English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News
& Editorials
For June 06/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.june06.26.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since
2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Click On
The Below Link To Join Elias Bejjaninews whatsapp group
https://chat.whatsapp.com/FPF0N7lE5S484LNaSm0MjW
اضغط
على الرابط في
أعلى للإنضمام
لكروب
Eliasbejjaninews whatsapp group
Elias Bejjani/Click on
the below link to subscribe to my youtube channel
الياس
بجاني/اضغط
على الرابط في
أسفل للإشتراك في
موقعي ع اليوتيوب
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAOOSioLh1GE3C1hp63Camw
Bible Quotations For today
If you belonged
to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to
the world, but I have chosen you out of the world therefore the world hates you
John 15/18-21: “‘If the world hates you, be aware that it hated
me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you
as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of
the world therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you,
“Servants are not greater than their master.” If they persecuted me, they will
persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But they will do
all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who
sent me.”
Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related
News & Editorials published on 05-06 June/2026
Aoun's anti Hezbollah stances:
it's all just talk/Elias
Bejjani/June 05/2026
Elias Bejjani/My audio personal analysis with the Hebrew "Makan" radio
station addressed peace between Lebanon and Israel and Hezbollah's
occupation/June 02/2026
The statement of the summit, which was falsely labeled as "spiritual," is
disgraceful, Mullah-like, and cowardly/Elias Bejjani/03 June 2026
Netanyahu halts Lebanon ceasefire vote after Hezbollah rejects proposal
Trump claims Hezbollah didn't reject deal, asked US to stop war
Israel's dilemma in Lebanon: Escalate or wait for Washington
Aoun to Qassem: 'Lebanese people are not yours'
Beirut Pushes Back Against Iran Following Quds Force Commander Remarks
Clash Reported Between Hezbollah and Amal Supporters Over Alleged Weapons
Presence
'Have mercy on our south': Salam tells Iran to stop treating Lebanon as
'bargaining chip'
Berri: Hezbollah to withdraw from south Litani if full truce reached, Israel
pulls back
Israeli strikes kill 7 in Tyre, warns 9 villages north of Litani
Lebanese and UN troops take positions in Dibbine after Israeli soldiers'
withdrawal
Lebanon sentences activists in absentia for inciting Israeli attacks
UN doubles appeal for Lebanon aid to nearly $640 mn amid Israel war
Sources to LBCI: Army commander heads to Pakistan for talks with his Pakistani
counterpart
President Aoun discusses Lebanon situation with Saudi Crown Prince, requests
reopening of Saudi markets to Lebanese exports
Full LBCI interview with Axios Correspondant Barak Ravid on Lebanon talks and
ceasefire negotiations
Israeli military chief says plans proposed to expand operations in Lebanon,
border area to Litani to be cleared of Hezbollah
UN peacekeeping chief outlines options for post-UNIFIL monitoring force in
southern Lebanon
Lebanese president accuses Iran of using his country as a bargaining chip in
peace talks with the US
/Mostafa Salem/CNN/June 05/2026
Lebanon at a Historic Crossroads: From Ceasefire to a New Political Order./Toni
Nissi/The Capitol Institute/June 05 /2026
President Aoun’s Interview and the Army Commander’s Visit to Pakistan/Colonel
Charbel Barakat/June 05/2026
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on 05-06 June/2026
Trump tells
NBC News that Iran has 21 percent to 22 percent of its missiles left
Iran army says fired 'warning missiles' at US destroyers in Gulf of Oman
Ireland bans two Israeli ministers from entering country
Iran army says fired 'warning missiles' at US destroyers in Gulf of Oman
Iranian-American journalist jailed in Tehran pleas for US help
Iran dismisses idea of Trump meeting supreme leader
IAEA: UAE nuclear plant attack ‘serious compromise of nuclear safety’
France opens ‘war crime’ probe over Israel treatment of flotilla activists
7-month-old baby, teenager shot dead in separate West Bank killings
Gaza’s fishermen patch up dinghies with door frames to keep themselves afloat
Deadly attack sinks Turkish fishing boat in Black Sea
UN Security Council marks 2 years of Houthi detentions, demands immediate
release of 73 UN staff
Zelensky says Putin 'choosing war again' by rejecting call to meet
Titles For The Latest
English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on 05-06 June/2026Question:
What does it mean to be poor in spirit?/GotQuestions.org//June 05/2026
When Hafez al-Assad Opened Lebanon’s Gate to Tehran/Riyadh: Ghassan
Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 05/2026
Renewing Military Strikes Against Iran Is the Only Way to End Its Nuclear
Ambitions/Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/June 05/2026
Climate action will define future of oceans and ecosystems/Hassan Alzain/Arab
News/June 05, 2026
How US-Turkiye ties shape Ankara’s power play/Dr. Sinem Cengiz/Arab News/June
05, 2026
Georgia shifting away from the West and toward Iran/Luke Coffey/Arab News/June
05, 2026
The international refugee system has collapsed/Dr. Azeem Ibrahim/Arab News/June
05, 2026
A strange War and its Bizarre Coverage/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 05/2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets on 05June/2026
on 05-06 June/2026
Aoun's anti Hezbollah stances:
it's all just talk
Elias Bejjani/June 05/2026
Aoun's stances are excellent, but they haven't
translated into action yet. He needs to move from words to deeds, fire his
Hezbollah advisors, purge the army of agents, issue arrest warrants for
Hezbollah leaders, and dismiss the duo's ministers... otherwise, it's all just
talk.
Elias Bejjani/My audio personal analysis
with the Hebrew "Makan" radio station addressed peace between Lebanon and Israel
and Hezbollah's occupation
June 02/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155042/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAyK3MmY45U
Elias Bejjani/My audio intervention
by phone on June 01 with the Hebrew "Makan" radio station, as part of the
"Morning Tour" program, addressed the latest military developments in southern
Lebanon following the Israeli army's liberation of the Beaufort Citadel (Castle
of the High Rocks) from the terrorist and Persian Hezbollah. It also covered my
stance regarding the State of Israel, the aspirations of the majority of
Lebanese for peace with it, ending the state of absurd conflict, closing the
Lebanese arena to the impostors, hypocrites, and merchants of the so-called
"resistance," and achieving salvation from the Iranian occupation.
The statement of the summit,
which was falsely labeled as "spiritual," is disgraceful, Mullah-like, and
cowardly.
This is because it completely ignored the Iranian occupation and
chanted tunes of condemnation solely against the Israeli aggression, while
failing to address the absolute necessity of peace with Israel and putting an
end to the ongoing crime of the so-called “Resistance”. The owners of the robes
and clerical hoods have expired nationally, in faith, and in credibility.
Elias Bejjani/03 June 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155013/
At the bottom of the text of the
spiritual summit's statement, it becomes clearly evident that the owners of the
robes and clerical hoods are deeply mired in the pathology of denial, acting as
driven puppets rather than independent choice-makers. They assembled by a decree
issued by Jumblatt and Berri, and with the blessings of all the owners of local
and proxy partisan corporations—entities entirely devoid of honesty,
credibility, patriotism, and respect.
The primary instigator and convener of this theatrical and farcical summit was
the cunning, flagrant, and adversarial duo (Jumblatt and Berri), who stand as
enemies to Lebanon, the State, and the Constitution. This corrupt and corrupting
duo grew terrified of the humiliatingly low level of popular support they have
reached. Consequently, they sought to resuscitate their popularity by playing on
sectarian strings that no longer resonate with anyone except their own herds,
and the herds of the remaining owners of commercial and dictatorial political
party corporations that have grown addicted to practicing politics under the
umbrellas of various occupations.
Attached to this commentary are the text, video, Arabic, and English versions,
which I had published regarding this summit two days ago.
Netanyahu halts Lebanon ceasefire vote after Hezbollah rejects
proposal
Naharnet/June 05, 2026
Israeli ministers voiced strong opposition to a proposed ceasefire with Lebanon
during a security cabinet meeting, though no official vote was held. The pause
came after Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem rejected the U.S.-backed
proposal, demanding instead a "comprehensive" ceasefire and the complete
withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon. According to the Israeli
newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed his
cabinet that a vote on the deal would only occur once Hezbollah formally accepts
its terms. "Hezbollah rejected it, and therefore I am not bringing it to a
vote," the daily quoted Netanyahu as saying. Meanwhile, National Security
Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir urged Netanyahu to push for a harsher military
offensive. "Go to the United States and take children from Kiryat Shmona and
Metula with you," Ben-Gvir reportedly told the Prime Minister. "Tell Trump: We
love you, but we must strike Hezbollah’s vulnerable points in Beirut’s Dahieh
district. Even if it causes an escalation, a ground maneuver is necessary. Our
soldiers are more important."
Trump claims Hezbollah didn't reject deal, asked US to stop
war
Naharnet/June 05, 2026
U.S. President Donald Trump told journalists in a press conference that he
thinks "progress is made" in the Lebanese-Israeli conflict. "It would be really
nice if Lebanon could have some peace," Trump said. "Lebanon has been under
attack for so many years and always like an underdog, and it would be really
nice if it could end," he added. Trump said Hezbollah "didn't reject" the
U.S.-brokered peace plan and that "they called us and said: how about stopping
the war."
Israel's dilemma in Lebanon: Escalate or wait for
Washington
LBCI/June 05/2026
Israel continued its military operations in Lebanon as Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu refrained from bringing a proposed ceasefire agreement before the
Israeli cabinet for approval following Hezbollah's rejection of the deal. As
Hezbollah maintained rocket and drone attacks targeting northern Israeli
communities, Israel stepped up strikes against what it described as Hezbollah
positions and expanded its ground operations in South Lebanon, with military
efforts increasingly focused on advancing beyond the Litani River. At the same
time, reports from within Israel indicated that military leaders cautioned
against launching a large-scale offensive in Lebanon due to pressure from the
United States. Netanyahu is said to have assured U.S. President Donald Trump
that Israel would not proceed with such an operation without further
coordination. The debate between military and political priorities surfaced
during a recent cabinet meeting, where a new slogan reportedly emerged in
discussions over U.S. pressure and battlefield considerations: "Our soldiers are
more important than Trump."While political negotiations remain deadlocked, the
Israeli military continues to reinforce troop deployments in northern towns and
along the Lebanese border. It has also intensified military exercises in
preparation for a potential future operation should Washington ultimately
approve Israeli plans regarding Lebanon.Meanwhile, Israel's home front remains
on heightened alert as security concerns persist amid ongoing cross-border
hostilities and uncertainty over the prospects for a broader ceasefire.
Aoun to Qassem: 'Lebanese people are not yours'
Naharnet/June 05, 2026
He said Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem does not represent the Lebanese people.
"These people are not yours," Aoun told Qassem, as he accused Iran of using
Lebanon as a "bargaining chip" in its conflict with the U.S. and Israel. Aoun
said military solutions will never bring peace to northern Israel. "We are
ready, we are willing, we are committed (to negotiations to end the war)," Aoun
told the Israelis. "If you are not, you will never live in peace, safety and
security."The Lebanese president said the Lebanese and Israeli people have a
"great opportunity" to live in safety and security. "They are both fed up with
war since 1948. This is a huge opportunity. They both have to choose: war…or
diplomacy."
Beirut Pushes Back Against Iran Following Quds Force
Commander Remarks
AFP/This is Beirut/June 05, 2026
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam issued direct
rebukes on Friday in response to comments attributed to Esmail Qaani, commander
of Iran’s Quds Force, who declared that “supporting the resistance in Lebanon is
a duty for everyone” and that “the results of the brave resistance in Lebanon
will soon become apparent.”The Iranian statement came in the aftermath of the
fourth round of talks in Washington between Lebanese and Israeli
representatives, which reportedly led to a trilateral understanding in which
both Beirut and Tel Aviv agreed to condemn Iranian interference in Lebanese
affairs.
“Lebanon is not a bargaining chip”
In remarks made to CNN, President Joseph Aoun firmly rejected the Iranian
statement, warning against what he described as foreign attempts to
instrumentalize Lebanon’s internal dynamics. “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard
must realize that Lebanon is our country, not theirs,” Aoun said. “I reject the
statement totally. They are using Lebanon as a bargaining chip.”His comments
reflect growing official sensitivity in Beirut over external involvement in
Lebanon’s domestic and security affairs, particularly in relation to armed
non-state actors and regional proxy dynamics.Prime Minister Nawaf Salam echoed
the president’s stance, issuing a series of strong statements directly
addressing Tehran. “To Iran: we call on you to respect Lebanon and stop treating
the South as a bargaining chip or a card in negotiations,” Salam said. He added
that Lebanese authorities were taken aback by the sequence of reactions
following the Washington discussions. “The Lebanese were surprised yesterday
when it became clear that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) was the first
party to reject the ceasefire agreement, before any other side,” Salam noted. He
further warned against what he described as the politicization of Lebanese
territory in broader regional disputes, stating: “Iran must not use Lebanon as a
mailbox for its messages or a field for its regional conflicts.”Beirut’s
official rhetoric, as both the presidency and the prime minister’s office
publicly challenged Iranian statements tied to Lebanon’s internal and regional
positioning. The exchange highlights continuing tensions over Lebanon’s
sovereignty and the role of external actors in shaping the country’s political
and security landscape, particularly in the context of ongoing regional
negotiations involving Israel, Iran, and allied groups.
Clash Reported Between Hezbollah and Amal Supporters Over
Alleged Weapons Presence
This is Beirut/June 05, 2026
An altercation broke out Friday in Bayssarieh, near Sidon, after a dispute
involving individuals linked to Hezbollah and the Amal Movement over allegations
that Hezbollah was storing military equipment and rocket launchers in a
residential area. According to a military source who spoke to This is Beirut and
was reportedly involved in responding to the incident, the clash began after
local men from Bayssarieh noticed unfamiliar individuals from outside the town
operating in the area. The source said residents approached the group to inquire
about their activities and allegedly observed military communication equipment
and what appeared to be rockets inside vehicles present at the scene.According
to the source, residents demanded that the individuals, identified as Hezbollah
members, immediately remove the equipment from the area. The confrontation
subsequently escalated into a physical altercation. The source further stated
that by the time Lebanese Army units arrived at the location, the Hezbollah
members and their vehicles had already departed. Speaking on condition of
anonymity, the military source also warned that similar incidents have occurred
before, particularly in areas where support for the Amal Movement is strong. The
source said tensions occasionally arise when Hezbollah operatives conduct
activities near communities perceived as Amal strongholds. However, local
officials disputed the reports. In a statement, Bayssarieh mayor Ali al-Nabulsi
denied claims that the incident was related to rocket launchers positioned among
homes. "The narrative that the altercation was caused by the presence of rocket
launch platforms between residential buildings is completely false and bears no
relation to reality," al-Nabulsi said. He described the reports as "fabrications
and media distortions" aimed at targeting "the resistance's social environment
and the people of the South."Neither Hezbollah nor the Amal Movement had issued
an official statement regarding the incident at the time of publication.
'Have mercy on our south': Salam tells Iran to stop treating Lebanon as
'bargaining chip'
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Friday urged Iran to stop treating his country,
where Israel and the Tehran-backed Hezbollah are at war, as a "bargaining chip"
in its negotiations with Washington on the Middle East conflict. "If I may
address a word to Iran, it is this: have mercy on our south, stop treating it
and its people as merely a bargaining chip to improve the terms of your
negotiations," Salam told a press conference for a U.N. aid appeal for Lebanon.
"The Lebanese people were surprised to find that Iran was the very first party
to reject the ceasefire; this confirms that this war is not ours and it is not
being fought for our sake — but rather on our land and at the expense of our
people," Salam said.
Berri: Hezbollah to withdraw from south Litani if full truce reached, Israel
pulls back
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
Parliament Speaker and Hezbollah ally Nabih Berri said Friday that the
Iran-backed group would withdraw from the area south of Lebanon's Litani River
if Israel pulls out and a comprehensive ceasefire is reached. "I agree to...
Hezbollah's withdrawal from south of the Litani River in parallel with an
Israeli withdrawal from the areas it occupies" and "a complete and comprehensive
ceasefire without conditions", Berri, who acts as Hezbollah's mediator, said in
a statement, as he blasted the rest of the agreement text as too "unjust" and
"unworthy of discussion."Berri dismissed the latest ceasefire proposal as a
"hybrid" deal. The Litani river, located about 30 kilometers north of the border
with Israel, forms the boundary of a 2006 U.N.-established buffer zone in which
Hezbollah is banned. Israeli troops have currently pushed far past the Litani
River into southern Lebanon. Berri said the ceasefire should be "complete and
comprehensive" without any restrictions or conditions on land, at sea and in the
air, and "without bulldozing and demolishing everything that exists." He was
referring to wide areas that have been demolished by Israeli troops. Berri
criticized the creation of "pilot zones" in the agreement as well as calls for a
unilateral ceasefire by Hezbollah.
Israeli strikes kill 7 in Tyre, warns 9 villages north of
Litani
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
Israeli strikes overnight in the south Lebanon city of Tyre killed seven people,
a source from Lebanon's civil defense told AFP on Friday, despite a ceasefire in
the Israel-Hezbollah war. One strike near the Jabal Amel hospital killed four
people, wounded seven and lightly damaged the facility, while another elsewhere
in the city killed three and wounded five, including two children. On Friday,
the Israeli army ordered residents of Sarafand, Tefahta, Saksakiyeh, Bablieh,
Kaakaiyet Snawbar, Marwanieh, Anqoun, Arnaya and Kfarfila to evacuate ahead of
imminent strikes.
"For your safety, you must evacuate your homes immediately and move away from
the villages and towns by at least 1,000 meters into open areas. Anyone who is
near Hezbollah operatives, their facilities, or their weapons endangers their
life!" the army's Arabic-language spokesman Avichay Adraee posted on X, as he
ordered residents of Anqoun, Arnaya and Kfarfila to evacuate. He later warned
residents of the six other villages in a separate post. "In light of the
terrorist Hezbollah's violation of the ceasefire agreement and its targeting of
Israel's home front, the Israel Defense Forces are compelled to act against it
forcefully, especially in your areas," Adraee posted, listing the six towns and
villages including Sarafand, a town on the coastal road between Tyre and Sidon.
He added: "Out of concern for your safety, you must evacuate your homes
immediately and move north of the Zahrani River."The warnings forced hundreds of
families to flee the village of Anqoun and the area of Aarnaya, on the edge of
the predominantly Christian village of Maghdousheh, near the southern port city
of Sidon. Israeli strikes targeted overnight into Friday Kfardounine, Burj
Qalaway, Dweir, al-Barrak, Deir Zahrani, Majdalzoun, Habboush, the Harouf-Toul
roundabout, Nabatieh, Kfar Remman and Ebba, killing at least 5 people and
wounding at least 2 others. Israeli artillery meanwhile shelled Kfar Remman,
Nabatiyeh al-Fawqa, Shoukin, Mayfadoun, Burj Qalaway, and Deirkifa.Hezbollah
chief sheikh Naim Qassem on Thursday rejected a conditional truce announced by
Lebanese and Israeli envoys, demanding a comprehensive ceasefire and full
Israeli withdrawal instead as he threatened northern Israel with new attacks. On
Friday, Hezbollah said its fighters targeted Israeli troops and equipment near
the Beaufort fortress, and in the southern towns of Rshaf, Qantara, Khiam, Wadi
al-Hujair and Ghandourieh. The group also said it intercepted a drone over Wadi
al-Hujeir Friday and two other drones over Nabatieh and Kfarmaleki-Jbaa
overnight.
Lebanese and UN troops take positions in Dibbine after
Israeli soldiers' withdrawal
Associated Press/June 05, 2026
U.N. peacekeepers and Lebanese troops were seen Friday at an entrance of the
village of Dibbine, near the town of Marjayoun, after Israeli forces withdrew
following intense clashes with Hezbollah fighters. The ceasefire agreement calls
for Lebanon's armed forces to take control of security zones in Lebanon from
which the militants would be banned. It was the first time Israeli troops pulled
out from an area in southern Lebanon since the latest Israel-Hezbollah war began
three months ago. At the entrance of the village, dozens of homes were seen
destroyed as a result of the clashes and airstrikes. A bulldozer for the
peacekeeping force was opening the main road leading to Dibbine. Israeli troops
have seized around a fifth of Lebanon, pushing further into the country's south
than at any time since the end of Israel's 1982-2000 occupation. The latest
declared ceasefire came about through U.S.-brokered talks between Israel and
Lebanon's government, which accuses Hezbollah of dragging the country into war
and had made efforts to disarm it before the latest hostilities. Iran has
demanded that any lasting truce extend to Lebanon. Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces elections later this year, wants to press ahead
with Israel's offensive until Hezbollah no longer poses a threat. Nearly three
hours after evacuation warnings were issued by the Israeli military's Arabic
spokesperson, Israeli warplanes struck villages in south Lebanon, including
Anqoun where about 2,500 people displaced by the fighting were sheltering.
Lebanon sentences activists in absentia for inciting Israeli attacks
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
Lebanon's judiciary has charged two anti-Hezbollah activists in absentia with
inciting Israeli attacks against the Iran-backed group and sentenced them to 15
years in prison, a judicial official told AFP on Friday. It is the harshest
sentence yet against activists expressing support for Israel, which has
officially been at war with Lebanon for decades. The official, who requested
anonymity, said the two individuals, Ahmad Yassine and Joumana Gebara, both
living outside Lebanon, were charged with "collaborating with Israel and
inciting it to continue its military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon" by
the military tribunal in a trial that began in November 2024. Yassine, a
Paris-based university professor, is accused of "inciting the Israeli army to
bomb the historic Baalbek Citadel by disseminating information claiming that the
citadel housed Hezbollah weapons depots". Yassine also has a YouTube channel
where he shares political commentary to more than 140,000 subscribers. Gebara is
accused of "praising Israeli army spokesman Avichay Adraee and thanking him for
the bombings of Lebanon, as well as calling for normalization with Israel"
during the previous Israel-Hezbollah war in 2024, the official said. Lebanon has
no formal ties with Israel, and any contact is punishable by imprisonment.It has
previously arrested people accused of spying for Israel. More than 3,500 people
have been killed in Israeli strikes since March 2.
UN doubles appeal for Lebanon aid to nearly $640 mn amid
Israel war
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
The U.N. on Friday more than doubled its aid appeal for Lebanon as the country
reels from Israel's war against Iran-backed Hezbollah, saying nearly $640
million was needed over six months. "The humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is
severe and deteriorating," the U.N. humanitarian agency OCHA said in a revised
appeal for the country. "Repeated displacements, insufficient shelter capacity
and limited prospects for safe return are deepening vulnerability," it said,
warning that "affected people are rapidly exhausting their coping capacities,
and essential services are under increasing strain".The U.N. had appealed for
$308 million in March to support a massive emergency response led by Lebanon's
government through to the end of May. On Friday it said that another $331
million would be needed through the end of August. Only $185 million had so far
been received out of the initial appeal, OCHA said, adding that that amount had
helped provide assistance to around 680,000 people between March 2 and May 31.
The aim now, it said, was to more than double that number to reach all of the
1.4 million people in Lebanon -- around a quarter of the population -- estimated
to need humanitarian assistance in the country. Lebanon says Israeli attacks
have killed more than 3,500 people since March 2. Nearly one million people have
fled their homes while more than 1.2 million are facing acute food insecurity,
Friday's appeal showed. Price pressure was adding to the misery, with the cost
of water, fuel and electricity up more than a third nationally, and as high as
70 percent in the conflict-affected areas, it said. It also highlighted the
strain that the conflict was placing on healthcare in Lebanon, with 62 hospitals
and other health facilities either damaged or closed. OCHA said nearly 450
schools were being used to shelter displaced people, driving learning loss and
drop-out risks.
Sources to LBCI: Army commander heads to Pakistan for talks
with his Pakistani counterpart
LBCI/June 05, 2026
Sources told LBCI that the army commander, General Rodolph Haykal, is set to
travel to Pakistan in the coming hours, where he will hold talks with his
Pakistani counterpart.
President Aoun discusses Lebanon situation with Saudi Crown Prince, requests
reopening of Saudi markets to Lebanese exports
LBCI/June 05, 2026
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun discussed the general situation in Lebanon and
the region in light of ongoing developments during a phone call this afternoon
with Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al
Saud. President Aoun thanked the Crown Prince for Saudi Arabia’s support to
Lebanon across various fields, particularly its efforts to help calm tensions
and curb the escalation in Lebanon. During the call, Aoun requested the
reopening of Saudi markets to Lebanese agricultural and industrial products,
stressing the importance of these markets in strengthening Lebanon’s economy,
especially as Lebanon has taken strict measures to secure its export operations.
The Crown Prince reportedly promised to issue the necessary directives in this
regard.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s support for Lebanon.
Full LBCI interview with Axios Correspondant Barak Ravid on
Lebanon talks and ceasefire negotiations
LBCI/June 05, 2026
Full LBCI interview with Axios Correspondant Barak Ravid on Lebanon talks and
ceasefire negotiations
Q:
Barak, thank you for joining us today on LBCI. Let me start with President
Trump’s statement. He said yesterday that he had spoken with Hezbollah. Do you
know who he was referring to? But before answering that question, let me go back
to your recent conversation with Speaker Berri’s senior advisor Ali Hamdan.
Sorry, how did that come about? Did you contact him or did he reach out to you?
A:
Well, I don’t want to get into issues related to sources and similar matters. I
would just say that it was a very interesting and important conversation with
Mr. Hamdan, because I think it allowed me and my readers here in the U.S. to
better understand what has been going on in those negotiations, and what was
happening behind the scenes last weekend when the parties began discussing the
issue of a ceasefire.
As far as I know, and based on the sources I spoke to, there was no direct
communication between any U.S. official and any official within Hezbollah. Since
Mr. Wafiq Safa was banned a few months ago, I don’t think the group has anyone
capable of maintaining direct contact with Western governments.
Q:
In your article, Ali Hamdan told you that Hezbollah was ready for a full and
immediate ceasefire with Israel and pledged to guarantee its implementation. On
what basis could Speaker Berri make that commitment, given that Hezbollah has
since rejected the proposal?
A:
I think that at the time the interview took place, that was at least what
Hezbollah conveyed to Mr. Hamdan. I also heard at the same time, on the same day
I spoke with Mr. Hamdan, from a very senior Israeli official that Israel had
also received a message from Hezbollah through a third party saying that the
group wanted a ceasefire, as long as it was a full ceasefire across all areas of
Lebanon, and that it did not demand an immediate Israeli withdrawal from
southern Lebanon. It was ready for something more gradual.
So at the time, it was not only Mr. Hamdan saying that Hezbollah was ready for a
full ceasefire; Israeli officials told me the same. What has happened since then
is that Hezbollah changed its position, either for tactical reasons or because
it was not truthful when it said it was ready for a full ceasefire. I tend to
believe, by the way, that the change in Hezbollah’s position is tactical.
I think one of the reasons is that even Hezbollah understands that Iranian
involvement in those negotiations may have gone too far, even for Hezbollah.
Even Hezbollah may feel it is losing its own independent decision-making and
position because Iran is so deeply involved.
Q:
So, Barak, as I mentioned before, Hezbollah has rejected the proposed ceasefire
between Lebanon and Israel. In your opinion, what do you think will happen next?
A:
In my opinion, Mr. Naim Qassem’s statement on Thursday, which rejected the deal,
is not necessarily the final position. I think it is part of the negotiation
process.
As far as I know, negotiations are still ongoing.
During a cabinet meeting on Thursday night, Prime Minister Netanyahu told
cabinet members that they were still waiting to see what would happen in the
internal Lebanese negotiations. I think President Aoun also said that it will
take a few days to complete internal discussions within the Lebanese political
system regarding this agreement.
So I’m not sure it is a done deal. I think negotiations are still ongoing, and I
am not ruling out at all the possibility of reaching a deal within a day or two.
Q:
Thanks, Barak, for your time and for joining us on LBCI.
A:
Thank you. My pleasure. Thank you.
Israeli military chief says plans proposed to expand
operations in Lebanon, border area to Litani to be cleared of Hezbollah
LBCI/June 05, 2026
Israel’s military chief told heads of northern border municipalities that the
army has presented plans to the political leadership to expand its operations in
Lebanon. According to statements reported by the Israeli Broadcasting Authority,
the military chief said the next steps in Lebanon will be determined by the
political leadership, adding that the army is prepared to broaden its
operations. He also said the area along the border extending to the Litani River
would be cleared of Hezbollah.
Separately, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority reported that Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu told the security cabinet that a ceasefire agreement with
Lebanon has not been fully finalized.
UN peacekeeping chief outlines options for post-UNIFIL
monitoring force in southern Lebanon
Ephrem Kossaify/Arab News/June 06, 2026
Jean-Pierre Lacroix says proposals for peacekeeping after the UN Interim Force
in Lebanon’s mandate ends in December were developed after extensive talks with
Lebanese authorities
He uses his final Peacekeepers Day address to call for increased political will,
sustained funding and an end to attacks on peacekeeping personnel
NEW YORK CITY: The head of UN peacekeeping used his final International Day of
UN Peacekeepers address to issue an urgent call for the violence in Lebanon to
end, as the organization mourned the death of yet another soldier killed while
serving with the UN Interim Force in Lebanon.
Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the under-secretary-general for peace operations, said that
Sgt. Nilovan Ivanovic of Serbia died from critical injuries sustained when
mortar shells struck his position in Lebanon. He would have celebrated his 37th
birthday the following day. He was the seventh UNIFIL peacekeeper killed since
March 2026. “All these attacks against peacekeepers are unacceptable,” Lacroix
told journalists at the UN headquarters in New York. “The violence must stop for
the civilians who are living under constant threat, it has to stop for the more
than 1 million people displaced from their homes, and for the peacekeepers who
are there, holding that position in Lebanon, liaising with the parties, doing
their best to maintain stability.”
Lacroix was unequivocal about the UN’s commitment to UNIFIL, despite the
dangerous environment in which it operates, as the force prepares for the end of
its mission. Asked whether the force would remain deployed in the field until
its mandate expires on Dec. 31 this year, he said: “Absolutely, yes.
“There is full commitment by us and, more importantly, our peacekeepers, all of
them on the ground, to stay and continue to deliver until the end of the
mandate.”
Describing what delivery of that mandate involves in practice, he said UNIFIL
personnel had been supporting the work of the Lebanese Armed Forces and, over
recent weeks, have been focusing to a significant degree on facilitating
humanitarian assistance to those civilians who remain in areas south of the
Litani River. Lacroix paid tribute in particular to former UNIFIL commander Gen.
Aroldo Lazaro Saenz, and highlighted a recent humanitarian operation conducted
in Tyre, the latest in a series of such missions. “You can see that there’s
strong dedication to support the civilians and to support Lebanon in general,”
Lacroix said. “Whatever may come next, it’s about supporting the Lebanese
people, it’s about supporting political progress. This is really what
peacekeeping is about, and that applies also to Lebanon.”Lacroix also touched on
the future of the UN presence in southern Lebanon, after UN Secretary-General
Antonio Guterres provided the Security Council with a set of options for a
possible successor mission to UNIFIL, framed around the continuing
implementation of Resolution 1701.
Resolution 1701 was adopted by the Security Council in 2006 with the aim of
resolving the conflict that year between Israel and Hezbollah. It calls for an
end to hostilities, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, the
withdrawal of Hezbollah and other forces from parts of the country south of the
Litani River, and the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups.
Lacroix said the secretary-general’s proposals had been developed after
extensive consultations with Lebanese authorities, who communicated two main
priorities. Firstly, that Lebanon’s own institutions, the Lebanese Army and
security forces, were ready to take an active and empowered role in the
implementation of Resolution 1701, including efforts to work toward ensuring
full governmental control over all weapons on Lebanese soil. Secondly, that
Beirut sees continued value in a post-UNIFIL UN presence in the country focused
on monitoring, observing, reporting, liaison and deconfliction.
“In the context, where there continues to be a presence of foreign forces in
Lebanon, that aspect of liaison and deconfliction is also important,” Lacroix
noted. The proposals under consideration by the Security Council are for between
200 and 375 unarmed military observers, although the total number of uniformed
personnel envisioned would be considerably larger, up to 5,500, to provide the
observers with protection, medical support mobility and the ability to react
quickly. “Those military observers, unarmed, will need to be protected,” Lacroix
said. “Given the severity of the environment, the secretary-general is
determined that that support needs to be sufficient for us to be comfortable
that if those observers are deployed in southern Lebanon, they will receive
adequate support.”
He added that the proposed force would be scalable, in other words designed to
adapt and potentially be reduced if the political and security situation on the
ground improves.
“The secretary-general is not proposing something that is meant to be there for
… many years,” he said. UNIFIL was established in 1978, and by the time its
mandate ends in December it will have been present in Lebanon for almost 48
years. Lacroix also underlined that any future UN presence would be only one
component of the assistance that Lebanon requires.
“Lebanon will need a lot of international support: greater support to the
Lebanese Armed Forces and security forces, and also increased humanitarian
assistance to the more than 1 million Lebanese civilians who are currently
displaced,” he said. In a broader appeal for political and financial investment
in peacekeeping efforts, Lacroix provided official figures that illustrated how
little the world spends in relative terms on one of its most visible instruments
of conflict prevention. The entire annual budget for UN peacekeeping worldwide
is $5.38 billion. That amount, he noted, is equivalent to just 16 hours of
global military expenditure.
He also pointed out that the peacekeeping budget for a full year, covering all
operations globally, is less than half the cost of organizing the upcoming FIFA
World Cup.
“Nothing against soccer,” he said, “but I think that this comparison is worth
reflecting on, really: what is it that the world is investing in peacekeeping,
and what the output is relative to that amount.”
Lacroix took pains to note that the costs equation also includes the downstream
bill for inaction.
“It’s a fact that the cost of supporting peacekeeping is far lower than the cost
of responding when conflict spirals out of control,” he said. “Let us invest in
peace. We need the political and financial backing of member states. We need
parties to conflict to uphold international humanitarian law and the UN
Charter.”Lacroix acknowledged that peacekeeping missions had already been forced
to absorb cuts in funding because assessed contributions from member states had
not been paid on time or in full.
“If you have to close bases where civilians are in need of protection, then
those civilians will be less protected or non-protected,” he warned, noting that
reduced capacity had resulted in fewer patrols and less engagement on
civilian-protection efforts in several mission areas.He appealed directly to UN
member states to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time, calling
this a matter of consistency. “The mandates of peacekeeping operations are
decided by member states, so we expect member states to be consistent,” he said.
New budget proposals from all peacekeeping missions are currently under
discussion and must be adopted by June 30. Friday’s briefing was Lacroix’s last
in his role as head of the Department of Peace Operations. “The most meaningful
moments have always been those that I have had with the men and women who work
in these very difficult, dangerous environments; meeting with them, and meeting
with the men and women in the communities that are protected by the
peacekeepers,” he said of his experiences. He had never, in all his field
visits, heard a civilian ask for peacekeepers to leave, he added. “They’re
always telling us: do more and please stay. I think it’s a tribute to what our
peacekeepers are doing on the ground, day in, day out.”
Exclusive: Lebanese president accuses Iran of using his country
as a bargaining chip in peace talks with the US
By/Mostafa Salem/CNN/June 05/2026
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/05/middleeast/lebanon-israel-hezbollah-peace-intl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaxoRq5jKos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP814ZV9VpU
'It's not your country': Lebanon president's message to Iran
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun delivered a searing rebuke to Iran on Friday,
accusing it of using his country as a bargaining chip against the wishes of the
Lebanese people in the conflict with the United States and Israel.
In a rare and exclusive interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, President Aoun
declared that he is committed to doing “whatever it takes” to save his country
from conflict, and that the Lebanese people are “fed up” with war between Israel
and Hezbollah, a heavily armed Iranian-backed proxy that has built strong
domestic support by portraying itself as the defender of southern Lebanon and
the Palestinian people.
“We are fed up and we want to live in peace,” Aoun said, adding “(Lebanese
people) deserve to live in peace and in dignity, they deserve not seeing their
homes being destroyed every five to 10 years.”
Since its founding in the 1980s, Hezbollah has gone to war with Israel multiple
times. This year, the group fired rockets at Israel in retaliation for a joint
US-Israeli assault on Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and
much of his senior military command. Israel’s aggressive response has killed
more than 3,500 Lebanese and displaced nearly a fifth of the population.
Weakened by decades of foreign meddling, sectarian strife and its repeated
entanglement in wider wars, the Lebanese state had pledged to tackle the
daunting task of disarming Hezbollah in an effort to dismantle the group’s
immense influence and halt Israel’s advancement.
Despite a ceasefire between Tehran and Washington in April and subsequent
negotiations, Beirut has found itself increasingly embroiled in the wider
conflict after Iran conditioned an agreement to end the war with the US on
Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
“It’s not your country, it’s our country,” Aoun said addressing Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – the main backers of Hezbollah. “(Iran is)
using Lebanon as a bargaining chip in their negotiation with US.”
Addressing Iran, he said, “You are not trying to help us … the people of Lebanon
are paying the price … for the sake of your own interest,” adding, “our
interests … do not coincide with your interests.”
Facing limited options and mounting desperation to weaken Iran’s influence in
Lebanon, the US-backed President Aoun has instructed his government to negotiate
direct ceasefire agreements with its longtime adversary, Israel – an
unprecedented move by a Lebanese government that appears to be designed to pile
further pressure onto Hezbollah.
“We are ready, we are willing, we are committed (to negotiations to end the
war),” Aoun told Amanpour at the presidential palace in Beirut. “If you are not,
you will never live in peace, safety and security,” he said addressing the
Israeli people and government.
He added that Lebanon and Israel have a “great opportunity” to end the state of
hostility and for both the Lebanese and Israeli people to live in safety and
security.
“They are both fed up with war since 1948,” he added. “This is a huge
opportunity. They both have to choose: war or… diplomacy.”
But the truces between Lebanon and Israel have barely taken hold as Hezbollah
continues rejecting any disarmament without Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese
territory.
In a statement on Thursday, Hezbollah’s leader Naim Qassem slammed the
Lebanon-Israel talks as a “surrender,” saying the resulting truce was rejected
in its “entirety by broad segments of the Lebanese people.”
Aoun said he spoke to Lebanese people across different religious sects,
including Shiites, who have told him they are “fed up” with Hezbollah’s war with
Israel.
“They are Lebanese people. They are not Naim Qassem’s people,” he said in a rare
public criticism of the Iran-backed Shiite militant leader.
Still, the Lebanese president slammed the Israeli military strategy in
dismantling Hezbollah, saying the group can only be “dealt with” by the Lebanese
government after the Israeli military withdraws – and the conflict can only end
through negotiations.
“They can invade the whole country, they can flatten the whole country, but they
will never be able to achieve their objective,” Aoun said on Israel. “Hezbollah
is not an objective you can see… it’s an idea.”
Before becoming president, Aoun served eight years as army chief. He was wounded
in battle and says he still carries shrapnel in his body, with his hearing
damaged from close-quarters combat. Yet he says he hates war.
“I prefer negotiations over wars. I don’t want my children … and I don’t want
the people in Lebanon to live the same hardship,” he said. “The best way forward
is diplomacy.”
For almost three years, Israel and Hezbollah have been engaged in aggressive
skirmishes. Israeli forces have occupied dozens of villages in southern Lebanon
to clear Hezbollah’s forces.
The Israeli government has conditioned their withdrawal from Lebanon on
Hezbollah laying down its weapons – a step that the Lebanese government led by
Aoun said it is committed to.
Yet, outside of vocal critique and a few symbolic steps of dismantling
Hezbollah’s capabilities, the former military commander has not taken concrete
steps to disarm Hezbollah in fear of sparking what many observers believe is a
direct clash with the heavily armed group, which could spark a repeat of a
brutal 15-year civil war that tore the country apart.
Instead, Aoun has watched his presidential palace tremble under Israeli strikes
as Israel widens its campaign in Lebanon. At the same time, Iran continues
raising the price of any ceasefire with the US while refusing to release its
grip on Lebanese sovereignty.
“I will try… to negotiate and reason with them,” Aoun said in reference to
Hezbollah and disarmament. “Eventually they will be persuaded, but the cost will
be high.”
Ami Kaufman contributed to this report.
Lebanon at a Historic Crossroads: From Ceasefire to a
New Political Order.
Toni Nissi/The Capitol Institute/June 05 /2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155083/
The joint statement issued following the June 2–3, 2026 trilateral meeting
between the United States, Lebanon, and Israel may prove to be one of the most
consequential political documents affecting Lebanon since the end of the Civil
War and perhaps the most significant diplomatic development since the collapse
of the May 17 Agreement in 1984. At first glance, the document appears to be
another ceasefire arrangement aimed at ending hostilities along the Lebanese
Israeli border. Yet a closer examination reveals that it is much more than a
ceasefire. It is a political roadmap designed to reshape the security
architecture of Lebanon, redefine the role of the Lebanese state, and
potentially open the door to a broader agreement between Lebanon and Israel. The
statement repeatedly refers not merely to ending military operations, but to
achieving a “comprehensive agreement” between the two countries. Such language
is neither accidental nor insignificant. Diplomacy is often a matter of words,
and the choice of these words indicates that the parties are looking beyond the
battlefield toward a political settlement. The most important sentence in the
document may be the declaration that: “The future of the relationship between
Israel and Lebanon must be decided by the two sovereign governments.” This is a
profound political declaration. It asserts that decisions concerning war, peace,
borders, and security belong to the legitimate institutions of the Lebanese
Republic and the State of Israel rather than to external actors or non-state
organizations. In doing so, the statement places sovereignty at the center of
the diplomatic process. The Exclusion of Hezbollah from the Negotiating
Framework. Perhaps the most historic aspect of this agreement is not what is
written explicitly, but what is implied throughout the text. The agreement is
concluded between three parties: the United States, the Republic of Lebanon, and
the State of Israel.
Hezbollah is absent.
For the first time in a major international framework endorsed by the Lebanese
government itself, Hezbollah is effectively treated as a non-state armed
organization whose future is being discussed by sovereign governments rather
than as a party to the negotiations.The statement repeatedly refers to the
evacuation of Hezbollah operatives from south of the Litani River, the
dismantlement of armed groups operating outside state authority, and the
prevention of their re-emergence. Taken together, these provisions amount to an
unprecedented political reality: the Lebanese government has accepted a
framework in which Hezbollah is addressed not as a resistance movement
participating in national defense policy, but as a non-state armed organization
whose military status falls outside the authority of the Lebanese state and is
therefore subject to future security arrangements. Whether one agrees or
disagrees with this approach, its political significance cannot be overstated.
This marks a historic shift in the official position of the Lebanese state and
reflects a broader international consensus that the future security architecture
of Lebanon must ultimately be based on the exclusive authority of state
institutions.
The Return of the Lebanese State.
For decades, many Lebanese have argued that the country cannot achieve
stability, prosperity, or sovereignty while military authority remains divided
between state institutions and armed organizations. The statement directly
addresses this issue through the creation of pilot zones in which the Lebanese
Armed Forces will exercise exclusive authority “to the exclusion of all
non-state actors.” This is perhaps the most important operational element of the
agreement. The objective is clear: to establish practical models demonstrating
that the Lebanese state can govern, secure, and administer territory through its
legitimate institutions alone. If successful, these pilot zones could eventually
expand to encompass the entire country. The Lebanese Armed Forces emerge as the
principal beneficiary of this arrangement. The United States has committed
itself to strengthening the Army’s capabilities and helping it exercise
effective sovereignty throughout Lebanese territory.
For supporters of state sovereignty, this represents the most serious effort in
decades to implement the spirit of United Nations Security Council Resolutions
1559, 1680, and 1701.Can Lebanon Implement What It Has Agreed To? This is the
fundamental question. Signing an agreement is one thing. Implementing it is
another.The Lebanese state has formally committed itself to enhancing the
capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces and extending effective control
throughout the country. But does the state possess the political unity,
institutional strength, and national consensus necessary to fulfill these
commitments?
The implementation of such a framework requires a unified political decision,
strong governmental institutions, sustained international support, adequate
military capabilities, and broad public legitimacy. The coming months will
determine whether Lebanon possesses the capacity to transform
diplomatic commitments into realities on the ground. History teaches us that
many agreements in Lebanon have failed not because they lacked international
support, but because domestic implementation proved impossible.
What If Hezbollah Refuses?
An even more difficult question remains unanswered. What happens if Hezbollah
refuses to implement the arrangements? The statement clearly links the ceasefire
to the cessation of Hezbollah military activity and the withdrawal of its
operatives from south of the Litani River. It further envisions a future
security
framework based upon the dismantlement of armed groups operating outside state
authority. If Hezbollah accepts these arrangements, Lebanon could witness the
beginning of a historic transition toward the restoration of exclusive state
sovereignty and the implementation of long-standing international resolutions.
If Hezbollah rejects them, however, the entire process enters uncharted
territory. The first possibility is prolonged political deadlock, with
implementation delayed indefinitely. The second is continued military pressure
from Israel and its allies aimed at forcing compliance with the agreed
framework. The third is the emergence of a direct confrontation between the
authority of the Lebanese state and the decisions of an armed organization
operating independently of state institutions. There is another reality that
must be acknowledged honestly. Hezbollah can no longer be viewed solely as an
internal Lebanese issue. Whether one supports or opposes the organization, its
military structure, strategic doctrine, financial networks, and regional role
have long been intertwined with broader regional dynamics, particularly its
relationship with Iran. The June 2026 statement itself reflects this reality by
linking the Lebanese Israeli file to
wider regional security concerns and by explicitly condemning Iranian activities
that undermine regional stability. Consequently, the challenge of implementing
the agreement cannot be treated as a purely domestic Lebanese matter. Lebanon
may initiate the process, but Lebanon alone may not
possess the political, military, economic, or diplomatic resources required to
complete it. If the objective of the agreement is indeed the restoration of
exclusive state sovereignty and the dismantlement of armed structures operating
outside the authority of the Lebanese state, then this becomes not only a
Lebanese challenge but also a regional and international responsibility. The
international community cannot simultaneously demand that Lebanon implement
ambitious security commitments while leaving it alone to confront the
consequences. Yet beyond the question of Hezbollah lies an equally important
question: will the Lebanese government have the political courage to proceed
with the implementation of the agreement if confronted with resistance? For
decades, successive Lebanese governments have often avoided decisive
confrontations regarding the state’s monopoly over arms. If the current
government truly believes in the
commitments it has undertaken, will it be prepared to formally request
political, military, and diplomatic support from the international community to
ensure the implementation of the agreement and the restoration of state
authority throughout Lebanese territory? Another question follows immediately.
If such a request is made, will the United States and its allies be prepared to
move beyond declarations of support and provide the level of assistance required
to make success possible? Supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces is one thing.
Enabling them to assume exclusive
control over all Lebanese territory is another.
Will Washington provide the necessary military equipment, intelligence
capabilities, financial resources, logistical support, and diplomatic backing
required for such a transformation? More importantly, if implementation
encounters serious resistance, would the United States and its allies be willing
to consider a stronger international role on the ground, whether through
expanded international monitoring mechanisms, reinforced multinational support
structures, or other forms of direct assistance designed to guarantee the
success of the process?These are no longer theoretical questions. They are
questions that go to the heart of thecredibility of the agreement itself. The
future of this initiative will not be determined solely by what Lebanon and
Israel have signed. It will be determined by whether the Lebanese state is
prepared to enforce its commitments and whether the international community is
prepared to stand behind Lebanon
if it chooses to do so.The success or failure of this process may ultimately
depend on the answer to a simple question: when the moment of implementation
arrives, who will have the determination to see it through?
A Historic Choice.
Many observers have compared this initiative to the May 17 Agreement of 1983.
The comparison is understandable. Both were brokered by the United States. Both
sought to establish security arrangements between Lebanon and Israel. Both aimed
to strengthen the authority of the Lebanese state.
Yet there is one critical difference. The regional environment has changed
dramatically. The balance of power has changed. The role of Syria has changed.
The role of Iran has changed. Most importantly, the Lebanese people have
changed. After years of economic collapse, political paralysis, institutional
decline, and repeated wars, many Lebanese increasingly view the restoration of
state sovereignty not as a political slogan but as a national necessity. The
June 2026 statement therefore represents far more than a ceasefire. It is a
test. A test of whether Lebanon can finally become a country in which decisions
of war and peace belong exclusively to the state. A test of whether the Lebanese
Armed Forces can become the sole legitimate military authority. A test of
whether Lebanon can fully implement the international resolutions it has pledged
to respect. And ultimately, it is a test of whether the Lebanese Republic can
reclaim its sovereignty in both law and practice. The coming months may
determine not only the future of the Lebanese Israeli relationship, but also the
future of the Lebanese state itself. For the first time in decades, Lebanon
stands before a historic opportunity—and a historic responsibility. Whether this
moment becomes the beginning of a sovereign and stable future or another missed
opportunity will depend not on the text of the agreement itself, but on the
willingness of Lebanon and its international partners to transform words into
reality.
President Aoun’s Interview and the Army Commander’s
Visit to Pakistan
Colonel Charbel Barakat/June 05/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155091/
In his interview today with the American network CNN, President Aoun stated
unequivocally that Lebanon rejects Iranian tutelage—whether direct or extended
through the "party of arms." He deemed an agreement with the Israelis a
necessity to save Lebanon and its people from the destruction, devastation, and
ongoing slaughter of innocents brought about by Iran's proxy in the country.
This statement serves as a direct rebuttal to Sheikh Naim Qassem and Qaani, the
commander of the Quds Force, both of whom rejected the agreement in its
entirety.
However, before the echoes of this interview could even fade, news of a
different nature emerged: the Lebanese Army Commander traveled to Pakistan to
meet his Pakistani counterpart. It is no secret that Pakistan currently plays a
role in cooling down the negotiating climate between the Iranian leadership and
the United States. What is official Lebanon trying to signal through this visit?
Is it an attempt to seek Pakistani mediation to placate the Iranians and prevent
them from destabilizing Lebanon after everything that has transpired? Has the
Lebanese leadership’s distrust of the U.S. administration reached a point where
it is opening backchannels with nations that exploit regional dynamics at the
expense of their own peoples' freedom and self-determination?
Or has the "mercantile intellect" of Lebanon found a way to secure a fallback
position? Is it choosing a new cover from the exact same Iranian mold—meaning a
non-Arab patron (given the absence of Arab powers capable of confrontation)—yet
one that supports Islamic extremist organizations through its backing of the
Taliban, from whose womb Al-Qaeda was born? Is the government trying to say that
we must not close the front of confrontation with our neighbor, Israel? If the
role of Shia extremism has temporarily concluded, must it be replaced by Sunni
extremism to maintain regional friction and keep the fires burning by any means
necessary?
If this is the case, Lebanon will never enjoy sovereignty over its lands, nor
will it taste peace and progress on the road to prosperity. It implies that
another project is being engineered to rise just as the Shia community grows
exhausted from the consequences of Iran and its proxies' actions, which dragged
the country into the current war. Thus, a new player must be groomed, requiring
external backing from a powerful regional actor. And who is more powerful than a
nuclear-armed Pakistan that enjoys the backing of Saudi Arabia?
It is true that the current Lebanese Prime Minister leans left and was raised in
the shadow of Arafat. However, the story of the "Global Left" ended with the
collapse of the Soviet Union and communism. Yet in Lebanon, this ideology
continues to reinvent itself. Its proponents have failed to engage in any
self-criticism regarding their dismal history, which brought the country to its
current state under the banners of science, intellect, and ideology. Amid a
cycle of growing animosity fueled by religious slogans, even a "leftist"
Lebanese Prime Minister might be swayed by the demagoguery of the street and the
demands of Islamist extremists. These forces will inevitably clash with Jewish
extremists, perhaps to remobilize the Lebanese people against the peace
initiatives that herald a new era of stability and prosperity.
Can aligning with and receiving support from the United States truly transition
the region from a state of violence and chaos to one of progress and prosperity?
This is precisely what many
neighbors reject. They believe that the erasure of the Iranian "Shia bogeyman"
will grant them an opportunity to seize control of the ground, mobilizing once
more for wars aimed at imposing their will by force and resurrecting outdated
doctrines that everyone had surpassed.
The end of Shia hegemony and the projects of imposing Khomeinist authority must
not mean the restoration of a new era for the Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk.
The vacuum left by the collapse of the Iranian system must not be filled by a
regime that mirrors it. There are alternative visions and numerous solutions
suitable for Arabs, Persians, Indians, Chinese, and everyone in between—not to
mention the Europeans and Americans. This is what open relations and
constructive cooperation could mean in a "New Middle East"—a region free of
violence, focused on human advancement, and driven by competition in innovation,
prosperity, and the exchange of expertise. It means activating ideas and
proposals that generate wealth and well-being rather than those that destroy and
harm.
Lebanon must recover from its pathological state and catch up with the rest of
the world. If those in power have not yet understood the requirements of the era
we live in, they should pack their bags and look for another job. Today's world
is brimming with bright minds eager to work toward progress and put an end to
regression and backwardness. Those leading the country must realize that the
future will not favor rigid, factional theories, but rather cooperation,
partnership, and advancement. The coming peace is the only vehicle that will
propel everyone forward.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on 05-06 June/2026
Trump tells NBC News that Iran
has 21 percent to 22 percent of its missiles left
Reuters/June 06, 2026
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump said Iran still had 21 percent to 22
percent of its missiles left, according to an interview with NBC News’
‘Meet the Press’ on Friday. “They have some missiles, they have some drones.
I would say percentage wise, maybe 21-22 percent of their missiles. It’s a
lot of missiles, but it’s not what it was when we first attacked,” Trump was
quoted as saying. Meanwhile, Iran has launched multiple drones towards the
Strait of Hormuz, CNN reported on Friday, citing a U.S. official who
also said at least four drones were shot down by U.S. aircraft.
Iran army says fired 'warning missiles' at US destroyers in
Gulf of Oman
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
Iran's army said Friday it had fired "warning missiles" at two US destroyers in
the Gulf of Oman, forcing the vessels to leave the area, according to state
media."In continuation of operations to counter maritime misconduct and
harassment, as well as the hijacking of commercial vessels and oil tankers by
the terrorist naval forces of the United States, following the firing of warning
missiles, the hostile destroyers DDG-103 and DDG-8 have left the Gulf of Oman
towards the Indian Ocean," the army said in a statement carried by state news
agency IRNA.
Ireland bans two Israeli ministers from entering country
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
Ireland on Friday barred Israel's national security minister and finance
minister from entering the country over the war in Gaza. tructed immigration
officers to refuse entry to Itamar Ben-Gvir - Minister for National Security
Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan "has insof Israel, and Bezalel Smotrich,
Minister of Finance of Israel - should they seek to enter the state," said a
justice ministry statement sent to AFP.
Iran army says fired 'warning missiles' at US destroyers in
Gulf of Oman
Agence France Presse/June 05, 2026
Iran's army said Friday it had fired "warning missiles" at two US destroyers in
the Gulf of Oman, forcing the vessels to leave the area, according to state
media."In continuation of operations to counter maritime misconduct and
harassment, as well as the hijacking of commercial vessels and oil tankers by
the terrorist naval forces of the United States, following the firing of warning
missiles, the hostile destroyers DDG-103 and DDG-8 have left the Gulf of Oman
towards the Indian Ocean," the army said in a statement carried by state news
agency IRNA.
Iranian-American journalist jailed in Tehran pleas for US
help
AFP/June 05, 2026
WASHINGTON: An Iranian-American journalist sentenced to 10 years in a notorious
Tehran prison called on Washington to provide medical help for him and other US
detainees, CBS News reported Friday.Reza Valizadeh, who holds both Iranian and
US citizenship and worked for US-funded Persian-language Radio Farda, is in
prison on charges of collaborating with a hostile government, according to his
lawyer. A voice message from the journalist obtained by CBS News comes amid a
shaky truce as Tehran and Washington conduct slow-moving negotiations to resolve
a war launched by President Donald Trump in February. Valizadeh said in the
two-minute recording that he and three other Americans held at Tehran’s Evin
prison were sick and being denied medical treatment. “While the four of us are
suffering from various diseases and are deprived from real medical services, the
US government could have at least demanded real medical services for us in
exchange for the release of Iranian sailors,” he says. “Even if treating our
diseases is a big demand, it would have at least asked the Iranian authorities
to reduce not all the physical pressure and mental torture against us in
captivity, but at least some of it.”AFP was not able to verify the authenticity
of the recording. CBS News said the recording was recent and had been made after
Iranian authorities loosened wartime communication restrictions last week.
Valizadeh’s lawyer Ryan Fayhee told CBS News that Valizadeh was suffering from
persistent coughing, back pain and dental problems. “He’s survived an airstrike
on the prison, he survived the prison itself,” Fayhee said, referring to an
Israeli strike which damaged parts of the facility in June last year. The United
States said in 2024 it was aware of Valizadeh’s detention and called on Iran to
free him. Rights groups have denounced conditions in Iran’s prisons, where
detainees suffer from overcrowding and shortages of food, water, hygiene
supplies, medicine and medical care.
Iran dismisses idea of Trump meeting supreme leader
AFP/June 05, 2026
TEHRAN: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has dismissed the idea of his
country’s supreme leader meeting Donald Trump, after the US president floated
the prospect. On Wednesday, Trump told the New York Post: “Yeah, I’d like to
meet him,” when he was asked about a possible encounter, adding that “we
probably will meet at some point, depending on how it all works out.”Iran’s top
diplomat however played down the chances in an interview with Lebanese media
aired on Thursday night, suggesting it was not realistic. “I saw a report which
apparently said that he (Trump) had stated that he was ready for a meeting or
that he wanted to hold a meeting,” Araghchi told Al Mayadeen television channel.
“I think we should be realistic and think and live in the real world,” he said.
Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei was appointed Iran’s supreme leader in March after
the death of his father and predecessor Ali Khamenei in US-Israeli strikes on
February 28. Araghchi said in the interview that during the attacks that killed
Ali Khamenei he had been inside the leader’s office where he died, but in
another wing of the building so was unharmed.The attacks prompted Iran to
retaliate with missile and drone strikes against Israel and US allies in the
Gulf region. Araghchi also said the new supreme leader has a “completely close
and effective presence in the country’s affairs and has full control.”He said
Mojtaba Khamenei’s absence from public view since his appointment was “due to
security considerations” surrounding the war, which has been paused since April
8 by a fragile ceasefire. Mediated and direct talks between Iran and the United
States have so far failed to produce a permanent end to the conflict.
IAEA: UAE nuclear plant attack ‘serious compromise of nuclear safety’
AFP/June 05, 2026
VIENNA: Last month’s drone attack on the UAE’s Barakah nuclear plant was a
“serious compromise of nuclear safety, the head of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) said Friday, adding any such attack “is unacceptable, a
no-go, taboo.”The UAE blamed pro-Iran militants in Iraq for the incident, which
followed weeks of attacks by Iranian drones and missiles during the Middle East
war. The May 17 attack hit an electricity facility at the plant, risking
potentially shutting it down, and IAEA chief Rafael Grossi warned that “attacks
on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes are unacceptable.”“The strike
caused a fire in an electrical generator located outside the inner site
perimeter of the NPP (nuclear power plant), prompting the need for emergency
generators to provide power,” Grossi told an IAEA board meeting in Vienna. The
meeting was held at the request of Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.
During a visit to the plant last Tuesday Grossi said the attack could have
interrupted the external power supply. On Friday he hailed the “professionalism
and alertness” of the IAEA-trained on-duty team at the site who he said were
able to “respond promptly and effectively to the unthinkable: a direct impact
caused by a drone with an explosive payload.”He said the IAEA would closely
support the plant to ensure its safety, having during his visit said that the
plant had been the victim of a “very carefully targeted operation” by attackers
seeking to cause a major incident. In any case, “the incident was a serious
compromise of nuclear safety and undermined several of the IAEA’s seven
indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during an armed
conflict,” Grossi said.
‘Perilous’ time
Even if radiation levels at the plant remained normal and no injuries were
reported he stressed that such attacks could lead to a high release of
radioactivity. He added he had spoken immediately after the attack to UAE
leaders to assure them of the agency’s support and “given the general concerns
caused by these developments, I have been in close and frequent touch with
leaders throughout the Gulf region” to discuss nuclear safety and security in
the region at a “perilous” time. The Barakah plant, built by a South Korean
consortium led by energy supplier Kepco and which came online in 2020, meets up
to a quarter of the UAE’s electricity needs. In a statement on Friday to the
IAEA board, Iran said the United States and Israel had carried out “17 waves of
attacks against Iranian safeguarded nuclear facilities,” including near its
Bushehr nuclear power plant.Ahead of the board of governors’ meeting, Iran, and
its allies China and Russia, held a meeting with Grossi. The IAEA chief later
told a news conference the three countries had asked for the meeting to
underline that “it’s very difficult for Iran to comply with its obligations (to
the IAEA) in the current circumstances.”Grossi also said that the IAEA needed to
be allowed to verify the amount of enriched uranium Iran has. Iran’s mission to
the IAEA released a statement afterwards saying the meeting “because it’s been a
long time and without a clear baseline.”Without such verification, any agreement
over Iran’s nuclear program “might be less... I would say probable.”
France opens ‘war crime’ probe over Israel treatment of flotilla activists
AFP/June 05, 2026
PARIS: France has opened an investigation into an alleged “war crime” and
“torture” over Israel’s treatment of French activists who took part in a
Gaza-bound aid flotilla, a prosecutor’s office said Friday. The probe was opened
at the government’s request, the national counterterrorism prosecutor’s office (PNAT)
said, after activists accused Israeli authorities of mistreatment during their
detention last month. Israel detained more than 430 activists from countries
around the world after intercepting them in international waters on May 18 as
they made the latest in a string of attempts to break the blockade of the
Palestinian territory. Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben
Gvir sparked widespread condemnation after he posted a video mocking the
flotilla activists while they were bound. France banned Ben Gvir from entry over
the incident. Several French activists described what they said was a violent
and humiliating ordeal when eight of them returned to France on May 22. Two of
the more than 30 French people who were on board the flotilla were still in
hospital in Turkiye, they told reporters. One returnee described a soldier
groping and slapping her in a dark container, and being terrified that she would
be raped. Another recounted detained activists being put in what she called a
“stress position,” on their knees with their foreheads on the ground for several
hours, while the Israeli national anthem played on repeat. Asked by AFP to
respond to the claims of physical and psychological violence, sexual harassment,
assault and rape, the Israeli prison service said the accusations were “entirely
without factual basis.”Francesca Albanese, an outspoken UN expert on the
Palestinian territories, has said the treatment of the flotilla activists “is a
luxury compared to what is inflicted on Palestinians in Israeli prisons.”
7-month-old baby, teenager shot dead in separate West Bank
killings
AFP/WAFA/June 05, 2026
RAMALLAH: Israeli forces shot dead an 18-year-old Palestinian man in the
occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Health Ministry said on Friday, while the
military said it had killed someone who threw firebombs at vehicles. In the
early hours of Friday, the Health Ministry said it had been informed of “the
martyrdom of the young man Haitham Ezzedine Omar Hmeida, 18, by occupation
gunfire in the village of Beitin,” northeast of Ramallah. It added that the
man’s body was being withheld. In a statement, the Israeli military said its
forces had “identified several terrorists throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli
vehicles traveling on a major roadway” near the village of Beitin. “The soldiers
opened fire at the terrorists and eliminated one of them,” the military said,
adding that its forces were “currently pursuing the remaining suspects.”Since
the war in Gaza broke out in October 2023, near-daily violence has rocked the
West Bank, which Israel has occupied since 1967. Israeli soldiers or settlers
have killed at least 1,078 Palestinians since then, including many militants,
according to an AFP tally based on Palestinian Health Ministry data. Also on
Friday, a Palestinian youth was injured by shrapnel from Israeli occupation
forces’ live ammunition during a military raid on the village of Dura Al-Qari,’
northeast of Ramallah. Sources said that Israeli infantry forces stormed the
village and opened live fire toward the Al-Ain area, injuring a young man in the
head with shrapnel from live fire. His condition was described as stable. Infant
killed by Israeli fire in West BankThe Palestinian health ministry said Israeli
gunfire killed an infant and wounded his parents on Friday in the occupied West
Bank. Sam Fahd Abou Haikal, aged seven months, died and his parents were lightly
injured “after the occupation forces opened fire on them on Friday evening” in
the south of the city of Hebron, the ministry said. The Israeli army did not
immediately respond to a request for comment. Dr. Tareq Barbarawi, the director
of a Hebron hospital, had earlier told AFP the child had been taken into care
with “serious” injuries.According to Palestinian news agency Wafa, the Israeli
army fired toward the family’s car.
Gaza’s fishermen patch up dinghies with door frames to keep themselves afloat
Reuters/June 05, 2026
GAZA: In a Gaza workshop, a group of men patches up pleasure dinghies with
reclaimed fiberglass, wood, and door frames pulled from the rubble, racing to
get the boats ready for a tougher line of work. The small vessels, which were
used by families and swimmers before the war, have become a lifeline for the
enclave’s fishing industry, which has been struggling to keep up its
fleet.Israeli restrictions on new fiberglass and other materials entering Gaza
have made it increasingly difficult and expensive to repair the larger,
purpose-built boats, fishermen said.“A kilo of fiberglass in the era before the
war was 50 or 60 shekels (approximately $17 or $21),” said fisherman Mohammed
Al-Hissi. The cost today was around 800 shekels, he added. COGAT, the Israeli
military agency that controls access to Gaza, said the bans cover items that
could have a military as well as a civilian use. It did not directly comment on
restrictions on fiberglass. Even before the war that began with attacks on
southern Israel in October 2023, Gaza’s fishermen faced strict Israeli
restrictions on how far they could go out to sea.Now, they say they keep even
closer to shore to avoid shooting that they report has continued since last
year’s ceasefire. More than 900 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes
since the truce began, according to figures from Gaza health officials that do
not distinguish between combatants and civilians. Four Israeli soldiers have
been killed by militants during the same period, Israel’s military has said.
The Gaza fishing industry’s total catch has shrunk to less than 15 tonnes a
month — the amount they used to take every day before the war, Gaza Fishermen
Syndicate member Zakaria Baker said.Fishing provided an important source of food
before the conflict. The hunger crisis in Gaza has eased since famine was
declared in parts of the tiny, crowded territory before the ceasefire last year.
But aid agencies say most children still don’t get a diverse enough diet, and
the UN reported that 3,500 children were admitted for malnutrition treatment in
April. “We repair and maintain boats, and serve fishermen in any way we can,”
worker Musab Baker said at the repair shop. “But we are unable to do anything
apart from the small boats.”
Deadly attack sinks Turkish fishing boat in Black Sea
AFP/June 05, 2026
One killed and four wounded as boat sinks west of the Russian occupied Crimean
Peninsula
ISTANBUL: A Turkish fishing boat came under attack and sank Friday in the Black
Sea west of the Russian occupied Crimean Peninsula, leaving one person dead and
four wounded, authorities said.The coast guard command said in a statement the
attack targeted the Turkish-flagged DURU 67 fishing vessel off the coast of
Sevastopol and that it had sank. The authorities did not provide details on the
circumstances of the assault or identify those responsible. Another fishing
boat, located in the vicinity, evacuated five injured fishermen from the sinking
vessel and headed toward Inebolu district in Turkiye’s northern Black Sea
region, the coast guard said. “Unfortunately, one of the injured fishermen, who
was in critical condition, passed away during the evacuation,” it added. In late
May, Turkiye warned against “uncontrolled escalation” in the Black Sea region
after a drone attack hit a Turkish cargo ship. The Ukrainian navy said that a
Russian drone had attacked the vessel.
UN Security Council marks 2 years of Houthi detentions,
demands immediate release of 73 UN staff
Ephrem Kossaify/Arab News/June 06, 2026
NEW YORK CITY: The UN Security Council on Friday condemned in the strongest
terms the continuing detention of scores of humanitarian workers, UN personnel
and civil society representatives by the Houthi rebels in Yemen.It came as the
second anniversary of mass arrests in June 2024 approaches with no resolution in
sight. The 15-member body renewed its demand for the unconditional, safe and
immediate release of all those held, including 73 UN personnel detained during
several waves of arrests over the past four years, and expressed deep concern
for their welfare.
“All threats to those delivering humanitarian assistance are unacceptable,” the
council said, warning that the detentions were worsening an already dire
humanitarian situation in a country where more than 22.3 million people now
require assistance. The Houthis launched their most sweeping crackdown on May
31, 2024, raiding offices and detaining personnel from UN agencies,
international and national nongovernmental and civil society organizations, and
diplomatic missions throughout areas under their control. Further arrests
followed in January and August 2025, with the cumulative toll leaving dozens
behind bars without charge, lacking access to lawyers and cut off from their
families. The Council reiterated the obligations under international
humanitarian law of all parties involved in conflicts to allow full, safe and
unhindered humanitarian access to detainees, and to guarantee the safety and
freedom of movement of UN and associated personnel. Members warned that the
humanitarian situation in Yemen would continue to deteriorate in the absence of
a political solution to the conflict, and reaffirmed their commitment to the
unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country. They
expressed continued support for the UN’s special envoy for Yemen, Hans Grundberg,
and his efforts to broker an inclusive, Yemeni-led political settlement
consistent with agreed references and relevant Security Council resolutions.
Zelensky says Putin 'choosing war again' by rejecting call to meet
LBCI/June 05, 2026
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday slammed his Russian counterpart
Vladimir Putin for rejecting a call for a face-to-face meeting to discuss ending
their four-year war. "Unfortunately, the Russian side is choosing war again --
everyone heard today's response. A weak response. He simply doesn't want to end
the war," Zelensky said after Putin said he saw "no point" in meeting the
Ukrainian leader. AFP
on 05-06 June/2026
Question: What does it mean to be poor
in spirit?
GotQuestions.org//June
05/2026
Answer: In the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declares, “Blessed
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). What
exactly does it mean to be poor in spirit, and why does being poor in spirit
result in the kingdom of heaven? Why is “poor in spirit” something God wants us
to be? Why would God want us to be “poor” at anything?
Some propose that Jesus is speaking of financial poverty, that He is advocating
being poor so that riches and possession don’t come between us and God. While it
is true that Jesus elsewhere warned against seeking riches (Matthew 6:24), that
does not seem to be Jesus’ point in Matthew 5:3. Jesus is speaking of being
“poor in spirit”; i.e., being “spiritually poor.” In the beatitudes, Jesus is
concerned with spiritual realities, not material possessions. What, then, does
it mean to be spiritually poor?
To be poor in spirit is to recognize your utter spiritual bankruptcy before God.
It is understanding that you have absolutely nothing of worth to offer God.
Being poor in spirit is admitting that, because of your sin, you are completely
destitute spiritually and can do nothing to deliver yourself from your dire
situation. Jesus is saying that, no matter your status in life, you must
recognize your spiritual poverty before you can come to God in faith to receive
the salvation He offers.
Why and how does being poor in spirit result in the kingdom of heaven? While the
phrase can be broad in meaning, “kingdom of heaven” essentially refers to
salvation. The kingdom of heaven is both eternity in heaven with God after death
(Romans 6:23) and the eternal quality of life with God before death (John
10:10). God offers us salvation as a gift, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
on the cross, the full payment for sin’s penalty. Before we can receive this
gift, we must understand that we cannot make ourselves worthy of it. Salvation
is by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9). We must recognize our
sinfulness before we can understand our need for a Savior. We must admit our
spiritual poverty before we can receive the spiritual riches God offers
(Ephesians 1:3). We must, in short, be “poor in spirit.”
When Jesus says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven,” He is declaring that, before we can enter God’s kingdom, we must
recognize the utter worthlessness of our own spiritual currency and the
inability of our own works to save us
When Hafez al-Assad Opened Lebanon’s Gate to Tehran
Riyadh: Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 05/2026
One week after the Iranian Revolution declared victory on February 11, 1979, two
photographs emerged from Tehran that, in retrospect, help explain many of the
storms that would later sweep the Middle East, from Iran’s expanding regional
influence to what the author calls “Sinwar’s Flood."In the first image, two men
sit side by side on a carpet. It is impossible to tell the story of the modern
Middle East without dwelling on both of them. One is Ayatollah Khomeini, the
architect of the Iranian Revolution. The other is Yasser Arafat, the founder of
the modern Palestinian national movement. Standing near Arafat are the Lebanese
cleric Hani Fahs, the Iranian cleric Sadegh Khalkhali, and Ahmad Khomeini, the
revolutionary leader’s son. Near Khomeini stand Mahmoud Abbas — today president
of the Palestinian Authority — and Hani al-Hassan, a senior Fatah leader who
would become the first Palestinian ambassador to revolutionary Iran. In the
second photograph, Arafat is shown addressing a crowd after the Palestinian flag
was raised over the building that had housed the Israeli embassy in Tehran.
Arafat and Khomeini, with Mahmoud Abbas standing next to his right. The
symbolism of those scenes was profound. During his long years in exile in Najaf,
Khomeini had understood that Palestine was the magic word that opened Arab and
Muslim hearts. He may have believed that embracing the Palestinian cause would
provide a passport for a Shiite revolution seeking entry into the vast Sunni
world. It was natural that Tehran would celebrate Arafat, whose legitimacy was
unrivaled after he had become the global symbol of the Palestinian struggle. It
was equally natural that Arafat would welcome Iran’s dramatic shift from a state
aligned with Israel to one proclaiming full support for the Palestinian
revolution.
As always, Arafat lavished praise on his hosts. Yet experience had taught him
not to surrender his cards to anyone. He had spent years dealing with powerful
leaders who sought to use the Palestinian cause either to legitimize their own
regimes or to project influence far beyond their borders.Palestine was not
Arafat’s only asset. He operated on Israel’s border through southern Lebanon, a
frontier that had effectively become a Palestinian-Israeli border before
eventually evolving into an Iranian-Israeli one. Although Lebanon at the time
lay under the domination of Hafez al-Assad and the Syrian army — and despite
Assad’s deep hostility toward Arafat — the Palestinian leader still controlled
the decision of war and peace in southern Lebanon. That authority would later
pass to Hassan Nasrallah, the late secretary-general of Hezbollah.
Arafat quickly grasped the sensitivities surrounding relations with Iran. Here
was a Shiite revolution emerging in a predominantly Sunni world. The new
regime’s commitment to “exporting the revolution” alarmed governments near and
far. When the Iran-Iraq War erupted, Arafat attempted to play the role of
mediator. He recalibrated his calculations, preserving room for strong relations
with the Gulf Arab states, whose financial support remained indispensable to the
Palestinian movement.
Any reading of 1979 must also account for another major development. That year
Egypt completed its departure from the military front of the Arab-Israeli
conflict. The process culminated in the signing of the Camp David Accords by
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin under
the sponsorship of US President Jimmy Carter. The agreement completed the
geopolitical earthquake Sadat had triggered in 1977 when he traveled to
Jerusalem and offered peace to Israel.
Egypt’s departure left a vacuum in the Arab world. That vacuum made it easier
for Khomeini’s revolution to advance across the region.
Beginning in 1990, Iran would receive three major unintended gifts. The first
came from Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait and redirected global attention
toward the “Iraqi threat.” The second came from Osama bin Laden, whose attacks
of September 11, 2001, focused the world on al-Qaeda terrorism. The third
arrived when the United States toppled Iraq’s Baathist regime in 2003, allowing
Iranian influence to flow into Iraq’s institutions and political structure.
What many overlooked was that Iran had already received two crucial gifts during
the 1980s from Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. The first came after Israel’s
1982 invasion of Lebanon. Assad agreed to allow hundreds of members of Iran’s
Revolutionary Guard Corps to enter Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley and train Lebanese
Shiite Islamist groups seeking to organize resistance against Israeli
occupation. From those groups, Hezbollah would eventually emerge.
The second gift arrived in the mid-1980s, when Assad decided to subordinate the
Lebanese National Resistance Front — known by its Arabic acronym, Jammoul — to
the Islamic resistance led by Hezbollah. Elias Atallah, one of Jammoul’s
coordinators, later recounted to Asharq Al-Awsat a dramatic meeting that
preceded a series of assassinations targeting Communist Party leaders.
According to Atallah, Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon Major General Ghazi
Kanaan summoned him and Lebanese Communist Party Secretary-General George Hawi
to an urgent meeting at a hotel in the Beqaa Valley. Speaking on behalf of “Mr.
President,” Kanaan bluntly informed them that Jammoul must coordinate its
operations in advance with Syrian intelligence. He demanded more than that.
Jammoul, he said, should coordinate with Hezbollah, or even merge with it.
The two men refused. Relations between the Communist Party and Hezbollah were
already extremely tense. Kanaan abruptly ended the meeting with a warning: “You
will pay a heavy price.”
A campaign of assassinations followed, targeting prominent communist figures.
Kanaan scarcely concealed his satisfaction. At one funeral, he reportedly
approached party members and remarked: “Is this better?”
The Syrian intervention dealt a devastating blow to the leftist resistance.
Islamic resistance became the sole banner of armed struggle against Israel.
Hezbollah reaped the benefits. In 2000, Israeli forces withdrew from southern
Lebanon under fire and without extracting political concessions from Beirut.
Iran now stood on Israel’s northern frontier through Hezbollah.
After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the road linking Tehran to Beirut through
Baghdad and Damascus opened fully. What some called the “Axis of Resistance” and
others the “Shiite Crescent” had taken shape.At the beginning of the 1980s, many
believed Saddam Hussein’s war had trapped the embers of Khomeini’s revolution
within Iran’s borders. Then, in June 1982, an unexpected window opened.
Israel invaded Lebanon, besieged Beirut, and forced the Palestine Liberation
Organization to leave the country. The image of Beirut bidding farewell to
Yasser Arafat as he departed into another exile marked the end of an era.Amid
the invasion, George Hawi, Elias Atallah, Mohsen Ibrahim — the secretary-general
of the Organization of Communist Action in Lebanon — and several comrades
launched the Lebanese National Resistance Front against Israeli occupation.
Their operations forced Israeli troops to withdraw quickly from Beirut. At the
same time, three Shiite Islamist groups inspired by Iran’s revolution entered
discussions aimed at creating a unified resistance movement. The talks produced
what became known as the “Document of the Nine,” which was taken to Tehran and
received Khomeini’s blessing. He instructed the Revolutionary Guards to support
the unity of these groups, which would eventually dissolve into Hezbollah.
Hezbollah’s current secretary-general, Naim Qassem, later recounted the
organization’s founding in his book Hezbollah: The Method, the Experience, the
Future. He identified the movement’s three pillars as Islam as a way of life,
resistance to Israel as the highest priority, and allegiance to Wilayat al-Faqih
as the ultimate reference point. Hafez al-Assad often told visitors that the
Iranian Revolution compensated for the strategic loss of Egypt. Those familiar
with his thinking, however, suggest additional motives.
He was deeply hostile to Saddam Hussein. He also believed that Gulf Arab
concerns about revolutionary Iran would make Syria indispensable to the Gulf
states, bringing political and financial advantages. Allowing Hezbollah to grow
in Lebanon fit neatly into that calculation.
Hezbollah was born under the mantle of the Wilayat al-Faqih and on the front
line with Israel. It soon found itself on a front line with the United States as
well.
In October 1983, a suicide bomber drove a truck packed with explosives into the
US Marine barracks in Beirut, sending a convoy of coffins back to Ronald
Reagan’s America.
Syria later played a crucial role in exempting Hezbollah from the disarmament
provisions imposed on Lebanese militias after the Taif Agreement. Iran spared no
effort in supporting the movement, enabling it to build a steadily expanding
military and political force. Together, Tehran and Damascus also helped
consolidate the Lebanese Shiite political order, bringing Hezbollah into
partnership with the Amal Movement, led by Nabih Berri, who has served as
speaker of parliament since 1992.
Old conflicts between Amal and Hezbollah gradually faded. Berri became a nearly
permanent necessity for Hezbollah, helping shield it from political isolation,
though never fundamentally altering its deeper ideological program.
The first decade of the twenty-first century produced scenes whose consequences
extended far beyond their immediate settings. On April 9, 2003, an American
armored vehicle pulled down Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdos Square.
The man whose statues inspired fear simply by their presence was denied the
final showdown he had imagined. The army that had fought Iran for eight years
evaporated before the American military machine.
Saddam was not far from Firdos Square when his statue fell. He chose resistance,
badly misjudging both American power and the depth of Iraqi opposition to his
rule.
Another defining image followed.
On December 13, 2003, Saddam was captured by US forces near Tikrit. Soldiers
pulled him from a small underground hideout on a farm in al-Dawr. Television
screens around the world carried the image of an American soldier inspecting the
former Iraqi president’s mouth. He offered no resistance. Stories that he always
carried a final bullet to avoid the humiliation of capture proved false.
Yet Saddam, obsessed with his place in history, succeeded in shaping part of his
legacy. He denied the legitimacy of the court trying him and repeatedly insisted
that he remained Iraq’s lawful president. Judge Raouf Rashid Abdel Rahman, who
presided over the tribunal that sentenced Saddam to death, later told the author
that “he was a difficult man, but he never asked for anything for himself.”
Saddam remained composed when the noose was placed around his neck.
The new Iraqi authorities made a grave mistake by scheduling the execution for
December 30, 2006, the first day of Eid al-Adha. Another error followed.
According to former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Saddam’s body was brought to
his residence in Baghdad’s Green Zone after the execution, where Maliki briefly
viewed it and reproached the dead man.
The images of Saddam’s capture, trial, and execution — combined with other
factors — helped inflame Sunni-Shiite tensions inside Iraq and beyond. For many
Iraqis, regardless of Saddam’s crimes, the execution appeared less like justice
than revenge carried out on behalf of the United States, Iran, and Iraq’s
pro-Iranian opposition. Qassem Soleimani would soon devote himself to
destabilizing the American military presence in Iraq, aided by Bashar al-Assad
and Hassan Nasrallah.
Then another dramatic event emerged from Beirut.
On February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was
assassinated in a massive explosion that tore through Beirut and scattered his
body across the scene. The murder shook Lebanon like an earthquake. Huge crowds
poured into the streets demanding the withdrawal of Syrian troops, which had
been stationed in Lebanon since 1976. Later that month, the author met Bashar
al-Assad in Damascus and repeatedly asked whether Syrian security services had
been involved.
Assad categorically denied any connection.
“Not from near or far,” he insisted.
Yet questions multiplied. Had he spoken with such certainty because he knew who
was responsible?
The international investigation wandered through years of political
interference, misinformation, and false witnesses. Eventually, the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon indicted members of Hezbollah.
The case generated enduring questions. Was Hariri killed on the fault line
between Sunnis and Shiites? Was he eliminated because of regional rivalries? Was
he seen as an obstacle to a broader strategic project? Was he punished for
trying to restore Lebanon as a normal state rather than leave it a missile
platform in the conflict with Israel?
Hariri’s assassination transformed both Lebanon and Syria.
Bashar al-Assad was forced to swallow the bitter pill of withdrawing Syrian
troops from Lebanon, a country his father had dominated for decades. Hafez
al-Assad had bent much of Lebanon’s political class to his will and established
the rules of the Syrian era. Governments bore the fingerprints of Syrian
intelligence officers. Parliament was summoned and complied.
That era exiled General Michel Aoun and imprisoned Samir Geagea.
One major figure remained: Rafik Hariri. He had accepted operating under the
Syrian umbrella but never abandoned his dream of rebuilding a functioning
Lebanese state. His growing domestic, Arab, and international stature worried
the narrow circle around Assad, and later worried Hezbollah as well.
Syria lost its Lebanese foothold, a platform that had amplified its influence
and enriched many of its officers. What followed was a Syria trapped within its
own borders, relying on coercion and burdened by economic failure, while Lebanon
became polarized between the March 14 movement and the March 8 alliance led by
Hezbollah.
Many believe these developments helped set the stage for the July 2006 war
between Hezbollah and Israel, a conflict in which Qasem Soleimani played an
active role behind the scenes.
After the war, Bashar al-Assad openly emphasized the importance of Syria’s
strategic depth for Hezbollah. He even acknowledged that Syrian soldiers in
civilian clothing had transported missiles to the movement and sometimes all the
way to southern Lebanon.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 ended the war, deploying the
Lebanese Army alongside UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon. The conflict
partially altered the political landscape created after Hariri’s assassination
and gave Hezbollah another justification for retaining its arsenal.
Many Lebanese politicians fundamentally misunderstood Hezbollah and its weapons.
They assumed that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon should have been enough for
the movement to disarm, just as other militias had done after Taif. They
overlooked the regional dimension of Hezbollah’s arsenal and its connection to
Iran’s broader project.
In May 2008, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s government challenged Hezbollah’s
private telecommunications network, declaring it illegal. The response was
swift. Hezbollah turned its weapons inward and effectively seized control of
Beirut, sending a clear message: the arsenal was here to stay.
The episode inflicted a deep wound on relations between Hezbollah’s community
and many other Lebanese groups. When the first spark of the Arab Spring erupted
in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, Bashar al-Assad felt little concern. He
believed Syria was different. More likely, his confidence reflected faith in a
vast security apparatus whose brutality would deter dissent.
On March 15, 2011, Assad’s security services dealt with the children of Daraa
according to that same doctrine of repression. Protests spread and became a
nationwide uprising.
Assad showed little genuine interest in compromise. His generals viewed the
revolt through the lens of minority insecurity and foreign conspiracy. The
regime escalated from repression to barrel bombs and chemical weapons.
As opposition forces approached Assad’s presidential palace, two men rushed to
his rescue: Qassem Soleimani and Hassan Nasrallah.
Iran had no intention of allowing Syria — the central link in its regional axis
— to be torn away.
Soleimani persuaded Russian President Vladimir Putin to commit Russian air power
to Assad’s defense. Hezbollah deployed fighters into Syria in 2013, while
militias organized by Soleimani poured into the battlefield.
The regime survived. The cost was enormous.
The intervention deepened Sunni-Shiite wounds that remain visible today, not
least in the rhetoric that dominates Syrian social media.
Years later in Paris, after defecting from Bashar al-Assad’s regime, former
Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam remarked that Hafez al-Assad could
never have imagined Iranian influence in Lebanon growing to such an extent, or
that his son would one day depend on pro-Iranian militias, including Hezbollah,
to save his rule.
By then, Hezbollah was widely described as a regional force too large to fit
within Lebanon’s political equation.
The author recalls a conversation with former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah
Saleh before the end of the decade. In his characteristic style, Saleh asked:
“Why is Hezbollah taking young Houthis to Damascus, sending them on to Lebanon
without passport stamps, and training them in camps in the Bekaa Valley?”
The question hinted at a wider regional project already taking shape.
When Hezbollah launched its support front for “Sinwar’s Flood,” and later its
support front for Iran itself, many Lebanese were reminded that their country
had been living under the echo of Iranian power since the 1980s.
By the second decade of the twenty-first century, talk circulated within the
so-called Resistance Axis of a coming “major blow” - a strike that many believed
Yahya Sinwar dreamt of delivering through a rain of rockets and drones launched
from multiple fronts across the region.
Renewing Military Strikes
Against Iran Is the Only Way to End Its Nuclear Ambitions
Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/June 05/2026
American military historian Victor Davis Hanson... suggested that Iran's excuses
might actually be an ever-extending "good cop-bad cop" routine, whereby the good
cops, the negotiators, make acceptable proposals -- to be shot down immediately
by the bad cops, General Ahmad Vahidi and other members of Iran's ruling Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Above all, Hanson stressed, the current rulers appear determined to remain in
power at any "level" to be able to claim victory over Trump and the American
"Great Satan."
[T]he intransigence of Iranian leaders could ultimately persuade him that, in
order to ensure the Iranians have no chance of resuming their nuclear and
ballistic missile programme, he has no alternative but to resume military action
against the regime.
American military historian Victor Davis Hanson... suggested that Iran's excuses
might actually be an ever-extending "good cop-bad cop" routine, whereby the good
cops, the negotiators, make acceptable proposals -- to be shot down immediately
by the bad cops, General Ahmad Vahidi and other members of Iran's ruling Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Pictured: Vahidi on October 27, 2020. (Photo
by Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran)
In the seemingly endless to and fro over the Trump administration's attempts to
negotiate a peace deal with Tehran, the one red line upon which there can be no
hint of compromise is US President Donald J. Trump's insistence that the
ayatollahs will never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
While speculation continues to mount that a deal to end the three-month conflict
between Iran and the US is in the offing, it is clear that Iran is still
resisting demands that it surrender the estimated 970 pounds of enriched uranium
-- whose main utility is for the production of nuclear warheads.
Trump's insistence that he would not sign any deal that enabled Tehran to
continue work on its nuclear programme was very much in evidence following a
meeting of senior administration officials in the Situation Room last week to
discuss the draft Memorandum of Understanding that has been drawn up between
Washington and Tehran.
Claims that the final stages of a deal are being negotiated have already
prompted the price of oil to fall below $100 a barrel in recent days, amid hopes
that the months-long closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which has adversely
impacted the global economy, is coming to an end.
Despite the mounting optimism a deal could soon be concluded, it is clear that
Trump still remains sceptical about the deal, and remains concerned that the
Iranians are indulging in their long-established custom of playing for time in
the hope that they can secure a better deal.
In a sign of Trump's deepening frustration with the process to sign a deal,
whereby the two sides would observe a 60-day ceasefire while other issues, such
as the nuclear programme, are finalised, the president took to social media to
reaffirm his key red lines.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump had said Iran "must" open the Strait of Hormuz,
agree they will never have a nuclear weapon and that Tehran's stockpile of
highly enriched uranium should be "DESTROYED".
A White House official confirmed the president's determination to hold for a
deal that ends Iran's nuclear ambitions once and for all, commenting that Trump
"will only make a deal that is good for America, satisfies his red lines, and
makes sure Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon."
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also insisted that Trump would not agree to any
deal unless Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz, gives up highly enriched uranium
and agrees not to pursue a nuclear weapon.
As he considers his next steps, Trump will also need to take into account the
recent warning made by General Jack Keane (ret.) during a recent interview with
Fox News that Iran has a history of making deals and then not abiding by them,
as happened after Tehran signed then US President Barack Obama's flawed JCPOA
"nuclear deal" in 2015.
Despite agreeing to freeze its nuclear programme, the regime continued to
conduct research on producing weapons-grade enriched uranium.
To ensure Iran cannot engage in similar tactics in the event of a new deal being
signed with the Trump administration, the president has asked his negotiating
team to make a number of important changes to the clauses regarding Iran's
nuclear programme.
In its current form, the Memorandum of Understanding merely includes a vague
commitment from Iran that it will not pursue a nuclear weapon, an undertaking
that hardly inspires confidence that Iran is serious about ending its nuclear
ambitions for good.
A senior Trump administration official told Axios that Trump had asked his team
to amend the timetable of the nuclear talks, in which the US seeks to remove
about 10 warheads' worth of highly enriched uranium that Iran has amassed. Trump
wants "more specifics about how the US gets the material and the timing," the
official was quoted as saying.
The material is thought to have been buried after the US hit key Iranian nuclear
sites during the June 2025 Israel-Iran war.
According to the official, the Iranians would need about three days to get back
to Trump because "they're literally in caves and they're not using email."
Washington is "willing to wait so the president gets what he asks for," the
official said. "It could be a week. It could be less. It could be more. At the
turn of the week, we hope to have something."
American military historian Victor Davis Hanson, however, regretting that the US
has already lost two months, suggested that Iran's excuses might actually be an
ever-extending "good cop-bad cop" routine, whereby the good cops, the
negotiators, make acceptable proposals -- to be shot down immediately by the bad
cops, General Ahmad Vahidi and other members of Iran's ruling Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Above all, Hanson stressed, the current rulers appear determined to remain in
power at any "level" to be able to claim victory over Trump and the American
"Great Satan."
Other issues that are said to be holding up the negotiations are disputes over
Iranian attempts to control shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as
Tehran's insistence that a ceasefire in Lebanon be included in any deal to end
the Iran war.
The prospects of any deal being concluded quickly, though, remain open to
question in view of statements made by Iranian officials, who insist that the
Memorandum of Understanding contains no demands for Tehran to make nuclear
concessions, nor a commitment for Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
With the American president continuing to insist he is under no pressure to
reach a deal with Tehran, the intransigence of Iranian leaders could ultimately
persuade him that, in order to ensure the Iranians have no chance of resuming
their nuclear and ballistic missile programme, he has no alternative but to
resume military action against the regime.
**Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a
Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22578/renewing-military-strikes-against-iran
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Climate action will define future of oceans and ecosystems
Hassan Alzain/Arab News/June 05, 2026
World Environment Day and World Ocean Day 2026 arrive at a defining moment for
the planet. Climate signals are intensifying across ecosystems, oceans, and
communities worldwide, while momentum toward cleaner energy and environmental
resilience continues to accelerate.
The defining challenge is no longer whether climate change is occurring, but
whether climate action can advance rapidly enough to protect the systems that
sustain human well-being, economic stability, and environmental resilience.
The scientific indicators remain significant. According to the UN Environment
Program, global greenhouse gas emissions reached about 57.7 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent in 2024, a 2.3 percent increase from 2023 levels.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continued climbing, with peak monthly
levels surpassing 430 parts per million during 2025-26. Scientists warn that the
remaining carbon budget aligned with limiting warming to 1.5°C is narrowing
rapidly if emissions remain near current levels.
The climate impacts are becoming increasingly visible across regions and
sectors. The 2023-2025 period marked the first three-year average in recorded
history to exceed the 1.5°C warming threshold above pre-industrial levels,
according to Copernicus data.
At the same time, global mean sea levels are rising at roughly 4.5 millimeters
annually in recent years — approximately double the rate observed during the
1990s. Heatwaves, flooding, droughts and wildfires are placing growing pressure
on infrastructure, food systems, water security, and public well-being
worldwide.
Oceans are at the center of the climate challenge. Scientists estimate that
oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas
emissions and remove nearly one-quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions
annually. While this has slowed atmospheric warming, it has also intensified
marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, coral bleaching and sea-level rise.
Climate monitoring agencies confirmed that global ocean heat content reached
another record high in 2025, continuing a long-term warming trend that has
accelerated significantly since 2000.
The environmental implications extend far beyond coastlines. Oceans regulate
climate systems, influence rainfall patterns, and support food security and
livelihoods for billions of people. More than 3 billion people globally rely on
marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods, while fisheries remain a
major protein source worldwide. Yet marine ecosystems continue facing pressure
from warming waters, pollution, habitat degradation, and unsustainable resource
use, weakening resilience at a time when environmental systems are already under
mounting stress.
The public health implications are equally important. Climate-related risks —
including heat exposure, air pollution, food insecurity and water stress — are
notably affecting vulnerable populations globally. International health
estimates indicate that air pollution contributes to millions of premature
deaths annually. In the Middle East and other climate-vulnerable regions, rising
temperatures and water scarcity are increasing pressure on urban resilience,
healthcare systems, and environmental well-being. Coastal populations are also
becoming more exposed to flooding, extreme weather events, and infrastructure
disruption. At the same time, global climate momentum continues strengthening.
Renewable energy deployment reached another historic milestone in 2024, with
approximately 585 gigawatts of renewable power capacity added globally in a
single year, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency. Clean
energy investment now consistently exceeds spending on conventional energy
systems, reinforcing the growing economic competitiveness of low-carbon
technologies, resilience infrastructure, and sustainable development pathways.
In the Middle East, environmental transformation is also becoming highly
observable. Saudi Arabia continues advancing ecosystem restoration, renewable
energy expansion, and mangrove rehabilitation efforts through Vision 2030 and
the Saudi Green Initiative. Across the region, climate adaptation, biodiversity
protection, and environmental resilience are being integrated into broader
economic diversification and sustainability strategies, reflecting growing
recognition that environmental stewardship is central to strategic prosperity
and societal well-being.
The 2026 environmental agenda appropriately emphasizes climate action as an
interconnected global challenge. Oceans, ecosystems, energy systems,
infrastructure, public health, and economic resilience are no longer separate
policy discussions. They are interconnected systems that collectively shape
advanced stability and sustainable development.
Importantly, the most effective climate solutions are those capable of
delivering environmental, economic, and social benefits simultaneously. The path
forward is clear and achievable.
First, governments should integrate climate resilience, ocean protection, and
ecosystem restoration directly into national economic and infrastructure
planning, ensuring measurable environmental and public health outcomes. Second,
investment should continue accelerating toward clean energy, resilient
infrastructure, marine conservation, and nature-based solutions that strengthen
both mitigation and adaptation capacity. Third, industry should embed
environmental stewardship and climate resilience into operational strategies,
moving beyond compliance toward systems that improve long-term operational
efficiency, financial sustainability, and business resilience.
Fourth, societies should strengthen scientific collaboration, environmental
education, and community participation, ensuring climate action is supported by
credible evidence and scalable implementation.
Ultimately, World Environment Day and World Ocean Day 2026 deliver the same
message. Oceans and ecosystems are absorbing growing climate pressures while
continuing to sustain human well-being and economic stability. The defining
challenge is whether climate action can advance rapidly enough to protect those
systems and support a more resilient and sustainable future.
*Hassan Alzain is the author of the award-winning book “Green Gambit.”
How US-Turkiye ties shape Ankara’s power play
Dr. Sinem Cengiz/Arab News/June 05, 2026
At various times in history, the trajectory of Turkish-American relations has
played a key role in shaping Turkiye’s position in the region. Depending on the
geopolitical context, Ankara has at times acted as Washington’s security partner
in the region. At other times, it has positioned itself as a bridge between the
US and its rivals or asserted itself as a regional middle power pursuing
autonomous foreign policy for its own strategic interests. Thus, US policies
have both constrained Ankara’s role while also providing opportunities for it to
enhance its position in the region.
Ankara now faces a new opportunity. All eyes are fixed on the upcoming NATO
Summit, which will be hosted by Turkiye next month. US President Donald Trump is
expected to attend. Both US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Turkish Foreign
Minister Hakan Fidan have confirmed his participation. Rubio this week said: “I
think the next meeting of NATO in Turkiye in July is probably the most important
meeting in NATO’s history, because there are some things here that need to be
cleared up and fixed.”At the Ankara summit, NATO members are expected to address
questions over defense spending and the US’ evolving role in the alliance.
Within this context, Turkiye appears poised to seize an opportunity by
positioning itself as a bridge between NATO allies to manage the growing
divisions within the alliance.
The personal rapport between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Trump
and the evolving Turkish-American relations have likely contributed to the US
president’s decision to attend. This was confirmed by Trump confidant Tom
Barrack, the US envoy to Ankara, who noted in April that relations between
Washington and Ankara had improved significantly over the past 16 months, adding
that the two sides had made more progress during this period than in the
previous 15 years.
Turkiye appears poised to act as a bridge between NATO allies to manage the
growing divisions within the alliance This week, Trump announced that Barrack
would serve as his special envoy for Syria and Iraq — two of Turkiye’s neighbors
that occupy a central place in its foreign policy. This appointment reflects
Washington’s preference for continuity in its engagement with regional issues,
relying on Barrack’s established ties with the Turkish political elite. Barrack
was praised in Ankara when he supported the integration of the Syrian Democratic
Forces into the new security structures in Damascus in the post-Assad
transition. He is also expected to take an increasingly visible role in shaping
US policy in Iraq, which Ankara will closely follow.
However, Barrack’s dual appointment as special presidential envoy for both Iraq
and Syria sparked debate. Barrack is often regarded as a controversial figure
due to his outspoken statements on regional issues. After his appointment, he
posted on X remarks that drew criticism from Turkish analysts and political
figures. He stated that “Iraq, Syria, and Turkiye remain the strategic fulcrum
upon which any enduring Middle East stability must pivot. Balancing these three
nations requires a single, consistent point of American contact and leverage.”
Critics argued that such statements are against the sovereignty of regional
states. Others interpreted his remarks differently, saying he was emphasizing
that regional stability requires coordination among Turkiye, Syria and Iraq.
Although Barrack’s rhetoric may appear provocative at times, it also often
aligns with certain Turkish interests. US support for the post-Assad transition
in Syria and discussions around the integration of the SDF have overlapped with
Ankara’s own strategic preferences. While US and Turkish interests often
diverged during the Syria war, they are now at a more pragmatic and cooperative
phase in their relations, which is also helping Turkiye’s regional positioning.
Although Barrack’s rhetoric may appear provocative at times, it also often
aligns with certain Turkish interests
Historically, Turkiye’s disagreements with the US have at times enhanced its
regional credibility. For example, Ankara’s decision not to support the 2003
US-led war against Iraq and its refusal to give permission for American troops
to use its northern territory in the war against Iraq increased its credibility
in the region. At the time, many scholars wrote that the decision challenged the
long-held view of Turkiye as a “stooge of the US” in the region.
Similarly, Turkiye’s opposition to fragmentation in Syria in the post-Assad era,
despite differing from US policy toward Kurdish groups, has received support
from regional actors that prioritize centralized states. This approach is also a
setback for destabilizing powers that prefer fragmented states.That is why
Turkiye’s stance against Israeli policies has gained broader approval, as
regional states increasingly align around efforts to contain Israeli policies,
which prefer regional fragmentation. Additionally, increasingly hostile rhetoric
from Israel toward Turkiye brings new tensions that neither Barrack’s diplomatic
maneuvering nor broader US policy has fully addressed. Turkiye expects the US to
play a more decisive role in containing Israel. Ankara views regional stability
as impossible without addressing Israeli policies that it considers
destabilizing.
As a response to recent escalations, Turkiye has accelerated its coordination
with regional states to develop alternative economic corridors, as the
US-Israeli war with Iran has led to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. At the
same time, Ankara is deepening security ties with these countries as doubts grow
in the region about the reliability of US security guarantees. Both Turkiye and
regional states are pursuing a containment strategy in the current war, aiming
to avoid alignment with the US.
Within this context, US policies in the region continue to act as both a
constraint and a source of strategic opportunity for Ankara. This gives Turkiye
the leverage to assume a dual power play: positioning itself as a bridge between
NATO allies and a regional power aligning with the interests of the Arab
regional system — even when it diverges with the US-envisioned regional order.
*Dr. Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye’s
relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz
Georgia shifting away from the West and toward Iran
Luke Coffey/Arab News/June 05, 2026
When it comes to Iran’s attempts to exert influence around its neighborhood, one
understandably thinks of the Middle East. Since the 1979 revolution that brought
the Islamic Republic to power, Iran has funded proxy organizations and movements
that have sought to undermine stability and security across the region, most
notably in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
One area where Iran has also been active but does not get as much attention is
in the South Caucasus, specifically Georgia. Historically, Persia was active in
the South Caucasus for centuries and the territories now found in countries like
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were often part of the geopolitical chessboard
of the 1700s and 1800s between Persia, Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
Today, Iran tries to spread influence in the region, especially in countries
with Shiite populations, as part of its efforts to export the ideology of the
Islamic Republic beyond its borders.
In Azerbaijan, for example, the government has been very aware of Iran’s motives
and has strictly and effectively prohibited Iranian attempts to influence the
country. But in neighboring Georgia, which has a population of about 200,000
ethnic Azerbaijanis concentrated in one region, Iran has been more successful.
For European and American policymakers, this is particularly alarming because
Georgia has traditionally been one of their closest partners in the region. But
in recent years, under the current Georgian government, Tbilisi has started to
shift its geopolitical alignment away from the West and closer to Moscow and
Tehran. This is concerning.
The Georgian government has facilitated an environment ripe for the picking for
malign Iranian influence. The most recent example of Georgia’s turn has been the
events in Iran since January. During the large and brutal crackdown by the
Iranian regime against peaceful protesters, Russian strategic airplanes were
allowed to transit Georgian airspace to resupply Tehran.
Then, when the US-Israeli war with Iran started and Tehran recklessly retaliated
against civilian targets up and down the Gulf, the Georgian government was
mealy-mouthed in its condemnation. In fact, in no public statement did the
Georgian government even acknowledge that Iran was the country responsible for
the drone and missile attacks in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the
UAE. Even closer to home, when Iranian drones hit a civilian airport in
Azerbaijan, or when Iranian missiles were shot down over the skies of Turkiye,
Tbilisi never mentioned Iran by name as the country responsible.
But the problem runs deeper than weak official statements failing to condemn
Iran’s cavalier behavior. Whether through a combination of incompetence or naive
acquiescence, the Georgian government has facilitated an environment ripe for
the picking for malign Iranian influence.
Through quasi-educational institutions set up by Iran, such as Al-Mustafa
International University, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been able to
influence and recruit Georgians to do its bidding. In December 2020, during
President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration sanctioned Al-Mustafa
International University for facilitating recruitment efforts by the IRGC’s Quds
Force.
Perhaps most alarmingly, Iran has been able to put its recruitment and influence
operations in Georgia to use. In March 2025, a Georgian citizen, Polad Omarov,
was convicted for his role in an Iranian government-backed plot to assassinate
Iranian American journalist and activist Masih Alinejad in New York. Omarov was
sentenced to 25 years in prison last October.
The South Caucasus is an enticing area for Tehran to focus on if it hopes to
further impact global energy markets
In early January 2025, another Georgian national, Agil Aslanov, was arrested in
Azerbaijan as part of an Iranian-linked plot to assassinate Rabbi Shneor Segal,
a senior Jewish leader in the country. And in March, Greek authorities detained
a Georgian national on suspicion of spying on US naval movements at Souda Bay on
the Greek island of Crete, where America has a naval base.
The problem of Georgia’s perceived coziness with Iran has not gone unnoticed in
Washington. This week, during a congressional hearing, Secretary of State Marco
Rubio was asked about Tbilisi’s posture toward Iran. Rubio acknowledged that
there has been “preexisting concern” about Georgia’s relationship with Iran and
that Georgian authorities had been informed what steps needed to be taken in
order to improve relations with the US.
It is unsurprising that Iran would want to extend its influence deep into the
South Caucasus. After all, Georgia sits on some of the world’s most important
energy transit routes, which European and other global markets rely on for oil
and gas from the Caspian Sea region. The growing influence of Iran in this
region, coupled with its dangerous behavior in the Strait of Hormuz, makes the
South Caucasus an enticing area for Tehran to focus on if it hopes to further
impact global energy markets.
The Georgian government needs to take steps to change course when it comes to
Iran. It should seek advice from countries in the Middle East, Europe and the
US, which are most impacted by Iran’s dangerous behavior. It should also shut
down Iranian-linked influence operations on Georgian soil and ensure that
Georgia is no longer used as a platform for Tehran’s malign activities abroad.
For years, Georgia’s friends in the West viewed the country as a reliable
partner in a difficult neighborhood. That reputation is now at risk. If Tbilisi
wants to preserve its Euro-Atlantic future, it must prove that it stands with
its long-standing partners, not with the regime in Tehran.
**Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey
The international refugee system has collapsed
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim/Arab News/June 05, 2026
Displacement is no longer an interruption between two stable lives. It has
become a condition of its own and the institutions built to address it were
never designed for that reality.
When the architects of the postwar international order drafted the 1951 Refugee
Convention, they had a specific crisis in mind. Europe was full of displaced
people. Camps were filled with those uprooted by a war that had, mercifully,
ended. The assumption embedded in every article of that convention was that
displacement was an interruption, a temporary rupture that good institutions
could bridge. Build the camps. Mobilize the aid. Wait for conditions to
stabilize. Send the people home.
That model has not merely aged poorly. It has collapsed.
The numbers tell a story the international community has been reluctant to
directly confront. According to the UN Refugee Agency, the number of forcibly
displaced people worldwide passed 117 million in 2023, more than double the
figure recorded a decade earlier. That doubling did not happen because the world
suddenly became twice as violent. It happened because old crises are not
resolving, while new ones accumulate on top of them. The pipeline flows in.
Almost nothing flows out.
The clearest measure of this failure is duration. The average length of a major
refugee situation now exceeds 20 years
The clearest measure of this failure is duration. The average length of a major
refugee situation now exceeds 20 years. Two decades. A child born in a camp at
the moment of displacement grows to adulthood, forms a family and raises
children of their own, all within a system designed to be temporary. The Afghan
displacement crisis has, in various forms, persisted for more than 40 years. The
Somali crisis for 30. The Palestinians, the original test case for whether the
international community could manage protracted displacement, have been
displaced for more than 75 years and counting. The emergency, in each case,
became the permanent condition. The institutions responded by pretending
otherwise.
This is not a resource problem, though resources are chronically inadequate. It
is a structural one. The UN Refugee Agency’s mandate is organized around three
durable solutions: voluntary repatriation, local integration in the country of
first asylum and third-country resettlement. In theory, one of these three
pathways resolves every refugee situation. In practice, all three are failing
simultaneously.
Repatriation, historically the preferred and most common outcome, requires a
safe, voluntary and dignified return. In the current landscape of protracted
civil wars and authoritarian consolidation, those conditions rarely materialize.
Local integration is politically toxic in most host countries, which are
overwhelmingly low and middle-income states already absorbing populations that
dwarf anything the wealthy world accepts. Turkiye hosts more than 3.2 million
registered Syrian refugees. Pakistan and Iran together host at least 4 million
Afghans. Bangladesh carries nearly a million Rohingya in what is arguably the
world’s most densely populated refugee settlement. These are not short-term
burdens being temporarily shouldered. They are permanent demographic realities
that host governments were never asked to formally accept and receive no
proportionate support to manage.
Third-country resettlement, meanwhile, operates at a scale that borders on the
symbolic. In 2022, the US, historically the world’s largest resettlement
country, admitted fewer than 25,000 refugees from a global population requiring
resettlement that the UN estimated at more than 1.5 million. The entire global
resettlement system that year processed about 114,000 people. The math does not
work and everyone involved knows it does not work.
Host states carrying disproportionate burdens without proportionate support
eventually reach their political limits. The Rohingya crisis illustrates what
this failure looks like in human terms. Nearly a million people have now spent
eight years in the camps of Cox’s Bazar, with repatriation blocked by conditions
in Myanmar that have deteriorated rather than improved since the 2017
expulsions. Local integration is politically unavailable in Bangladesh.
Resettlement proceeds at a pace that could absorb the population over several
centuries.
A generation of children has grown up with access to informal education at best,
no legal right to work and no documentation that would allow participation in
any formal economic life. The system’s three solutions are all inoperative. What
remains is indefinite management dressed up as temporary accommodation.
The geopolitical consequences of this management approach are becoming
impossible to ignore. Host states carrying disproportionate burdens without
proportionate support eventually reach their political limits. When they do, the
results are not orderly. They are dangerous. Secondary displacement, sea
crossings, stateless populations that become recruitment pools for criminal
networks and armed groups — these are not hypothetical risks, they are the
documented outcomes of a system that offers people no legal horizon.
What is required is not more humanitarian pledges. The pledge-making machinery
runs without interruption and without discernible effect. What is required is
for the meaning of refugee protection to be fundamentally reconceived in cases
where there is no foreseeable prospect of return.
Displaced people need the right to work, to move and to build economic lives in
the countries that host them. Host countries need binding, enforceable
burden-sharing arrangements rather than voluntary commitments that wealthy
states consistently fail to honor. Development finance, not just emergency
relief, needs to flow to the communities — both refugee and host — that are
absorbing the cost of crises they did not cause.
The 1951 convention was a serious document written by serious people for a world
in which displacement was an exception. They could not have imagined, or perhaps
chose not to imagine, a world in which it was a permanent feature of the
international landscape. That world is here. The gap between the institutions we
have and the problem we face grows wider every year. Filling it is not a
humanitarian aspiration. It is a geopolitical necessity.
The emergency was always going to become permanent. The only question was
whether the system would adapt before the cost became unbearable. The answer, so
far, is no.
*Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is the director of special initiatives at the New Lines
Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington. X: @AzeemIbrahim
A strange War and its Bizarre Coverage
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 05/2026
In decades of journalism, part of it as reporter covering a dozen or so wars in
the Indian Subcontinent, Indochina, the Middle East, Africa and Europe, I have
never been as puzzled by media coverage of a conflict as I am today with how the
Iran-US-Israel war is depicted in much of the mainstream media.The first curious
feature of this war is the absence of clearly identifiable battlefronts. This is
partly because it is a war almost exclusively waged through the skies. Even the
war in Ukraine has some battlefields on the ground. In Lebanon, which is an
offshoot of the current war, the Israeli army and Hezbollah fighters seldom come
face to face. Then there is the bizarre situation in which we see Iran sending
more missile and drones against its neighbors across the pond than against
Israeli and American targets. For the past three weeks, Iran has made no attacks
on Israel, focusing on targeting Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. And
that is not to mention Iran’s attacks on ringside spectators such as Jordan,
Azerbaijan, Türkiye and even Cyprus.
Another peculiar feature of this war is the targeting of civilian and/or
double-use infrastructure rather than purely military ones. Iranian drones hit
hotels in Dubai with the excuse that they may be hosting some US troops. The
civilian terminal in Kuwait Airport was hit with the excuse that US military
personnel on leave may pass through it. Israel razes Beirut apartment blocks,
housing hundreds of families, to the ground on suspicion that a single Hezbollah
operative may be hiding there.
Then there is the fact that civilians account for the overwhelming majority of
victims in Iran, Israel and the GCC countries. Another interesting feature is
the absence of non-partisan journalists covering this war. In Iran, even local
reporters are not allowed to report anything outside official handouts.
On the US side, President Donald Trump’s Social Truth account sets the agenda as
a 24/7 news agency. In Vietnam, there were times when the White House would hear
the news of the war first from reporters on the ground. In the two US wars
against Iraq, lone-ranger reporters from more than 20 countries were present
alongside dozens more embedded with US and British fighting units.
In Ukraine, both Kiev and Moscow arrange occasional tours for foreign reporters,
at times allowing some leeway to depict a credible picture of the war.
But the most curious feature of this war rarely seen in most previous conflicts
is its depiction by Mainstream Media (MSM) through a prism of ideological and/or
partisan prejudices.
Because President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do not
enjoy widespread popularity across the globe, MSM covers the war with a clear
bias in favor of Iran.
The subtext is a desire to see Trump and Netanyahu humiliated and if possible
chased out of office. The MSM doesn’t necessarily want Iran to emerge as winner
but clearly hopes that Trump and Netanyahu get a bloody nose. To achieve that
goal, some depict Iran as an innocent though a bit naughty country given to
boasting and bragging but certainly not deserving a thrashing.
Others depict Iran is a re-emerging “empire” to form a triangle with Russia and
China as the other two angles of re-emerging empires to challenge the fading
American empire.
Paris walls are plastered with posters shrieking “Trump, Netanyahu! Stop the
War!” as if ran was not involved except as a victim. Moreover, European and
American MSM try to portray Iran in rosy shades that make many Iranians uneasy
to say the least. We read that Iran is world number two in terms of people with
the highest IQ. I don’t know whether that is true or not. But I know that the
top echelon of those ruling Iran since 1979 were certainly not luminaries. I
also know no other country where the ruling elite is so different, in a negative
way, than the mass of people it dominates.
In any case, a high IQ is no guarantee from having common sense, compassion,
wisdom and humanity without which no city can be run in a decent manner. It is
reported that Josef Mengele had one of the highest IQs in Hitler’s Reich. The
MSM beats the drums about Iran having more engineers per head of population than
the US, Britain and France.
This may be true but no one asks why.
The reason is that in Iran many academic disciplines are in dicey positions. Few
students are keen on going for humanities and/or literature where many
philosophers, sociologists, writers and poets from more than 50 countries are
blacklisted.
Even if you wish to study economics, the key texts offered are from the late
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on “resistance economy”, a set of speeches by “Imam”
Ruhollah Khomeini and a pamphlet by the late Iraqi cleric Mohammad-Baqer al-Sadr
called “Our Economics” plus old Soviet pamphlets against “capitalism” and
“neoliberal economy.”
To many young Iranians the best option is to steer clear of such subjects and go
for medicine or engineering in which you can get on without pseudo-theological
mumbo-jumbo.
Engineering as a career is also attractive because the regime has spent huge
resources on developing the military industries launched in Iran in the 1970s
while expanding the nuclear project that started in 1959. The Khomeinist
leadership also needed thousands of engineers to build scores of dams and canal
to boost agricultural production and make Iran self-sufficient in food. This was
done by drying up many rivers, lakes and wetland while damaging the traditional
qanat system dating back to 3,000 years ago. Engineers managed to boost farm
production but led Iran to the edge of desertification. All ideology-based
systems of government favor subjects such as engineering. Hitler’s Germany had
more engineers than the Western democracies combined. They built beautiful
motorways, cars and tanks and developed the first missile systems. The first man
in space was sent by the Soviet Union. Today, the whole world admires what
Chinese engineers have achieved. What the MSM chooses to ignore is the war
within this war, one that the regime is waging against Iranian people. Since the
war began last February, hundreds of Iranians have been executed on spurious
charges while over 2,000 have been arrested across the country. To shed
Lachrimae Amoris for such a regime and depict it as an innocent victim because
of partisan prejudices is a betrayal of both the Iranian people and the tragedy
of this war. More importantly it is a betrayal of the first victim of war:
truth.
on
05June/2026
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
The Economist this week ran a great article on Gen Z socialism,
how this breed is different from the previous environment-friendly and DEI Left.
Gen Z socialists are hostile to economic growth and focused on funding free
transport and rent control by taxing the rich.
Why is Gen Z like this? My guess is shallowness, a generation whose knowledge
comes form social media and populist noise. The best example comes from Oslo,
where this mural, showing PFLP's 1970s aircraft kidnapper Leila Shahid, and in
the bottom the slogan that nakba is still ongoing. The tag says Shahid became a
symbol of the Palestinian liberation for many. In my
days of yore, I had many good friends in the PFLP. Their ideology (whose red
cover I attached) was not about national liberation but international struggle.
As a Marxist-Leninist, pan-Arab, organization, PFLP wanted to coopt the
Palestinian "petit bourgeoisie" because it was flaky and sought its interests at
the expense of that of laborers and farmers. It wanted to obliterate Palestinian
bourgeoisie because it allied with, and benefited from, imperialism and
capitalism. PFLP's version of "Palestinian liberation" would have eliminated
half of the Palestinian population and all of the Arab governments (and
populace). In its later years, PFPL became a pawn of Syria's Assad
dictatorship.The Oslo public agency that sponsored this mural and its
description clearly has no idea what PFLP was. Perhaps they liked the iconic
image of Shahid, a young, good-looking, woman with an Ak-47. But that was not
what Palestinians wanted. The majority of Palestinians were nationalists with
Fatah (Arafat) and later Islamist (Hamas). PFLP was always the party of elite
intellectuals. Even its founders and leaders were graduates of the medical
school of the American University of Beirut, and one of them recruited Carlos
the Jackal, now in prison in France, for his atrocious terrorist attacks on
Europeans. With Gen Z, we have a problem. See
less