English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News &
Editorials
For November 11/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.november11.26.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/@eliasbejjani8036
Bible Quotations For today
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and
they will listen to my voice
John 10/11-16: “‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his
life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the
sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away and the wolf
snatches them and scatters them. The hired hand runs away because a hired hand
does not care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own
know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my
life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must
bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock,
one shepherd.
Titles For The English LCCC Lebanese &
Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on November
10-11/2026
Holy Lebanon in the Grip of Corruption and Occupation and the Heresies of
Satan Berri's Calls for Dialogue/Elias Bejjani/November 10/2026
A crime against freedom and human dignity… We call on the Egyptian authorities
to immediately release citizen Said Mansour Abdel Razek and stop his trial
because of his faith in Christ and his conversion to Christianity./Elias
Bejjani/November 09 2026
Machiavellian and Nietzschean Thinking in Politics and Among Politicians/Elias
Bejjani/November 07/ 2026
Abu Arz: Lebanon… The Word of History (9)
Anniversary of the birth of the dream leader, Sheikh Bachir Gemayel/Edmond
El-Chediac/Facebook/November 10, 2026
Alfred Madi: On the anniversary of your birth, Bachir/X Platform/November 10,
2026
Yashar Denies Withdrawal from Lebanon... Eizenkot’s Intentions Are Clear from
the Start!
Ben-Gvir: I Will Fight Against "Hezbollah" Supporters
Israeli Airstrikes on Southern Lebanon Despite Ceasefire... Warplanes Target
Al-Qantara, Artillery Shelling Hits Two Other Towns
Arrest of 5 Hezbollah Members Between the Heights of Batroun and Bcharre
U.S. State Department to Heikel: We Expect Documented Steps from the Army to
Disarm the Party
Lebanese Army Chief’s Remarks Spark Political Row
G7 Agrees on Need to Avoid ‘Security Void’ in Lebanon After UN Force Mandate
Ends
Washington Narrows Paris's Margin in Lebanon: Deliberate Marginalization and a
Struggle for Influence
Judge Al-Hajj Follows Up on Investigations Into the Arrest of Hezbollah Members
in the Heights of Batroun
An Israeli Infiltrated Lebanon Near Ras Naqoura; Ardell Comments
Hezbollah Hands Out Promises: Does Its Influence Campaign Far Outweigh the
Financial Assistance Actually Delivered?
Has the Era of UNIFIL Ended in Southern Lebanon? A New U.S. Proposal Turns the
Tables!
500 Square Kilometers Under Control: U.S. Congressional Report Reveals the
Danger of Carving Out 5% of Southern Lebanon's Area
Body of Former Iraqi MP Ahmad al-Alwani Found in Beirut: Strangled After Being
Lured to an Apartment
Lebanese Judiciary Takes Over Investigation into Murder of Former Iraqi MP...
and Iraqi Ambassador Reveals Next Step
A Crime and a Major Sin: Berri Blocks Targeting of the Army and Draws "Red
Lines"
Menassa: Government Powers Are Limited to Defense Policy and Have No Bearing on
Military Orders; Campaigns Doubting "Army Leadership" Are Rejected
Al-Hazzaa from Bkerke: We Are Keen to Open a New Page in Relations with Lebanon
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News
published on November 10-11/2026
A Fiery Confrontation at the Opening of the Israeli Knesset: Netanyahu
Attacks Arabs, While Eisenkot Demands His Departure
Lieberman Criticizes the "Joint List": Is This Who You Want to Form a Government
With?
Eisenkot Launches Battle to Oust Netanyahu from the Knesset
A Heated Call Between Trump and Netanyahu... What Happened Behind the Scenes?
Herzog to Israeli Parties: "Make Concessions, Even to Your Opponents"
Eisenkot distributes key positions in the Knesset... and identifies its
president
Eisenkot: We are living through the most difficult days for Israel since its
founding
Eisenkot: We have cancelled tomorrow’s meeting with Likud following Netanyahu’s
speech
Likud expresses surprise at Eisenkot’s decision: They cancel our meeting while
continuing talks with others
Eisenkot Quickly Targets Netanyahu’s Legacy in New Israeli Parliament
Palestinians Await Eisenkot Govt While Not Expecting Radical Change
Israeli Fire Kills Seven, Including a Father and Son, in Gaza, Medics Say
The countdown has begun... Tuesday set for the vote to replace the Knesset
Speaker
Egypt Permanently Lists Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Organization
Defiant Hegseth Blasts Impeachment Effort Ahead of House Vote
Iran Calls on US to Meet Its Demands to End War
France Vows Tough Response to Freezer Cyberattack Blamed on Iran
Iran Rejects France’s ‘Baseless Accusations’ on Cyberattack
Canada Reimposes Sanctions against 11 Iranian Companies
Rubio Says No Need for Major Combat Operations Against Iran Given US Economic
Campaign
Iraq Reopens Border Crossing with Iran
Syria Says Killed Leader of Armed Cell in Tartus
Airstrikes, Artillery Fire Wear Down Houthis as Yemeni Army Seizes Strategic
Positions
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on November 10-11/2026
Iran… The Whole Picture/Sawsan al-Shaer/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
The Future of Yemen… Tied to the Fate of Iran/Khairallah
Khairallah/Al-Arab/November 10, 2026
Dismantling the Houthi Militia Networks Is an Int’l Responsibility/Yousef
Al-Dayni/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
The Half-Life of Self-Flattery/Khalid Al-Bari/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
On the Dangers of Remaining Hostage to Grey Policies/Hanna Saleh/Asharq
Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
The Left and Political Islam: An Alliance of Interests and a Contradiction of
Principles/Dr. Wissam Raji / Nidaa Al-Watan / November 11, 2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets on November 10/2026
Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on November
10-11/2026
(Some of the News reports below are
translated from Arabic by AI)
Holy Lebanon in the Grip of
Corruption and Occupation and the Heresies of Satan Berri's Calls for Dialogue
Elias Bejjani/November 10/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/11/159072/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9VRMbWQ5nc
Holy Lebanon's fate is controlled by clergymen who do not know God nor His
teachings, by merchant-rulers of the filthy Trojan ilk, and by a political and
partisan clique with no conscience, no integrity, and no sentiment, followers of
Iscariot and the scribes and Pharisees, and by media outlets and journalists who
are for the most part hired trumpets and cymbals skilled at nothing but
hypocrisy, verbal bluster, and marketing for their masters. And more dangerous
than all of that is the existence of an Iranian occupier, an enemy of its own
environment, of Lebanon, and of humanity, who has turned Lebanon into one of the
arenas for the wars of the insane mullahs.
And above all of this, the catastrophe of the Land of the Cedars lies in the
debauchery, prostitution, and insolence of the king of corruption and the
corrupt, Nabih Berri - Abu Mustafa - who was brought forth by the hatching
machines of the Palestinian, Syrian, and Iranian occupations.
Imagine that this ungrateful man holds in his grip a parliament whose members
are all castrated, and who were appointed through an electoral law tailored by
the mullahs to fit the evil scheme of their jihadist, terrorist, and criminal
Hezbollah, distributing seats to cowards, collaborators, and thugs.
Berri: King of Corruption and the Corrupt
Nabih Berri is not a Speaker of Parliament; he is the head of a fully integrated
corruption system. He is the protector of shady deals, the godfather of
quota-sharing, the engineer of obstructing the judiciary, the thief of the
Council of the South's funds, the cover for smuggling, drugs, and illegal
weapons, and the partner of the terrorist-Jihadist Iranian Hezbollah in
plundering the state, bankrupting it, and starving its people.
He is the one who obstructed the investigation into the Beirut Port explosion,
he is the one who protected criminals and murderers from justice, and he is the
one who turned Parliament from a legislative institution into a farm for
clientelism, bribery, and money laundering.
Berri is the last human barrier protecting Iran's mini-state in Lebanon. Without
Berri, the system of illegal weapons would have fallen. Without Berri, Hezbollah
would not have continued to control the decision of war and peace. Without
Berri, Iran would not have continued to use Lebanon as fuel for its absurd wars.
The Holy Bible says: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you
cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion
and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25).
This is Berri exactly: an outside polished with speeches about dialogue and
consensus, and an inside full of extortion, corruption, and collaboration.
The Holy Bible says: "No one can serve two masters... You cannot serve God and
mammon" (Matthew 6:24). And Berri chose money, chose Iran, and sold God, the
homeland, and the people.
Berri's Satanic Call for Dialogue
This satanic Berri calls for dialogue... a dialogue to circumvent what remains
of the state for the benefit of Iran's mini-state, and to foil the current
international and regional opportunity carrying the project of peace and
liberation. It is a satanic call par excellence, because it is not a dialogue
but a conspiracy. Dialogue with whom? With murderers? With thieves of the
homeland? With those who carry weapons against the state? With those who refuse
to surrender their weapons and implement international resolutions 1559, 1701,
and 1680? True dialogue takes place between free equals under the ceiling of the
Constitution and the law, not between executioner and victim, not between
occupier and occupied, and not between a corrupt man and a hungry people.
Berri wants a dialogue that keeps the weapons, keeps the corruption, keeps the
occupation, and keeps Lebanon hostage. He wants a dialogue that reproduces the
same system with new names and old faces.
But we say to him and to his masters in Tehran: the era of poisoned dialogues is
over. The era of bargaining at the expense of blood and dignity is over. No
dialogue with weapons, no dialogue with corruption, no dialogue with occupation.
The Bible says: "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by
the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2). And we will not conform to this
corrupt age; we will reject it, expose it, and resist it.
The Importance of Peace with Israel: Closing the Lebanese Arena to Iran's Wars.
Peace with Israel is not treason; it is salvation. It is not normalization with
an enemy; it is the liberation of Lebanon from its real enemy: Iran. Lebanon has
paid exorbitant prices for wars that were not its wars, and its sons have paid
with their blood for the adventures of the mullahs in Gaza, Yemen, Syria, and
Iraq. How many villages were destroyed? How many young men were martyred? How
many families were displaced? How many economies collapsed? All of this because
Iran wanted to fight Israel from Lebanese territory, and with Lebanese blood.
Peace with Israel means closing the Lebanese arena permanently to Iran's wars.
It means removing the pretext for illegal weapons. It means restoring the
decision of war and peace to the state alone. It means opening the doors to
economy, investment, and prosperity. It means Lebanon's return to its leading
role regionally and internationally in the civilized world, after Iran and its
party kidnapped it into the axis of evil and destruction.
On peace, the Lord Christ says: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be
called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9). And He also says: "Peace I leave with you, My
peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart
be troubled, neither let it be afraid" (John 14:27).
Whoever rejects peace is a son of war, a son of Satan, a son of destruction. And
whoever stands as a barrier in the face of peace is Nabih Berri himself, Iran's
faithful servant, the guard of Hezbollah's weapons, and the enemy of every free
Lebanese who wants to live in dignity and security.
Berri stands as a barrier to peace because peace means his end. Peace means a
strong state with no place for militias. Peace means an independent judiciary
with no place for the corrupt. Peace means a free economy with no place for
shady deals. Peace means a free people with no place for slaves. For this
reason, the battle for peace is an existential battle: either a Lebanon of peace
and life, or a Lebanon of Berri, Iran, and death.
A Final Word to the Puppet Rulers
To the puppet rulers without a single exception, to the owners of local and
proxy party companies, and to the owners of mitres and robes, foremost among
them our Maronite Patriach, the shepherd who has abandoned his flock, we say:
You are devils, you are thugs, you are enemies of Lebanon and the Lebanese, and
with you there is no salvation, no liberation, and no freedom, but catastrophes,
destruction, and ruin, because he who lacks something cannot give it. Rest
assured that the fire of hell and its worms await you, no matter how long the
era of your prostitution lasts.
The Bible says: "For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and
loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26). And you have gained money and positions,
and lost your souls, your homeland, and your eternity.
*The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com
Author’s Website:
https://eliasbejjaninews.com
A crime against freedom and
human dignity… We call on the Egyptian authorities to immediately release
citizen Said Mansour Abdel Razek and stop his trial because of his faith in
Christ and his conversion to Christianity.
Elias Bejjani/November 09 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/11/159029/
What Egyptian citizen Said Mansour Abdelrazek is enduring, after
freely choosing to convert from Islam to Christianity, constitutes a shocking
human rights, moral, and legal scandal, as well as a flagrant violation of the
most basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, foremost among them freedom of
conscience, freedom of belief, and the right to practice religious rituals.
In my own name, and in the name of every free person around the world, I
strongly condemn his continued detention since July 2025, as well as the reports
published by the press and human rights organizations concerning his alleged
torture, humiliation, and exposure to religious and psychological pressure.
These developments have led to his prosecution, with potential penalties ranging
from execution to 25 years in prison, according to his lawyer, as reported by
The Jerusalem Post on November 9, 2026.
As the published accounts indicate, Said’s real offense is not committing a
terrorist act, assaulting anyone, or threatening public security. Rather, it is
his decision to believe in Christ, declare his new faith, and exercise his
natural and legal right to correct the religious affiliation recorded on his
official identification documents. Has changing one’s religious belief become a
crime in Egypt punishable by imprisonment, torture, and execution?
First: Freedom of Belief Is Not a Favor Granted by the Authorities or a
Privilege That the Majority Grants to the Minority
Freedom of religion and belief is an inherent human right, not a privilege that
governments grant their citizens or withdraw from them whenever they please. It
is a personal and spiritual relationship between a human being and his Creator.
No state, institution, or religious group has the right to dictate the nature of
this relationship or punish anyone for choosing a different path of faith.
It is absolutely unacceptable that a citizen who converts to Islam from
Christianity is treated as someone exercising a personal freedom and choice, and
may even be celebrated, while a citizen who converts to Christianity from Islam
is treated as an apostate and a criminal, facing security and judicial
proceedings that could end in execution.
This is neither equality, nor justice, nor religious freedom. It is a blatant
double standard and flagrant religious discrimination that contradicts the very
essence of human rights and the most basic principles of citizenship.
Second: What Constitution, What Justice, and What Kind of State Allows a Citizen
to Be Punished for His Faith?
Article 64 of the Egyptian Constitution stipulates that freedom of belief is
absolute. Accordingly, we demand that the Egyptian authorities apply this
constitutional principle to all citizens without exception or discrimination,
and refrain from turning religious differences into criminal charges or grounds
for security persecution.
Charges of contempt of religion, spreading false information, or joining
terrorist organizations must not be used selectively or arbitrarily to punish a
person for his religious choice or force him to abandon his faith.
If the Egyptian authorities possess genuine evidence that Said Mansour
Abdelrazek committed criminal offenses independent of his religious beliefs,
they must present that evidence transparently before a fair court, while fully
guaranteeing his right to a defense and a fair trial. However, if his conversion
to Christianity is the actual reason for his prosecution, this is entirely
unacceptable and condemnable.
Third: Torture and Religious Coercion Are Crimes That Cannot Be Justified
What his fiancée, Sophia, reported, according to The Jerusalem Post, regarding
his alleged torture, attempts to remove the cross tattoo from his body, and the
pressure exerted on him to force him to return to Islam, constitutes extremely
serious allegations requiring an independent and transparent international
investigation.
No authority has the right to force anyone to change his beliefs or punish him
for wearing a cross, reading the Bible, or declaring his faith in Christ.
The body, conscience, and faith do not belong to the state. Prison is not a
means of reshaping citizens’ consciences according to the wishes of the
authorities or extremist groups.
Fourth: Egypt Must Choose Between the Rule of Law and the Logic of Religious
Extremism
We strongly condemn leaving an Egyptian citizen at the mercy of judicial
proceedings that could end in his execution simply because he converted to
Christianity, while the Egyptian state speaks of tolerance, coexistence,
interfaith dialogue, and the renewal of religious discourse.
A modern state cannot be built on double standards. Citizenship cannot be
meaningfully discussed while a citizen is deprived of the right to choose his
religion. Nor can a state claim to respect pluralism while persecuting those who
exercise it.
Respect for Christians is not demonstrated through speeches, celebrations, or
official occasions. It is demonstrated by protecting their rights and freedoms
and guaranteeing full equality between them and all other citizens, including
those who choose to convert from one religion to another.
Fifth: Our Clear and Urgent Demands
We call upon Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the Egyptian government,
and the judicial and security authorities to take the following measures:
Immediately release citizen Said Mansour Abdelrazek and halt all proceedings
targeting him because of his conversion to Christianity or his exercise of his
right to freedom of belief.
Drop any charges based exclusively on his change of religion or the peaceful
expression of his beliefs, and do not allow terrorism or contempt-of-religion
charges to be used to criminalize freedom of conscience.
Absolutely reject any death sentence or life imprisonment on the basis of his
religious beliefs, and guarantee that he will not be subjected to torture,
coercion, or retaliation.
Open an independent and transparent investigation into all allegations of
torture and mistreatment, and guarantee his right to communicate with his lawyer
and family and receive the necessary care and basic necessities.
Allow him to correct his official records and religious affiliation in
accordance with his beliefs and free choice, without penalties or retaliatory
measures.
Call upon the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, international
organizations concerned with religious freedoms, and democratic governments to
intervene urgently, follow up on his case, and exert the necessary pressure to
protect his life and freedom.
Sixth: A Message to the Free World
The case of Said Mansour Abdelrazek is not merely the case of one Egyptian
citizen. It is a genuine test of Egypt’s respect for human freedom and dignity,
and a test of the international community’s seriousness in defending freedom of
belief without selectivity or double standards.
It is unacceptable under every standard of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights for religions to become instruments of oppression, or for a religious
majority to assume authority over the consciences of minorities and individuals.
Faith cannot be imposed by force. Christianity cannot be erased through torture,
and Islam cannot be protected by imprisoning someone who chooses another
religion. Any belief system that requires prisons and gallows to protect its
followers places itself in direct conflict with the most basic principles of
human freedom.
Said has the right to believe in Christ, just as every person has the right to
choose Islam, Judaism, any other belief, or no religion whatsoever. These are
personal rights that no state may confiscate or apply discriminatorily.
In conclusion, we say clearly and firmly to the Egyptian authorities: Release
Said Mansour Abdelrazek, stop prosecuting him because of his faith, protect his
life and dignity, and respect his right to be a Christian, as he himself has
chosen, not as you want him to be.
Attempting to execute a human being because of his faith is not a victory for
religion. It is a devastating defeat for justice and a stain of shame on the
record of any state that allows it to happen.
Freedom for Said Mansour Abdelrazek. No to religious coercion. No to torture. No
to persecution. No to execution because of religious beliefs. Yes to freedom of
conscience, freedom of belief, and full equality before the law.
*The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com
Author’s Website:
https://eliasbejjaninews.com
Machiavellian and Nietzschean Thinking in Politics and
Among Politicians
Elias Bejjani/November 07/ 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/11/158942/
Introduction
In politics, there are two different ways of thinking about power, human nature,
morality, and government. The first is Machiavellian thinking, associated with
the Italian philosopher and political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli. The second is
Nietzschean thinking, associated with the German philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche.Although both are sometimes associated with power and the rejection of
traditional moral rules, there is a major difference between them. Machiavelli
focuses on the realities of politics and the balance of power. He asks how a
ruler can protect the state, remain in power, and deal with threats and
political challenges.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, focuses on human nature, freedom, and values. He
asks how individuals can free themselves from blind obedience, common thinking,
and social pressure, and develop their own independent personalities. In simple
terms, Machiavelli is concerned with how to manage and maintain power, while
Nietzsche is concerned with changing human thinking and overcoming the ideas and
values that limit individual freedom. To understand how these two ways of
thinking influence politics and politicians, we need to examine their main
principles and how they appear in political behaviour and leadership.
Machiavellian Thinking: The Art of Managing and Maintaining Power
Machiavellian thinking is associated with the Italian thinker Niccolò
Machiavelli, who presented his political ideas in his famous book The Prince,
written in 1513. This way of thinking is based on a simple idea: politics is a
world of competing interests, power struggles, and risks. A ruler cannot govern
a country by relying only on good intentions and moral principles. From this
point of view, the ruler’s first responsibility is to protect the state, prevent
its collapse, maintain stability, and preserve its independence and ability to
make its own decisions.
The main principles of Machiavellian thinking
1. Results and interests come before slogans
A Machiavellian politician measures success by results, not by speeches or
political slogans. He is prepared to use political manoeuvres, alliances,
pressure, and force when he believes they are necessary to achieve his goals.
This is why Machiavellian thinking is often associated with the famous
expression, “The ends justify the means,” although these words are not a direct
quotation from Machiavelli.
2. Political realism
A politician must deal with people as they really are, not as he wishes them to
be. People have their own interests, fears, ambitions, and contradictions.
For this reason, a realistic politician does not base decisions on emotions
alone. He studies the situation carefully and makes decisions according to the
realities on the ground.
3. The importance of public image
Machiavelli believed that a ruler should appear to the public as kind, honest,
loyal, and religious. A ruler’s public image can strongly influence his
popularity and ability to remain in power.
However, this does not necessarily mean that his actual behaviour will always
match the image he presents to the public.
4. Fear and love
Machiavelli believed that it is best for a ruler to be both loved and respected
or feared by his people.
However, if he must choose between the two, fear is more reliable than love when
it comes to maintaining obedience. But the ruler must avoid becoming hated by
the people, because public hatred can eventually threaten his rule.
5. The ability to deal with changing circumstances
Political success depends not only on a leader’s abilities or on circumstances,
but also on his ability to recognize opportunities, respond to unexpected
events, and adapt to changing situations.
Machiavelli described these two elements through the concepts of political skill
and ability (Virtù) and luck or changing circumstances (Fortuna).
What is a Machiavellian politician like?
A Machiavellian politician is practical, realistic, and careful in his
calculations. He knows when to form an alliance, when to negotiate, when to step
back, and when to confront his opponents.
He does not see politics as a field governed only by ideals and principles. He
sees it as a struggle over interests, influence, power, and decision-making. He
may change his alliances and political positions when circumstances change, even
if this means abandoning previous promises or positions. In short, a
Machiavellian politician is mainly concerned with protecting his political
position, achieving his objectives, and managing the balance of power.
Nietzschean Thinking: Breaking Free from the Crowd and Developing a Strong
Individual
Nietzschean thinking is associated with the German philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche, whose famous books include Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and
Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morality.
Unlike Machiavelli, Nietzsche was not a political theorist who developed plans
for governing states or managing political power. He was a philosopher concerned
with human beings, their values, and their beliefs. He criticized blind
obedience, intellectual dependence, and the habit of following others without
independent thought.
He encouraged people to think for themselves, question inherited beliefs, and
refuse to live as prisoners of what society expects or what others repeatedly
tell them.
The main principles of Nietzschean thinking
1. The Will to Power
Nietzsche believed that life is not simply about survival and staying alive. It
is also about growth, development, overcoming one’s limitations, and expressing
one’s ability to create and achieve.
For Nietzsche, the Will to Power is a broad philosophical idea. It means much
more than simply wanting to control other people.
2. Questioning established values
One of Nietzsche’s most famous expressions is “God is dead.”
In the context of his philosophy, this does not simply mean denying God’s
existence. It refers to the decline of traditional religious and moral beliefs
that had provided European society with meaning and established rules for life.
Nietzsche therefore called for people to question accepted values instead of
following them blindly, and to take responsibility for creating new values.
3. Master morality and slave morality
Nietzsche distinguished between two types of morality.
Master morality is associated with self-confidence, strength, initiative,
creativity, and pride in one’s achievements.
Slave morality, as Nietzsche described it, is associated with submission,
resentment, feelings of weakness, and a desire for moral revenge against those
seen as stronger.
This distinction was part of his philosophical criticism of traditional
morality. It was not a direct call to enslave or mistreat other people.
4. The Übermensch, or the Higher Human Being
Nietzsche’s idea of the Übermensch does not refer to a superhero or a person who
holds political power.
It refers to someone who rises above blind obedience and imitation, refuses to
follow the crowd without thinking, develops his own abilities, creates his own
values, and accepts responsibility for his choices.
5. Eternal Recurrence
This concept invites people to think about their lives and actions as if they
would have to live the same life over and over again forever.
The central question is simple: Would you be able to accept your life and your
decisions exactly as they are, without wishing you had lived differently?
What is a politician influenced by Nietzschean thinking like?
Such a politician has a vision for change. He refuses to surrender to common
beliefs and outdated political traditions. Instead, he calls for society to
question established ideas and move beyond inherited practices that stand in the
way of progress.
His main concern is not simply keeping his position or remaining in office. He
wants to change the way society thinks and help build a different future.
He may use bold and confrontational language and challenge traditional
institutions and political parties.
However, not every revolutionary or rebellious leader should be described as
Nietzschean in the true philosophical sense.
What Is the Difference Between a Machiavellian Politician and a Politician
Influenced by Nietzsche?
The main difference lies in what each politician wants to achieve and how each
one views power, people, and political change.
A Machiavellian politician sees politics as a struggle for power, interests, and
influence. His main concern is reaching government, staying in power, protecting
his political position, and maintaining control over the state he leads.
He therefore approaches political events through careful calculations and a
realistic understanding of the situation. He uses alliances, negotiations, and
political manoeuvres, and may change his positions when circumstances or
interests require it.
He does not measure success by principles and political slogans alone. He
measures it by his ability to achieve his goals and maintain his power.
A politician influenced by Nietzschean thinking, on the other hand, does not see
gaining and maintaining political office as his main purpose. His goal is to
bring about deep changes in society and in the way people think.
He does not simply manage the existing system or adapt to the reality around
him. Instead, he challenges established ideas and outdated political traditions
and encourages people to free themselves from blind obedience and imitation.
He wants to help develop individuals who think independently, believe in their
abilities, overcome their limitations, and contribute to building a new future.
The two approaches also differ in their attitude toward principles and morality.
A Machiavellian politician may place political interests and the continuation of
his rule above certain moral considerations if he believes this is necessary to
protect the state or achieve his objectives.
A politician influenced by Nietzsche, however, tends to question inherited
values and established beliefs. He encourages people to examine these ideas
instead of accepting them simply because society has followed them for
generations.
Their leadership styles are also different.
A Machiavellian politician relies on careful calculations, negotiations,
political alliances, and knowing when to confront opponents or when to step
back.
A politician influenced by Nietzsche relies more on the strength of his ideas,
the courage to express them, and his willingness to challenge traditional
thinking and open the way for change.
In simple terms, a Machiavellian politician wants to succeed within the existing
political system. He wants to know how to reach power and how to maintain it.
A politician influenced by Nietzsche wants to go beyond the existing political
and intellectual system. He wants to change the way society thinks and move it
toward a new reality.
The first asks: How can I govern and remain in power?
The second asks: How can I change reality instead of remaining a prisoner of
inherited ideas and practices?
This is the essential difference between the mindset of managing political power
and the mindset of intellectual and social change.
Which Approach Is Better in Politics?
Neither approach can be considered absolutely better than the other, because
each addresses a different aspect of political and intellectual life.
When can Machiavellian thinking be useful?
When a country faces war, a political crisis, internal division, or a serious
threat to its stability, it needs realistic leadership. Such leadership must
know how to deal with dangers, balance competing interests, and prevent the
collapse of state institutions. However, the danger begins when Machiavellian
thinking becomes a permanent method of governing. A politician may then become
willing to sacrifice principles, promises, and people’s rights simply to remain
in power. When this happens, politics becomes a network of manipulation and
deception, and citizens lose their trust in government and public institutions.
When can Nietzschean thinking be useful?
When a society suffers from intellectual stagnation, blind obedience, and fear
of change, independent thinking becomes especially important. There is a need
for people who have the courage to question inherited political ideas and
challenge outdated beliefs and practices. However, the danger lies in
misunderstanding Nietzsche’s philosophy and using it to justify authoritarian
rule, contempt for others, or the worship of a leader who claims to be the only
person with the truth and the vision for the future. Real change does not mean
destroying institutions or denying other people’s rights. It means building a
society that is more aware, free, and capable of development.
The practical conclusion
A successful politician needs realism and political skill to govern a country.
But he also needs a clear vision, principles, and intellectual courage so that
he does not become merely a trader in political interests and positions. Realism
without moral limits can turn into opportunism. Change without responsibility
and strong institutions can lead to chaos and dictatorship.
Conclusion
Machiavellian thinking teaches politicians how to deal with power and the
balance of political forces. Nietzschean thinking encourages them to examine
human nature, values, and the need to free people from intellectual dependence.
If Machiavellian thinking becomes a way of governing without moral limits, it
produces politicians guided only by their own interests and turns the state into
an arena of political manoeuvres and backroom deals. If Nietzschean thinking is
misunderstood, it can become an excuse for glorifying individual power and
showing contempt for institutions and political pluralism, instead of
encouraging creativity and personal development.
The real challenge for any politician is not to become entirely Machiavellian or
Nietzschean. It is to be realistic without becoming opportunistic, strong
without becoming authoritarian, courageous without becoming reckless, and
visionary without losing touch with reality. Politics is not simply the art of
staying in power, nor is it merely a revolution against everything that already
exists. Politics is the responsibility of governing the state, protecting
society, safeguarding citizens’ rights, and having the courage to change reality
for the better.
*The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com
Author’s Website:
https://eliasbejjaninews.com
Abu Arz: Lebanon… The Word of History (9)
Facebook/November 10, 2026
(Translated by AI from Arabic)
Some Arabic sources, including Al-Qifti in his book Informing the Learned of the
History of the Wise, and accounts cited by Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, report
information stating the following:
Euclid, one of the greatest mathematicians in history, was born in the
Phoenician city of Tyre around the 4th century BC to a family of Greek origin.
Similarly, the British historian and scholar William Smith, in his book
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, mentions Eastern accounts
linking Euclid to the city of Tyre.
Euclid became famous for his book The Elements, composed of 13 books, which laid
the foundations of Euclidean geometry and remained a scientific reference for
over two thousand years.
Conclusion: Lebanon is a land of civilizations and geniuses, and its people are
the heirs of a great history that hardships cannot erase. What it is
experiencing today is merely a passing dark page in the book of its glory that
spans thousands of years.
At your service, Lebanon.
Anniversary of the birth of the dream leader, Sheikh Bachir
Gemayel...
Edmond El-Chediac/Facebook/November 10, 2026
(Translated by AI from Arabic)
On November 10, 1947, the leader Sheikh Bachir Gemayel was born.
On your birthday, we say to you: Happy 1,000,000th birthday, Bash! May you live
on in our hearts and consciences. We are the fortunate generation that lived
through your time and had the honor of placing our hands in yours—even if only
once, perhaps through a simple greeting or a handshake that remains carved in
our memory and a source of pride to this day. These are moments that never
repeat themselves, remaining precious to us no matter how much time passes.
You will remain in our hearts and in the hearts of coming generations, as long
as there is dignity, pride, and the dream of a sovereign, free, and independent
Lebanon in the hearts of the people in my country, and as long as there are
people who still believe that Lebanon deserves to be dreamed of, held on to, and
defended for its right to be a free, sovereign, and independent homeland.
The cause you believed in and were martyred for was not just a phase; it was a
sacred cause—a cause of a nation, of dignity, and of a people's right to decide
their own fate with their own hands.
You may be gone from us, but you have not been absent from our conscience, nor
from the dream we still hold on to, nor from the love, respect, and loyalty we
still carry for you.
Happy 1,000,000th birthday, Bash... and we remain.
Alfred Madi: On the anniversary of your birth, Bachir
X Platform/November 10, 2026
(Translated by AI from Arabic)
On the anniversary of your birth, Bachir...
There is a lot of traditional talk being said about you...
But I will remember you through a story that happened with us, showing just how
sharp your intuition was:
After our first visit to America in 1977, while we were returning to Lebanon on
the plane, he asked me:
"Is it possible that the America office could help us assume power in Lebanon?!"
And that is exactly what happened...
But Bachir, the hand of hatred and criminality did not allow "The Dream" to come
true...
Happy 79th birthday, and you remain a legend...
And we tell you: Your absence is only physical...
Because your intuition, your dream, and your voice still terrify those who fear
nothing...
Happy Birthday, you are always present in our conscience, Bachir..
Yashar Denies Withdrawal from Lebanon... Eizenkot’s
Intentions Are Clear from the Start!
Almarkazia/November 10, 2026
remove the reports and issue an apology. This uproar occurred hours before
Eizenkot was tasked with forming the new Israeli government, amidst endless
questions in Lebanon regarding the implications of this mandate—and the
prospects of Eizenkot succeeding in forming a cabinet and taking the reins of
government in Tel Aviv—on the internal Lebanese reality in general, and on the
trajectory of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, as well as the
Israeli occupation of the South, in particular. According to political sources
monitoring the situation who spoke to Al-Centraliya, some considered current
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to secure the necessary majority to
return to the presidency of the Cabinet a victory in itself. Proponents of this
view pointed out that his exit from the scene would open the door to new
approaches toward negotiation and liberation.
While that may be true, this approach will not necessarily be easier or more
flexible with Lebanon or Hezbollah! As the saying goes, "the writing is on the
wall." The quick denial by the Yashar party of any intention to withdraw from
Lebanon serves as proof in itself of its hardline stance on this point, and an
indicator of its toughness regarding the resolution of Hezbollah's
arms.Recalling that the "Dahiyeh Doctrine," authored by Eizenkot, will not
evaporate overnight to turn the head of Yashar into a "gentle lamb," the sources
clarify that following his designation on Sunday, the man stated that Israel is
fighting wars that have not yet ended. In other words, should he succeed in
forming the government, he is determined to finish these wars. Ending them in
Lebanon—for those who do not yet know—requires a definitive remedy for the
threat that Tel Aviv believes Hezbollah's arsenal poses to it and its security.
This ending will happen either through diplomacy and via the Lebanese state, or
by force through the Israeli military apparatus—and with a U.S. green light this
time, the sources conclude.
Ben-Gvir: I Will Fight Against "Hezbollah" Supporters
Almarkazia/November 10, 2026
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attacked the unity
government, describing it as a "paralysis government," and stated that he will
fight against 19 lawmakers whom he characterized as "Hezbollah supporters."
Israeli Airstrikes on Southern Lebanon Despite
Ceasefire... Warplanes Target Al-Qantara, Artillery Shelling Hits Two Other
Towns
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net / November 10, 2026
Israeli warplanes launched an airstrike on Tuesday morning targeting the town of
Al-Qantara in southern Lebanon, coinciding with artillery shelling and gunfire
directed at other southern areas, despite the ceasefire announced last June
remaining in effect.
According to the German Press Agency (dpa), citing Lebanon's official National
News Agency, an Israeli airstrike targeted the town of Al-Qantara, while Israeli
forces fired heavy machine-gun rounds toward the outskirts of the town of
Shaqra. Israeli artillery shelling also struck the towns of Al-Mansouri and
Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon at dawn on Tuesday. Information regarding
casualties or injuries resulting from the airstrikes and shelling was not
immediately available, nor was the extent of the damage in the targeted areas
immediately clear.
Attacks Following the Ceasefire
These developments follow months after a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah
was declared on June 20, which was succeeded by a drop in the frequency of
Israeli targeting across southern Lebanon. The military escalation had commenced
on March 2 following Hezbollah's firing of rockets toward northern Israel, after
which Israel launched broad military operations inside Lebanese territory.
During those operations, Israeli forces took control of several towns in
southern Lebanon, according to the German Press Agency. Despite the reduced
intensity of confrontations following the ceasefire announcement, renewed
airstrikes and shelling highlight ongoing tension in border areas. Initial
reports contained no immediate comment from the Israeli military regarding the
targets of the airstrike on Al-Qantara or the shelling that hit other towns. The
latest developments reignite fears of renewed escalation in southern Lebanon
amidst sporadic ongoing military operations despite the ceasefire agreement.
Arrest of 5 Hezbollah Members Between the Heights of
Batroun and Bcharre
Nidaa Al-Watan /November 10, 2026
MTV reported that the Internal Security Forces (ISF) arrested five Hezbollah
members in an overlapping region between the heights of Batroun and Bcharre,
after they were caught carrying documents and maps, some of which they managed
to tear up. According to information reported by the channel, the detainees are
currently undergoing interrogation by the ISF Information Branch.
U.S. State Department to Heikel: We Expect Documented
Steps from the Army to Disarm the Party
Almarkazia/November 10, 2026
The U.S. State Department responded exclusively via Al-Jadeed channel to the
recent statements by Army Commander Rodolphe Heikel, stating: The political,
economic, and security problems plaguing Lebanon share a single factor: the
continued existence of an Iran-backed terrorist militia that has used Lebanese
territory to attack Israel, threaten and assassinate Lebanese public figures,
and prevent the Lebanese Army from exercising the state's monopoly on the use of
armed force. According to the admission of Iran and its ally Hezbollah
themselves, they caused the conditions that led to Israeli military operations
by igniting the last two wars. The Department added: The Trilateral Framework
provides a clear path to ensure Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon and
the establishment of peaceful good-neighborly relations between the two
countries. Both parties have committed to achieving these goals. We still expect
the Lebanese Army to move forward with taking documented, verifiable steps to
disarm Hezbollah and dismantle its infrastructure, starting from the pilot areas
and extending across the entire country, on the condition that the Israeli army
matches these steps with parallel measures. The State Department considered
that: rhetoric that mischaracterizes Lebanon's problems does not contribute to
restoring Lebanon's sovereignty, neither at present nor in the future. Lebanon
still faces a choice between living under the influence of an Iranian proxy or
taking the steps it previously agreed to in order to reclaim control over its
future.The Department concluded: The United States has long been the primary
supporter of the Lebanese Armed Forces. Since 2006, we have provided over $3
billion in security assistance, including $190 million to the Lebanese Army over
the past year. We expect to provide further assistance as the Lebanese Army
demonstrates tangible and measurable progress in implementing the commitments
Lebanon undertook within the framework of the Trilateral Framework.
Lebanese Army Chief’s Remarks Spark Political Row
Beirut: Paula Astih/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Remarks by Lebanese Army Commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal on the military’s role
and national policy have sparked a political dispute over the army’s authority,
its relationship with the government and who has the right to define patriotism.
Addressing troops, Haykal declared: “The army’s policy is the national policy,
and anyone who does not agree with it is on the other side.”He added: “Anyone
who speaks ill of their country’s army is not suited to Lebanon and has no right
to be here.”The comments drew criticism from lawmakers who accused Haykal of
overstepping his authority, while supporters defended the military as a pillar
of stability and national unity that should remain above political disputes.
Lawmakers Challenge Army Chief
The controversy comes amid accusations that the army leadership has been slow to
implement government decisions to place Hezbollah’s weapons under state control.
Supporters of the military command argue that its cautious approach is intended
to preserve civil peace and prevent political divisions from undermining the
army’s unity. MP Waddah Sadek questioned whether Lebanon was now “under military
rule” in which the army determined who was patriotic. “Is the Taif Agreement no
longer in force? Has the government’s collective authority to determine national
policy been taken away?” he asked, calling the situation “extremely
dangerous.”MP Michel Douaihy stressed that Lebanese citizens had both the right
and the duty to scrutinize state institutions, including the army, without
anyone monopolizing the definition of patriotism or questioning their national
allegiance. Fellow lawmaker Mark Daou insisted that national policy was
determined by the president and government and approved by parliament. “It is
not for you to decide what constitutes national policy or who supports or
opposes it,” he told Haykal.“In a democratic state, your duty is to protect all
political viewpoints, remain politically neutral and focus on security, where
the results so far have been very limited, if not a failure.”
Supporters Defend Haykal
Free Patriotic Movement MP Jimmy Jabbour described Haykal’s remarks as
“self-defense” against a sustained political campaign targeting the military
through press reports and leaks. Jabbour told Asharq
Al-Awsat that some politicians sought to exploit state institutions for their
own interests and were prepared to push the army into confrontation, even at the
risk of civil war.“Those who have no objection to that will have no problem
attacking the commander,” he argued, accusing the army’s critics of undermining
the sovereignty they claim to defend and seeking to tie Lebanon to Israel.
Hezbollah and Amal Movement lawmakers also defended Haykal.
Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah described the “resistance and the Lebanese
Army” as Lebanon’s two pillars of strength and cohesion, essential to liberating
territory and protecting the country. He accused
critics of waging a campaign against both institutions to revive plans for
sectarian mini-states, which he portrayed as serving an Israeli project to
fragment the region. Fadlallah warned against undermining civil peace and
internal unity, arguing that the army was being targeted precisely because it
was carrying out its national duty. Amal MP Qabalan Qabalan thanked Haykal for
steering the national debate “in the right direction,” saying his remarks had
reassured Lebanese citizens worried about the country’s future. “Despite all the
difficult circumstances, hope remains in the national army to protect the
country and its people, safeguard sovereignty and defend our land and national
dignity. The army remains the guarantor,” he maintained.
Legal Expert: Army Must Follow Government Policy
Constitutional expert Dr. Said Malek emphasized that the army commander is
appointed by Cabinet decree on the defense minister’s recommendation under
Article 19 of Legislative Decree 102/83, Lebanon’s National Defense Law. As a
public official, the commander is subject to the Cabinet’s authority and must
abide by government policy, Malek told Asharq Al-Awsat. “The Cabinet alone has
the authority to set general policy in all areas, including political, foreign,
domestic, security and military affairs,” he explained.Any departure from
government policy would constitute a violation carrying legal consequences, he
warned. “The army commander cannot establish a separate policy for the military.
Its policy must follow that of the government, without independent
interpretation.”
G7 Agrees on Need to Avoid ‘Security Void’ in Lebanon After UN Force Mandate
Ends
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
G7 foreign ministers agreed on "the need to avoid a security void" in Lebanon
after UN peacekeepers pull out, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on
Tuesday after a meeting of the group in Paris.They also backed "the need to move
quickly toward a new security architecture" after the mandate of United Nations
peacekeeping forces in Israel's neighbor expires at the end of the year, he
said. But Barrot acknowledged there had been no breakthrough on what should
replace the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which has been in
place since 1978 and now counts some 7,500 personnel from nearly 50 countries.
Under US pressure, the UN Security Council voted last year to end UNIFIL's
mandate on December 31, 2026. EU foreign policy chief
Kaja Kallas told AFP in October that the bloc favored a UN peacekeeping mandate
in south Lebanon. Lebanese group Hezbollah drew the country into the broader
Middle East war by attacking Israel, which responded with massive airstrikes and
a ground invasion that Lebanon says have killed more than 4,300 people.
"I am hopeful that we will reach a consensus," said Barrot. "The
objective is widely shared: the withdrawal of Israel (from southern Lebanon),
the disarmament of Hezbollah (which is pro-Iranian), and the restoration of a
strong state that holds a monopoly on the use of arms -- a state capable of
ensuring the security and prosperity of all the populations and all the
communities in Lebanon."Israel now maintains troops in a self-declared occupied
"security zone" running around 10 kilometers (six miles) inside Lebanon along
the border. "We underscored the need for a robust, credible, and long-lasting
security architecture in Lebanon in support of the Lebanese Armed Forces," the
ministers said in their final communique. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said
on Monday that he had discussed the issue with President Emmanuel Macron and
suggested that what replaces UNIFIL "doesn't have to be a military mission, it
could be a civilian mission."
"We need a verification system trusted by everyone and trusted by both sides
that both sides are complying with their obligations under the agreements that
are in place," Rubio said.
A transitional mechanism utilizing UNIFIL forces is among the options on the
table, a European diplomat said, asking not to be named. But this could require
a UN Security Council resolution and thus run into an American veto, the
diplomat warned. The Europeans are also pushing a proposal for an international
military coalition tasked with supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces in their
mission to disarm Hezbollah. However, the formation of such a coalition faces
hesitation from Italy, which "remains strongly committed to its presence in
Lebanon but appears reluctant to join an ad hoc coalition", partly due to cost
concerns, as such missions are not funded by the UN, diplomats said.
Washington Narrows Paris's Margin in Lebanon: Deliberate
Marginalization and a Struggle for Influence
Najwa Abi Haidar/Almarkazia/November 10, 2026
The U.S.–French divergence over Lebanon and its files is not new, nor is it
merely a difference of opinion regarding the approach to a political or security
file. Its features are coming to light across multiple turns, suggesting that
Washington is seeking to single-handedly control the levers of Lebanese
decision-making and reduce the scope of French maneuverability, which has long
constituted one of the pillars of international presence in Beirut. Perhaps the
absence of France and most European nations from the joint statement issued by
five embassies on November 5 regarding the Dahr al-Baidar explosives case and
the exclusivity of arms represents the latest and most significant indicator of
this divergence. How could France—the draft-writer (penholder) in the UN
Security Council regarding the Lebanese file and its international
resolutions—be absent from a statement presumably issued by "friends of
Lebanon," while it remains one of the most involved European nations in
diplomatic and political efforts, working alongside Italy to formulate an
international framework that ensures the continuation of a security umbrella in
the South after UNIFIL's mandate ends on December 31? Does this absence reflect
an objection to the Lebanese authority's performance in implementing the
exclusivity of arms, or a reservation toward an American approach that seeks to
dictate its rhythm and conditions on the Lebanese scene, sidelining the European
partner—specifically France—from managing the coming phase?
Diplomatic sources told Al-Centraliya that Paris was not comfortable with the
U.S. drafting of the statement, viewing it as hasty and insufficiently cautious,
particularly in linking an ongoing judicial investigation to a highly sensitive
political and security issue: the exclusivity of arms. France does not oppose
the principle of extending state authority and strengthening military
capabilities, but it favors a gradual approach that preserves internal stability
and keeps channels of communication open with all parties, including Hezbollah,
rather than putting political forces through a public test that could exacerbate
divisions and embarrass state institutions.The divergence is not limited to this
file. The fate of UNIFIL also represents a clear arena of friction. While Paris
and Rome are working on a formula for a multinational force to ensure a
continued international presence in the South—taking into account Lebanese
demands regarding Israeli withdrawal—Washington presents a different vision.
This was expressed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio following his meeting with
President Emmanuel Macron: that the requirement is to establish a credible
entity on the ground to verify the implementation of understandings, without
this necessarily taking the form of a traditional military mission, as the
arrangement could assume a civilian character.
The sources do not overlook U.S. obstacles placed before French initiatives to
convene international conferences in support of Lebanon, whether to bolster army
capabilities or contribute to reconstruction. This raises questions about
whether Washington intends to consolidate the authority of support and
decision-making strictly in its own hands, preventing Paris from leveraging its
traditional presence and European and international relations to shape parallel
settlements or arrangements.Despite France's continued adherence to its role in
Lebanon, backed by an extensive network of historical and political ties, the
balance of influence has shifted in favor of Washington, which now holds the
majority of political and security pressure levers. Is this merely a difference
in means and priorities, or an American attempt to redraw the map of influence
in Lebanon and distance France and Europe from the table deciding its
future—from the arms file to the South and beyond UNIFIL?
Judge Al-Hajj Follows Up on Investigations Into the
Arrest of Hezbollah Members in the Heights of Batroun
Almarkazia/November 10, 2026
The Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation is following up on the
preliminary investigations conducted by the Information Branch with the five
"Hezbollah" members who were arrested in the heights of Batroun, according to
his media office. Al-Modon learned from informed security sources that an
Internal Security Forces (ISF) patrol arrested 5 members belonging to
"Hezbollah" in a high-altitude area overlapping the Batroun and Bcharre
districts, amid strict investigations being conducted by the ISF Information
Branch. In the details of the incident, according to Al-Modon's information, an
ISF patrol happened to pass through the aforementioned area, where they
suspected the presence of the five young men. When the patrol members approached
them to inquire about the reason for their presence in that remote mountainous
region and the details of their activity, they exhibited signs of severe
confusion. The moment they saw the patrol approaching the location, the young
men rushed to tear up some papers in their possession in an attempt to destroy
them.
The patrol members immediately detained them and conducted a thorough search of
the site and the individuals involved, locating and seizing the torn documents.
Sources clarified to Al-Modon that, as of now, it has not been conclusively
established whether these torn papers were security maps or detailed plans of
the area, pending the outcome of forensic technical examinations and analysis.
However, sources confirmed that a group of names was written on the torn papers,
though no details have emerged regarding these names or the reasons that led to
tearing up the documents.
Following the incident, the five detainees were transferred to the Information
Branch headquarters in Beirut for interrogation to uncover the circumstances of
their presence in this sensitive geographical location. The interrogations are
taking place under direct and intensive judicial oversight, monitored by both
the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, Judge Ahmad Rami Al-Hajj, and
the Government Commissioner at the Military Court, Judge Claude Ghanem, to take
appropriate legal action against them.
An Israeli Infiltrated Lebanon Near Ras Naqoura; Ardell
Comments
Almarkazia/November 10, 2026
The Israeli military announced that an Israeli civilian illegally crossed the
border into Lebanese territory a short while ago near the Ras Naqoura crossing.
The military explained that UN forces located the man near the border and handed
him over to Israeli soldiers, who brought him back into Israeli territory. It
added that the man was later handed over to the police for further
investigation, noting that illegal border crossing is punishable by up to four
years in prison. The Israeli military confirmed that the circumstances
surrounding the incident remain under investigation.
"UNIFIL" spokesperson Candice Ardell announced in a statement that "a civilian
illegally crossed the Blue Line earlier today, coming from Israel, after
climbing the gate of a UN position in Ras Naqoura, in violation of International
Resolution 1701." Ardell noted that "the aforementioned individual was returned
south of the Blue Line."
Hezbollah Hands Out Promises: Does Its Influence
Campaign Far Outweigh the Financial Assistance Actually Delivered?
Alma Research/November 10, 2026
By: Tal Beeri and Dvir Peri
On November 4, 2026, Hezbollah announced the first phase of its “Waad wa
Iltizam” – “Promise and Commitment” (وعد والتزام) – campaign in the First Jabal
Amel Area, south of the Litani River. Salman Harb (سلمان حرب), the area’s media
official, said that professional committees had surveyed the damage and
classified those eligible for assistance covering household contents and
alternative accommodation.
Four centers were announced for distributing payment vouchers to eligible
recipients: in Selaa (سلعا) for the Bint Jbeil Sector, in Qana (قانا) for the
Qana Sector, in al-Abbassiyeh (العباسية) for the Coastal Sector, and in Maaroub
(معروب) for the al-Hujair Sector. Harb claimed that the campaign covers tens of
thousands of housing units and accused the authorities of neglecting those
affected.
The announcement follows the start of implementation in additional sectors. On
November 2, reports citing a Hezbollah statement indicated that payment vouchers
were being distributed in the Nabatieh Sector, within the Second Jabal Amel
Area, and that operations had also expanded to a center in al-Sharqiyah
(الشرقية). Hezbollah’s statement presented the distribution as an expression of
its commitment to owners of damaged homes and to those who had borne the cost of
supporting the “resistance.” Implementation also began in Beirut, Dahieh, and
the Mount Lebanon area on October 26.
Head of Hezbollah Executive Council, Ali Daamoush (علي دعموش), presented the
overall campaign on October 13. The full assistance package announced amounts to
$14,000 per eligible housing unit in Beirut and Dahieh, and $12,000 elsewhere
outside Beirut and its suburbs. This comprises $8,000 for household contents,
plus $6,000 or $4,000 for alternative accommodation, depending on the property’s
location. The amounts are to be paid in four installments over one year, with an
initial installment of $3,500 in Beirut and Dahieh and $3,000 elsewhere. The
assistance covers household contents and alternative accommodation, rather than
reconstruction. Eligibility also extends to displaced residents of communities
along the confrontation line in southern Lebanon who cannot return home. Under
the campaign’s criteria, those who own an alternative home are not eligible for
the accommodation component.
Daamoush accused the government of failing to provide a direct assistance
campaign, while emphasizing that Hezbollah’s initiative does not replace the
state’s responsibility for reconstruction and housing arrangements.
In our assessment, Hezbollah is conducting a major influence campaign. The
campaign seeks to sustain a central narrative that blames the state and
government for failing to address social and economic needs, while presenting
Hezbollah as working to support displaced residents, provide housing assistance,
and advance reconstruction.We do not know the actual scale of the assistance,
either in terms of the amount each eligible recipient receives or the number of
eligible recipients who will ultimately receive payments.
Against the backdrop of Hezbollah’s financial difficulties – and the
particularly significant challenges involved in transferring funds to the
organization in Lebanon – two competing priorities are at play. Hezbollah
clearly prioritizes allocating resources to its military rehabilitation over
providing financial assistance to its support base. At the same time, it has a
clear interest in restoring its position as a direct source of funding for that
base. As we assessed in previous publications, Hezbollah is attempting to bridge
the gap between these priorities by providing some financial assistance while
surrounding it with a large and prominent publicity and influencecampaign. The
campaign’s scale does not necessarily reflect the amount of money actually being
distributed, which we assess to be limited.
Has the Era of UNIFIL Ended in Southern Lebanon? A New U.S.
Proposal Turns the Tables!
Janoubia/November 10, 2026
The G7 Foreign Ministers' meeting held in Paris has brought international and
regional approaches to the situation in Lebanon—and the future role of
international organizations—back into the spotlight. U.S. Secretary of State
Marco Rubio held extensive discussions with French President Emmanuel Macron.
The talks focused primarily on the file of southern Lebanon, amid the
approaching end of the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
(UNIFIL) on December 31, the continued Israeli military presence across broad
swathes of the south, as well as coordination regarding the selection of the
next UN Secretary-General and criteria for structural reform of the
organization.
Southern Lebanon Arrangements and the Future of UNIFIL
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarified, in statements to reporters
following his meeting with the French President, that the American vision for
the future of arrangements in southern Lebanon centers around establishing a
monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance with agreements:
Civilian Verification Alternative: Rubio indicated that the primary objective is
to guarantee the presence of a credible and acceptable entity on the ground
capable of verifying all parties' compliance with the provisions of the
framework agreement in "pilot areas." He questioned the necessity of continuing
field military missions in the traditional form previously conducted by UNIFIL
forces, pointing to the possibility of replacing or developing them into a
mission of a civilian or technical nature for oversight. Expiration of Mandate
and Field Presence: These talks gain particular significance as the scheduled
expiration date of UNIFIL's mandate on December 31 draws near, and at a time
when Israeli forces continue to maintain a presence and deploy across multiple
areas of southern Lebanon, opening the door for new international arrangements
to manage the transition phase.
The Next Secretary-General File and Conditions for UN Reform
The discussions between Rubio and Macron touched upon the election of the new UN
Secretary-General, where the U.S. Secretary outlined Washington's position and
conditions for supporting any candidate for this international position:
Structural Reform Condition: Rubio emphasized that Washington is closely
monitoring the selection process, and that the most critical criterion for the
United States is the selected candidate's degree of commitment to implementing
radical reforms within UN institutions. He warned that the absence of serious
reform would leave the international organization facing major problems and
challenges that could threaten its role. No Endorsement of a Specific Candidate:
Rubio denied any public U.S. push for a specific candidate to boost their
chances, confirming that providing direct support to a specific candidate might
harm their prospects and doom them to failure. He noted the existence of two or
three figures he considers highly qualified to lead the organization, stressing
that the voting process should take its natural course for the world to decide
its next choice.
Marco Rubio's statements from Paris reflect Washington's inclination to
transition the Lebanese file and security arrangements in the south toward new
oversight models that may shift away from UNIFIL's military blueprint, alongside
maintaining pressure for UN system reform through the gateway of selecting the
next Secretary-General—placing both the Lebanese and international files before
a strategic restructuring phase.
500 Square Kilometers Under Control: U.S. Congressional Report Reveals the
Danger of Carving Out 5% of Southern Lebanon's Area
Janoubia/November 10, 2026
The field and political tension in southern Lebanon exceeds procedural stumbles
or the exchange of military strikes, directly impacting the future of national
sovereignty over all Lebanese territory amid growing indicators of an attempt to
impose a continuous field reality overriding the stalled diplomatic track. In
this context, an assessment issued by the U.S. Congressional Research Service
(CRS), updated on November 9, 2026, titled "Lebanon: Background and Relations
with the United States," revealed alarming data showing the expansion of Israeli
military control and the establishment of a buffer zone swallowing nearly 5% of
the country's area—equivalent to over 500 square kilometers—alongside the
creation of three new fortified military outposts inside Lebanese territory.
The report reveals that the trilateral framework signed on June 26 between
Lebanon, Israel, and the United States—based on the principle of phased steps
and gradual verification of disarmament in exchange for Israeli withdrawal—has
effectively become defunct.
Following the limited start in the initial pilot areas within the municipalities
of Froun, Srifa, and Zawtar al-Gharbiya on July 20, the eighth round of
negotiations held in October failed to achieve any breakthrough. The talks hit a
fundamental dispute: the Israeli side insists on inspecting private homes and
properties to verify they are free of weapons and equipment and expanding
verification procedures, while the Lebanese administration maintains the
necessity of initiating the Israeli withdrawal and expanding the geographical
scope of the agreement to avoid granting political cover for any sustained
incursion. These diplomatic complications coincide with the U.S. report's
disclosure of statements by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz confirming the
destruction of approximately 60 border villages and over 23,000 homes in the
south. In contrast, the report noted the stance of Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf
Salam, who described these measures as "systematic, organized destruction that
undermines the rules of international law," while citing estimates from U.S.
Department of State officials warning that a sustained Israeli military presence
is inconsistent with the provisions of the trilateral framework and poses a
long-term threat to regional stability.
The assessment highlights the complex challenge facing the Lebanese military
institution; the Lebanese Army finds itself required to enforce the resolution,
deploy in the field, and prevent unauthorized arms manifestations amid blocked
control prospects and declining chances for residents to return. This gap is
exemplified in the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiya, where the number of returnees by
early September did not exceed 16% of its pre-war population of roughly 5,000,
given that 85% of its houses suffered total or partial destruction. The
assessment concludes that the primary difficulty lies in sequencing withdrawal
commitments, dismantling military infrastructure, and asserting state
authority—opening the door to a scenario where this "buffer zone" transforms
from a temporary military measure into a permanent geographic carving, with the
towns and residents of the south bearing the direct cost.
Body of Former Iraqi MP Ahmad al-Alwani Found in Beirut:
Strangled After Being Lured to an Apartment
Janoubia/November 10, 2026
The body of former Iraqi Member of Parliament Ahmad al-Alwani was found inside
an apartment in the Tariq al-Jdideh neighborhood of the Lebanese capital,
Beirut, days after contact with him was lost and his whereabouts vanished, in an
incident that revealed new details regarding its circumstances. Information
reported by MTV revealed that al-Alwani was killed by strangulation inside an
apartment he was lured to in Tariq al-Jdideh, noting that his body was
discovered last night amid expectations of further details regarding the
circumstances of his murder and the parties behind the incident. This
development comes after days of ambiguity surrounding al-Alwani's fate, amid
reports of him being lured and taken to an unknown location, alongside
conflicting accounts regarding his disappearance. Discovery of the Body in Tariq
al-Jdideh: What Did the Information Reveal? According to MTV's information,
al-Alwani's body was found inside an apartment in the Tariq al-Jdideh area of
Beirut after he was strangled at the location to which he had been lured.
Previous reports had indicated that contact with al-Alwani was lost, his phones
were switched off, and his aides were unable to reach him, before new details
emerged regarding the discovery of his body. According to available details, the
specifics of how he was lured to the apartment or the identities of the
individuals involved remain unclear, while the expected investigation results
remain essential to uncovering the circumstances and motives of the crime.
Four Days of Mystery: How Did the Case Begin?
The case began after reports emerged that contact with al-Alwani had been lost
four days prior, his phones were turned off, and his companions were unable to
reach him, raising concerns regarding his safety and the possibility of his
abduction. The Iraqi Embassy in Lebanon received information from al-Alwani's
family concerning his disappearance, while Lebanese security agencies initiated
search and investigative operations to locate him and clarify the circumstances
of his disappearance. Initial reports had pointed to the possibility of him
being lured and kidnapped, without confirming the entity behind it or the
potential motives.
The Iraqi Embassy Follows Up: What Was Its Stance?
The Iraqi Embassy in Lebanon announced that the Ambassador is personally
following the case of al-Alwani's disappearance and is in direct communication
with Lebanese security agencies and his family to track procedures and uncover
the details of what transpired. The Iraqi diplomatic move came amid ambiguity
over his fate, prior to the emergence of the new information reported by MTV
regarding the discovery of his body in Beirut. Additional details are expected
regarding security procedures, Lebanese investigations, and the parties
responsible for the incident.
Who Was Ahmad al-Alwani?
Ahmad al-Alwani was a prominent political figure in Anbar Governorate, having
served as a member of the Iraqi Parliament representing the Al-Iraqiya slate.
His name gained prominence during the demonstrations in the governorate in late
2012, where he was one of the key political faces associated with them.
Al-Alwani was arrested in December 2013 following a security operation at his
home in Ramadi, which involved clashes that resulted in the death of his brother
and several others, after which he spent over ten years in detention. On April
23, 2025, he was released following a legal settlement that included the family
of one victim waiving their complaint and accepting financial compensation, as
announced by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).
Following days of uncertainty and searches for his fate, the details revealed by
MTV brought the case back into focus with the announcement of al-Alwani's body
being found in Beirut, raising questions about the circumstances of his luring,
his murder, the identities of those involved, and the motives behind the crime.
Lebanese Judiciary Takes Over Investigation into Murder of Former Iraqi MP...
and Iraqi Ambassador Reveals Next Step
Janoubia/November 10, 2026
The investigation into the murder of former Iraqi MP Ahmad al-Alwani in the
Lebanese capital, Beirut, continues amid judicial and security actions to
uncover the circumstances of the crime, determine how it occurred, and identify
those responsible. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Embassy awaits the final report from
Lebanese agencies to announce the details of the incident. The National News
Agency reported that Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation, Judge Ahmad
Rami al-Hajj, is personally overseeing the preliminary investigations into the
circumstances of the murder of al-Alwani, whose body was found inside an
apartment in the Tariq al-Jdideh neighborhood of Beirut.According to the agency,
Judge al-Hajj has taken charge of the file and is directly supervising the
initial inquiries conducted by the Information Branch of the Internal Security
Forces (ISF) aimed at uncovering the facts of the crime and establishing the
circumstances under which it occurred. The agency noted that Judge al-Hajj is
personally tracking the investigation's progress as part of efforts to uncover
the background of the crime and assign responsibility, amid ongoing security and
judicial procedures linked to the case.
For his part, Iraqi Ambassador to Beirut Mohammad Reza al-Husseini confirmed on
Tuesday that the Iraqi Embassy is awaiting the final report issued by Lebanese
security authorities to announce the circumstances surrounding the murder of
former MP Ahmad al-Alwani. Al-Husseini told the Iraqi News Agency (INA) that the
Lebanese judiciary opened an investigation into the case and assigned a
dedicated judge to follow up on it. He added that the embassy is in
communication with Lebanese security agencies to monitor the details of
al-Alwani's murder, emphasizing that they are waiting for the final report from
Lebanese security forces to disclose the details of the crime.
Between direct judicial supervision and Iraqi embassy monitoring,
investigations continue to uncover the circumstances of al-Alwani's murder and
determine the crime's background and associated responsibilities. The final
report from Lebanese security agencies is expected to serve as a key milestone
in clarifying the details of the case and answering questions regarding how the
crime occurred and the parties involved.
A Crime and a Major Sin: Berri Blocks Targeting of the
Army and Draws "Red Lines"
Janoubia / November 10, 2026
At a critical political and security juncture, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri
entered the line of rapid local and regional developments, putting an end to the
raging debates targeting the military institution while simultaneously defining
Lebanon's stance on security arrangements in the South and calling to activate
legislative work—reflecting an attempt to safeguard internal balances against
mounting pressures. The political arena witnessed a decisive stance by Speaker
Nabih Berri in response to escalating campaigns targeting the military
institution and its Commander, General Rodolphe Heikel. In a statement to
Al-Joumhouria newspaper, Berri considered targeting the Army and its Commander a
"crime and a major sin," reiterating his firm stance that "the Army is a red
line" amid a broad wave of condemnation against suspicious campaigns and calls
to provide comprehensive national cover for the military institution to face
complex security and political challenges. Regarding security arrangements in
southern Lebanon, Berri renewed strict adherence to UN Resolution 1701, warning
of the risks arising from any direction to terminate the mandate of "UNIFIL"
forces and reaffirming categorical rejection of bringing in any alternative
forces operating outside the UN umbrella. In a separate context concerning the
regular functioning of institutions, Berri called for a legislative session to
be held before noon next Thursday, dedicated to studying and approving an agenda
containing a set of urgent draft laws and legislative proposals.
Menassa: Government Powers Are Limited to Defense Policy
and Have No Bearing on Military Orders; Campaigns Doubting "Army Leadership" Are
Rejected
Janoubia / November 10, 2026
Amid the escalating political intensity and pressure placed on the military
institution, Minister of National Defense Major General Michel Menassa issued a
decisive position defining the boundaries separating political decisions from
field execution. These firm stances come to put an end to skepticism demanding
the dismissal or resignation of the military leadership, emphasizing the Army's
central national role in safeguarding civil peace, protecting stability, and
preventing strife at a highly sensitive regional and local moment.
Minister of National Defense Major General Michel Menassa issued a stern
statement addressing political campaigns in recent days that demanded the Army
blindly execute government decisions without discussion—going so far as to
question its leadership and demand the dismissal or resignation of its Commander
under the pretext that he is an "employee obligated to comply."Menassa clarified
that the powers of the Council of Ministers are strictly limited to defining
general security and defense policy, and do not extend to issuing field orders
and instructions, which fall at the core of the Army Command's responsibilities.
He stressed that the military institution's commitment to directives issued by
the President of the Republic—in his capacity as Supreme Commander of the Armed
Forces—and the executive authority does not negate its national responsibilities
or its right to express an opinion. The Defense Minister emphasized that the
Army fulfills a essential mission to protect Lebanon's land, people, and
institutions, and to confront anyone who places themselves above the law or
threatens the safety of citizens. He noted that any political decision taken
must account for the Army's operational capabilities, preserve the morale of its
officers and personnel, and prevent any slide into internal strife.Menassa
concluded his statement by describing the Army as a unifying institution free
from sectarianism and factionalism, stressing that it will remain "a drawn sword
against the enemies of Lebanon" and calling on Lebanese citizens to protect the
institution's sacrifices so that no one acts as "a dagger in its back and a stab
into the blood of its martyrs."
Al-Hazzaa from Bkerke: We Are Keen to Open a New Page in Relations with Lebanon
Almarkazia/November 10, 2026
Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Mar Bechara Boutros Al-Rahi received this afternoon,
at the Patriarchal Seat in Bkerke, the Chargé d'Affaires of the Syrian Embassy
in Lebanon, Iyad Al-Hazzaa, accompanied by the Director of his Office, Ahmad
Khalil.
During the meeting, Lebanese-Syrian relations were reviewed alongside political,
economic, and security developments in the region, in addition to several shared
issues between the two countries. Al-Hazzaa affirmed his country's "keenness to
open a new page in relations with Lebanon, built on mutual respect, common
interests, and cooperation between official institutions in both states," noting
that "contacts and meetings conducted by Syrian diplomacy with Lebanese
officials fall within the framework of correcting the course of bilateral
relations and enhancing cooperation, far removed from the practices of the
previous era."The meeting touched upon internal conditions in Syria and efforts
to rebuild state institutions, enhance stability, and promote national unity, as
well as economic recovery plans, reconstruction, and attracting investments.
Discussions also covered the Syrian refugee file and their return home,
controlling shared borders, combating smuggling, and cooperating in energy and
trade exchange.For his part, Al-Rahi emphasized "the importance of establishing
natural and healthy relations between Lebanon and Syria, grounded in respect for
each country's sovereignty and independence, and on institutional cooperation
that serves the interest of both peoples." He stressed "the importance of
maintaining stability and enhancing mutual trust to overcome the repercussions
of the past and launch into a new phase of bilateral relations."Discussions also
addressed the Christian presence in Syria, where Al-Rahi affirmed "the depth of
historical and spiritual ties uniting the Maronite Church with its children in
Syria," highlighting "the three Maronite archdioceses there and the importance
of preserving diversity and coexistence in the region."At the conclusion of the
meeting, the Syrian Chargé d'Affaires extended an invitation to Patriarch
Al-Rahi to visit Syria, confirming his "readiness to continue communication and
cooperation with the Patriarchate on issues of common interest." Al-Rahi wished
him success in his diplomatic mission for the good of Lebanon, Syria, and their
peoples.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News
published on November 10-11/2026
(Some of the News reports below are
translated from Arabic by AI)
A Fiery Confrontation at the Opening of the
Israeli Knesset: Netanyahu Attacks Arabs, While Eisenkot Demands His Departure
Janoubia / November 10, 2026
The opening session of the 26th Israeli Knesset turned into an arena for intense
political confrontation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched an attack on
the "change camp" and Arab parties, warning against the formation of a
government that relies on their support, while simultaneously calling on his
opponents to form a national unity government. His remarks triggered a wave of
protests within the parliament, marked by interruptions, walkouts, and direct
verbal clashes. Gadi Eisenkot described Netanyahu’s speech as "delusional,
shameful, and full of hatred," and demanded the urgent formation of a national
emergency government.
Netanyahu’s Speech Sparks Political Confrontation
According to a report published by Israel’s "Channel 12" this Tuesday, the
opening ceremonies of the Knesset were far from merely formal. The political
confrontation spilled over into the Chagall Hall within the parliament building
during the traditional group photo session for the new members. Netanyahu used
the occasion to deliver a speech that ignited widespread tension. The Prime
Minister began by addressing the security threats facing Israel—placing Iran at
the forefront—despite what he described as the severe military blows the country
has sustained. He asserted that Iran has not abandoned its plan to destroy
Israel and is working to resume its nuclear program, arguing that the toppling
of the Iranian regime is the only way to permanently end what he termed an
"existential threat." He also reviewed Israeli military operations, listing the
names of leaders and figures whom he claimed Israel had successfully
eliminated—including Mohammed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, Hassan
Nasrallah, and Khamenei—adding that these military strikes had transformed the
Middle East.
A Call for Unity and an Attack on Arab Parties
Moving from security matters to internal political conflict, Netanyahu called on
Israeli parties to set aside their differences and form a national unity
government, arguing that only such a government could confront the challenges
facing the country. However, this appeal was accompanied by a sharp attack on
Arab parties—particularly those considering support for an alternative
government. Netanyahu questioned whether their votes could be relied upon,
leveling accusations against the United Arab List and the Joint List regarding
their stances on the nature of the Israeli state. He further accused Arab
parties of seeking to alter Israel’s identity, warned his opponents against
forming a government dependent on their support, and questioned whether such a
coalition could sustain military and security operations in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza,
and Syria. These remarks sparked protests within the chamber, prompting Yair
Golan—leader of "The Democrats" party—and several members of the Arab parties to
walk out of the session.
Bennett Intervenes; October 7 and Qatar Return to the Forefront
The speech did not proceed without a direct confrontation: Naftali Bennett,
leader of the "Yahad" (Together) party, interrupted Netanyahu’s address to
demand answers regarding an investigation into the events of October 7, and
subsequently questioned him about his advisors' ties to Qatar. Netanyahu
continued his speech without addressing Bennett’s questions. Meanwhile, Minister
of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir intervened, attacking Bennett—a move that
escalated tensions in the hall and led to an exchange of accusations between the
two sides.
Eisenkot: A Divisive and Disgraceful Speech
Following the speech, Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the "Yashar!" party, launched an
attack on Netanyahu, arguing that he had exploited an official occasion to
deliver a divisive, hate-filled address. Eisenkot stated that he had become even
more convinced that Netanyahu should not remain in office. He called for the
urgent formation of a national emergency government, warning that the
continuation of Netanyahu’s rule—as he put it—divides Israel and jeopardizes its
security. For his part, Bennett remarked on the Prime Minister’s speech by
saying, "This is not how unity is built," while Yair Golan accused Netanyahu of
refusing to accept the election results and inciting against the Arab public.
Mansour Abbas Responds to Netanyahu’s Accusations
In response to the Prime Minister’s remarks, Mansour Abbas, leader of the United
Arab List (Ra'am), described Netanyahu’s accusations as dangerous slanders,
charging him with endangering the security of Israeli citizens. Abbas also
brought up the issue of funds that reached Hamas, stating that Netanyahu was
aware that money was being transferred to the movement’s military wing. He
added, "He placed his trust in Sinwar; I, however, did not place my trust in
Sinwar." This confrontation comes as the parties of the "change camp" continue
their efforts to form a new government, amid disagreements over the nature of
the prospective coalition and the role of Arab parties in supporting it—while,
conversely, Netanyahu persists in his call for a national unity government.
Between attacks on Arab parties, debates regarding Iran and the events of
October 7th, and questions surrounding the ties certain advisors have to Qatar,
the opening ceremony of the 26th Knesset underscored the depth of political
discord within Israel—at a time when the battle to form a government has become
intertwined with critical security and military issues.
Lieberman Criticizes the "Joint List": Is This Who You Want
to Form a Government With?
Nidaa Al-Watan / November 11, 2026
Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the "Yisrael Beiteinu" (Israel Our Home) party,
criticized members of the "Joint List" for walking out of the Knesset chamber
while the Israeli national anthem was being played. In a post on the platform
"X" regarding the incident, Lieberman wrote: "Are these the people you want to
form a government with?"
Eisenkot Launches Battle to Oust Netanyahu from the Knesset
Nidaa Al-Watan / November 11, 2026
Amidst deep political divisions, the 26th Israeli Knesset began its term
yesterday with a swearing-in ceremony—an event that resembled a power struggle
more than the dawn of a new chapter. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who urged
lawmakers to avoid yet another round of elections, is well aware that the ballot
box failed to resolve the crisis of governance. Instead, the crisis has shifted
to the parliament, where two opposing camps—neither capable of securing a
governing majority—are locked in a standoff, even if one side possesses the
leverage to dictate new legislative terms. At the center of this equation stands
former Chief of Staff and leader of the "Yashar" party, Gadi Eisenkot, whom
Herzog tasked with forming a government after he secured the support of 67
members of Knesset (MKs). However, Eisenkot’s core bloc holds only 48 seats,
compared to the 53 seats commanded by Benjamin Netanyahu and his traditional
allies—a group that includes seven MKs from the ultra-Orthodox "United Torah
Judaism" (Yahadut HaTorah) party, who have not yet reaffirmed their commitment
to him. Meanwhile, the 19 seats held by Arab parties could provide Eisenkot with
the necessary majority; yet, this prospect faces resistance from within his own
camp—most notably from Avigdor Liberman, leader of the "Yisrael Beiteinu" party,
who vehemently opposes relying on the support of Arab lawmakers. Liberman would
prefer to court the ultra-Orthodox parties, but this path is blocked by the
ongoing dispute over the military service exemption for the ultra-Orthodox
community. Thus, while Eizenkot may possess enough votes to challenge Netanyahu
within the parliamentary arena, this does not necessarily mean he can form a
cohesive governing coalition. Consequently, he has chosen to initiate his battle
from within the Knesset, where it is arguably easier to unite Netanyahu’s
opponents than it would be to bring them together into a single government. In
this context, Eizenkot and his allies have agreed to nominate former minister
and "Yashar" party leader Matan Kahana for the position of Knesset
Speaker—seeking to replace the Likud’s Amir Ohana—and to distribute the
chairmanships of key parliamentary committees. Plans are in place to assign the
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to Lieberman, the Finance Committee to
Liran Avisar Ben-Horin of the "Ma'an" party, and the Arrangements Committee to
Roi Folkman of "Yashar." Attention is now focused on today’s scheduled vote
regarding the formation of these committees, which will precede the battle for
the Knesset Speakership—set for next Tuesday—serving as a test of Eizenkot’s
ability to translate his numerical advantage into legislative influence.
The significance of this move lies in the powers held by the Knesset Speaker and
the various committees concerning legislation and oversight—particularly
regarding issues of national security, the state budget, and military
conscription. Through this, Eizenkot aims to hem Netanyahu in from a
parliamentary standpoint, even if the formation of an alternative government
proves unachievable. Concurrently, the "Yashar" party has introduced draft
legislation calling for the establishment of an independent commission of
inquiry into the failures of October 7, the imposition of term limits for the
Prime Minister, and the repeal of the controversial judicial reforms—all in an
effort to transform the parliament into a venue for accountability. The
swearing-in ceremony underscored the depth of existing divisions: Arab lawmakers
walked out during the national anthem—though Mansour Abbas, leader of the United
Arab List (Ra'am), remained in the chamber—while Minister of National Security
Itamar Ben-Gvir launched an attack on Arab political figure Yousef Jabareen.
Abbas signaled his willingness to support a change in government, despite
objections to the inclusion of Arab parties in any future coalition. Meanwhile,
Benjamin Netanyahu is attempting to exploit the contradictions among his
opponents by calling for a national unity government, citing the Iranian threat
and looming international pressures—all against the backdrop of a shifting
American landscape following the Republican losses in the congressional
elections. "Bibi" seeks to divert attention away from accountability for the
failures of October 7th and toward the imperatives of national security. Gadi
Eisenkot, however, rejected this proposal, while Naftali Bennett—leader of the
"Ma'an" (Together) movement—demanded an investigation into both the security
failures and the issue of advisors with ties to Qatar.
Negotiations in Abu Dhabi: A Just Peace or a "New Yalta"?
The first day of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations—held under American auspices in
Abu Dhabi—concluded yesterday without any announced breakthrough. Yet, the talks
revealed stakes that extend well beyond ending the war, pointing instead toward
a fundamental re-engineering of the European security architecture. A striking
irony was the absence of European representatives from these trilateral
negotiations, despite their participation in a preliminary meeting with the
American and Ukrainian sides. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to
allay concerns arising from this exclusion by calling for Europe to be directly
involved in future rounds of talks. But the question remains: is Washington
heading toward an understanding with Moscow regarding the future of Europe and
Ukraine—one in which the Europeans and Ukrainians do not have a decisive say?
The preliminary meeting between American envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff,
the Ukrainian delegation, and representatives from Europe and NATO served as an
attempt to define the parameters of negotiation before the Russians join the
table. The joint statement—which emphasized robust security guarantees and the
central role of NATO in collective defense—conveyed a clear message: the future
of European security cannot be determined by a U.S.-Russian understanding that
bypasses the Europeans themselves. However, the trilateral negotiations revealed
a fundamental divergence in priorities. While the Ukrainian delegation, led by
the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Rustem Umerov, called for a
ceasefire and guarantees to prevent the resumption of aggression, Moscow arrived
with an agenda that views ending the war as merely one component of a broader
negotiation regarding the future of Europe. The participation of Russian Deputy
Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov is particularly significant; in 2021, he had
presented Moscow’s security demands—which included halting NATO’s eastward
expansion, blocking Ukraine’s accession to the alliance, and limiting NATO’s
military presence in Eastern Europe. His involvement suggests that the Kremlin
seeks to revive these demands and secure an agreement with Washington that would
redraw the balance of power and spheres of influence in Europe. This lies at the
heart of the impasse in the Abu Dhabi negotiations: Russia insists on discussing
security arrangements prior to a ceasefire, whereas Kyiv views the cessation of
aggression as a prerequisite for any settlement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov underscored this contradiction by rejecting an immediate end to the
fighting, insisting instead that an agreement on the European security
architecture must come first. Thus, Moscow is transforming the continuation of
the war into a bargaining chip, all the while persisting in its bombardment of
Ukrainian energy facilities and civilian infrastructure.
Conversely, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s description of the talks
as "constructive and highly substantive" reflects Kyiv’s openness to
diplomacy—without, however, abandoning its core principles. He revealed that the
negotiations addressed the recovery of prisoners, civilians, and children taken
to Russia, as well as security guarantees. His call for Europe to appoint its
own representative underscored a firm rejection of leaving Ukraine’s fate to be
bargained over by the United States and Russia. As for Washington, it appears
more focused on accelerating an agreement than on finalizing its specific terms.
Kushner’s announcement that the gaps between the parties are narrowing, combined
with Rubio’s characterization of the talks as "highly productive," reflects
President Donald Trump’s desire to demonstrate diplomatic progress—even as
fundamental disagreements persist. Furthermore, the proposal for a new security
framework raises the question of whether Washington is embracing a concept of
European collective security or moving closer to the Russian vision, which is
rooted in understandings between great powers. As the negotiations resume today
for their second and final day, the prospects for a comprehensive agreement
appear limited. It is most likely that this round will conclude by establishing
future negotiating pathways—and perhaps reaching partial understandings
regarding prisoners, a de-escalation, or security guarantees—without resolving
the territorial dispute. Concerns are mounting, fueled by Trump’s hints at
adjusting Ukraine’s borders—a prospect that could transform the occupation into
a tool for extracting political gains. Furthermore, the Republicans' losses in
the congressional elections, combined with the economic fallout from the
conflict, provide an incentive for a swift resolution—potentially involving
economic understandings with Moscow reached at the expense of the European
balance of power. The first day of the Abu Dhabi negotiations demonstrated that
resuming dialogue is far easier than reaching a consensus on its ultimate
objective; narrowing the gap between specific negotiating positions does not
necessarily bridge the chasm between conflicting strategic visions. While Moscow
may aspire to a "new Yalta"—one based on trading territories and spheres of
influence—the challenge for Ukraine and Europe lies in ensuring that peace does
not become a pretext for legitimizing the "logic of might," nor a settlement
that cements the consequences of the invasion and grants the Kremlin a say in
the sovereign choices of its neighbors. As for Washington, it faces the delicate
task of balancing the desire for a quick diplomatic breakthrough with the
requirements for a sustainable peace. The true measure of success is not how
rapidly an agreement is reached, but rather its capacity to guarantee Ukraine’s
security, preserve the European balance, and prevent future aggression.
Otherwise, a deal struck today to extinguish the flames of war may well contain
the very sparks that ignite the next conflict.
A Heated Call Between Trump and Netanyahu... What Happened
Behind the Scenes?
Ynet/November 10, 2026
A report by the Israeli news site "Ynet" indicates that a phone call took place
over the weekend between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, focusing on the Iranian dossier amid disagreements regarding
the resumption of military operations against Tehran. Citing sources familiar
with the conversation, the site reported an intense and unusual exchange, with
one source describing it as a "very noisy confrontation." In contrast,
Netanyahu’s office strongly denied this account, labeling it "fake news and
utter nonsense." A senior Israeli official confirmed that the call took place
but insisted that it was not tense. These reports emerge against a backdrop of
diverging positions on Iran: the Trump administration is seeking to exhaust all
possibilities for a diplomatic agreement with Tehran, whereas Netanyahu
maintains that permanently eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat requires the
ouster of the Iranian regime. During a speech to the Knesset on Tuesday,
Netanyahu warned that Iran is working to rebuild its nuclear threat, asserting
that "the only way to permanently remove this existential threat is to topple
the regime of the Ayatollahs." He also cautioned against anticipated
international pressure on Israel to accept a nuclear-armed Iran and to retreat
from its military gains and security zones, while calling for the formation of a
national unity government to confront the challenges ahead. Meanwhile, following
a meeting at the White House with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin
Abdulrahman Al Thani, Trump stated that resuming military action against Iran
does not appear necessary at this time. He noted a positive momentum toward
reaching a resolution, while emphasizing that U.S. forces remain on standby. The
*Financial Times* reported, citing a well-informed diplomat, that Netanyahu is
in daily contact with Trump, urging him to resume strikes against Iran—even as
regional leaders seek to avoid escalation and prioritize negotiations.
Conversely, another source indicated that while Netanyahu supports the
resumption of military operations, there is currently no coordinated pressure
campaign to persuade Trump to do so. Despite Trump’s optimism regarding the
possibility of an agreement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared more
cautious, asserting that negotiations have not yielded fruitful progress and
describing some of Iran’s demands as unacceptable and unrealistic.
Herzog to Israeli Parties: "Make Concessions, Even to Your
Opponents"
Nidaa Al-Watan/November 10, 2026
On Tuesday, Israeli President Isaac Herzog called on the various political
factions to make concessions in order to form a new government. The appeal came
during the opening session of the 26th Knesset, following an election that
failed to produce a clear majority. After striking the gavel three times to mark
the commencement of the Knesset’s proceedings, Herzog said: "Reach out to make
compromises—even with your opponents." The 120 members of the Knesset are set to
take their oaths of office, amid uncertainty regarding the formation of the next
government and the political future of outgoing Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Eisenkot distributes key positions in the Knesset... and identifies its
president
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/November 10, 2026
In a move to begin the moves of the Israeli opposition camp to arrange the
centers of influence within Parliament, the head of the Yashar Party, which is
in charge of forming the Israeli government, Gadi Eisenkot, announced on Tuesday
that an agreement had been reached with the leaders of the Change Bloc regarding
the candidates to assume a number of key positions in the Knesset. Eisenkot
said, in a post on his account on the “X” platform, that he had reached an
agreement with his partners, the leaders of the Change and Reform parties,
Naftali Bennett, Yair Golan, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yair Lapid, regarding
potential candidates to assume key positions in the Knesset during the period
allocated for forming the government. The agreement stipulated the nomination of
former Minister and future member of the Knesset, Matan Kahane, for the position
of Speaker of the Knesset, and Roy Folkman, to head the Knesset Affairs
Committee, while it was decided to nominate former Defense Minister Avigdor
Lieberman to head the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and Liran Avisar
Ben Hourin, to head the Finance Committee. Eisenkot also clarified that the
discussion and decision on the formation of the committees will take place
during the deliberations of the Knesset Affairs Committee this week, with the
formation being presented to the Knesset General Assembly for approval on
Wednesday, indicating that there has also been agreement to form special
committees, with their details to be announced separately at a later time. In
addition, during the opening session of the Knesset, on Tuesday, Eisenkot
stressed the commitment to forming a national emergency government as soon as
possible. He added, "We are open to cooperating with all parties that support
our basic principles."
Who is the new speaker of the Knesset?
Matan Kahane, who belongs to the Yashar Party, emerges as a candidate to assume
the presidency of the 26th Israeli Knesset, according to the understandings
reached by the parties of the “Change Bloc”. Kahane previously held a
ministerial position and a member of the Knesset. He also holds the rank of
retired colonel in the Israeli army, where he served in special military units.
Kahane lives in a settlement in the Gush Etzion area in the southern West Bank,
and joined the Yashar party during the current elections.
The opposition supports Eisenkot
In addition, the leader of the Israeli opposition, Yair Lapid, said through his
account on the “X” platform that he recently met with Gadi Eisenkot, to discuss
coordinating efforts regarding the 26th Knesset, stressing their commitment to
working to form a national emergency government as soon as possible. This
agreement came at a time when Eisenkot seeks to consolidate understandings
between the parties in his camp, and coordinate the distribution of the main
parliamentary positions, in parallel with negotiations to form the government,
in light of a complex political map that does not yet guarantee him a stable
majority. Israeli President Isaac Herzog had officially assigned Eisenkot to
form the new government, after receiving the support of 67 members of the
Knesset during presidential consultations, compared to 46 members who
recommended assigning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while a party with 7
seats did not submit a recommendation for any of the candidates. Eisenkot has 28
days to form a government, with the possibility of obtaining an extension of up
to 14 additional days, in an attempt to reach a coalition that enjoys the
confidence of at least 61 members out of the 120 members of the Knesset.
Eisenkot: We are living through the most difficult days for
Israel since its founding
Call of the Nation/November 10, 2026
The head of the Israeli Yashar Party, Gadi Eisenkot, called for the formation of
an emergency government as soon as possible, warning that Israel is going
through a turning point that may be among the most difficult since its founding.
Eisenkot said, in a speech before the Knesset: “We enter the Knesset and the
State of Israel stands at a crossroads, and we may be living through the most
challenging days since its establishment.” He added: “We will work with our
partners, and we will extend our hands to all other parties, and we have already
invited them to join us.” He stressed his commitment to what he described as
“the covenant with those who serve,” saying: “Belief in this covenant and
commitment to it is a responsibility we all share.” He continued: “The complex
reality forces me to form an emergency government as quickly as possible,
without compromising on our principles.”
Eisenkot: We have cancelled tomorrow’s meeting with Likud
following Netanyahu’s speech
Nidaa Al-Watan/November 10, 2026
Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Israeli "Yashar" party, revealed that a negotiation
meeting with the Likud party—scheduled for tomorrow—has been cancelled. The
cancellation followed a speech delivered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
just before the traditional group photograph of party leaders.
Likud expresses surprise at Eisenkot’s decision: They
cancel our meeting while continuing talks with others
Nidaa Al-Watan/November 10, 2026
The Israeli Likud party responded to statements by "Yashar" party leader Gadi
Eisenkot regarding the cancellation of a scheduled negotiation meeting between
the two sides. In a statement, Likud affirmed that "Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu will make every possible effort to achieve national unity." The party
added that Netanyahu "remains firm in his position that there can be no
cooperation with supporters of terrorism, nor with those who walked out of the
Knesset plenum this evening while the Israeli national anthem, 'Hatikvah,' was
being played." Likud remarked that it is "surprising that they would cancel a
meeting with Likud while, at the same time, continuing to advance discussions
with those very individuals."
Eisenkot Quickly Targets Netanyahu’s Legacy in New
Israeli Parliament
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Israeli ex-army chief Gadi Eisenkot and his allies launched a legislative
onslaught against caretaker Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's legacy on
Tuesday, as a new parliament convened in a heated first session. Though
questions still linger as to who can form a government, Eisenkot's broad
left-to-right bloc wasted no time in setting the agenda of the new Knesset with
a green light from Israeli-Arab lawmakers, whose role has stirred up heated
opposition from Netanyahu's base and even right-wing supporters of Eisenkot.
Eisenkot's Yashar party said it submitted a slew of proposals before the new
parliament, including establishing an independent commission to investigate
security failures that allowed the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, the
deadliest day in Israel's history. Netanyahu has long opposed such a probe,
denying any wrongdoing and calling instead for a politically appointed
commission. Eisenkot's party also moved for a sweeping repeal of a judicial
overhaul implemented by Netanyahu's government, which had triggered some of
Israel's largest-ever protests before being overshadowed by three years of war.
Setting the stage for legislative action, Eisenkot's bloc announced it had
secured the votes to install a new parliament speaker, Matan Kahana, also a
former senior military figure. But neither Eisenkot nor Netanyahu -- Israel's
longest-serving prime minister with nearly two decades in power -- have the 61
votes needed to form a government. "I am committed in this complex situation to
form a national-emergency government as quickly as possible," Eisenkot, a
low-key 66-year-old who only recently entered politics, said before his
swearing-in. Netanyahu, speaking after the inaugural session, made a new push
for a national-unity government, saying Israel needed to confront a threat from
Iran's clerical government, which has survived two major Israeli bombing
campaigns the premier ordered with support from US President Donald Trump. With
his political survival on the line -- and facing potential jail time if
convicted on corruption charges after he is out of power -- Netanyahu appeared
to acknowledge a shifting diplomatic reality after US Democrats soundly defeated
Trump in midterm elections last week on the back of anger over the war. "In the
very near future, we're going to be confronted by international pressure to
accept a nuclear-armed Iran and the preservation of this terror regime that
seeks to annihilate us," Netanyahu said. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and
both Netanyahu and Trump have previously boasted that its nuclear program was
devastated. Eisenkot dismissed the remarks as a "shameful" exploitation of the
occasion, casting them as evidence that Netanyahu was "unfit to remain in office
for even one more minute".
Confrontations over Arab-Israelis -
President Isaac Herzog on Sunday tasked Eisenkot with forming a government,
giving him an initial 28 days, which can be extended by 14 more. Opening the
session, Herzog, who otherwise holds a largely ceremonial role, urged lawmakers
to "do everything to avoid a repeat election".
"Reach out a hand for compromise, even between rivals," Herzog said. But the
tone in the new parliament was immediately tense, with shouting breaking out
between lawmakers. Eisenkot's choice for speaker is expected to sail through
thanks to support from Arab-Israeli lawmakers, whose ranks grew to historic
highs due to anger over Netanyahu's far-right government. But Avigdor Liberman
-- a member of Eisenkot's bloc who has become a staunch critic of his former
mentor Netanyahu despite sharing his hawkish views -- has refused to serve in a
government that relies on the Israeli-Arabs. A number of Israeli-Arab lawmakers
-- descendants of Palestinians who stayed after Israel's creation in 1948 --
left the opening session Tuesday as children sang the national anthem so as to
avoid standing for it. Liberman posted news of the walkout on social media,
writing: "You want to form a government with them?" Far-right caretaker national
security minister and Netanyahu ally Itamar Ben-Gvir loudly heckled Yousef
Jabareen, leader of the largest Arab-majority grouping, the Joint List, during
the session. "Who is he pledging allegiance to, Hamas?" Ben-Gvir shouted before
order was restored. Mansour Abbas, leader of the Israeli-Arab party Raam,
generally seen as more moderate, promised to work to replace the Netanyahu
government, saying: "We aspire to be part of the solution."
Plea for ultra-Orthodox -
Shunning Arab-Israelis, Liberman has instead proposed an alliance with
ultra-Orthodox Jews, despite his years of bitter denunciations of the community
for its singular priority on maintaining an exemption from mandatory military
service. Eisenkot's core bloc has 48 seats, but would achieve a majority if the
19 Arab-Israeli lawmakers either enter the government or, more likely, vote for
it without joining. The two ultra-Orthodox parties hold 13 seats. United Torah
Judaism, which has seven, has stopped short of recommitting to Netanyahu,
leaving him with 46 seats. Netanyahu publicly pleaded with the ultra-Orthodox to
stay with him. "They're going to promise you the moon and the stars but one
minute after, God forbid, they form a government run by the left, all of those
promises will vanish," he said.
Palestinians Await Eisenkot Govt While Not Expecting
Radical Change
Ramallah: Kifah Zboun/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Palestinian leaders are closely watching Israeli Prime Minister-designate Gadi
Eisenkot’s efforts to form a government and unseat Benjamin Netanyahu, hoping
for a shift in Israeli policy after four years of hostility. Although the
Palestinian Authority (PA) has refrained from commenting publicly on Israel’s
election results, officials are scrutinizing Eisenkot’s statements and political
moves for signs of a possible change in relations. The PA has maintained its
longstanding position that Israeli elections are an internal matter. Yet few
have more at stake in the outcome after four years in which Netanyahu’s
government waged an unrelenting campaign against the Palestinian Authority and
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinian officials, including
President Mahmoud Abbas, declared before the elections that they were prepared
to engage with any Israeli government. They have stopped short, however, of
speaking of a new chapter in relations.
Judging policies, not personalities
Mahmoud al-Habbash, an adviser to Abbas, stressed that the PA would judge any
incoming Israeli prime minister by their policies and positions on the
Palestinian issue. “It is too early to judge Eisenkot,” Habbash told Asharq
Al-Awsat. “We do not judge individuals. Frankly, the names of those governing
Israel do not matter to us.” “What matters are their actual positions, policies
and programs concerning the Palestinian issue, and their commitment to
international legitimacy and international law,” he stressed. These factors will
determine the PA’s relationship with any Israeli prime minister or government,
he added. Habbash declined to say whether Eisenkot was the PA’s preferred
candidate, reiterating that it was premature to assess him or a government he
had yet to form.
Nevertheless, he said: “We hope for a different Israeli leadership that respects
international legitimacy and the agreements signed, beginning with Oslo, the
Paris Agreement and subsequent accords.”
Such a leadership should have the willingness, determination and political
program to put negotiations back on track toward an agreement ending the current
situation, he said. Eisenkot opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state,
the PA’s central political objective. However, he has shown greater openness
than Netanyahu toward strengthening the PA and transferring withheld Palestinian
revenues.He has also previously argued against Israel directly ruling millions
of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as an occupying power. Habbash
stressed that relations between Palestinians and the Israeli government involve
interconnected political, economic and administrative issues.
“These range from everyday matters affecting people’s lives and needs to
clearance revenues, compliance with signed agreements and, ultimately, Israel’s
position on our legitimate national rights,” he explained. “If Eisenkot
translates his words into action, we will respond positively and remain open to
dialogue,” Habbash affirmed.
‘Anyone is better than Netanyahu’
Behind closed doors, PA officials said that almost any alternative would be
preferable to Netanyahu, whom they accuse of seeking to dismantle the Authority,
displace Palestinians and eliminate their national cause. They have avoided
making such views public for fear their statements could be exploited in
Israel’s domestic political struggle. “It is not about Eisenkot. Any Israeli
would be better for us than Netanyahu and his current government,” a senior
Palestinian official told Asharq Al-Awsat. “This is the most hostile government
Palestinians have ever known - a government of extermination.”
During Israel’s 2022 elections, the PA reportedly sought to help defeat
Netanyahu, prompting Israel’s domestic security agency, Shin Bet, to warn
against interference in the electoral process.
This time, the PA did not seek to intervene, but maintained various channels of
communication with Arab party leaders. Palestinian officials have expressed
pride in the number of seats won by Arab parties in the Knesset, whose electoral
gains effectively prevented Netanyahu from remaining in power.
Improve conditions
At a minimum, Palestinian officials hope Eisenkot will ease economic pressures
and improve security conditions in the occupied territories. “We are not
suggesting that Eisenkot is a savior. We know he will not lead us to statehood,”
an informed Palestinian source told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“But many other crucial issues are at stake: the future of the PA, the economy,
clearance revenues, the West Bank, security conditions, settler violence, the
future of Gaza, reconstruction and governance.”
The source hoped for progress on these issues, describing any improvement as a
potential foundation for further engagement. Nevertheless, the Palestinian
leadership remains cautious and does not expect a decisive policy shift.
Change in form, not substance
Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee member Wasel Abu Yousef
was more skeptical, saying that a change in Israeli leadership would affect
appearances rather than fundamental policy.“There may be change, but it will be
in form, not substance,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“They agree on legitimizing settlements, preventing the establishment of a
Palestinian state, separating the Gaza Strip and rejecting international
resolutions. They are pursuing the Greater Israel project and, to varying
degrees, denying the rights and existence of the Palestinian people.”
Meaningful change would require recognition of Palestinian self-determination
and the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and
East Jerusalem, he said.
Habbash similarly reiterated the PA’s willingness to engage while insisting that
economic relief alone could not resolve the conflict. “Our cause is not merely
about daily living conditions or improving livelihoods. It is about political
rights, foremost among them the establishment of a Palestinian state and an end
to the occupation.”
Israeli Fire Kills Seven, Including a Father and Son, in
Gaza, Medics Say
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Israeli forces killed at least seven Palestinians, including a father and his
13-year-old son, in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, local health officials said.
Medics said Fadi Rajab and his son Abubakr were killed in an airstrike that hit
the roof of a displacement shelter in the Zeitoun neighborhood in Gaza City.
A third Palestinian was killed in an Israeli airstrike near a school in Gaza
City's Daraj neighborhood, health officials added. The Israeli military said it
struck fighters in both areas, without giving further details. In Khan Younis,
in southern Gaza, Israeli gunfire killed a man, medics said.
Later on Tuesday, an Israeli airstrike hit a metal foundry in the Sabra
neighborhood of Gaza City, killing three people, medics said, taking the day's
death toll to at least seven. The Israeli military did not immediately comment
on the incidents in Khan Younis or the Sabra neighborhood. A US-brokered
ceasefire last year called for the eventual reconstruction of Gaza, but little
progress has been made. Negotiators have been unable to agree on terms for
Hamas to disarm or for Israel to withdraw its troops, which control about
two-thirds of the territory and from which residents have been ordered to
leave. Israel says Hamas is trying to regroup and refill its arsenal. Hamas says
it is committed to the ceasefire agreement and accuses Israel of trying to
undermine it. At least 1,600 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks in
Gaza since the ceasefire agreement, according to the territory's health
officials, while Israel says four soldiers have been killed. Palestinian
authorities say more than 74,000 people have been killed in Israel's assault on
Gaza, launched after Hamas-led fighters killed about 1,200 people in southern
Israel on October 7, 2023.
The countdown has begun... Tuesday set for the vote to
replace the Knesset Speaker
Nidaa Al-Watan / November 10, 2026
Israeli Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana announced that a vote on his replacement will
take place next week, following a request submitted by 67 members of the
Knesset. Ohana described the request as "extraordinary," even though this
procedure is a standard course of action based on rulings by the Israeli Supreme
Court. He explained that a plenary session of the Knesset will be held next
Tuesday, November 17, at 4:00 PM, and will include a debate followed by a vote
on his replacement. He added, "Despite my strong opposition to the direction of
the coalition currently being formed, I will honor my commitment to respect the
will of the majority of Knesset members," confirming that the session will take
place as scheduled.
Egypt Permanently Lists Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist
Organization
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Egyptian authorities have permanently placed the Muslim Brotherhood on the
country’s list of terrorist entities, according to decisions by the Public
Prosecution published in the Official Gazette on Monday.
The Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization in Egypt
since 2013 and has been placed on the country’s terrorist entities list several
times. Most of its senior leaders, including Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie, remain
in Egyptian prisons in cases involving violence and murder following the group’s
removal from power that year. Other Brotherhood members wanted by Egyptian
authorities remain abroad, where they continue to lead the organization amid
deep internal divisions, according to observers. Under the latest decisions, the
Public Prosecution terminated the effects of two temporary listings issued in
2022: Decision No. 6 concerning terrorist entities and Decision No. 13
concerning individuals designated as terrorists. Both were published in Egypt’s
official legal gazette, Al-Waqa’i Al-Masriyya, on January 3, 2023.
Prosecutors also ordered the Brotherhood’s permanent inclusion on the list of
terrorist entities.
The decision permanently added three Brotherhood figures convicted under final,
binding court rulings to the list of designated terrorists. They were identified
as Abdel Rahman Hassan Mohamed Meligy, Jamal Abdel Hamid Jomaa and Osama Ibrahim
Mohamed Mostafa.
The Public Prosecution cited Law No. 8 of 2015, governing lists of terrorist
entities and individuals, and its subsequent amendments as the legal basis for
the decisions. A judicial source familiar with the procedures explained that
listing an individual as a terrorist automatically triggers measures including
asset freezes, travel bans, placement on arrival watchlists and the withdrawal
or cancellation of passports. According to observers, publication of the
decision in the Official Gazette also activates a range of restrictions against
the Brotherhood, including a ban on the organization, suspension of all its
activities and closure of its premises. The measures prohibit direct or indirect
financing, fundraising and the collection of material donations on its behalf,
as well as civic or religious outreach activities conducted under any name.
Local media reports on Monday explained that the main distinction between
temporary and permanent designation lies in their legal basis.
Temporary listing follows a judicial decision issued at the request of
the prosecutor general, while permanent designation is based on a final criminal
conviction against an organization or individual.
International Campaign Against Brotherhood Expands
The campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood has expanded across the Arab world
and internationally in recent months. In May, US President Donald Trump’s
administration discussed a national counterterrorism strategy that focused
primarily on the Brotherhood, portraying it as the ideological source of modern
extremist terrorism. The move followed Washington’s designation in January of
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its branches in Jordan and Lebanon as
terrorist organizations. In March, the United States added the Brotherhood’s
Sudanese branch to the same list. Argentina also moved earlier this year to
designate the Brotherhood’s branches in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon as terrorist
organizations.
Defiant Hegseth Blasts Impeachment Effort Ahead of House Vote
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday blasted efforts to impeach him as a
farce that would embolden US adversaries, as he lashed out at his political
opponents in Congress and the media in an unapologetic defense of his record.
Striking a defiant tone at a Pentagon news briefing, Hegseth thanked President
Donald Trump for his continued support as the House of Representatives scheduled
a procedural vote for late Tuesday that will test support for his impeachment.
Hegseth said past impeachments of Trump had
ultimately failed, and added: "Both times he came back stronger, and the
American people sent him back to the White House. Now they're trying a third
time. This time against a member of his cabinet." US Representative Thomas
Massie, a Kentucky Republican, introduced eight articles of impeachment against
Hegseth on Monday. Massie said in a post on X that if the House of
Representatives can overcome Tuesday's procedural effort, "we will proceed to a
real debate and vote on the Articles of Impeachment." Congressional sources
say the resolution may have the votes to pass even with Trump’s Republicans
still controlling the House until Democrats take over on January 3. Conviction
appears unlikely in the Senate, however, where a two-thirds majority is required
and Republicans hold 53 of 100 seats. Hegseth is accused of various abuses of
power in office, including issuing orders to go to war with Iran without an
imminent threat or approval from Congress.
Voter anger over the Iran war helped Democrats win control of Congress in last
week's midterm elections. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Tuesday found a
majority of Americans want the newly elected Democratic-majority US Congress to
act to end the war with Iran.
Vice President JD Vance has publicly questioned the war. Hegseth declined to be
drawn into responding to Vance, but defended the conflict, calling Trump
courageous and saying Iran's military has been left in ruins. "History will
judge the Iran war quite differently than the conventional wisdom right now," he
said.
Hegseth cited US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as saying of the war: "It's not
necessarily popular, but it may have been necessary, and that's certainly how I
feel. It was a necessary undertaking." Trump repeated his backing of Hegseth in
a post on his Truth Social platform just after the Pentagon briefing ended.
"Pete Hegseth gets an 'A' PLUS, PLUS, PLUS for his defense against a
disgruntled, angry, defeated, former Congressman, Thomas Massie, a TOTAL
LOSER!" he wrote. A polarizing figure in
American politics, Hegseth would be the first US defense secretary to be
impeached. The last time any civilian leader of the US military was impeached
was in 1876, when William Belknap held the title "secretary of war." Hegseth, a
former Fox News host, calls himself secretary of war, part of his effort to
rebrand a military he said was too weak and "woke" when he took office last
year. But even some Republicans say his strained relations with Congress are
becoming a political liability as the administration seeks a $1.5 trillion
defense spending package. In a possible nod to the spending requests, Hegseth
said Republicans should use their final weeks in control of Congress to deliver
wins for the American people instead of pursuing his impeachment. If he's still
around next year, Democrats have promised to investigate Hegseth and his
handling of the Pentagon, including his firing of the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and other top military officers.
Iran Calls on US to Meet Its Demands to End War
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Iran on Tuesday urged the United States to meet its demands in a plan to reopen
the Strait of Hormuz, after President Donald Trump spoke of "positive momentum"
to end their eight-month war. "The conflict with Iran
will not be resolved through military means, nor by intensifying sanctions,"
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran's IRNA news agency. "The only solution
is to adopt a language of respect, engage in diplomacy, and address Iran's
demands and conditions -- which were outlined in the two-day proposal and remain
on the table." Tehran has proposed reopening Hormuz, which it has blockaded
since the start of the war, within two days in return for Washington meeting a
raft of conditions. These include ending the war on all fronts, unfreezing
Iranian assets, lifting oil sanctions and ending the US counter-blockade of
Iranian ports. Trump, whose Republican party last week lost midterm elections in
part due to the war, said on Monday that there was "positive momentum" towards
ending the conflict after meeting Qatar's prime minister at the White House.
In a post on social media, Trump reiterated that the US was "locked and
loaded" but said further strikes were "quite unlikely"."We are seeing positive
momentum toward an end to this conflict, and will ensure that America's
interests are at all times protected," Trump said. Diplomatic efforts, led by
Qatar and Pakistan, are underway to find a resolution to the war, which broke
out in late February when US-Israeli strikes killed Iran's supreme leader Ali
Khamenei. On Tuesday, Iran's security chief Mohsen Rezaei urged Washington to
"surrender" to the Iranian demands. "The war on Iran has already wrecked the US
government. But Washington flails like a desperate gambler. FOLD YOUR HAND. STOP
manufacturing FAKE NEWS about imaginary talks," said Rezaei, the head of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council, in a post on X.
France Vows Tough Response to Freezer Cyberattack Blamed on
Iran
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
France's foreign minister said Tuesday that Paris ruled out "nothing" to respond
to a major cyberattack on hundreds of supermarket fridges in October that it has
blamed on Iran. Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told FranceinfoTV that Iran's
ambassador would be summoned and European-level sanctions would be sought, AFP
reported. "I can also tell you that we rule nothing out and will take all
measures -- including those we may not disclose publicly -- that we deem
proportionate and necessary to deter any further attacks," he added. The goal,
Barrot said, is "to deter anyone who might be tempted, in Iran or elsewhere, to
do it again". Barrot said Monday that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
was behind cyberattacks on supermarkets in the first such large-scale cyber
sabotage on French territory. "This attack is unprecedented in both its scale
and its level of aggression," Barrot said on the sidelines of a G7 foreign
ministers' meeting in Paris. Hundreds of French
supermarkets were hit in the October 11 and 12 cyberattacks, which raised the
temperatures in their refrigerators, forcing many to throw away entire
inventories of perishable food.
'Offensive cyber unit' Guards -
Similar incidents have since been reported in other European countries. On
November 2, stores in at least nine other European countries were hit by a
suspected cyberattack on their freezer systems. Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau
said Monday she had opened an investigation into Shahid Kaveh, a shadowy cyber
unit of the IRGC, the Islamic republic's ideological army, over the attacks.
The prosecutor's office has requested international arrest warrants be
issued for two Shahid Kaveh officials. Beccuau described the entity as "an
offensive cyber unit affiliated with the Electronic and Cyber Centre of the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC-CEC)".
France's Center for Coordination of Cyber Crises, which groups security agencies
including the intelligence services, said the unit "conducts large-scale
campaigns targeting industrial equipment for the purpose of sabotage, directed
primarily against Israel and the United States, but also against France and
other European countries".The United States and Israel fought a war against Iran
that began with the killing of supreme leader Ali Khamenei on February 28.
European countries did not get involved in that conflict, but French
officials have accused Iran of spreading misinformation related to the protests
that have rocked France over the past month. In the
cyberattacks in France, which targeted 700 sites, the attackers took over
cooling systems using web interfaces to "initiate abnormal, indefinite defrost
cycles" and disable alerts from sensors designed to go off when temperatures
exceeded a certain threshold, Beccuau said.
Iran Rejects France’s ‘Baseless Accusations’ on Cyberattack
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Iran on Tuesday said French accusations that it was responsible for cyberattacks
on supermarket fridges last month were "baseless"."Iran's foreign ministry
categorically rejects the French government's baseless and one-sided accusations
against Iran regarding alleged cyber activities in France," the ministry said in
a statement.It added that it "strongly condemns this hackneyed policy of
leveling accusations against the country". Hundreds of French supermarkets were
hit in the October 11 and 12 cyberattacks, which raised the temperatures in
their refrigerators and freezers, forcing many to throw away entire inventories
of perishable food. Similar incidents were then reported in at least 11 other
European countries in early November. Along with summoning Iran's ambassador and
seeking European-level sanctions, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said
Tuesday that Paris would "rule nothing out and will take all measures --
including those we may not disclose publicly -- that we deem proportionate and
necessary to deter any further attacks". Tehran, meanwhile, said it would "not
hesitate to take necessary and appropriate measures to safeguard its national
interests and security in the face of unlawful foreign activities". It added
that France "is merely projecting its own governance failures" with these
accusations. Later in the day, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi blamed the
French government for the incident. "Unable to manage fridges let alone
addressing grievances of its people, French government is shifting blame for its
failures onto others," the top diplomat said on X. Also on Tuesday, the European
Union said it would look to provide a "swift and united response" pending
discussion with member states after France's announcement.
Canada Reimposes Sanctions against 11 Iranian Companies
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Canada on Tuesday said it was reimposing sanctions against 11 Iranian companies
in the energy and banking sectors for contributing to the Iranian republic's
nuclear drive, ballistic missile program or the financing of "malign
activities". The companies, which include the National Iranian Oil Company and
leading banks Mellat and Melli, were delisted from Canadian sanctions in 2016.
But the measures have now been reimposed "to disrupt Iranian financial networks
supporting its nuclear program", the Canadian foreign ministry said in a
statement on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Paris.
Rubio Says No Need for Major Combat Operations Against Iran
Given US Economic Campaign
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that he told G7 allies the US
economic sanctions and naval blockade are working so well that President Donald
Trump does not need to conduct major combat operations against Iran. Speaking to
reporters in Paris after two days of meetings with G7 allies, Rubio repeatedly
pushed back on the assertion that not returning to military action would amount
to a stalemate or status quo. "The economic pain that is being inflicted on Iran
right now is extraordinary, and it compounds. It's growing every day," Rubio
said. On Monday, Trump said he plans to hold off on military strikes against
Iran after appeals from countries in the region, including from Qatar's prime
minister in White House talks. "We don't need to conduct military strikes if
we're achieving the same objective through economic means and economic pressure.
That's not stalemate," Rubio said. "Never has Iran ever faced the inability to
sell energy in the global market like they are today."
VANCE PREFERS DEAL WITH IRAN: SOURCE
Some of Trump's top advisers also prefer economic pressure over military
strikes, namely newly installed White House chief of staff Stephen Miller and
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a person familiar with the thinking said. Vice
President JD Vance prefers a deal with Iran, but Trump is for now convinced that
a tenable deal is not possible, the person said. The White House did not
respond to a request for comment. Trump has acknowledged the Iran war was one
reason for Republicans' defeat in last week's midterm congressional elections,
while Vance, seen as a potential successor to Trump when his term ends in two
years, was more definitive, saying, "The reason we lost is the war." The US has
maintained sanctions against Iran for decades, most of which have been aimed at
curtailing the country's oil revenue, acquisition of weapons components and at
cutting off funding for business enterprises controlled by the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps, a dominant force in the Iranian economy. Tehran has
weathered the sanctions, but the naval blockade that the US imposed has
inflicted severe economic damage on the country.
STRAIT OF HORMUZ SECURITY
Rubio also pressed other nations Tuesday to “step up” and help protect shipping
from Iranian attacks in the Strait of Hormuz but acknowledged making no headway
on the issue at the Paris talks. “I raised it. I didn’t get a response,” Rubio
said when asked how other G7 foreign ministers reacted to his appeal. Rubio said
the United States will continue to defend shipping through the strategic
waterway, where vessels continue to face drone attacks. "We've actually
encouraged our partners to join us in the effort of defending global shipping,”
he said after two days of talks in Paris on the Middle East, Ukraine and other
issues. US allies including France have said fighting would have to stop before
they could provide minesweepers and other assistance to safeguard tankers and
other ships passing through the strait. Rubio described the situation as “kind
of a Catch-22.” “Part of the challenge we have is there’s countries out there
that say, ‘Well, we’re ready to provide forces to help defend shipping once
there’s no risk of conflict,'” he said. “We think it's in the interest of the
world to protect shipping because the US doesn’t get any oil from there,” he
added. “These countries should step up. I think a couple are thinking about it,"
he said.
Iraq Reopens Border Crossing with Iran
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Iraqi authorities reopened on Tuesday a border crossing with Iran after closing
it last month amid mounting US pressure to isolate Tehran. The Iraqi government
closed the Al-Sheeb crossing in the Maysan province in October. Two political
sources told AFP that the US was pressuring Baghdad to close most crossings with
neighboring Iran. The head of Iraq's border crossings authority Alaa al-Waeli
told the state news agency (INA) that Al-Sheeb crossing would reopen Tuesday
morning after the completion of the "necessary procedures" required to resume
operations and "ensure the smooth movement of travelers and goods". He added
that authorities would temporarily close the Al-Mandali border crossing in
Diyala province starting on Friday for "maintenance".The closure of the Al-Sheeb
crossing sparked tensions between the central government and local authorities
in Maysan, with several protests erupting over the shutdown of a key route.
In September, Baghdad temporarily closed several crossings with Iran
after authorities determined that an unclaimed drone attack on a Saudi pipeline
originated from an area near Al-Sheeb.Pro-Iran armed groups have supported
Tehran during the Middle East war, claiming hundreds of attacks on US bases in
Iraq and across the region.
Syria Says Killed Leader of Armed Cell in
Tartus
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Syrian authorities said on Tuesday that they had killed the leader of an armed
cell linked to the former government and wounded another member during an
operation in the countryside of Tartus.
In a statement, the Internal Security Forces said they had carried out a
"carefully planned ambush" after monitoring the four-member group, which was
allegedly planning to carry out "terrorist attacks and armed robberies".The
forces said the ensuing clash resulted in the "neutralization of the cell's
leader" and the wounding of another member.The forces confirmed that specialized
units are continuing intensive sweep and pursuit operations across the
surrounding rural areas to locate and apprehend the remaining fleeing members of
the cell. State security authorities reiterated their commitment to maintaining
public order, eliminating remnants of illegal armed groups, and safeguarding
civilian lives and property across all Syrian provinces.
Airstrikes, Artillery Fire Wear Down Houthis as Yemeni Army
Seizes Strategic Positions
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Yemeni government forces pressed ahead with Operation Dawn of Yemen on Tuesday,
stepping up airstrikes, drone attacks and artillery fire against Houthi
positions and reinforcements across several fronts, as troops seized more ground
in Al-Jawf and fighting continued in Taiz, Dhale and Marib.
Government forces struck Houthi military vehicles and fighter concentrations on
several fronts in Al-Jawf. Combat units from the Emergency Forces and Nation's
Shield forces also captured new strategic positions and commanding heights in
the province, military spokesman Majed al-Nuzaili said.
The gains were part of an operation aimed at expanding government control in
Al-Jawf, he added.
Houthi attacks repelled in Taiz, Dhale
Government forces in Dhale repelled a Houthi assault on their positions in the
Hajar sector in the province's northwest, clashing with attackers below Jabal
al-Hasha.A military source said government troops beat back the assault,
inflicting casualties and equipment losses and forcing the Houthi militants to
retreat.In Marib, artillery units shelled Houthi positions and vehicles on the
northern front. Emergency Forces also struck Houthi fighters and gatherings,
killing 16 and wounding others, according to military sources. In the besieged
city of Taiz, government troops and Popular Resistance fighters thwarted Houthi
attacks on the Al-Aqroud and Al-Shaqab fronts southeast of the city on Monday. A
military source said Houthi fighters attempted to advance on army positions in
Kahlan, but were repelled and suffered losses. The Houthis also resumed shelling
residential neighborhoods in east and north of Taiz, wounding a civilian and
damaging homes and residential buildings.
Government forces retake strategic positions
Yemen's military said its latest operations included 17 airstrikes, 123 drone
attacks, 60 rocket launcher strikes and 782 artillery attacks against Houthi
positions and military assets.
Warplanes carried out 17 strikes against Houthi positions and military
capabilities, while drones conducted 123 attacks across Al-Jawf, Marib,
Al-Mudaribah and the southwestern front.
Rocket launcher units carried out 60 strikes, while field artillery launched 782
attacks targeting Houthi fortifications, artillery emplacements, sniper
positions, troop concentrations and reinforcements.
Spokesman Al-Nuzaili said the strikes inflicted heavy casualties and equipment
losses on the Houthis, forcing dozens of fighters to flee their positions in
Al-Jawf, Marib and Taiz.
The Latest English LCCC analysis &
editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on November 10-11/2026 /(Some of the News reports below are
translated from Arabic by AI)
Iran… The Whole Picture
Sawsan al-Shaer/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Any negotiation with Iran that bypasses its "project" in its entirety is futile,
and will yield no tangible results for the future security of the region, its
stability, or the safety of its waterways.
The Iranian project is what stands between Tehran and the security of the Arab
states. Attempting to restrain Iran's conduct through any single instrument of
that project is a piecemeal approach that distorts the assessment of the real
danger the project poses. It amounts to a perpetual deferral of the problem, as
has been the practice for decades.
Confining weapons to the hands of the state in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen should
be a priority on a par with the nuclear file. Without both, the project will not
come to an end. It is the established practice of negotiating each of these
files separately that sustains and protects it.
The nuclear file, the proxies file, and the file of missile and drone threats
are all instruments of the project. Negotiating any one of them in isolation, or
negotiating them piecemeal, drains the process of its substance and keeps Iran's
sword hanging over the region. This serves the Iranian project, whose
foundations were laid on the first day of Khomeini's rule and enshrined in the
constitution under the banner of "exporting the revolution and supporting the
oppressed."
Iran's entire armament, the establishment of the Revolutionary Guard, its
proxies, and the nuclear file alongside them were all designed to serve and
advance this project. Yet all parties have been drawn into the trap Tehran set:
the separation of the files and their distribution across distinct negotiations,
while Iran has ensured that they are never consolidated and negotiated together.
A case in point is the nuclear agreement the United States concluded with Iran
under President Obama in 2015. Tehran then concentrated on financing terrorist
groups, including the Houthis, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi factions loyal to it,
with funds released by the American administration in return for Iran's
acceptance of reduced and slowed enrichment for a number of years and the return
of inspectors. The agreement served the project: the project endured, and its
other instruments were reinforced, in exchange for slowing only one of them.
Iran is pursuing the same course today. It is negotiating the opening of the
Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a ceasefire and may yet sacrifice one of its
instruments so that the project and its remaining instruments stay beyond the
reach of negotiation. There is a fundamental difference between negotiating with
Iran to improve its conduct in each of these files separately and negotiating an
end to its project.Any party negotiating with Iran must keep the whole picture
in view. Nothing will change if Iran improves its conduct with respect to one
instrument of the project while strengthening the others. The restoration of the
national state, with weapons confined to its hands, in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen
is no less grave a file than the nuclear one, and no less grave than the
persisting intent to use missiles and drones against the infrastructure of Arab
states. All fall under a single Iranian heading: "the Iranian project."
The Future of Yemen… Tied to the Fate of Iran!
Khairallah Khairallah / Al-Arab/November 10, 2026
(Translated by AI from Arabic)
Discussing the future of Yemen is futile as long as it remains unclear whether
the United States has decided to wage another war against Iran—one that would
put it firmly in its proper place.
Yemen is sinking deeper than ever into its crises, particularly following the
loss of control by the "legitimate" government over the city of Taiz, in the
center of the country. There is no indication that the "legitimate" government
in Yemen possesses the military capacity required to defeat the Houthis (the
Ansar Allah group) or to engage them in a battle for Sanaa. Instead of besieging
Sanaa, it is Taiz that has become besieged. Anyone who examines the map of Yemen
and studies its details will grasp the strategic importance of this city—a
densely populated urban center with a vital strategic location in several
respects. This includes the historical relationship between Taiz and Aden, whose
port—at one point, prior to the 1967 war—was the third most important port in
the world.
What is alarming is that the situation in Yemen—which poses a threat to every
Gulf state—has become inextricably linked to the "Islamic Republic" of Iran and
the future of its regime. Nothing in Yemen will change for the better as long as
nothing changes in Iran. Much will depend on whether the United States intends
to deliver a "crushing" blow to Iran. The coming days will be of critical
importance, as they will reveal whether the Donald Trump administration intends
to strike a deal with Iran or, conversely, to wage a new war against it. On the
sidelines of the ongoing battle in Taiz—a conflict waged by Iran in Yemen to
consolidate its control over the country—it is crucial to note the advances made
by the "Ansar Allah" group (the Houthis) throughout the governorate. They have
reached Al-Maqatirah, located no more than 80 kilometers from Aden. Anyone
familiar with the terrain between Taiz and Aden understands that a Houthi
presence in Taiz and its surrounding areas effectively opens the gateway to
Aden, the capital of southern Yemen.
Strikingly, while advancing on the ground, the Houthis continue their assaults
against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—a nation that previously sought a political
settlement in Yemen that would have included them. The current situation in
Yemen should not be underestimated, especially following the Houthis' entry into
the city of Mocha a few weeks ago, which forced the withdrawal of forces led by
Tariq Mohammed Abdullah Saleh. These forces, backed by the United Arab Emirates,
failed to receive sufficient support from other units affiliated with the
"legitimate" government—units that were positioned in the mountains overlooking
Mocha. Suddenly, long-standing internal Yemeni tensions resurfaced, including
the hostility of the Muslim Brotherhood, who were expected to come to the aid of
Tariq Saleh’s forces in Mocha. Instead, the Brotherhood’s militias refrained
from providing cover for forces that were ostensibly part of the "legitimate"
government’s camp. The reality on the ground is that the "legitimate" government
has been unable to reorganize itself at any level—including militarily—ever
since the Presidential Leadership Council, chaired by Dr. Rashad al-Alimi, was
formed in 2022. It is always worth recalling that the Houthis in Yemen seized
control of Sanaa on September 21, 2014. The "legitimate" government has never
managed to advance even an inch toward Sanaa. Had it not been for the efforts of
a specific regional power following the fall of Sanaa, the Houthis would likely
still be in Aden. They were driven out of Aden, just as they were expelled from
the port of Mocha. Yet, the possibility of their return to Aden remains on the
table—especially given that the current Iranian strategy involves avoiding
provocation toward the southerners, opting instead to remain within the pre-1990
borders that once separated the North from the South. The outcome of the battle
for Taiz will reveal whether the Houthis intend to expand their territorial
control southward, or if their primary objective is to gain command over the Bab
al-Mandab Strait—part of an Iranian strategy that links Bab al-Mandab to the
Strait of Hormuz. In any case, one cannot ignore the urgent need to restore
cohesion within the ranks of the "legitimate" government to revitalize it. This
cannot be achieved without a regional consensus that accounts for the negative
role played by the Muslim Brotherhood—through their militias—in supporting the
Houthis, whether directly or indirectly.
A crucial question arises now that the Houthis have established a presence in
Taiz, threatening the entire city and its surrounding mountains: are they
capable of governing a modern state in a region currently navigating a highly
sensitive phase? There is no evidence to suggest that the Houthis possess the
ability to manage state institutions. They offer no economic vision, no
development agenda, and no educational programs—other than grooming adolescents
for suicide in service of an Iranian expansionist project that shows no signs of
a viable future. A more profound question concerns the future of Yemen: is it
even possible to reconstruct a country that has become so fragmented? One cannot
escape the reality that Yemeni unity has come to an end. Likewise, the dream of
restoring the former southern state has also vanished; that state had
effectively collapsed long before the unification in May 1990. The experience of
South Yemen since its independence in 1967 demonstrated that the entity was not
sustainable. Between 1967 and the 1990 unification, South Yemen endured a series
of internal conflicts, eventually leading to a union with the North—a union
that, in turn, dissolved following the departure of Ali Abdullah Saleh from
power in February 2012. At some point, it will be necessary to discuss Yemen’s
future; yet, such a discussion will be of little value until it becomes clear
whether the United States intends to engage in another conflict with Iran—one
that would finally put Iran in its proper place.
Ultimately, the situation in Yemen will not change without a transformation
within Iran itself—especially given that the Yemenis have proven unable to
confront an ideologically driven organization that does not hesitate to send
teenagers to their deaths to serve Iran’s regional agenda.
Dismantling the Houthi Militia Networks Is an Int’l
Responsibility
Yousef Al-Dayni/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
Throughout years of confrontation with the terrorist Houthi militia, analysts
have remained fixated on the group's slogans, its ideological ties to Iran, and
its regional rhetoric. Yet, understanding its ability to survive and expand
demands tracing its entire life cycle from its inception as an isolated local
movement to its capture of state institutions and resources. It requires
tracking of its financial pipelines, arms supply lines, how it maintains its
ties with tribes, merchants, and brokers, and ability to regenerate whenever a
vital artery is cut. The militia began as a movement within a social and
religious network in Saada, later consolidating its presence through
intermarriage, mediation, and alliances with tribal figures. Throughout its wars
with the Yemeni state, the group accumulated military experience and local
relationships that provided it with the capacity to recruit and mobilize.
The turning point came with its seizure of Sanaa in September 2014, when it laid
hands on state institutions, resources, security, and the networks that the
state had previously utilized to manage its relations with society and the
tribes. These resources allowed the militia to build an influence system
combining coercion with the distribution of benefits.
As well as appointing supervisors and subjugating tribal elders, cooperative
figures were granted positions, revenues, and commercial opportunities. Over
time, the militia's relationship with a number of its allies became tied to the
continuity of these interests, making its capacity to finance its networks an
essential component of its ability to govern. In a research paper published by a
think tank specializing in sub-state entities, researcher Michael Horton
examines the pressures facing the Houthi militia’s tribal alliances. These
strains are driven by dwindling resources, expanded tax levies, property
confiscations, and a growing disparity between the wealth accumulated by militia
leaders and the resources reaching their tribal base. However, the erosion of
these relationships does not imply their automatic collapse. The militia has
developed security apparatuses capable of monitoring society and punishing
dissidents. Furthermore, many local figures weigh their choices in light of the
militia's capacity to retaliate and the presence of a trustworthy alternative.
The militia's life cycle extends beyond Yemen to regional and international
networks that have become integral to its economy and military capacity. Oil and
fuel generate revenues, which in turn finance intermediaries and procurements.
Shipping and money exchange companies facilitate the transfer of funds and
goods, while weapon components arrive through various commercial ties and
smuggling routes. A key paper by researchers Kevin Mazur and Peter Salisbury,
published in September 2026 under a joint program of the British Academy and the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, provides a picture of these networks
through the case of oil trader Said al-Jamal, who was sanctioned by the US
Treasury for his connection to financing the Houthi militia. The paper traces
links among the Iranian oil trade, Chinese markets, shipping and remittance
companies, and intermediaries, illustrating how parts of the network are
reorganized when affiliated individuals or companies are targeted.
The international community's failure to deal with the militia, as well as
positioning it as a negotiable political entity, has contributed to prolonging
the Yemeni crisis and granted it the time to develop its capabilities and expand
its networks. The militia has treated negotiations as an opportunity to regroup
and consolidate its control, while continuing to target Yemenis and threaten
regional security and international navigation.
This experience has proven that any political effort that does not place the
dismantling of the militia's military and financial capabilities among its
priorities will leave it with the necessary means to maintain its influence and
undermine the prospects of restoring the Yemeni state.
Iranian support was decisive in the development of the militia's capabilities,
ranging from providing weapons and experts to transferring the knowledge
necessary to procure components and assemble certain systems inside Yemen. This
transfer has enabled the militia to build its own networks, while maintaining
its dependence on foreign sources for critical components and capabilities.
Therefore, while applying pressure on Iran remains a component of the
confrontation, it does not replace the need to track the networks that emerged
around Iranian support and extended beyond it.
Those familiar with the life cycle of militant organizations recognize that the
starting point for a solution lies in dismantling them and dissecting their
means of survival. This requires establishing a precise blueprint of their
financial and commercial networks, pursuing intermediaries, and entities that
facilitate the transfer of funds and components through cooperation among the
Yemeni government, regional states, and international partners. This effort
includes strengthening oversight on the movement of dual-use goods, tracking the
subsequent impact of sanctions once imposed, and exchanging intelligence that
links financing and shipping to the end beneficiary.
Inside Yemen, the success of this approach hinges on the presence of state
institutions better capable of managing resources, protecting local communities,
and absorbing figures who no longer wish to remain within the militia’s network.
Tribes, merchants, and public sector employees navigate existing balances of
power, and their calculations shift when they see an authority capable of
providing security, employment opportunities, and protecting their rights.
Dismantling these networks requires a more coordinated international effort,
particularly in tracking complex financial pathways that pass through front
companies, trade intermediaries, exchange networks, and cryptocurrencies. The
effectiveness of sanctions depends on the exchange of information between
financial institutions and regulatory bodies, monitoring the cross-border
movement of funds and goods, and uncovering the ultimate beneficiaries, while
simultaneously monitoring alternative companies and pathways that emerge after
each enforcement measure.
The life cycle of the terrorist Houthi militia reveals a long trajectory of
accumulating alliances, resources, and expertise. Countering it effectively
demands dismantling this path link by link and depriving the group of the
ability to regenerate its networks, while also building a Yemeni state that
restores its institutions and the trust of its citizens.
The Half-Life of Self-Flattery
Khalid Al-Bari/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
The most dangerous form of flattery is excessive self-admiration. It carries all
the risks of having others flatter you, with one added danger: you take it with
you everywhere, and it becomes a substitute for your eyes and ears.
Yet those excessively enamored with themselves are not content with their own
self-flattery. They seek an equivalent measure of admiration in the eyes of
others. When they fail to find it, they assume they are not receiving the
recognition they deserve. Sometimes, this drives them to prove themselves,
turning into an engine of ambition. At other times, it becomes a source of
aggression toward those whose eyes are apparently too clouded to see their
greatness and uniqueness. They can find no explanation for such behavior other
than that these people are either conspiring against them or simply ignorant.
This can have serious consequences when the person in question is a political
leader, for example. But it does not necessarily spell failure.
When, then, does a leader's self-admiration cease to be a potential problem and
become an obstacle to continued success?
When a political leader assumes that others hold him in the same high regard in
which he holds himself, this trait turns from a problem into a calamity. It
clouds the possibility of self-correction and creates recurring patterns of
failure. It reduces political life to empty rhetoric and decision-making to an
exercise in futility. It separates the leader from the public behind a glass
wall, through which he sees only his own reflection. Every decision is a
triumph. Its quality derives from his own excellence, its brilliance from his
own brilliance. Whether it is accepted depends on the public's regard for him,
not on its actual results. A leader who thinks this way will not be moved by
criticism to test or reconsider a decision. In a democracy, this is a world of
delusion; in an autocracy, it is a vicious cycle with no end in sight.
Such a leader often begins his career surrounded by a circle of talented people
who help him succeed. But once in power, he declares that he owes his success to
no one. Then, one by one, the talented people around him disappear: some are
pushed out, others walk away, and still others are gradually stripped of their
individuality. He is eventually left with people who feed off his power rather
than contribute to it through their abilities. This is a downward spiral that
sooner or later ends in administrative failure in a democracy, or the failure of
the country itself under autocratic rule.
Those who monopolize credit soon come to monopolize knowledge as well. They
imagine they know more than the experts and understand more than the
specialists. Their interference in every minor and major matter is not merely a
management problem, a case of excessive micromanagement. It stems from a deeper
conviction about the source of success and where it comes from: the belief that
they themselves are the model to be replicated in every position.
What remains hidden in the biographies of leaders is their psychological makeup
and emotional culture. It is relatively easy to provide politicians with the
highest standards of medical care. Far harder is to cultivate in them an
aversion to the maladies of the human psyche, and an understanding of the
practical value and tangible benefits of avoiding them. Excessive
self-admiration comes in degrees, which makes it tempting to tolerate it in the
hope that it may be a character flaw in a political leader without necessarily
becoming a liability for the rest of us. Intelligent leaders, meanwhile, learn
to conceal it, sometimes by playing the role of the people's hero, sometimes by
performing humility. Yet it continues to reveal itself in every decision and
every policy.
On the Dangers of Remaining Hostage to Grey Policies
Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/2026
All indicators suggest the region is on the precipice of a wide-scale war that
will compound losses and tragedies. The Americans have tightened the naval
blockade, initiated steps to impose a land blockade and close the Caspian Sea,
and resumed the destruction of air defenses established by Tehran in areas
overlooking the Arabian Gulf. Meanwhile, successive statements from Iran declare
full readiness, reiterating threats attributed to the "hidden" supreme leader
about an "unrestricted geographic response," and asserting that the coordinated
"unity of fronts" will "reshape the political and security architecture of West
Asia!" Against the backdrop of diplomatic initiatives failing to achieve any
breakthrough, a full-scale war may reflect an American vision that views
conflict as an inevitable path to secure President Trump's political legacy by
consolidating gains. The foundation of these gains is the structural overhaul
triggered by the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation in Gaza, the "support" wars in Lebanon,
and the emergence of a new Syria, which effectively dismantled what was once the
crown jewel of the Persian Crescent. Concurrently, at the apex of the mullahs'
regime, there remains an inability to read the dimensions of field realities or
to absorb the lessons of the past three years following the Al-Aqsa Flood;
instead, they believe the Iranian expansionist project is ascendant and on the
verge of establishing political regimes orbiting its sphere of influence!
Amid this landscape, what is expected for Lebanon? What is the fate of the
opportunity that revived hopes for the establishment of a capable sovereign
state? These hopes were launched by the formation of a new administration 22
months ago, driven by the implementation of an agenda set by the November 2024
ceasefire agreement, centered on dismantling illicit weapons after the agreement
included Hezbollah's consent to relinquish its arsenal.
This opportunity was renewed a second time with the "Framework Agreement," which
rested on a "land-for-weapons" formula. Under this setup, Israel committed to
redeploying outside Lebanese borders, restoring sovereignty and dismantling the
security belt project. However, the non-negotiable prerequisite remains full
disarmament and the complete dismantling of the parallel military, security,
financial, educational, and social infrastructures that enabled the mini-state
to systematically encroach upon the state. From the presidential oath of office
and the ministerial statement to the August 5, 2025, directives restricting arms
control, followed by the March 2, 2026, decree banning Hezbollah's military and
security activities, the government has consistently maintained that Lebanon's
resurgence and the restoration of its sovereignty hinge on a single voice, a
single weapon, and a single army, with the authority over war and peace resting
solely with the state. Domestically, the public wagered on the implementation of
these mandates, banking on the premise that no force stands above state
legitimacy. Externally, Lebanon's regional allies and international friends
awaited concrete operational steps. Ultimately, however, the results failed to
live up to those towering expectations.
Beirut has been repeatedly notified of the need to move past mere declarations
of intent and establish an implementation roadmap that can be executed in
phases. No internal or external actor has called for waging a violent
confrontation, particularly given that unlawful forces lack the actual capacity
to drag the country into a civil war. Instead, demands have centered on the need
to kick off steps to assert effective territorial control, both in towns not
subject to Israeli occupation, as well as in the capital, Beirut, and other
Lebanese regions.
Such a trajectory would secure the borders and prevent the transport or storage
of weapons - a move that would confine arms to legitimate state forces,
therefore leading to the end of the Israeli occupation on one hand, and the
termination of Iranian influence on the other. This remains the core of the
Framework Agreement, in which the US is a partner. On the eve of the US midterm
elections, the administration was well aware that the results would not alter
the priority of disarmament - an arsenal that failed the test of defending its
holders, invited occupation once again, and brought the greatest catastrophe
upon southern Lebanese. It became clear that achieving this is the path that
will prevent Hezbollah from dragging Lebanon into a new "support" war for Iran.
Here, it is worth noting that the "unity of fronts," which the statement
attributed to the supreme leader referred to, aims in essence to defend Iran's
investment in its proxies. In the face of excessive adherence to wait-and-see
policies, the "Friends of Lebanon" appeal was issued by the embassies of
Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, and Japan, carrying notable messages
regarding the international approach to the issues of arms control and
sovereignty. While the statement commended the government's official stance on
sovereignty, it demanded a practical roadmap to translate rhetoric into action.
It called on the entire political establishment, including parliament and
political parties, to abandon the sidelines and adopt unequivocal positions to
build a broad consensus around confining weapons to the state to demonstrate
true capacity to implement these decisions.
Crucially, the appeal coincided with a precise statement by US Secretary of
State Marco Rubio, in which he indicated that Washington entered the mediation
track on the condition of disarmament.
Waiting is dangerous, and even more dangerous are the same grey policies. While
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has asserted that "the necessary condition
for the state to restore its role, and indeed its existence, is by extending its
authority over its entire territory through its own forces," and that "there is
no sustainable stability without sustainable security," what is truly needed now
is a tangible, operational shift on the ground. At the very least, such action
must address the mounting grievances of citizens from within the Shiite
community itself, who flatly refuse to allow southern Lebanon to serve as a
geographical safety valve for Iran's failures or a mere card in the calculations
of regional conflict.
The Left and Political Islam: An Alliance of Interests and
a Contradiction of Principles
Dr. Wissam Raji / Nidaa Al-Watan / November 11, 2026
(Translated by AI from Arabic)
The political rise of Abdulrahman Al-Sayed in the United States raises questions
that go beyond his personal background and religious affiliation. It touches on
a growing political and intellectual phenomenon within Western societies: the
rapprochement between progressive left-wing movements and certain forces
associated with political Islam. At first glance, this
rapprochement appears to be a contradiction that is difficult to explain. The
Western left, which has built a substantial part of its identity on secularism,
individual freedoms, equality, and the separation of religion from the state,
now finds itself entering political alliances with movements rooted in
conservative religious beliefs. In many of their experiences, these movements
embrace a different understanding of the nature of the state, society, the
source of legislation, and the exercise of authority.
How can forces that fundamentally disagree about the individual, society, and
the state come together in a single political project? Are we witnessing a
genuine intellectual shift in their positions, or merely a temporary alliance
driven by electoral and political interests?
The answer may lie less in ideology than in interests. History teaches us that a
common enemy can bring together even the most contradictory forces, but it does
not guarantee that their alliance will survive when the balance of power changes
or one of them takes control of the state.
Iran: When the Revolution Devoured Its Allies
The 1979 Iranian Revolution provides one of the most significant historical
examples worth examining. Islamic, communist, liberal, nationalist, and secular
forces came together in opposition to the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Despite the profound contradictions between their ideological projects, these
forces managed to overcome their differences under the banner of overthrowing
the monarchy and confronting Western influence.
The communist Tudeh Party was among the most prominent forces supporting
Ayatollah Khomeini. It believed that the Islamic Revolution represented an
extension of the struggle against imperialism and that cooperation with the new
religious leadership could pave the way for a more just political and social
system.
However, what happened after the revolution's victory exposed the limits of this
expectation. As the Islamic Republic consolidated its power, it began
eliminating competing political forces, eventually arresting Tudeh Party leaders
and banning the party in 1983.
Thus, the communists who had helped support the revolution found themselves
victims of the very regime on which they had placed their hopes.
The problem was not simply a political disagreement between former allies. It
was a fundamental difference in their understanding of the state, authority, and
political pluralism. The left had imagined that overthrowing the Shah would open
the door to a pluralistic political system. Instead, it encountered a religious
project with a completely different understanding of the source of legitimacy
and the limits of political opposition.
Lebanon: From Wartime Alliances to the Monopoly of Resistance
Lebanon offers another experience in this context.
When the Lebanese Civil War erupted in 1975, the Lebanese National Movement
brought together leftist, socialist, and Arab nationalist forces, alongside
Islamic parties and movements and Palestinian factions.
These forces did not share a unified vision of the nature or political and
social identity of the Lebanese state. However, they came together around
temporary objectives, most notably changing the domestic balance of power and
confronting what was then known as the Lebanese Christian right.
The transformations Lebanon experienced in the early 1980s, particularly
following the Israeli invasion of 1982 and the emergence of Hezbollah with
Iranian support, reshaped the political and military landscape.
Leftist parties, particularly the Lebanese Communist Party and the forces of the
Lebanese National Resistance Front, were among the first organizations to engage
in armed confrontations against Israel.
However, Hezbollah's rise was gradually accompanied by the decline and
marginalization of these forces. At certain stages, this process led to armed
confrontations and clashes, particularly in southern Lebanon.
Over time, Hezbollah managed to establish itself as the dominant force and
promote a political narrative that almost entirely identified the concept of
resistance with its own experience, at the expense of the long history of
national and leftist resistance that preceded it.
This does not mean that the Iranian and Lebanese experiences are identical, or
that all Islamic movements follow the same path. However, it demonstrates that
alliances built around confronting a common enemy may conceal profound
contradictions that only become visible when the balance of power changes.
Political Islam: Between Rhetoric and Objectives
These experiences raise a question that goes beyond history and concerns the
very nature of political activity: Can an ideological movement adopt political
rhetoric suited to the environment in which it operates without abandoning its
original ideological project?
Within Islamic tradition, the concepts of taqiyya and tawriya are prominent,
each with its own religious and historical context.
Traditionally, taqiyya has been associated with concealing one's beliefs under
circumstances of danger and persecution, while tawriya involves using an
expression that can carry more than one meaning.
It would be incorrect to reduce these two concepts to political deception or to
consider them evidence of the conduct of all Islamic movements.
Nevertheless, the broader debate remains legitimate: Can ideological movements
separate their temporary political rhetoric from their long-term objectives?
This issue is not exclusive to political Islam. History has witnessed
nationalist, communist, and revolutionary movements that used democratic
institutions to gain power, only to seek to restrict political pluralism once
they became capable of imposing their own projects.
The real criterion, therefore, is not a movement's religious or ideological
identity, but its actual attitude toward democracy as a permanent system for the
peaceful transfer of power, rather than merely a means of reaching it.
Do these movements accept pluralism when they become powerful? Do they recognize
their opponents' right to govern? Do they respect judicial independence, freedom
of expression, and the rights of citizens who do not share their convictions?
These questions are far more important than the slogans political parties raise
during election campaigns.
The Western Paradox: Why Does the Left Ally Itself with Political Islam?
In the West, a substantial part of this rapprochement stems from the belief that
Muslims constitute a religious and cultural minority deserving protection
against discrimination and exclusion.
This principle is legitimate in itself. Defending citizens' rights and equality
before the law is one of the foundations of a democratic state.
The problem begins, however, when defending the rights of the Muslim minority
turns into an uncritical political rapprochement with organizations or
individuals whose ideological foundations are connected to political Islam.
There is a fundamental difference between defending a Muslim's freedom to
practice his or her religion and endorsing a political project that seeks to
give religious authority a role in legislation and government.
For the left, such an alliance can expand its electoral base and strengthen its
presence among minorities and immigrant communities.
For conservative Islamic forces, it can provide political and institutional
legitimacy and open the door to participation in and influence over public
decision-making.
This raises an important question: Are the two sides united by a common
intellectual project, or are they simply pursuing overlapping interests in
confronting the conservative right and rising nationalist forces in the West?
Disagreements over state secularism, freedom of belief, women's rights, equality
among citizens, and freedom of expression do not disappear simply because both
sides agree to oppose the same political adversary.
Even more concerning is the possibility that this rapprochement could develop
into a form of political immunity, whereby questioning certain individuals or
organizations about their ideas and previous positions is automatically
interpreted as hostility toward a particular religion or culture.
True equality requires that all political forces be held to the same standards,
regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds.
Abdulrahman Al-Sayed and the Egyptian Question
In this context, the rise of Abdulrahman Al-Sayed takes on particular
significance.
Born in Michigan to parents of Egyptian origin, Al-Sayed has presented himself
in American political life as a progressive figure who advocates social justice,
civil liberties, minority rights, and opposition to discrimination and
authoritarianism.
On various occasions, he has expressed support for personal freedoms and
equality, including social issues that remain controversial within conservative
communities.
However, the question raised here does not concern his right to hold these
positions. Rather, it concerns how consistent they are with his views on
political and social conditions outside the United States, particularly in
Egypt, the country of his family's origins.
If individual freedom and human rights are universal principles, their value
should not change depending on the society or political system in question.
Al-Sayed has criticized military rule in Egypt and opposed American support for
authoritarian regimes. These positions are consistent with the democratic
rhetoric he embraces.
But does this criticism also extend to violations committed by regimes or forces
rooted in Islamic ideological frameworks?
Does he defend civil liberties, minority rights, and judicial independence with
the same clarity when political authority is in the hands of a religious
movement?
These are legitimate questions to address to any politician who claims to defend
democracy and human rights.
These questions become even more important when we look back at the period of
former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In November 2012, Morsi issued a constitutional declaration granting his
decisions immunity from judicial review, triggering widespread opposition across
Egypt.
His opponents, including liberals, secularists, and civil society forces,
considered this measure a threat to the principle of separation of powers and an
opening for concentrating authority in the hands of an elected president.
On November 25 of that year, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram published a
statement signed by 46 Americans of Egyptian origin expressing their support for
Morsi's recent decisions.
Among the names appearing in the statement was Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Sayed,
identified as a resident of New York.
The statement defended Morsi's exceptional measures, called for the removal of
individuals associated with the former regime from certain state institutions,
and rejected Western interference against the elected president.
Nevertheless, this position deserves examination because it raises a fundamental
question.
Al-Sayed had criticized similar practices during the Mubarak era.
Opposing military rule is a legitimate democratic position, just as rejecting a
coup against an elected president can be based on clear constitutional
principles.
However, consistency also requires rejecting abuses of power when they are
committed by an elected president belonging to a political movement that enjoys
one's support.
The question here is not whether Morsi was better or worse than his opponents,
but whether democratic principles are applied according to the same standards to
all political parties.
The American Democratic Party and Its Identity Crisis
This phenomenon cannot be understood without considering the profound
transformations that the American Democratic Party has undergone over recent
decades.
According to the Gallup organization, the percentage of Democrats who describe
themselves as liberal increased from 25% in 1994 to 55% in 2024, while the
percentage identifying as moderates declined from 48% to 34%.
This transformation was accompanied by an increasing emphasis on issues of
identity, diversity, and social and cultural equality, reshaping the party's
priorities and its image among voters.
However, this direction has also generated growing debate about the party's
ability to appeal to more socially conservative segments of the population and
about the kind of political leadership it can offer.
In an article published by The New York Times on October 31, 2026, entitled "The
Masculinity Crisis in the Democratic Party," writer Mike Mariani examined the
difficulties facing the party in dealing with the appeal of the forceful
political rhetoric that has become associated with the American right in recent
years.
A 2026 poll conducted by The Washington Post in cooperation with Ipsos found
that 27% of Americans believe the Democratic Party views traditionally masculine
men negatively, while only 5% of respondents personally expressed negative
attitudes toward such men.
These findings reflect a crisis in the party's political image.
A party seeking to present itself as the defender of diversity finds itself
facing the challenge of attracting voters who also seek strong, decisive, and
confident leadership.
From this perspective, Abdulrahman Al-Sayed represents an interesting example.
He combines progressive social rhetoric with an assertive political personality
that does not hesitate to confront opponents in direct and competitive language.
This combination may be one of the elements behind his appeal within a political
environment searching for leaders capable of combining progressive values with
an image of strength and self-confidence.
However, the deeper significance of this phenomenon is not limited to leadership
style. It concerns whether the Democratic Party is redefining its alliances on
the basis of clear ideological principles or simply assembling different social
and cultural forces under a single electoral umbrella.
Political diversity can be a source of strength when it is based on respect for
shared rules. However, it can become a source of contradiction when the
ideological projects of allied groups conflict over the nature of the state, the
limits of freedom, and the meaning of citizenship.
Distinguishing between Islam as a religion and political Islam as a project for
governing the state is essential to this debate.
Muslims in the West are not a single political bloc, and their intellectual and
social diversity must not be reduced to organizations that claim to speak in the
name of political Islam.
Likewise, the participation of a Muslim citizen in political life, or that
person's rise to a high public office, does not in itself mean that he or she
represents an Islamic political project.
At the same time, religious identity should not become a reason to prevent
critical discussion of the political positions, ideological alliances, or
historical records of any public figure.
Defending genuine pluralism requires recognizing the right of all citizens to
participate in political life while holding everyone to the same democratic
standards.
This applies to the left just as much as it applies to political Islam.
The left, which advocates a secular state and individual freedoms, must explain
its alliances with forces that may hold a different vision of the relationship
between religion and the state.
Likewise, Islamic movements that declare their commitment to democracy must
demonstrate that this commitment does not end once they gain power, and that
they are prepared to respect their opponents' right to govern, institutional
independence, and freedom of disagreement.
Political forces do not necessarily share a coherent democratic vision simply
because they agree on opposing the right, authoritarianism, or foreign
influence.
A common opposition does not necessarily mean a common vision of governance.
The Lesson We Have Failed to Learn from History
Over recent decades, the Middle East has witnessed numerous alliances built on
the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," only to end in
conflicts between forces that had once stood together in the same trenches.
From Iran to Lebanon, and from the experiences of nationalist and leftist
movements to the rise of political Islam, the same lesson repeatedly emerges in
different forms: temporary interests can postpone ideological contradictions,
but they cannot eliminate them.
Today, as the West witnesses growing rapprochement between progressive movements
and conservative religious forces, it is essential to revisit these historical
experiences, not to pass premature judgments, but to understand the risks that
arise when political calculations take precedence over clarity of principles.
The problem is not that the left forms alliances with Muslims, nor that people
with religious convictions participate in democratic life.
The problem begins when open discussion about the nature of the state, freedoms,
and pluralism is replaced by electoral alliances that avoid confronting the
fundamental contradictions between their partners.
The rise of figures such as Abdulrahman Al-Sayed should open a debate that goes
beyond celebrating religious or cultural representation and addresses the more
important question: What kind of political project do these figures represent?
And how consistent are their positions with the principles they claim to defend?
Democracy is not measured solely by the ability of political forces to
gain power, but by their willingness to abide by democratic rules when power is
in their hands.
History teaches us that the most dangerous alliances are not necessarily those
that bring together ideological opponents, but those that ignore their
fundamental contradictions under the mistaken belief that shared interests are
sufficient to guarantee a shared destiny.
Selected Face Book & X tweets
on November 10/2026
Gadi Eisenkot - גדי
איזנקוט@gadi_eisenkot
I sat and listened to the outgoing prime minister’s delusional, divisive,
hateful and disgraceful speech, in which he abused a state occasion at the
swearing-in of the 26th Knesset.
I became even more convinced that he is unfit to remain in office for even one
more minute.
We must act urgently to establish a national emergency government. His continued
rule is dividing Israel and endangering its security. @yairlapid @YairGolan1
@AvigdorLiberman @naftalibennett
- this is on us.
toni mrad
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Lebanon
Why would we negotiate Lebanon with Iran? What does Iran have to do with
Lebanon? I mean they can claim whatever they want, but Lebanon is its own
country.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
This is the most naive Middle East plan I’ve ever read. Work with
Turkey and Qatar to pressure Hamas? They are Hamas’s parents. Then a 23-state
solution—unexplained to their audience—meaning adding Israel to the 22-member
Arab League. Do they know the Arab League opens sessions by reciting the Quran?
They want Israel in the Arab League?
Iraq and Libya oppose the two-state solution; Yemen and Sudan are stateless;
Lebanon can’t sign peace while Hezbollah remains; Somalia won’t if Israel
recognizes Somaliland; Djibouti doesn’t care; and Mauritania will pursue
bilateral peace.
JStreet is clueless about the Arab states and their league, yet demands U.S.
policy based on their la-la-land ideas.
Quote
Ilan Goldenberg
Today J Street is releasing our policy agenda, which we hope can be embraced by
the incoming U.S. Congress, primary candidates, and ultimately the next
President of the United States. Our hope is that this eventually becomes the new
consensus around U.S policy towards the
Gadi Eisenkot - גדי איזנקוט
I have reached an agreement with my partners, the leaders of the change and
reform parties—Naftali Bennett, Yair Golan, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yair Lapid—on
the prospective candidates for key positions in the 26th Knesset during the
government-formation period.
As part of the agreement, we have agreed on the candidates for the following
positions:
* Speaker of the Knesset—former minister and incoming MK Matan Kahana
* Chair of the House Committee—incoming MK Roi Folkman
* Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee—former defense minister and
MK Avigdor Lieberman
* Chair of the Finance Committee—incoming MK Liran Avisar Ben-Horin
The committee rosters will be discussed and finalized during the House
Committee’s deliberations this week and submitted for approval by the Knesset
plenum next Wednesday.
In addition, we have agreed on the establishment of the special committees, and
details will be published separately at a later date.
אביגדור ליברמן@AvigdorLiberman
I congratulate the people of Israel on the swearing-in of the 26th Knesset, in
which 46 new members of Knesset will serve, alongside broad representation of
women.
I hope we can form a stable government for the next four years as soon as
possible.
I want to remind everyone of the pledges "Yisrael Beiteinu" made during the
election campaign:
1. An end to the Netanyahu era.
2. We will not agree to a minority government that relies on abstentions by
Ra'am and the Joint List.
3. We will not sit in a coalition with Shas and United Torah Judaism.
I was clear and unequivocal about these three issues, and everyone who voted for
"Yisrael Beiteinu" knew full well whom they were voting for and what they were
voting for.
I had hoped the change bloc would reach a majority of at least 61 seats, but the
voters decided otherwise. We therefore had to redefine our goals and priorities.
It was clear that, to prevent another election, we had to show flexibility and a
willingness to compromise.
As far as I am concerned, the boundaries are very clear:
1. Put an end to the Netanyahu era.
2. Prevent another election.
3. Do not form a minority government that relies on Ra'am and the Joint List.
To achieve these goals, we had to compromise. But compromise is not a reversal
of promises, nor is it an abandonment of values and principles.
During the election campaign, we presented a maximalist model for the
conscription law, believing that an absolute majority of the public supported
this bill.
But the political reality that emerged was different from what we had hoped for.
Therefore, in the new reality, we will work to advance a normative model—that
is, a bill that will stand up to scrutiny by the High Court of Justice.
At the same time, we will continue to work with all our strength for those
serving—regular soldiers, reservists and career soldiers.
The sheer number of lies, fabrications and inventions I have heard lately about
me and "Yisrael Beiteinu" is simply a new Israeli record.
I want to make this absolutely clear: there are no contacts whatsoever between
me and the ultra-Orthodox parties, and there certainly were no such contacts
before the election.
All the reports about various go-betweens, particularly Moshe Leon and Avi
Abuhatzeira, are complete fabrications. The two did not act as intermediaries,
not directly, not indirectly and not even telepathically. I am not a candidate
for prime minister. We supported Gadi Eisenkot, we recommended him at the
President's Residence, and now he is leading the coalition negotiations, with me
standing by his side. If he asks for my help, I am available to him 24/7.
What I do want to emphasize in this context is that the question of a national
unity government is up to Gadi. If that is what he wants, his wish is his
command, but I will not be there.
Just as I will not support a minority government, I will not support any
government in which Netanyahu is a part. With Likud, without Netanyahu, I have
no problem whatsoever.
I have already made it clear that I am not asking for a rotation or a mutation
for myself.
On the arrangements in the Knesset as well, I made my priorities clear before
the election: first, replacing the Speaker of the Knesset, electing a State
Comptroller and passing a law limiting the prime minister to two terms.
Immediately afterward, addressing the judicial coup laws.
As for establishing a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 massacre,
that will be the government's first decision, exactly as I promised before the
election.
Finally, each of the leaders of the change bloc has his own political worldview.
Sometimes these are completely different approaches, but we are all mature,
responsible people working for the good of the State of Israel.
I am therefore confident that we can form a stable government for the next four
years that will put the State of Israel back on the right track. A government
that will know how to overcome the divisions and cracks in Israeli society and
restore Israel's international standing in the world.
ynet עדכוני@ynetalerts
The message the Change Bloc received from Mansour Abbas: "I will recognize Hamas
as a terrorist organization in exchange for a partnership"
Exclusive: Figures in the Change Bloc are holding intensive talks with Ra'am to
move Abbas toward a historic statement. An agreement has now been reached on his
part: I will recognize the terrorist organization, but I want a genuine
partnership. Yair Golan confirmed the report: "I don't think this is an obstacle
for him. There will be negotiations." The party's incoming MK made it clear:
"Hamas is not a charity organization"
·
Dr Ahmed Joktan converts to Christianity and he shared a
powerful message
Ghana Gospel Songs
Dr. Ahmed Joktan, a Saudi-born medical doctor and Christian evangelist, has
shared his remarkable journey from growing up in a deeply religious Muslim
family in Mecca to becoming a follower of Jesus Christ.
according to his testimony, his father was a respected Islamic scholar, and he
memorised the entire Quran by the age of 13.
Joktan explained that his upbringing was influenced by strict religious
teachings and extremist beliefs, but his life took a different direction after
an encounter with Christians in New Zealand.
he claimed that a dream involving Jesus Christ played a significant role in his
decision to embrace Christianity.
however, his conversion came with serious personal consequences.
in an October 2026 interview with The Christian Post, Joktan recounted
experiencing rejection from his family and violent attacks because of his
decision to follow Jesus.
“the cost of believing in Jesus is real,” he said, claiming that the attacks
left him with permanent scars and the loss of 13 teeth.
despite these experiences, the evangelist maintained that he has never regretted
becoming a Christian.
today, through Mecca to Christ Ministries, Joktan shares his testimony and
encourages Christians to communicate their faith to Muslims with confidence and
compassion.
his story reflects his belief in the transforming power of Jesus Christ and the
importance of remaining faithful despite opposition.
Glory be to God
Farai Mazhindu
Raffia Arshad becomes the UK's first female Muslim judge to wear a hijab.
And the UK celebrates it as progress.
A judge is supposed to be blind. Blind to religion. Blind to politics. Blind to
tribe. Blind to personal belief. That is why they wear a wig. That is why they
wear a robe. To say: I am not a person today. I am the law. Now you put a
religious symbol on the bench and tell people to believe it doesn't matter. It
always matters.If a Christian judge walked in wearing a giant cross and a "Jesus
Saves" robe, the same liberals would scream bias. If a Jewish judge wore a
kippah, they would ask questions. But no questions for a hijab. They say it is
diversity, brave, empowerment.
The courtroom is no longer neutral. A hijab represents a religious law that says
a woman must cover herself to be modest. A law that in Iran, in Afghanistan, and
in Saudi Arabia, is enforced with beatings and prison.You cannot celebrate a
symbol of female submission in Tehran and call it female empowerment in London.
You cannot have it both ways. This is not about Raffia Arshad as a person. She
may be brilliant. She may be fair. But the system that celebrates her hijab more
than her brain has already lost its mind.The UK is not being tolerant. The UK is
being conquered by its own guilt.
When Muslim-majority countries ban the Muslim Brotherhood because they know what
it is, the UK protects it.When Muslim women in Iran burn their hijabs to be
free, the UK puts a hijab on a judge and calls it freedom.
Mike Gonzalez
What a win! Congratulations to Newsmax Media, Inc. for acquiring Miami radio
stations key to the Cuban-American community from a Soros-backed consortium that
had bought them in 2022 and was ruining them.
محسن رضایی
The war on Iran has already wrecked the US government. But Washington flails
like a desperate gambler. FOLD YOUR HAND. STOP manufacturing FAKE NEWS about
imaginary talks. Stop denying the West Asian NEW ORDER. Time to SURRENDER to the
seven conditions Iran has repeatedly set out.
@AmericanLebanon
From a Christian Lebanese to Your Doorstep — Wake Up #America
As a Lebanese Christian, I watched my people driven from their ancestral lands
by three #Muslim invasions: the Mamluks, the Ottomans, and the Arab-Palestinian
wave (All are Islamic).
Each was backed by Turkish, Egyptian, Saudi, and Iranian money and power.
Christians were killed, starved, impoverished, and forced to sell their lands
until little remained of what was once a Christian stronghold.
The same pattern is unfolding in #America. The #Muslim Brotherhood, the “Free
Palestine” movement, and woke allies are not seeking coexistence.
#Dearborn and #Houston already show divided loyalties to the Iranian regime over
the United States.
From experience, I tell you plainly: they hate you. Their goal is
replacement—your language with #Arabic, your Constitution with Sharia, your
history rewritten so this land is claimed as an Islamic territory for Muhammad.
They have done it before. They are doing it again. Wake up. Act while you still
can. The time to defend your nation, your laws, and your children’s future is
now—before the pattern that emptied Lebanon empties America.
Brittnie.@DistantDiaspora
EGYPT: TWO CHRISTIAN MEN IMPRISONED FOR THEIR FAITH. WHERE IS THE WORLD'S
OUTRAGE?
SAID ABDELRAZEK AND AUGUSTINOS SAMAAN — THEIR FREEDOM HAS BEEN TAKEN, BUT THEIR
FAITH REMAINS.
Egypt claims to guarantee religious freedom. Yet these two Christian men remain
imprisoned in cases that raise serious concerns about religious persecution,
torture, freedom of expression, and fundamental human rights.
SAID ABDELRAZEK — 29 DAYS UNTIL COURT
December 8, 2026 — He could face life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Said converted from Islam to Christianity in 2016. After fleeing to Russia and
joining the Orthodox Church, he was deported to Egypt in 2024.
Reports describe horrifying treatment, including being suspended in a
crucifixion position, humiliated for his Christian faith, and having his cross
tattoo forcibly removed from his skin.
On July 15, 2025, he was arrested after attempting to change his national ID to
reflect his Christian faith.
He remains imprisoned in Egypt's 10th of Ramadan Prison, facing
terrorism-related charges that have raised grave concerns about religious
persecution.
His health is deteriorating, and reports describe inadequate medical care and
severe restrictions on legal access.
HOW DOES CHOOSING JESUS CHRIST MAKE SOMEONE A TERRORIST?
Sign and take action:
https://free-said.pages.dev/#compose
DR. AUGUSTINOS SAMAAN
6 DAYS UNTIL COURT
November 15, 2026 — Court of Cassation hearing.
Dr. Augustinos Samaan is a Coptic Christian scholar with a doctorate in
Comparative Religion and a YouTube audience of more than 100,000 subscribers.
He taught Christianity, answered questions about his faith, and responded to
criticism of Christian beliefs.
On October 1, 2025, he was arrested. He was subsequently sentenced to five years
of hard labor under Egypt's contempt-of-religion law.
Reports describe horrific mistreatment, including cigarette burns, physical
abuse, deprivation of food and clean water, degrading prison conditions, and
inadequate medical attention.
THEN HE LOST HIS MOTHER WHILE HE WAS BEHIND BARS.
She died just months after his sentencing. He reportedly was unable to attend
her funeral or say goodbye.
His first appeal was rejected.
FIVE YEARS OF HARD LABOR FOR TEACHING AND DEFENDING CHRISTIANITY?
Sign and take action:
https://free-samaan.pages.dev/?v=15
EGYPT, WHERE IS THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM YOU PROMISE YOUR CITIZENS?
Egypt's Constitution guarantees:
Article 64: Freedom of belief.
Article 53: Equality without religious discrimination.
Article 52: Protection against torture.
What good are constitutional protections if Christians cannot rely on them?
Religious freedom must include the right to convert, worship, speak about one's
faith, and defend one's beliefs without fear of imprisonment.
A CHRISTIAN'S FAITH IS NOT TERRORISM.
DEFENDING CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A CRIME.
CONVERTING TO CHRISTIANITY SHOULD NEVER COST SOMEONE THEIR LIFE.
Said Abdelrazek could face life imprisonment or death.
Dr. Augustinos Samaan is serving a five-year hard-labor sentence.
Both have families who have suffered tremendously.
And both deserve justice.
📖 1 Corinthians 12:26 — “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer
with it.”
THEIR FAITH REMAINS. THEIR VOICES MATTER. THEIR SUFFERING MUST NOT BE IGNORED.
Pray for them. Sign their petitions. Share their stories.
THE WORLD MUST NOT LOOK AWAY.
#EndChristianPersecution #FreeSaidAbdelrazek #FreeAugustinosSamaan
#CopticChristians #ReligiousFreedom #PrayForEgypt