after declaring himself a friend and defender of Israel, suggested overthrowing Israel's democratically elected prime minister, and -- as if Israel, and not America, were within his jurisdiction -- called for new elections:
"If Prime Minister Netanyahu's current coalition remains in power after the war begins to wind down and continues to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing US standards for assistance, then the United States will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course."
Schumer's speech, yet again putting America's outsized foot in the middle of Israel's domestic policy, and ordering its ally to take direction from the Biden administration -- including accepting a terrorist Palestinian state on its borders -- and effectively disregard what the Israeli people have democratically chosen -- was seen by most in Israel as a vicious blow.
Biden immediately backed Schumer up. "He made a good speech," the president said in the Oval Office during a meeting with Ireland's prime minister. "I think he expressed serious concerns shared not only by him but by many Americans".
Biden, it seems, is frustrated that Netanyahu is objecting to humanitarian aid -- which basically resupplies Hamas. Hamas, Israel's argument goes, released hostages only after unremitting pressure. Relieving that pressure by backing Hamas makes the probability of seeing any more hostages released less likely. Biden is also reportedly frustrated that Netanyahu, for some inexplicable reason, objects to the creation of a terrorist Palestinian state next door.
Hamas would doubtless love as many humanitarian aid workers in Gaza as possible; they would provide Hamas with a fresh batch of human shields to prevent Israel from entering Rafah and removing Hamas's remaining four battalions and terrorist leaders. Hamas is apparently already killing aid workers to steal food. How much better if they could be used to obstruct Israeli soldiers from entering the tunnels where the remaining hostages are believed hidden.
Netanyahu, accused by his adversaries of needing a war to avoid new elections, is being praised by others as "Israel's Churchill." Israelis remember that he was the leader who had the courage to address the US Congress in 2015 to counter President Barack Obama lethal, illegitimate "Iran nuclear deal," officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Netanyahu, who has not been short on courage, either in combat or in refusing to submit to US pressure to go along with the JCPOA -- despite the Obama administration's interference in an Israeli election -- may feel an overriding obligation, as he has said from the beginning, to make sure that Hamas will never again be able to launch another October 7; to take out the terrorist leaders presumed to be concealed in tunnels, as well as the four remaining Hamas battalions in Rafah, and above all, to rescue the hostages -- many of whom may have since been murdered.
Meanwhile in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where anti-government demonstrations began again, one of their leaders, Ami Dror, revealed on social media that the demonstrations and riots are part of a plan by the Biden administration to bring down the Netanyahu government.
The US, according to Gadi Taub, is intent on removing the democratically elected Netanyahu and replacing him with someone more, shall we say, compliant:
"In the eyes of the Biden administration Hamas is the smaller problem. The bigger problem is Benjamin Netanyahu. The U.S. is willing to live with Iran's proxies everywhere, as part of its "regional integration" policy—i.e., appeasing Iran. But they are unwilling to live with Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition.... Netanyahu clearly does not want to learn from his would-be tutors like U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken how to "share the neighborhood" with genocidaires in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, and Tehran, whom his electorate understands to be bent on murdering them.
"If the Netanyahu problem is too big to contain, then it follows that it must be solved. And it seems that the Biden administration has zeroed in on...finding a local proxy who will impose the U.S. agenda on a reluctant Israeli electorate.....According to the leaders of the Never-Bibi demonstrators, the White House is in constant touch with them for coordination."
The US State Department has, for more than a year, been providing financial support for protests hostile to the Netanyahu government. They took place every week in Israel for three quarters of 2023, and were accompanied by Israeli military reservists proclaiming that they would refuse to serve -- a vow that no doubt helped to invite Hamas's October 7 invasion.
One cannot leave aside that the Biden administration, through ignoring sanctions on Iranian oil, has allowed the Iran's regime to earn up to an estimated $100 billion. Some of these funds were most likely used by the mullahs to finance their own militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in addition to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi militias, and of course to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Without those funds, the massacre of October 7 would not have been possible, Hezbollah would not have been able to fire so many missiles into Israel from Lebanon, and Iran itself would not have been able to launch more than 300 drones and ballistic missiles at Israel in April, and to attack US troops more than 150 times on, just since October 7, 2023 -- evidently in an attempt to drive the US out of the Middle East.
The Biden administration, it seems, does not want a definitive end of the conflict -- as with Ukraine as well -- especially if the end would entail the defeat of Hamas or Russia. Hamas is a protégé of Qatar and Iran, the world's two leading state sponsors of terrorism. The Biden administration has been rewarding them -- Iran with money and Qatar with renewing its protection by Al-Udeid Air Base, headquarters of America's CENTCOM, as well as controlling the new terror pier the US has built in Gaza At the same time, the Biden administration is falsely accusing Israel of violating human rights.
As the great historian Bernard Lewis wrote, "America is harmless as an enemy but treacherous as a friend."
The Biden administration may even be complicit in the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials that might be issued by the International Criminal Court – possibly as a way to dispense with him. So far at least, the US administration has not lifted a finger to stop it.
Without the billions of dollars the Biden administration bestowed on Iran through sanctions waivers, the situation for Israel -- and the stability and security of the entire region, including that of the United States -- would have been quite different.
On April 1, a strike attributed to Israel destroyed a building defined as an annex of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus and eliminated seven members of the Quds Force, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who had reportedly been directing hostile operations in Israel. Once an embassy – or a school or a mosque or a church – is used to engage in military operations, it loses its status as a site that is officially "protected". Iran blamed Israel and vowed retaliation. US Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood said that the Biden administration had "no involvement or advanced knowledge" in the attack, but he did not condemn Iran's threats to Israel.
A report in the Jerusalem Post noted that Iran informed Turkey of its desire to strike Israel and that Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, in turn, informed the Biden administration. The Biden administration the report adds, asked that the Iranians remain "within certain limits" –implying that the Biden administration accepted Iran's attack on Israel, the same way he implied that he would accept a "minor incursion" into Ukraine by Russia.
On April 13, Iran in fact launched a massive strike against Israel: 300 attack drones and ballistic missiles launched at a country smaller than New Jersey. Sadly, a 7-year-old Bedouin girl was wounded. Fortunately, apart from that, not much damage was done. American, British, Jordanian and Saudi militaries helped as well.
Biden then told Israel to "take the win" -- not to retaliate and risk escalating the conflict. He warned that that the US would not help in any military offensive against Iran. Thwarting an attack, however is not the same as a "win", and certainty does not prevent an aggressor from trying again.
Israel's subsequent strikes nevertheless revealed that if Israel decided to strike Iran's nuclear facilities near Isfahan, they could be hit. Iran seems eager not to have strikes on its territory; presumably that is why it has proxies in the first place -- to launch attacks so that any retaliation will have to be absorbed by them, not Iran. The mullahs are, in effect, using their proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and so on -- as their "human shields".
"What happened last night [in Isfahan]", Iranian FM Hossein Amir-Abdollahian nevertheless insisted "was not a strike".
The Biden administration has placed the existence of Israel in danger to protect Biden from the dangerous voters of Michigan.
When Israel shows unshakable determination, noted the American journalist Jonathan Tobin, Israel is respected. He recommended, Israel should fight without wavering. It is because Israel appears invincible, he stated, that its enemies do not attack it; Israel must reestablish its invincibility.
Another American journalist, Matthew Continetti, wrote:
"The political heroes of this moment are the men and women who have retained the ability to make clear distinctions ... between freedom, equality, and the rule of law and violence, terror, and fear".
Continetti emphasized the need for "moral clarity". What is threatened in the Middle East today, he wrote, are the values of our civilization."[T]he fate of our society, our nation, and our civilization depends on Israeli victory."
It is to be hoped that the Biden administration, which, right after October 7 had been supportive of Israel, will regain its moral clarity.
"There is no way to describe Biden's actions except as a complete betrayal of Israel", wrote political commentator Eric Levine. In a devastating about-face, presumably aimed at the voters of Michigan, the Biden administration is "delaying" precision-guided weapons to Israel. The irony, of course, is that after the Biden administration complained to Israel that its attacks were "indiscriminate", it is actually forcing Israel to be indiscriminate, and then will presumably blame Israel.
Worse, with the Biden administration now having come down squarely against Israel and on the side of Iran, Qatar and Hamas, they have to feel no inclination to agree to anything. Why should they? Iran's mullahs have a new proxy, the United States, backing their terrorism for them.
Even worse, at almost the same time as the US told Israel it was withholding arms shipments that Congress had already approved (a move for which Democrats tried to impeach then President Donald Trump), the Biden administration waived sanctions for arms purchases by Lebanon, Qatar and Iraq -- countries that host groups working to destroy Israel.
Worst of all, if you are Ukraine, Taiwan, China, Russia, Japan – just about any US ally or foe -- you probably cannot avoid thinking something like: We have watched the supposedly mighty US surrender Afghanistan, its ally of 20 years, to a bunch of terrorists, the Taliban. Now we are watching the US surrender its closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, the only democracy there, to terrorists: to Hezbollah in Lebanon with 150,000 rockets and missiles pointed at Israel, and to Hamas in Gaza by sending "humanitarian aid," that will used by terrorists.
Israel, meanwhile, surrounded by a terrorist "ring of fire", is fighting for its existence.
Even some Democrats, such as US Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), are telling the Biden administration:
"Innocent Israelis were the victims of a terrorist attack... We must support Israel in their efforts to eliminate the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered innocent men, women, and children. Hamas does not want peace, they want to destroy Israel. We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized."
The Biden administration has failed to counter attacks on Israel by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court -- all prosecuting Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel Defense Forces officials for alleged but unsubstantiated "war crimes". Israel and the US are not even affiliated with the ICC . Where are any prosecutions or sanctions by the UN and international courts for war crimes and human rights violations on countries such as Qatar (here and here), China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen and Sudan?
The Biden administration was even considering placing unprecedented sanctions on units in the Israel Defense Forces, based on unfounded allegations coming from an anti-Israel non-governmental organization, DAWN, "Democracy for the Arab World Now." According to the meticulous NGO Monitor:
"[A] number of DAWN officials, including board members, have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and have voiced support for the Hamas terrorist group. According to the NGO, 'Many of DAWN's donors remain anonymous'; however, NGO Monitor was able to identify the sources for approximately 44% of DAWN's 2022 income, including from Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Arca Foundation."
The Biden administration also does not even try to cut the funding used for the murder-for-hire program, run the Palestinian Authority and its President Mahmoud Abbas. Palestinians are incentivized to murder or attempt to murder Jews by being rewarded with a salary for life, as well as an apparently supra-official promise of Paradise.
Currently, the Biden administration appears to want three things: Netanyahu OUT – reportedly to be replaced by a puppet who will do whatever the US tells him; a terrorist Palestinian state IN, and to preserve Iran and Qatar's client, the terrorist group, Hamas. So far, all the pressure from Washington has been on Israel, none at all on Hamas or on its patrons, Qatar and Iran. The fighting could indeed stop tomorrow if either of them or the US seriously ordered Hamas to stop fighting and immediately return the 132 remaining hostages.
Did the Biden Administration even ask?
*Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.
© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Statehood in the Arab Levant Faces a Miserable Fate
Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 12/2024
Let us remember what happened in Beirut in 2002 for a moment. Despite over two decades having gone by, recalling this juncture remains useful for understanding the present. Not only has the past not truly passed, it has become more present and painful with time, and its meanings have become more transparent.
That year, during an Arab Summit, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, who would later become king, put forward what came to be known as the "Arab Peace Initiative.” The tragedy of 9/11 in the United States and the Second Intifada in Palestine were propelling a major shift in the "Middle East crisis" and its resolution.
The most prominent dimension of this initiative was its announcement that Arab states were prepared to recognize the State of Israel in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights it had taken from Syria.
Then Israeli Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon prevented Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from traveling to Lebanon to attend the summit in which his cause would be discussed. For his part, Arafat complied with the decision for fear that if he went to Beirut, the Israelis would prevent him from returning to Ramallah.In turn, Emile Lahoud, then President of Lebanon, who is known for being a subordinate of Damascus and Tehran, denied Arafat’s request to deliver a speech at the summit via satellite. The pretext for removing the speech from the conference's agenda was scandalous: "fears Israel would interfere and distort the speech."What happened was even worse: Hamas carried out a terrorist attack in Netanya during the summit, which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Passover, resulting in the deaths of 30 Israeli civilians.
Sharon and his government found in the attack an opportunity to ignore the Beirut summit and avoid engaging with the offer it presented. Sharon’s dismissal of the summit was reinforced by the fact that it refused to address (let alone condemn) the terrorist operation because of pressure from Syria and rejectionist Arabs. Nothing attests to the collusion of Israel and Iran in undermining Palestinian statehood and the notion of peace in general - albeit from a position of enmity - more compellingly than this incident. Mind you, the war against the Oslo Accords also spoke volumes about this same collusion: the Israeli right assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, and rejectionist Palestinian factions planted explosives among civilians.
In addition, we add nothing novel in mentioning what happened after the Hamas coup and takeover of Gaza in 2007, which left the Israeli right happy and reassured. It was thus impelled to come to the aid of Hamas and to bolster its authority financially, not necessarily out of love for Hamas but out of hatred for the prospect that any kind of Palestinian national structure could take shape. Both Israel and Iran sought to destroy Palestinian statehood and prevent it from evolving. Tel Aviv believed that perpetuating the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip was crucial to achieving this end, while Tehran believed that nothing less than fragmenting the Arab Levant and preventing its stabilization into a system of statehood was necessary.
The birth of a Palestinian state leads to two undesirable outcomes:
On one hand, it deprives rejectionists of a useful flammable element, as well as proving that solving this obstinate problem is possible.On the other hand, the creation of such a state would be a celebration of statehood and evidence of the state system's success in the Arab Levant. The reality, as many of our experiences have shown, is that the existence of a Palestinian state has become tied to the question of whether the state system is viable or absent and unachievable in the region.
Both sides, in any event, do not want the problem to be resolved, leaving it to remain a "cause." They prefer the project of promoting the turn towards militias that hinders the formation of states and spreads social decay.
Completing the picture, Assadist Syria saw itself as a partner in the Iranian effort to fragment the Levant and foster its militarization, provided that this fragmentation excluded Syria and allowed it to control the process. However, it soon fell into the hole it had dug for its "brothers" in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. Thus, there was no longer any exception to this Levantine rule, and the Iranians and Israelis were the only ones left on the field. The former tosses us in the air like a ball and the latter kicks it.
Now, with October 7 and the war on Gaza, it can be said that the push to nip Levantine nationhood in the bud has been successful, starting from and building on its success in Palestine. Anyone looking for regional stability that could foster statehood will find nothing but a war that springs from Gaza and does not end there. It will likely be multipronged and complex, albeit while taking various forms.
And anyone looking for autonomous forces in the Levant capable of benefiting from the Israeli-Iranian conflict will find only increasing fragmentation accompanied and aggravated by rival communal and centrifugal groups fighting among themselves. The continued population drain, brain drain included, attests to the impossibility of building on demographic solid grounds, while the defeat of revolutions and reform movements in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq show that dynamics needed to bring about positive change will remain pending for a period that is difficult to predict.
As for the influential global powers in our region, their footprint remains overwhelmingly linked to military and security matters that overshadow their minimal political presence and role in shaping a vision for the future. What was that? “Future”?

The Train of the Palestinian State between the First and Final Stations
Nabil Amr/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 12/2024
Every country that was plagued by foreign occupation gained its independence through national struggle that sprung from its own land and nation and made the occupier’s continued presence unsustainable as the losses came to outweigh the gains.
This was and remains a law governing the relationship between nations and their occupiers, and it has never been broken at any time or place.
It is according to this standard that the Palestinians’ long and arduous journey to liberate themselves from occupation and achieve freedom and independence should be evaluated.
By any measure, the scale of the sacrifices made by the Palestinians - and with them the Arabs - in the 20th and 21st centuries have been immense. No one familiar with the history of the Palestinian national struggle needs us to teach them about these sacrifices in figures: the number of human lives lost, families displaced, individuals detained, and people who were disabled as a result of their injuries. The events unfolding in Gaza now are a model that speaks clearly to these sacrifices and their magnitude.
The Palestinian state train, the dream of all Palestinians and their Arab and other supporters around the world, has not moved from the very first station: the homeland. This station, where numerous sacrifices were made and immense losses were incurred, should be viewed objectively and dispassionately if we are to understand the facts as they are and identify the obstacles preventing the train from taking off as it should.
This territory and the Palestinians living on it, as well as their countrymen in the diaspora, lack a basic and crucial requisite to be effective, national unity, which provides solid ground for national struggles. Indeed, the latter requires consensus on a single program, crystallization in a single institution, and common leadership.
This grave shortcoming is the reason for the train’s failure to depart from the first station. As long as this issue remains unaddressed in a manner that ensures the unity, coherence, and integration of efforts, the prospect of reaching a final resolution will remain far-fetched. It also creates complex challenges due to the significant influence of power that holds the key.
Before and since the Gaza war, the United Nations, especially the General Assembly, has embodied what we like to call the international community which is the fairest venue for addressing the Palestinian question and ensuring the inalienable political rights of the Palestinian people. It has supported the Palestinians’ right of return, self-determination, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on all the territory occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem.
It is also the venue that has issued crucial resolutions regarding Palestinian refugees. In fact, the United States, with all its power, has found itself isolated in the General Assembly. Meanwhile, every vote has left its darling Israel seeming ostracized, isolated, and defeated.
The UN has a perverse structure and illogical rules. The majority, no matter how overwhelming, is of no significance because the smaller body, the Security Council, has the final say through the veto. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it seemed as though the veto was put into the bylaws of the UN so that the US could use it against the Palestinians and any resolution that might harm Israeli interests and offer something positive to the Palestinians.
Nothing helps us imagine the Palestinian state train departing its first station to reach the last like the fact that a popular global majority supports it, with the US and Israel standing on the opposite side, atop the rubble in Gaza and the bodies of its martyrs.
The train will not leave its point of departure unless this illogical flaw of division and fragmentation is resolved intelligently. Energy must not be squandered on infighting and preventing this falls solely on the Palestinians.
As for the final station, whose steel door remains firmly closed by the keyholder, its fate is in the hands of actors who could force the US and Israel to see things as they are. They must be made to see that the benefits of opening the door to a Palestinian state, enabling it to become a full member of the UN, and ensuring its establishment on its own land, outweigh the costs.
The Palestinian people and Arab nations have made more than enough sacrifices to liberate several polities and peoples. This obligates those who hold legitimate leadership or de facto authority to swiftly find a solution that removes the obstacles at the point of departure and facilitates the train's journey to its final destination. All winds are blowing in favor of the emergence of a Palestinian state. However, the malfunction at the first station is strongly undermining this trajectory. What is happening on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank, along with recent events at the UN General Assembly, should be enough to compel leaders to address and resolve the issues at the first station.

After Gaza
Tony BadranThe Tablet/May 12/2024A
Tablet roundtable about the challenges facing Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, and Washington, with Elliott Abrams, Jeremy Ben-Ami, Amiad Cohen, Michael Doran, Jon Greenwald, and Lee Smith
Israel had barely begun its military operation in Gaza, after Hamas slaughtered 1,200 people and kidnapped 240 more, when the Biden administration began talking about what would need to happen the day after the war was over. “There has to be a vision of what comes next,” President Biden said on Oct. 25, 2023.
طوني بدران
/موقع ذي تابلت/12 أيار/2024
حلقة نقاش حول التحديات التي تواجه إسرائيل في غزة ولبنان وواشنطن، مع إليوت أبرامز، وجيريمي بن عامي، وأمياد كوهين، ومايكل دوران، وجون غرينوالد، ولي سميث
Subsequently, the term “the Day After” was everywhere. In part, it was a device used to cast doubt on the Israeli military operation altogether, presenting it as an emotional response born of trauma and driven by a desire for vengeance—base instincts that can be tolerated only for so long. Sure, smashing things might bring immediate, short-term gratification, but what’s the plan for “the Day After”?
Administration officials leaked how they were “frustrated by Netanyahu’s unwillingness to seriously discuss plans for the day after.” What comes next, the president said on Oct. 25, “has to be a two-state solution.” That is, once Israel got its quest for blood out of its system, it needed to sit down and get with the plan—the underlying assumption being that Israel is responsible for (or at least capable of meaningfully shaping) Palestinian behavior. Clearly, the problem with Israel’s pre-Oct. 7 policy toward Gaza was that Benjamin Netanyahu needed to let more Qatari money and Iranian weapons into the Strip. Only by granting Hamas a state with full control over its borders and diplomatic relations with the European Union could future large terror attacks be prevented.
Needless to say, there is something completely insane about holding the victims of a horrific large-scale murder rampage responsible for the future happiness of their attackers. On the other hand, surely you don’t want this to happen again, do you?
To flesh out what could or should come next for Israel and the Palestinians, I have asked a group of accomplished colleagues to weigh in on some questions. Each one of these experts brings important perspectives. I think you’ll find their views, as well as their disagreements, illuminating.
Elliott Abrams, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the chairman of the Vandenberg Coalition
Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and president of J Street
Amiad Cohen, CEO of Herut Center and publisher of the Hebrew-language intellectual journal Hashiloach
Michael Doran, director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East and senior fellow at Hudson Institute
Jon Greenwald, former vice president of the International Crisis Group who also served for 30 years as an American diplomat
Lee Smith, author and regular Tablet contributor
Tony Badran: What should “the Day After” look like in Gaza? What do you think it will actually look like?
Elliott Abrams: A group mostly consisting of former colleagues from the George W. Bush administration, myself included, has published a report called “The Day After: A Plan for Gaza.” We call for an International Trust for Gaza Relief and Reconstruction. The trust would be led by countries committed to a peaceful, demilitarized, deradicalized Gaza, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. It would marshal relief and reconstruction funds; coordinate with Gazans in the diaspora and in Gaza who can help the common goals; work with Israel; and work with nations, international organizations, and NGOs committed to the same goals.
Security is perhaps the toughest problem in postwar Gaza. We suggest a combination of efforts: some existing, vetted non-Hamas Gaza police personnel; new police trained by the United States at our Jordan International Police Training Center; forces from Arab countries that are establishing refugee camps, tent cities, or the like in Gaza and might be willing to protect what they’re building; and private security companies to protect food convoys, warehouses, housing areas, and other important locations. It may also be possible to give local civic and business groups or clans some security responsibilities if they have or can create the capacity to keep the peace locally.
Hamas and Iran will continue to foment and undertake acts of terrorism in Gaza to the extent they can, and Israel will need to be able to enter Gaza whenever required to fight terrorism and destroy Hamas remnants.
Now, is all of this likely? It’s conceivable, but continuing Hamas terrorism and criminal violence, continuing IDF activity, and a shortage of nations willing to help in any serious way suggest that it is not a good bet. It would help enormously if the United States marshaled the positive forces, but that will be a largely thankless and very difficult task. If I were betting, I’d place my wager on chaos, hardship, controversy, and a long struggle against the terrorist remnants of Hamas.
Jeremy Ben-Ami: Like all wars, the horrific Israel-Hamas conflict will end. Like many, it will probably not be with a surrender or peace agreement between the combatants. It is nearly certain that the aggressor, Hamas, will have lost its governmental capacity in Gaza but will likely be alive and well as a political and insurgent force.
Understanding the 2023 to 2024 Gaza tragedy demands placing it in the context of a century of a larger, often-violent dispute between Jews and Palestinians. The massacres committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza resulting from the war’s subsequent conduct, the looming threat of new regional fronts, the disruption in the United States and Europe of civil relationships and domestic political loyalties—including the abhorrent rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia—make clear that minimalist efforts to achieve Middle East security by working around the Palestinian question have failed.
President Biden began the search for a more ambitious approach shortly after Oct. 7 while underscoring his support for a path forward that would ultimately provide for an independent Palestinian state beside Israel. But more is needed.
Ideally, by the time the fighting ends, the U.N. Security Council and/or the Arab League will have supplemented that initiative with implementation parameters; the Palestinian Authority (PA) will have made progress on reforms needed to reclaim its legitimacy; and a coalition will have been formed of states prepared to do heavy lifting in Gaza. That coalition will need to promptly take on administrative and security responsibilities, invite the PA to move relatively quickly into Gaza, support it as it gradually assumes more responsibility there, and commit to a Marshall Plan-like effort to rebuild Gaza, invest in the West Bank, and assist reconstruction of Israel’s damaged southern and northern border areas. Regional Arab states should be persuaded to form the coalition’s core for Gaza management, while the United States and Europe should join them in the Marshall Plan-like exercise.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration is already stretched dealing with immediate issues, which suggests that key elements may not be ready when the shooting dies down.
If so, there is a risk that important matters such as administrative responsibility for Gaza; PA preparations; international parameters; and, above all, structuring the environment so as to minimize Israeli interest in retaining close responsibility for Gaza and maximize incentives to choose engagement with the international community on the way forward will be handled day-to-day and ad hoc. This would make it more likely that cautious crisis management, not bold resolution, will predominate.
Michael Doran: The day after what? Obviously, we are discussing the day after the war ends, but what exactly is the nature of this war? Who are the belligerents? What are they fighting over? What constitutes victory? And how will we ever know that the conflict has ended and that, indeed, we have arrived at “the Day After”?
These questions don’t have clear-cut answers. From the outset, the Biden administration has presented the conflict as a Palestinian-Israeli war, but that framing is objectively false. Because Iran and its proxies are clearly a party to this war, one might be tempted to say it is an Iranian-Israeli war. Tehran-backed forces, however, have repeatedly hit American targets. Properly understood, the Iranian-led Resistance Axis is making war against the U.S.-led regional order.
Only when Iran is defeated, therefore, do we arrive at “the Day After.” Until that time comes, the question that should be at the forefront of our minds is whether the diplomatic initiatives that Washington is taking are likely to foil Iran’s plans.
All the talk that the Biden administration has generated about “the Day After” fails to perform that service. Just weeks after Oct. 7, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a Senate hearing that the most sensible political goal of the war “would be for an effective and revitalized Palestinian Authority to have governance and ultimately security responsibility for Gaza.”
First, there is no such thing as an “effective” Palestinian Authority. The Biden administration is trying to organize a cavalry charge while mounted on a donkey. Second, the donkey is unwelcome in Gaza. Hamas emasculated the Palestinian Authority a decade and a half ago, and there is no sign that the Gazans are eager to “revitalize” it. Finally, and most important, the effort to resurrect the failed two-state solution sets the United States at odds with the Israelis—all Israelis. From the center-left to the far-right, voters reject the idea of a reformed Palestinian Authority taking control of Gaza. No major party endorses the plan.
The Biden administration is also helping, with its voice, to advance the objectives of Iranian political warfare. By sparking “the Day After” debate, Washington is doing Tehran’s work for it, creating the impression, globally, that the issue of Palestinian sovereignty is the core problem to be solved and that, moreover, the Israelis are the primary impediment to the achievement of that sovereignty.
We would be much wiser to talk about what we need to see on the day before “the Day After”—namely, the total demise of Hamas. Let’s postpone all talk of a new political order until the hard military work is done.
What that victory looks like is Hamas destroyed as a social and political as well as a military force, with the top echelons of its leadership dead—and not in prison where they’re only one kidnapping of an Israeli away from freedom. Also, a buffer zone large and desolate enough to astonish those who look upon it.
Amiad Cohen: In 1943, during World War II, President Roosevelt stated in a press conference, “Peace can come to the world only by a total elimination of German and Japanese war power. This involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy, and Japan. It does not mean the destruction of the population of Germany, Italy, or Japan, but it does mean the destruction of the philosophies.”
History validated Roosevelt’s stance. In 1943, few could have predicted Japan’s transformation into one of the most pacifist societies in the world or Germany’s adoption of liberalism and staunch measures against hate speech and antisemitism. Their wartime ideologies were crushed through total defeat by the Allies, paving the way for true peace.
The same principle applies to Gaza. Any discussion about “the Day After” in Gaza must first presuppose the complete surrender of Hamas. Before Oct. 7, we weren’t striving for a decisive victory. Much like the movie Groundhog Day, we found ourselves trapped in a repetitive cycle, moving from one operation to the next, hesitant to disrupt the status quo until Hamas forced our hand. Now we know that the cycle cannot be allowed to go on. Hamas must be crushed.
Achieving that objective is crucial for any future negotiation since it will shape the trajectory of the path forward.
Lee Smith: Since the foundational premise of the U.S.-Israel alliance is that Israel’s strategic moves advance American peace and prosperity, I want to recast the question: What should “the Day After” in Gaza look like in the United States?
Due to a massive failure of U.S. political, academic, and security elites, American universities are filled with foreign students whose admission not only satisfies diversity benchmarks but also fills the universities’ coffers. Since these are the children of international elites, they almost always pay full tuition, funded either by their families or their governments, often the same thing. These students constitute the core of an activist movement that has roiled college campuses and the streets of U.S. cities for seven months.
Obviously, it is not Israel’s job to discipline the children of our elites. But a conclusive Israeli victory will slow the momentum of the pro-Hamas demonstrators and restore some degree of normalcy—until foreign powers like China and progressive NGOs fabricate the next cause célèbre to destabilize America.
What that victory looks like is Hamas destroyed as a social and political as well as military force, with the top echelons of its leadership dead—not in prison where they’re only one kidnapping of an Israeli away from freedom. Also, a buffer zone large and desolate enough to astonish those who look upon it.
The United States has imposed red lines on Israel in Lebanon, where Washington has deepened investment and partnership with fictional “state institutions,” turning that Iranian satrapy into a de facto U.S. protectorate. There’s been chatter about a U.S. initiative to create a 10-kilometer buffer zone in south Lebanon, but as the history of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 makes clear, that’s just a fairy tale. So the hope of achieving that objective through a U.S.-mediated “deal” seems in vain. Or worse, a trap. Given this reality, how does Israel intend to impose a buffer zone in south Lebanon?
Amiad Cohen: Currently, there are 83,000 refugees from Israel’s north. Israel cannot allow this situation to continue. Given the lack of progress in achieving a diplomatic solution for the implementation of UNSCR 1701 since 2006, Israel may have no choice but to act unilaterally to push Hezbollah beyond the Litani River, regardless of the American position.
With the Litani River serving as a formidable topographical barrier and the IDF’s presence in southern Lebanon, Israel’s northern residents will finally be able to return to their homes and enjoy a measure of security.
In addition to involving the Saudis and Emiratis in “Day After” plans for Gaza, the administration is also still pushing some sort of three-way deal with Israel and Saudi Arabia, which the administration has made contingent on some Israeli commitments to the Palestinians. With the U.S. regional posture being what it is—appeasement of Iran and elevation of the Palestinians—is the prospect of a peace deal with the Saudis a trap for Israel?
Mike Doran: Yes, it is certainly a trap. Remember, the administration came into office so hostile to the Abraham Accords that it prohibited State Department officials from using the term.
The necessity of achieving a two-state solution before brokering closer relations between Israel and the Arab world is the dogma of Democratic national security circles, and it remained so even after the Abraham Accords. The pursuit of the two-state solution had gained the status of a sacrosanct mission, a quest that justified itself, as opposed to a pragmatic tool for achieving a clearly defined goal.
But there’s another reason for the hostility: The accords were organically connected to the Trump administration’s rejection of President Obama’s Iran policy, which we have called in Tablet “the Realignment.” The nuclear deal served as the flagship of the Realignment, but Obama sought nothing less than to change the role of the United States in the Middle East, to build a regional order on an entirely new basis. He transformed the United States from the leader of a coalition to contain Iranian conventional power and to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon into a mediator between America’s traditional allies and Iran.
The administration’s about-face on supporting normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel allowed it to escape the ridicule it faced over its comical aversion to the accords. But the administration has carefully crafted the initiative so as to force Israel to promote the rise of a Palestinian state. Whereas the Abraham Accords ended the Palestinian veto on peace agreements between Israel and Arab states, Biden’s normalization push reinstalls it.
Irrespective of its chances for success, the administration pursues the policy because it offers additional incentive to the Israelis to comply with its wishes for a reformed and revitalized Palestinian Authority to rule over Gaza. In addition, the policy distracts the pro-Israeli American electorate from the advances that Iran is making toward building a nuclear weapon and from the expansion of the power of its Resistance Axis.
The more the Israeli government indulges the White House on the issue, the more it deflects from the issue that should be at the center of a joint American-Israeli policy: namely, confronting Iran.
The scenario for Gaza and the West Bank that Jeremy Ben-Ami laid out envisions a set of internationalized “special provinces” whose economy, governance, and security will be managed by the United States, Europe, and regional actors. Also, from what I gather, Iran will be part of the regional managing board, essentially cloning the current arrangement in Lebanon.
Assuming Saudi Arabia et al. agree to bankroll this type of arrangement for Gaza and the West Bank, can you please explain how locking in Iranian dominance under a U.S. umbrella (A) serves the U.S. national interest and (B) serves Israel’s national interest.
Jeremy Ben-Ami: You have misunderstood my position. I do not advocate “internationalized special provinces” with the management you cite. I certainly do not propose that Iran join a managing board for such an arrangement. I urge that Gaza and the West Bank be brought together quickly, under international guidance and protection, and specifically that the Arab states—whom I consider the only realistic candidates to take on early postwar administrative, management, and security responsibilities in Gaza—invite the Palestinian Authority into the Strip. That invitation would be accompanied by mentoring, aided by the United States and others, so that the PA that enters Gaza and retains its West Bank role will be broader-based and more genuinely representative than the present superannuated entity. Its assumption of responsibilities in Gaza would depend upon a gradual—but not endless—process that would help prepare it for the ultimately essential task of new final status negotiations with Israel.
Arab willingness to take on a central role in rebuilding Gaza and creating a clear and achievable path to an independent Palestinian state requires, in turn, important tokens of Western, in particular U.S., support.
What I want with regard to Iran is not that it assume a significant role in the management of Gaza and mentoring of the PA, but that it stand aside from, and ultimately accept the path to, an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. I am arguing that the United States consider welcoming the détente that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are pursuing with Iran and encouraging our Arab friends through these newly opened channels to dissuade Iran from sabotaging the Palestinian process by leveraging and conditioning the benefits of that détente.
As for the responses of my roundtable colleagues, we have difficulty offering coherent comment. They seem to come in considerable degree from an alternate political universe, indeed a partly dystopian one. Much of their responses deal only with Gaza, essentially ignoring the West Bank, in implicit denial of meaningful Palestinian rights and in a curious mirroring of the disastrous Netanyahu policy of encouraging Palestinian division that contributed to the horror of Oct. 7. The most I can do is put out a few questions of my own.
Should the United States prioritize a long-term goal of defeating Iran or an immediate goal of obtaining Iranian forbearance from attempting to destroy progress toward a two-state solution in order for Tehran to reap the benefits of its growing détente with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states?
Lee Smith: This is a good opportunity to correct a crucial misunderstanding about the roots of Oct. 7. While denying that Iran had any operational role in the attack, Biden officials have argued that Hamas was motivated to act because its Iranian patrons regard Israeli-Saudi normalization as an existential threat. But that’s a misrepresentation of reality. It was by pushing that normalization deal that the Biden administration knowingly pushed Hamas, and thus Iran, onto the playing field.
As Mike explained earlier, the Abraham Accords is how the Donald Trump administration rebuilt the U.S. traditional Middle East alliance system after the Barack Obama White House crashed it in favor of Realignment with Iran. The Biden White House calls Realignment “regional integration.”
Also, and this was crucial to the Trump plan—the Abraham Accords moved the Palestinians off center stage. The last White House saw that a tiny terror enclave cannot be allowed to make decisions over war and peace for the entire region, as it has for half a century. Moreover, since the most effective Palestinian faction, Hamas, is an Iranian proxy, giving the Palestinians any say in regional affairs means seating Iran at the negotiating table. The point of the Abraham Accords was to lock Iran out.
The Abraham Accords represented a solid diplomatic win for U.S. statesmanship: Acknowledge your allies openly and reward them; outflank your adversaries to isolate them. So, naturally, the Biden White House was determined to collapse it. Eventually it figured out that the way to undermine the agreements was under cover of expanding them.
There was no need to get Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) involved since they had already effectively signed off on normalizing relations with Israel. That’s what the agreement with Bahrain represents. The point of bringing in the Saudis was to introduce a poison pill: the Palestinians. Thus it was by dragging in the Saudis that the Biden administration returned the Palestinians and Iran to center stage.
What do the Israelis get for letting Hamas survive? The Saudis can’t guarantee there won’t be another Oct. 7—they can’t protect themselves from Iran, or they wouldn’t be asking the Americans for assurances. What about those Arab peacekeeping troops that Biden officials are talking about sending to Gaza? The United Nations’ international force in Lebanon is bad enough. There is no scenario in which Moroccan or Emirati or Omani troops will shoot at Palestinians to protect Israel.
Of course it had to come to this because that’s what happens when your aim is to strengthen U.S. adversaries at the expense of U.S. allies, which is the essence of regional integration, more formally known as the concert system, which is designed to ensure “balance.”
Michael Doran: President Biden is pressing the Israelis to refrain from conquering Rafah and, at the same time, to accept a temporary cease-fire that he hopes can be made permanent. In other words, he seeks a negotiated end to the war that will leave Hamas in place.
Meanwhile, Biden is also pressing the Israelis to accept the return of Palestinian Authority security officials in Gaza. How does he square leaving Hamas in place and returning the PA? He hopes the two will arrive at a power-sharing agreement. Indeed, the Turks, Chinese, and others have been working to mediate such a deal between the two Palestinian sides. But the history of such agreements teaches that, even if one emerges, it will soon collapse. Armed clashes will ensue. Biden, therefore, is sowing the seeds of internecine Palestinian conflict.
On a regional level, this PA-Hamas power-sharing works only if Iran is a party to the deal. So long as Hamas, Iran’s proxy, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, its puppet, remain alive, Tehran has veto power over any political deal. In other words, Biden, like Obama, is attempting to create a concert system in the Middle East, one in which the United States and Iran manage the region together.
Biden’s policy consciously preserves Hamas and, through it, Iran as major players. The president is encouraging us to talk about Israeli stubbornness regarding “the Day After” in the hopes that we won’t notice the kisses he is blowing to Tehran.
Is there a viable long-term arrangement that would allow Israel to safeguard its security and Palestinians to enjoy normal lives free from Israeli rule, and how do you propose it can be brought about?
Elliott Abrams: There is a very powerful conventional wisdom here, which is the “two-state solution.” I believe the notion of a democratic Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel is a delusion (as I’ve spelled out fully here). First, polls make it clear that neither Israelis nor Palestinians support that answer, by large margins. Second, the PA lacks the ability to create and lead a Palestinian state that would be free and democratic, have a decent and effective government, and have a prosperous economy.
As to security, the largest problem is Iran. The greatest threat to Israel today is Hezbollah, which owes its considerable military power to Iran. Iranian support for Hamas turned Gaza into an armed camp with hundreds of miles of tunnels. Now Iran is trying to flood the West Bank with weapons. A sovereign and independent Palestine would immediately be yet another route through which Iran would seek to attack Israel, and the West Bank is much closer than Gaza to Israel’s international airport, its capital, and the major cities and industry in its coastal plain.
The only thing that has prevented the West Bank from resembling Gaza has been constant counterterrorist intervention by Israeli forces. So long as the Islamic Republic of Iran is focused on using Palestinians as agents and as cannon fodder in its long struggle to destroy Israel, the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state is simply too dangerous. I’d add that it is also extremely dangerous for Jordan, which Iran seeks to destabilize.
That leaves one option for a “viable long-term arrangement that would allow Israel to safeguard its security and Palestinians to enjoy normal lives free from Israeli rule.” It is confederation.
Partition—the separation of Israelis and Palestinians into two entities—was first proposed by Britain’s Peel Commission in 1937 and endorsed by the United Nations in 1947. Partition into two entities is still the right answer, and one of the two entities is the State of Israel. The Palestinian entity should not be a sovereign and independent state but an entity in confederation with a state that has stable and effective security forces to guard borders, keep order, and fight terrorism; a currency and a central bank; an airport; and other typical aspects of statehood. The two alternative choices are the two neighbors, Israel and Jordan, and the latter is obviously more logical: Arab, Muslim, Arabic-speaking, and half Palestinian.
Just to be clear, you are proposing that a majority of the West Bank should become part of Jordan. Should Palestinians from Lebanon, Syria, and the rest of the Palestinian diaspora have the right to return there? Should Gaza become part of Egypt, or would Gazans have the right to emigrate from Gaza to the Jordanian-Palestinian confederation?
Elliott Abrams: I believe it is logical that the West Bank someday confederate with Jordan. This may have to await the collapse of the Islamic regime in Iran, because it is now trying—and would try even harder if there were such a confederation—to destabilize Jordan. Would Palestinians from the Palestinian diaspora have the right to go there? It strikes me that that should be left to the governments of both parts of that confederation to decide, years from now, when such a confederation exists and is stable.
The harder question is Gaza, because it has always been linked to Egypt for obvious geographic reasons. I don’t see it as part of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation. Whether Gazan Palestinians would/should have the right to move to the new confederation should, as noted above, be left to the governments of both parts of that confederation to decide. It is hard to see that confederation being able to absorb 2 million additional inhabitants coming from Gaza. As to Gaza becoming part of Egypt, that will never be acceptable to Egypt. They could have annexed it between 1948 and 1967 and did not do so, nor did they want Gaza back in the Camp David Accords, and don’t appear to have any greater appetite now.
How long do you imagine this dual parliamentary monarchy—whose population will be overwhelmingly Palestinian—will last as a Hashemite kingdom? Won’t this simply lead to a repeat of the Hamas takeover of Gaza in a much larger territory?
Elliott Abrams: Not if Israel is allowed to crush Hamas militarily now and Hamas is prevented from rebuilding in Gaza. And not if the United States and other nations support Jordan in policing both parts of such a confederation. It is not at all clear to me that Palestinians in Jordan believe they would be much better off being ruled by the PA or Hamas—and would seek that in place of the monarchy. They have watched the chaos in Syria, Iraq, and Gaza, while Jordan under the crown has been relatively stable. And remember, this would all occur after the demise of the Islamist regime in Iran.
The Palestinian entity should not be a sovereign and independent state but an entity in confederation with a state that has stable and effective security forces to guard borders, keep order, and fight terrorism. It is logical that the West Bank someday confederate with Jordan.
Amiad Cohen: We must distinguish between individual rights and national rights. The two-state solution is simply disconnected from reality. Alongside the Jewish state, Israel, there already exist three Palestinian entities: Jordan, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Gaza. In the case of Israel, the consistent Palestinian demand since 1948 has been to transform it into “a state of all its citizens,” erasing its identity as a Jewish state. Acquiescing to this demand would effectively create four distinct Palestinian states. So, which two states are we talking about?
When it comes to realizing Palestinian national aspirations, the most natural place for that is Jordan. Although ruled by a royal dynasty originating in Saudi Arabia, Jordan’s population is predominantly Palestinian. Nationality rights should be exercised through self-governance in Jordan, while Palestinians in the West Bank would be recognized as part of the diaspora of the Palestinian state of Jordan, gaining access to individual rights and establishing a robust, culturally aligned local government.
Michael Doran: We tend to define the “viable” arrangement, in this context, as the one that will reconcile the competing and equally legitimate demands of the two sides, as if the United States were a disinterested broker. It is not.
The United States is the leader of a global international system that is under attack by a loose coalition of revisionist powers, led by China, Russia, and Iran. In the Middle East, countering Iran should be a top priority of America’s regional strategy—and the touchstone for determining viability.
The solicitous diplomatic attitude in Washington toward Tehran as well as the supine American military response to Iranian aggression only incentivize further aggression.
U.S. troop levels in the region are at the lowest they have been since 9/11. Meanwhile, Tehran’s drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles have created an “offense dominant” military regime—a balance of power that favors offensive action by Iran. At the same time, the advances in Iran’s nuclear weapons program put it within a hair’s breadth of having a nuclear device and therefore increasing the sense of impunity for offensive action.
A viable arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians will result in Israel expunging Hamas, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Only Israel can do that. The Palestinian Authority will not, and an independent Palestinian state (with an Iranian embassy in Ramallah?) certainly won’t either.
The reach of Hamas and Iran into the Palestinian Authority is not the only challenge that the pursuit of the two-state solution will exacerbate. Seen from Tehran, Jordan looks particularly soft. Since World War I, revisionist powers—the Soviet Union, Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and now Ali Khamenei’s Iran—have supported Palestinian nationalism in part to pressure Jordan, America’s ally.
The American national interest, including the well-being of Jordan, requires Israel to hold the Jordan Valley in perpetuity not just as the defense perimeter of Israel but also as a guarantee that a Palestinian state will not become a launching pad for efforts to destabilize Jordan. No Palestinian leader will ever formally grant Israel control of the Jordan Valley. There should be no talk in Washington, therefore, of “revitalizing” the Palestinian Authority as long it seeks to assume sovereign rights over the Jordan Valley.
As long as Hamas remains alive, and as long as Hezbollah and Iran are free to shoot rockets, drones, and missiles at Israel in support of Palestinian nationalism, any American initiatives to broker a new set of enduring arrangements between Palestinians and Israelis will simply encourage maximalist agendas that undermine the American order.
From the Basques and Catalans in Spain to the Uighurs and Tibetans in China, to the Walloons in Belgium, to the Druze in Syria and Lebanon, to the Indigenous tribes of Guatemala and Peru and dozens of African nations, the world is full of subnational groupings with their own separate languages and cultures and zero chance of achieving statehood, ever. Why isn’t this also the case for the Palestinians? And if it is, how does it serve the American national interest to spend decade after decade pretending otherwise?
Michael Doran: Since the fall of the Berlin wall, the United States has tested, time and again, whether Palestinian nationalism is prepared to live in peace with Israel within recognized borders. The number of hours that senior American officials and their brightest advisers have devoted to finding the magic formulae that would convince Palestinian leaders to end all conflict and nullify all claims against Israel is incalculable.
The chances that an additional thousand hours of work by American senior leaders will lead to a discovery of the winning formulae are zero. No question in American foreign policy is easier to answer than this one. There is no solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that American policy can reasonably effect.
The United States must manage, not solve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To what end? Allow me to repeat: The key task for the United States in the Middle East today is blunting the rise of Iranian power. Every other challenge in the region pales in comparison. The stronger Iran grows, the more unmanageable the Israeli-Palestinian conflict becomes.
Pursuing a two-state solution based on empowering a reformed and revitalized Palestinian Authority will not blunt Iran, no matter how many adjectives the Biden administration puts before the “Palestinian Authority.” American officials do not possess the power to make a Palestinian state viable.
Jon Greenwald: There is such an arrangement, but it is not what has been traditionally referred to as a “two-state solution.” Rather, the plan involves a new deal for Palestinians within a broader context of regional integration.
The first element is to lock in the promise from the Arab states, Saudi Arabia above all, for normalization with and full integration of Israel into the region. Post-Oct. 7, a multitude of factors make it imperative for the Arab states that Palestinians receive independence assurances.
The present Israeli government’s refusal of that basis leaves it to the United States to expand the Biden “Day After” vision into a comprehensive regional diplomatic initiative that incentivizes wide participation. The president should request that Israel and the Palestinians each take immediate, unilateral steps, including that:
Israel facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza as well as, after the fighting stops, reconstruction and cease undermining the PA and destabilizing the West Bank.
the Palestine Liberation Organization/PA establish a broader-based government, ideally in partnership with civil society; begin implementing reforms in preparation for gradually assuming Transitional Authority responsibilities in Gaza upon invitation by Arab and such other states as may initially move into Gaza upon cessation of hostilities; and agree to the demilitarization of the future Palestinian state. The initiative should include U.S. training and capacity building for Palestinian security forces and facilitation of a Palestinian security presence in Gaza.
The president should further commit to recognizing the state of Palestine (and encouraging its allies to do so) as soon as the PA takes the necessary steps and reforms and the Arab states are facilitating the transition in Gaza and maintaining readiness to normalize relations with Israel. Such recognition would acknowledge that difficult questions—e.g., borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security arrangements—must be determined in the final status negotiation with Israel.
While it is true that Israelis are today mostly hostile to the creation of a Palestinian state and unable to think beyond the war’s immediate issues, the relevant question must be how to change attitudes to enable movement toward the Biden vision. Prime Minister Netanyahu is part of the problem.
Israeli citizens and politicians will face a fundamental decision on the way forward. The United States needs to structure the environment within which that decision is being made. The choice should be framed as either accepting Arab states’ offer of regional integration and engaging constructively with the new international construct on offer, but without veto rights, or choosing a self-reliance that risks increasing isolation when violence next explodes. One would hope there will be moderate Israeli politicians willing to lead in persuading Israeli voters to choose the first option.
The United States should seek international ratification of parameters for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the path to Palestine’s full U.N. membership. Ideally this would be via a legally binding Security Council resolution under Chapter VII.
Elliott Abrams: Jon Greenwald lacks realism about the actually existing situation in the Middle East. He calls for the PA/PLO to “establish a broader-based government, ideally in partnership with civil society” and “begin implementing reforms in preparation for gradually assuming Transitional Authority responsibilities in Gaza.” Then he wants President Biden to “further commit to recognizing the state of Palestine (and encouraging its allies to do so) as soon as the PA takes the necessary steps and reforms” to demonstrate their good faith. But there is zero evidence that such PA reform is possible or is desired by the PA’s leaders. The PA/Fatah elite is thoroughly corrupt. Much more likely to result from their approach is the creeping acceptance by the United States and our allies that there never will be reform, followed by just ignoring the need for it.
As to that recognition of a Palestinian state, Jon Greenwald says “Such recognition would acknowledge that difficult questions—e.g., borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security arrangements—must be determined in the final status negotiation with Israel.” Oh my. He wants recognition of a Palestinian state when it is still demanding the “right of return” for 5 million Palestinians to Israel, which would destroy Israel as a Jewish state; when no one knows how it will be prevented from becoming a terrorist state in league with Iran; when the fate of Israeli settlements is unknown, and the PA continues to demand that its state be judenrein; and when the profound issue of Jerusalem remains unsettled.
Biden, like Obama, is attempting to create a concert system in the Middle East, one in which the U.S. and Iran manage the region together.
Lee Smith: The Palestinians don’t have normal lives because when given the choice in 1948 between partition and war, they chose the latter. Conflict over land and resources may be the normal condition of mankind, but it is not normal for one society to wage war for decades, lose in war despite military, financial, and political support from larger powers and, because those larger powers incentivize more war, continue to make war. This isn’t normal. In fact, there is no example of anything like it in world history.
What gave the Palestinians some sort of window to normal life was day-to-day relations with Israel—work permits, for instance. By choosing to make war on Oct. 7, the Palestinians again rejected normalcy, and Palestinian workers fed intelligence to Hamas to slaughter Israelis.
And yet, despite the fact there is no man-made arrangement that will allow a society that has chosen abnormality over enjoying normal lives, the world powers will almost certainly deliver a state to the Palestinians. There’s probably nothing Israel can do about it, and it’s not clear why it should. Is it harder for Israel to fight wars against a state supported by world powers than it is to fight terror enclaves funded by the same actors?
I am sure my interlocutors have a clearer sense of the dangers than I do, but Israel might see it as an opportunity to separate itself from the Palestinians. Move fast, preempt. Israel might take whatever land it needs for its own security, based on the Donald Trump parameters, including the Jordan Valley and West Bank settlements that Benjamin Netanyahu unwisely failed to annex. The rest belongs to the Palestinians. No bridges, tunnels, shuttles, tramways, or anything else connecting Gaza and the West Bank can pass through, under, or over Israel. Since the Democrats and Europeans want it so badly, let them figure out how to configure it.
In their own state, the Palestinians are free to teach their children resistance math at the Edward W. Said Middle School. Palestinian groups are free to fight each other. The winning faction will build mansions on the Gaza riviera for their Russian mistresses. There will be a square in the Palestinian capital named after Barack Obama where the United States will build its embassy.
It seems unlikely Israel can stop it, but its survival seems to depend on complete separation. Build the Wall.
Jeremy Ben-Ami: This response reflects a deeply condescending attitude toward Palestinians. Here’s another question: Should U.S. policy search for ways to bring the Palestinians in Gaza and those in the West Bank together, politically and administratively, so that a unified, more competent, and legitimate Palestinian entity can be formed as quickly as possible to negotiate final status matters with Israel?
Lee Smith: No. And it’s worth unpacking what Jeremy Ben-Ami means by a “legitimate Palestinian entity.”
By “unified,” he seems to mean including Hamas in a unity government, which poses a problem for the White House. In the wake of Oct. 7, the Biden administration and its allies have been at pains to distinguish Hamas from ordinary Palestinians lest Americans find not only Hamas repugnant but also Palestinian society as a whole. Nonetheless, polls show Palestinians revere Hamas and overwhelmingly support the Oct. 7 massacre. One authoritative source supporting those findings is Mr. Greenwald’s former colleague, onetime International Crisis Group executive Robert Malley. According to him, Hamas is “very deeply rooted” in Palestinian society. In other words, for Palestinians, Hamas is an entirely legitimate political actor, much more so than any imaginary “moderate” or “revitalized” force.
The Biden administration can’t have it both ways. If Hamas is not in the government, Palestinians won’t see it as legitimate. If they are in the government, it will be an admission that the fundamental problem with Palestinian political culture is not the Hamas regime but Palestinian society.
Elliott Abrams is the smartest guy sitting at this roundtable, but I don’t agree that the United States should play a part in fixing Palestinian school curricula. Joining the efforts of the progressive cadres running the American education system with those of the deliriously anti-Israel junior Foreign Service officers who dominate the State Department is likely to harden rather than ameliorate Palestinian rejectionism.
Further, the idea that the U.S. government should partake in efforts to lead the Palestinians toward moderation seems to presuppose that they and Israelis must learn to coexist. Things may change in the future, but at this point, I think we should instead encourage Jerusalem to draw a clear line by separating Israel as much as possible from Palestinian society.
Assuming there is no immediate consensual settlement on offer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—which in your view might include Israelis and Palestinians or might also include a wider number of interested parties, including Arab states, the United States, and Iran—what can or should Israel do as an independent actor in the near-to-medium term to maintain its security and prosperity?
Elliott Abrams: Today it seems the Israelis are in a tough corner, because antisemitism is emerging from under very many rocks where it hid, lots of national leaders around the world are proving themselves to be fools or knaves or both, and our own government is thinking more and more about its own political security in November.
Clearly the Israelis need to try doing a better job at “public relations,” i.e., organizing better their system of public defense of their positions and actions. That’s easy to say but apparently very hard for them to do. And of course, it isn’t really their job to make the BBC turn back to real journalism, to take one example.
Equally clearly, they need to do, and be seen to do, more to allow help to flow to Gazan civilians. I say that knowing full well that most of the criticism of them on this score has been unfair—and very often meant to be unfair, because it is political warfare, not humanitarianism—but they can do more and apparently already are. At the same time, it’s striking how little many of those throwing barbs are doing. Where, for example, are the tent cities and refugee camps for displaced Gazans?
Elections are part of the situation here. Israel needs to survive through ours, because it is obvious that Biden language and policy is increasingly oriented toward his reelection campaign rather than toward the Middle East. So the Israelis can hope that once he gets past November, win or lose, that pressure will subside. I wonder if calling an Israeli election, as opposition leaders there such as Benny Gantz have urged, might reduce the pressure as well. Once the election is called, the current government’s powers are somewhat limited and its early demise is plausible, so perhaps some of the pressure on Israel will diminish as other governments wait to see the outcome and see what coalition emerges.
But whether all that is right or wrong, what Israel cannot do is blink. It cannot stop fighting Hamas or Iran and Hezbollah; it cannot appear to be deterred. For one thing, if it does so, the price it will have to pay Hamas for the hostages will rise—something that is obvious but appears difficult for the Biden administration to grasp. Many Arab governments understand all this, which makes it even odder that so many Western governments do not (or perhaps they do but don’t care).
If there is such a deal, Israel must use the cease-fire to get ready for the Rafah incursion by speaking about it publicly and working hard to help Gazan civilians move out of Rafah. It must be stated repeatedly (including to the U.S. government) that the issue is whether Hamas wins its war by surviving as a fighting force.
The terrible truth here is that every diminution in apparent American support must be made up for with Israeli actions that demonstrate its commitment to crushing Hamas. That is what Israelis should be explaining to Biden and his team. If various governments get angry at Israel (and us) for civilian casualties in Gaza, that doesn’t damage U.S. security. But if they come to believe that the United States is a completely unreliable ally, we will be in real trouble.
As I said at the start, the Israelis are in a tough corner.
Jon Greenwald: Israel, as an independent actor on the “Day After” stage, whether because it chose isolation or lacked an offer of international cooperation in dealing with the consequences of the war, would face great difficulties. Absent other options in the near term, it would be forced to take on more direct and extensive responsibilities in devastated Gaza than it desires. It could expect to confront constant administrative and security challenges in dire circumstances as Hamas remnants or successors continue to present threats. Sooner rather than later, Israel would most probably have to deal as well with greater challenges in a West Bank that is increasingly a tinder box due to ever-deepening occupation and settler violence. And Israel would be facing this alone, without the massive economic help needed to deal with, in addition to Gaza, the conflict’s consequences in its own south and north.
In short, Israel would lack the diplomatic and material resources to climb out of the disaster that the war has produced. Its best course would be to help build the not-yet-perfected international consensus by engaging in prompt, serious reflection, in consultation with its international friends—the United States above all—about a better way forward. The United States, in turn, should continue to do all it can to focus Israel quickly on the choice outlined in response to your question earlier: Engage with partners to construct a new regional security arrangement that includes independence for Palestinians or self-reliance and increasing isolation.
Whatever the postwar fate of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the longer that decision process takes, the greater will be the daily risk of new calamities in Gaza and the West Bank. And if the postwar government elects to double down on tougher occupation as its response to Palestinians, the greater will be the likelihood that international attention will turn to crises elsewhere and Israel’s isolation and opposition to its policies will continue to grow. If Israel takes too long to decide or chooses the wrong option, even U.S. emergency support would become more problematic than it has been in the past.
As for Iran, its threat serves as a driver to encourage Israeli-Sunni Arab cooperation. That is to the good, though it is important to remember George Kennan’s Cold War lesson that cooperation for containment is preferable to cooperation for offense.
The expectation is that Iran would seek to subvert any effort to move toward an independent Palestinian state within a broader regional security arrangement. While it has been a negative factor on past initiatives, however, Supreme Leader Khamenei has said that Iran will not be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves. Some Iranian officials presently suggest quietly that if—unlike their country’s exclusion from the Madrid Conference that preceded the Oslo Process in the 1990s—Iran were allowed into present diplomacy in some manner, it might refrain from disturbing a two-state result.
Elliott Abrams: Jon Greenwald acknowledges that Iran would “seek to subvert any effort to move toward an independent Palestinian state within a broader regional security arrangement.” But he says he trusts that the Supreme Leader “will not be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves” and seems to want Iran to be invited now into diplomatic discussions about the “two-state solution.” This, about a state whose main slogans to this day are “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” and that has spent billions of dollars supporting Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah in their attacks on Israel. What possible basis is there to believe Iran would desist from trying to turn a new Palestine into something very like the old Hamas-run Gaza?
Amiad Cohen: Our premise is that the Palestinian Authority will further decline following the passing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Rampant corruption among the ruling elite has fostered widespread public distrust, paving the way for Hamas to gain strength. Consequently, the eventual dismantling of the PA seems almost inevitable.
To prepare for that eventuality, Israel should start working with local governance bodies in the West Bank while simultaneously undertaking measures in four key areas to alleviate tensions in the region and promote security and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians:
Land regulation in Judea and Samaria: Presently, land ownership operates under outdated Ottoman laws, creating considerable ambiguity and making it difficult for owners to assert their property rights. This ambiguity is exploited by certain left-wing organizations to hinder land sales to Jews, but it mainly exacerbates hardship and sparks unnecessary disputes.
To mitigate disputes and foster economic development, Israel must implement a transparent mechanism for land regulation. Such a system would bring order to the chaos, reduce friction, and facilitate land transactions.
Transitioning from IDF presence to police presence: Military presence evokes the perception of a military occupation, while a police force is more suitable for civilian administration. While the army would intervene in counterterrorism operations as necessary, routine policing duties should be handled by civilian law enforcement authorities.
Investment in infrastructure development: Without comprehensive planning, infrastructure development in Judea and Samaria remains fragmented. Water supply, electricity, internet connectivity, and road networks are addressed in a piecemeal manner, limiting long-term sustainability. To benefit all residents, irrespective of ethnicity, substantial investment in modern infrastructure is essential.
Implementing an incentive system for Palestinian cities: Directing support toward municipalities based on their commitment to maintaining law and order would incentivize peaceful governance. Cities demonstrating stability and security would receive assistance to improve living standards, while those fostering terrorism would be ineligible for such benefits.
Regarding Gaza, its status as a conflict zone persists until Hamas surrenders unconditionally. Once this goal is achieved, the Trump administration’s peace plan could guide efforts to extend similar developmental initiatives to Gaza.
If the PA’s collapse is inevitable, and the destruction of Hamas is a sine qua non for “the Day After,” what are the local governance bodies in the West Bank that Israel would work with? Is it possible to proceed with this approach without Washington’s approval?
Amiad Cohen: The West Bank is divided into six main regions: Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Hebron, Bethlehem, and Tulkarm-Qalqilya. Each of these areas is populated by several large clans, each with tens of thousands of members, who effectively manage urban affairs. Tribal and urban identification within Palestinian society is notably strong, with instances of intermarriage between different areas, such as Hebron and Nablus, being rare. While power struggles between different clans within the same area do exist, they are generally minor compared to rivalries between different regions.
Each region would function as a separate province. The more efficiently a province operates, the greater autonomy it would enjoy. Meanwhile, the IDF would maintain responsibility for counterterrorism efforts throughout the West Bank. Jordan would be considered the national center for West Bank Palestinians. If it agrees, those Palestinians could be represented in the Jordanian Parliament as well.
Regarding American involvement, Republican and Democratic administrations perceive the PA differently. Republicans increasingly acknowledge the challenges of cooperating with the PA. If Trump is elected, I anticipate his administration will show little interest in sustaining the ineffective, corrupt, and terror-supporting PA with U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Michael Doran: Israel is fighting its second War of Independence. The success of Hamas’ surprise attack on Oct. 7 was the result of a catastrophic Israeli intelligence failure, to be sure, but it was also the result of something much deeper: a misappreciation of Israel’s place in the world and of the nature of contemporary warfare.
No one who was making the key decisions imagined the kind of war that Israel is now engaged in. In recent decades, the Israeli national security establishment began developing defensive concepts and strategies that failed to anticipate the following developments:
That large-scale, high operational tempo warfare involving traditional combat formations optimized for seizing territory over a long period would again become the norm. It built a military that imagined warfare as short, sharp engagements involving air power and special forces, relying on state-of-the-art intelligence collection and innovative high technological wizardry.
That Iran’s conventional military capabilities would pose as great a threat as its growing nuclear weapons program. Israel failed to anticipate that, thanks to Iranian tutelage, Hamas, the weakest of Tehran’s proxies, could morph into a serious threat. Israel failed to anticipate how much direct and indirect military support Hamas would receive from Iran’s Axis of Resistance.
That antisemitism in the West would again become a major factor in international politics.
That the United States might withhold political and diplomatic support in the event of an Israeli war with Iran.
That the post-Cold War defense industrial capacity of NATO nations might be inadequate to meet the demands of wars fueled by the aggressive intentions of China, Russia, and Iran.
Rebuilding the IDF and formulating new doctrines and defense concepts based on new, correct assumptions will be the work of years. In the short term, if Israel is to safeguard its sovereignty, it must first expunge Hamas; second, break the kneecaps of Hezbollah; and third, deter Iran. These are achievable aims, but they will demand a high price.
Lee Smith: In addition to cutting itself off from the Palestinians, Israel should distance itself from Washington. In July, Tablet published a great piece by my colleagues Jake Siegel and Liel Leibovitz about Israel getting off U.S. military aid. That’s a good start. It would allow Israel to move independently of a superpower that is committed to failure in the Middle East.
After Oct. 7, President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama publicly counseled the Israelis not to make the mistakes that America did after 9/11.
“When America experienced the hell of 9/11,” Biden said days after the Palestinians’ pogrom, “we felt enraged as well. While we sought and got justice, we made mistakes. So, I cautioned the government of Israel not to be blinded by rage.”
What exactly were the mistakes? Neither could really explain. “In the aftermath of 9/11,” wrote Obama, “the U.S. government wasn’t interested in heeding the advice of even our allies when it came to the steps we took to protect ourselves against Al Qaeda.”
Is he saying we shouldn’t have called our French allies cheese-eating surrender monkeys and ignored French President Jacques Chirac’s warnings about the intractability of Arab political culture? If so, that seems fair. Otherwise, it’s obtuse.
Do they mean that deploying forces to Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden was a mistake? That would be weird. If you lead a country and someone takes credit for killing 3,000 people within that country’s borders, you’re obliged to at least try to find them. But then again, it’s worth remembering that as vice president, Biden thought it was a mistake to try to kill Bin Laden. Does he still?
Lots of people think that invading Iraq was a mistake. Among other arguments at the time, many noted that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would guarantee that Shia-majority Iraq would become an Iranian satrapy. But Obama doesn’t think that’s a mistake, since his chief foreign policy initiative, the Iran nuclear deal, was designed to realign U.S. interests with Iran and stiff traditional U.S. allies like Israel and the Sunni powers, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Biden, whose administration is staffed with Obama Middle East aides, has followed suit.
Everyone basically agrees that the George W. Bush effort to democratize the Middle East was a mistake. After all, the freedom agenda was based on the premise that removing bloody-minded dictators would unleash the Arabs’ naturally democratic political energies. No one believes this anymore—except the Joe Biden administration. That’s why the president wants to “revitalize” the Palestinian Authority or form a “technocratic” government. Getting rid of Hamas and the underlying Palestinian political culture is normal.
The fact is this: U.S. leaders squandered American lives and interests in two losing wars over 20 years and now seek to exculpate themselves by seizing on the Oct. 7 massacre to obscure their mistakes, which they aim to repeat. Anyone who takes their counsel on Middle East affairs is courting failure.
**Tony Badran is Tablet’s news editor and Levant analyst.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/after-gaza-roundtable

Averting catastrophe in Darfur must be a priority
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/May 12, 2024
For more than a year, Sudan has been gripped by a brutal conflict between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. What began as a localized dispute has escalated into a protracted and bloody struggle, leaving almost no corner of the country untouched by its devastating effects. Unfortunately, this conflict is tearing the fabric of Sudanese society apart, inflicting irreparable harm on the millions of innocent civilians who have been forced to endure the horrors of war.
The toll on human life has been staggering, with tens of thousands of individuals paying the ultimate price and millions more becoming displaced. The UN’s grim description of this conflict as the “largest displacement crisis in the world” underscores the magnitude of the tragedy unfolding in Sudan. Families have been torn apart, communities shattered and futures dashed amid the chaos and uncertainty wreaked by the unrelenting violence.
The impacts of this conflict have not spared Darfur, a region with a long history of violence and bloodshed. The scars of past conflicts run deep in the collective memory of its inhabitants. The current war has once again plunged Darfur into a state of despair and desolation, with communities bearing the brunt of senseless violence and suffering.
Beyond the immediate loss of life, the conflict has triggered a cascade of secondary crises, chief among them being acute food shortages and a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur. As food supplies dwindle and resources become increasingly scarce, the specter of starvation looms large over the region, threatening the lives and livelihoods of countless innocent civilians. With each passing day, Darfur inches closer to the brink of a full-blown humanitarian disaster. Desperation grips Darfur, with ordinary people resorting to extreme measures just to survive amid unimaginable hardship. Leni Kinzli, the World Food Program’s regional spokesperson, last week painted a harrowing picture of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Darfur. With at least 1.7 million people experiencing emergency levels of hunger as of December, Kinzli warned that the situation had likely worsened since then. The specter of starvation looms large over the region, threatening the lives and livelihoods of countless innocent civilians. As the lean season between harvests looms and food stocks dwindle, the specter of starvation looms larger than ever. Kinzli’s account of a farmer in Al-Fashir who has already exhausted their food supplies and now lives hand-to-mouth underscores the urgency of the situation. The early onset of the lean season indicates a dire escalation of the crisis, further exacerbated by the relentless violence ravaging the region. One of the underlying problems is that the humanitarian response in Darfur is being hindered by logistical challenges and obstacles, including violence that has effectively blocked crucial humanitarian corridors. Recent violence around the city of Al-Fashir dealt a severe blow to relief efforts, obstructing a vital humanitarian corridor from Chad. Urgent action is needed to remove these barriers and ensure the unimpeded flow of aid to those in desperate need. In addition to logistical challenges, another issue is that humanitarian staff operating in Darfur face grave risks to their safety and security. The targeting of humanitarian workers by armed groups represents a blatant violation of international humanitarian law and further complicates efforts to deliver lifesaving assistance to vulnerable populations. Recent attacks on humanitarian staff in South Darfur demonstrate the dangers faced by those on the front lines of aid delivery.
In order to ensure the safety of humanitarian staff, strict adherence to international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict is paramount. This includes respecting the neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian actors, ensuring safe passage for humanitarian convoys and refraining from targeting aid workers. The international community can impose robust security protocols and contingency plans should be in place, with regular risk assessments conducted to identify and mitigate potential threats. More importantly, accountability mechanisms should be established to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of attacks against humanitarian staff, sending a clear message that such actions will not be tolerated.
One of the underlying problems is that the humanitarian response in Darfur is being hindered by logistical challenges.
Furthermore, addressing the crisis in Darfur requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses both immediate humanitarian relief efforts and long-term strategies for conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
In the short term, measures such as establishing ceasefires, facilitating humanitarian access and ensuring the safety of aid workers are essential to mitigating the immediate impact of the crisis and preventing further loss of life.
Crucially, the international community must ramp up its efforts to support the people of Darfur in their time of need. This includes providing financial assistance to fund humanitarian operations and exerting diplomatic pressure on all parties to the conflict to uphold their obligations under international law.
Unrestricted access and security guarantees are paramount to delivering lifesaving assistance to those most in need and must be a top priority for policymakers and humanitarian actors alike.
Governments and humanitarian organizations ought to collaborate to address the conflict. Meaningful efforts to address this devastating war will require sustained commitment and engagement from all stakeholders, including governments, regional organizations and the international community.
In conclusion, the crisis in Darfur demands urgent and concerted action from the international community to prevent further suffering and loss of life. It is a complex challenge that demands a multifaceted response. Immediate humanitarian relief efforts are essential to alleviate the suffering of those affected by the conflict and prevent further loss of life. However, these efforts must be complemented by long-term strategies for conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist.
X: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Gaza protests continue on US campuses despite bigoted response
Ray Hanania/Arab News/May 12, 2024
Student protests at dozens of university and college campuses across America have been very effective in raising public awareness of Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip. The facts of Israel’s genocidal military assault are clear, so most pro-Israeli spokespeople, members of Congress and right-wing media outlets have instead focused mainly on the false assertions of antisemitism. Universities, pressured by powerful pro-Israel organizations and politicians, have also cracked down on the pro-Palestine protests, but not on pro-Israel protests.
Members of Congress, especially those who have received millions of dollars in pro-Israel campaign funding, have been leading the fight against the students, trying to rebrand the Israeli invasion of Gaza as a “necessity” without addressing the killings of women and children and the destruction of more than 370,000 homes and many businesses, churches, mosques, schools and hospitals.
Pro-Israel advocates and anti-Palestine campus protesters have confronted the pro-Palestinian protesters with Islamophobia, anti-Arab hatred and racism, but the focus remains on fighting antisemitism. That was the focus of a speech President Joe Biden made last week at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. The president’s tough words were seen as a counter to his threat to halt weapons shipments to Israel’s military if it continues its violence, particularly against Rafah, where a majority of Gaza’s Palestinians have fled, seeking shelter from Israeli attacks. Biden faces losing voter support in key swing states, which he barely won ahead of Donald Trump in 2020, as a result of the “Abandon Biden” movement, whose followers have vowed not to support his reelection because of his support of Israel’s genocide. Pro-Israel advocates have confronted the protesters with Islamophobia, anti-Arab hatred and racism.
Since Israel launched its campaign in Gaza, Biden has pushed through $40 billion in funding to help cover Israel’s costs, even though it is one of the world's wealthiest nations. Protesters make the point that the $40 billion provided by Biden and the pro-Israel-influenced Congress is unnecessary and should instead be used to provide benefits to Americans, especially the homeless, the poor and senior citizens. Israeli citizens already receive mostly free healthcare and mostly free education subsidized by the government.
The American public continues to question the country’s foreign aid to Israel and Tel Aviv’s genocide in Gaza. Polling shows a growing concern relating to Israel’s actions, which last week gave Biden the cover to halt some weapons shipments to Israel due to its alleged violations of restrictions on use against civilians. A Gallup Poll in March showed that a majority of Americans (55 percent) now disapprove of Israel’s military action in Gaza. Other polling has also shown a similar shift. But the student protests are the main focus in the US and they threaten to impact the November elections. Republicans and Democrats will hold their presidential conventions in Milwaukee in July and in Chicago in August, respectively. These conventions often bring out protesters on either side of the major debates facing the American public, such as abortion rights and gun controls. There is a likelihood that the student protests will continue and become the main focus of both the presidential conventions.
The pro-Palestine student protests at university and college campuses have been intense and controversial. There is an expectation the protests will continue as Israel’s military storms through Rafah.
Despite the hysterics of those who are critical of the pro-Palestine protesters, such as some members of Congress who have sought to pass punitive legislation, student protests are a part of American society. They have taken place many times and have had a tremendous impact on domestic and foreign policy.
The American public continues to question the country’s foreign aid to Israel and Tel Aviv’s genocide in Gaza. There was a wave of student protests against the Vietnam War, including at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 1968, which continued right up to 1973, when President Richard Nixon withdrew America’s combat forces from Vietnam. Students also protested against the apartheid policies of South Africa in the 1980s. But Israel holds a special place in America and is protected by the country’s political system — a protection that critics argue has been “bought” by the pro-Israel political action committees. On the other side, little attention has been given to acts of Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate. Only a few incidents have been reported in the media after pro-Israel protesters were punished. One example was at Arizona State University last week, when a Jewish professor, Jonathan Yudelman, accompanied by an Israeli soldier, viciously harassed a 20-year-old female Muslim student who was not participating in any of the protests. After viewing video of his actions on social media, the university fired Yudelman and banned him from returning to the campus. But that action was only taken after Arizona State President Michael Crow had dozens of students arrested and banned from continuing their classwork.
There is no doubt that the pro-Palestine protesters have an uphill fight in America’s intensely pro-Israel environment. They face possible arrest, beatings by police and dismissal from class. But there is no indication they are surrendering to the unfair bullying. However, they could use more help to counter their marginalization by the mainstream media, which only presents them as driven by antisemitism and also defends Israel’s genocide and Congress’ response. It is only right that the vicious anti-Arab chants from pro-Israel protesters are challenged and punished too.
• Ray Hanania is an award-winning former Chicago City Hall political reporter and columnist. He can be reached on his personal website at www.Hanania.com.
X: @RayHanania